OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 05:44:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Polish National Catholic Church  (Read 16008 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« on: June 11, 2004, 10:47:35 AM »

PASTORAL GUIDELINES CONCERNING ADMISSION OF POLISH NATIONAL CATHOLICS TO SACRAMENTS IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (Canon 844)

For some years there has been a cordial dialogue taking place between bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. This dialogue seeks the healing of a division which occurred within the American Catholic community in this century, and the recovery of its unity. In that context the question arose whether there would be occasions on which Polish National Catholics might be admitted to sacraments celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is the understanding of the Roman Catholic Church that the celebration of sacraments is an action of the celebrating community made within the community itself in which the celebration signifies oneness of faith, worship and life. Accordingly, participation in the sacraments is normally restricted to those who are members of the community. However, certain exceptions can occur.

Thus, for example, the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (canon 844.3) reads: "Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of oriental churches who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned."

In the course of the Polish National Catholic-Roman Catholic dialogue, "it seemed clear to the Roman Catholic participants on the basis of the evidence that the bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church are validly ordained bishops in apostolic succession." In light of this the National Conference of Catholic Bishops inquired whether in the judgment of the Apostolic See the canon cited would apply to the Polish National Catholic Church. In due course, Cardinal Edward I. Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sent a reply in behalf of the Holy See, saying "there are sufficient reasons to respond affirmatively to the request."

APPLICATION OF CANON 844.3 TO POLISH NATIONAL CATHOLICS

Certain specifications should be observed. First of all, this clarification responds only to the question posed concerning the Polish National Catholic Church in the United States and Canada. It does not address the status of any other church. Thus, for example, the Polish Catholic Church in Poland, which sprang from the Polish National Catholic Church and is now autonomous, is not included in this response of the Holy See, nor are the other churches of the Union of Utrecht. The specific pastoral context in which the question was raised concerned the fact that members of the Polish National Catholic Church sometimes found themselves in situations in which they did not have access to the sacramental ministration of their own priests. This pastoral consideration was the framework and the primary motive around which the response of the Holy See was made.

The decision applies to members in good standing of the Polish National Catholic Church who are not otherwise individually impeded by canonical sanctions of the Roman Catholic Church. This restriction would apply to those individuals who once were Roman Catholics and incurred a sanction which has not subsequently been lifted by the Roman Catholic Church. Such, for instance, would be the case of a Roman Catholic priest who set aside his priestly obligations without a dispensation. Others might be impeded from receiving the Eucharist because of their marital situation.

Roman Catholic sacramental ministers should all be advised by their pastors of this decision of the Holy See so they are prepared to apply it consistently and generously when the sacraments of Holy Communion, penance and anointing of the sick are requested of them by Polish National Catholics. Consistency of practice is very important in this matter, not only in centers where Polish National Catholics are numerous, but also in areas removed from such centers where Polish National Catholics, not having ready access to their own bishops and priests, may approach Roman Catholic priests with requests for the sacraments.

Sacramental ministers of the Roman Catholic Church may admit Polish National Catholics to the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick, when they ask and are properly disposed to approach the sacraments with faith, repentance, and a firm purpose of amendment (conditions which all Christians must fulfill in approaching the sacraments). No additional restrictions apply. The additional restrictions which do apply to Protestants (such as serious need of the sacraments and the inability to receive them from their own ministers, cf. canon 844.4) do not apply in these cases. It can safely be presumed that Polish National Catholics hold a faith in these three sacraments in harmony with the faith held by Roman Catholics, and ought not be questioned on this.

While the law of the Roman Catholic Church (canon 844.3) makes generous provisions, it should still be kept in mind that these cases are seen as exceptional, not as the norm. Normally Polish National Catholics, it is expected, will seek the sacraments from their own bishops and priests, and only on certain occasions approach Roman Catholic sacramental ministers.

Since full communion between our churches has not yet been achieved, in no instance is a Roman Catholic priest permitted to concelebrate the Eucharist with Polish National Catholic priests (canon 908).

APPLICATION OF CANON 844.2 TO ROMAN CATHOLICS

Nothing is changed with respect to Roman Catholics seeking admission to the sacraments from priests of the Polish National Catholic Church, and the response from the Holy See did not touch that issue. According to Canon 844.2, Roman Catholics may approach the sacramental ministers of other churches only when four conditions are met:

when this is required by necessity or suggested by way of true spiritual advantage - a condition that might be met in a number of cases.
the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided - a condition that might readily be met in most cases,
it is virtually impossible (either physically or morally impossible) for Roman Catholics to receive these sacraments from their own minister - a condition that might be the least likely to be fulfilled since Roman Catholic ministers of the sacraments are generally present in neighborhoods where their Polish National Catholic counterparts are found, and
they seek them only of a church whose sacraments are valid - a condition which in the case of the Polish National Catholic Church is fulfilled.
Thus the requirements differ somewhat. Out of respect for individual consciences and sensitivity to individual spiritual needs, cases should be responded to on an individual basis. General public invitations to communicate are not appropriate.

DIFFERENT CUSTOMS
In this matter all should know about and respect the different customs of our churches. Polish National Catholics generally receive Communion on the tongue by intinction. They receive either kneeling or standing. Roman Catholics usually receive the Sacred Host standing. They receive either in the hand or on the tongue, as the communicant wishes. Communion is not distributed under both kinds at all Roman Catholic Masses. When it is, after receiving the Host, the communicant proceeds to a second Eucharistic minister who offers the chalice containing the Precious Blood. Roman Catholics have the option not to receive under both kinds. In the administration of Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church, bishops, priests and deacons are also assisted by lay ministers of the Eucharist, both men and women. This is not the case in the Polish National Catholic Church. The eucharistic fast before receiving Holy Communion is two hours in the Polish National Catholic Church, one hour in the Roman Catholic Church.

Regrettably our churches are still divided. But we do hope that the clarification we have received from Rome will advance our churches toward that full communion of faith and life that is both Christ’s promise and His will for us. At the same time we trust it will be a source of pastoral and sacramental support for our people as they live out their faith.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2004, 12:41:17 PM »

Wow from the last paragraph it seems that nowadays even the Polish national Catholic Church is more conservative than the RC.  Grin
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2004, 02:29:45 PM »

This is very interesting. It seems that the Orthodox Church is the only Church these days that officialy teaches only Orthodox Christians can recieve communion in Orthodox churches. Now is this always practiced by Orthodox priests? Most, of the time yes, but I am sure there are some priests who disobey the teachng of their Church.

Pretty soon I am sure the Catholic Church will allow all Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Christians, along with the Assyrians and the various schismatic groups, like the PNCC, to recieve communion in Catholic churches, as not just an exception but as the norm. It looks as if the Catholic Church is going to go so far to promote and encourage unity, that the deep respect, love, and devotion to the Eucharitst, present in the lives of so many saints and throughout the history of the RCC, will slowly be lost.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2004, 02:35:46 PM »

Those who seek grounds for communion with their brothers are the conservatives, since it was the prayer of Jesus that we all would be one.  The ones who seek grounds for separation are the liberals, since that is a posture that is contrary to the teachings of the early Church.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2004, 02:40:12 PM »

Jack, there is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church working for and promoting unity. But when the blessed Sacrament is allowed to be given to those declared schismatics and heretics by the RCC, you have gone beyond the promotion of unity and end up humilating the Catholic Church and her teachings.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2004, 02:42:48 PM »

Quote
But when the blessed Sacrament is allowed to be given to those declared schismatics and heretics by the RCC

The Holy Father Pope John Paul II has said that we, as Catholics, should not consider the Orthodox as schismatics, as that word is too strong for the separation we have from them, from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2004, 02:54:35 PM »

When I said schismatics I was refering to schismatic groups, like the PNCC. As for the Orthodox Church, I know John Paul II says the word schismatic is not the right word, but I wonder what is, from the RC point of view? I mean the official Catholic teaching is that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, established by Christ, and outside of this Church there is no salvation. And no where in Catholic teaching is there room for "sister" Churches being a part of the true Church if they are not under the authority of the Pope. Some may not like this, but this is just Catholic doctrine. So, if the Catholic Church calims to be the original true Church, and if you must be under the authority of the Pope and accept the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church to be apart of this Church, then what are the Orthodox?? The only word that would make sense, from a RC point of view, is SCHISMATIC.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 02:55:47 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2004, 03:09:03 PM »

Apparently you know better than the Holy Father.

Please, bless me, Pope Ben.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2004, 03:13:11 PM »

Ben:

I think your view reflects those of the "ultr-traditionalist" Catholics like the SSPX, which is deemed by Rome to be "schismatic."

The Pope's Encyclicals "Dominus Iesus" and "Ut Unum Sint" clarify the official position of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis other Churches (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, ACE, and PNCC) and ecclesial communities (protestants) and the Catholic Church's ardent desire for Christian unity.

As Jack aptly observed above, the RCC is left alone following Our Lord's command for unity before His Ascension.

Amado
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2004, 03:15:12 PM »

This isn't a joke, it is a very serious matter. I do wonder why when one disagrees with the Holy Father everyone accuses them of pride and of somehow making themselves higher up on the chain of authoirty than the Pope. The fact remains that the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, he can certainly error in his opinions. It seems that today people are so defensive about Pope John Paul II that if anyone disagrees with any of his opinions they are schismartics and disenters. When if you examine Church history many Saints have disagreed with the opinions of the Pope and even critized his actions. I am not judging him or saying that he isn't Pope, I have no authoirty to do so, but I can disagree with him. My question remains, from an RC point of view, Schultz what would you call the Orthodox Church? Please justify your answer.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2004, 03:22:56 PM »



Quote
I think your view reflects those of the "ultr-traditionalist" Catholics like the SSPX, which is deemed by Rome to be "schismatic."

I do not attend an SSPX chapel, so please don't associate me with the SSPX.

As for my views, they are 100% in line with Catholic dogma and doctrine. Please point out my error! Where do I stray from Catholic dogma? How am I not just simpy holding true to the official dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church?

Quote
The Pope's Encyclicals "Dominus Iesus" and "Ut Unum Sint"


Which are *not* infallible. Where as the Papal bull "Unam Sanctam", which states "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" is considered to be Infallible by the RCC.
Quote
the Catholic Church's ardent desire for Christian unity.

As I have said there is a serious difference between disiring unity and going so far as subtracting from the faith and abusing the blessed Sacrament to somehow reach unity. When in fact only false union in being promoted, because in all honesty we are no closer to union with the Orthodox Church or the PNCC since we allowed their faithful to recieve communion in our churches.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2004, 03:25:49 PM »

Ben:

"Dominus Iesus" and "Ut Unum Sint" are not "mere opinions" of the Pope. They are not infallible pronouncements, either.

However, these two documents are expressions of the Catholic Church's MAGISTERIUM. They are the official teachings of the Church!

Heed them. Otherwise, you are not that Catholic.

Amado
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2004, 03:27:58 PM »

This has nothing to do with ther personage of Pope John Paul II or how I feel about him.  The simple fact is that the Holy Father and the Magisterium are there to guide us in interpreting the Church canons and pronouncements.

As for your question, the Orthodox churches are "sister" churches to the Catholic Church.  Contrary to what polemicists on both sides would want us to think, the basic Christian of these churches share the same faith.  Because most Christians are not theologians and do not grapple with the nuances of the Filioque and Papal Infallibility, but would rather try to live good Christian lives by partaking of the Sacraments, the Orthodox and Catholic churches are indeed in an "imperfect communion" with one another, as the Holy Father and the Magisterium have said recently and repeatedly.  

Catholic theology teaches that the Orthodox churches have "valid Sacraments".  If so, then they obviously have grace.  If they have grace, then God deems them "okay".  Of course this is incredibly simplistic, but I don't have the time nor the energy to sit and write out an enormous discourse on this and that's the basic barebones reasoning.

Does this mean I would commune in an Orthodox church?  Nope, not unless it's offered to me and even then I would only approach the chalice if it was an emergency (like I was heading into a battlezone with no Catholic church in the area).
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2004, 03:28:44 PM »

The Holy Father Pope John Paul II has said that we, as Catholics, should not consider the Orthodox as schismatics, as that word is too strong for the separation we have from them, from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church.

1.) An Orthodox can receive Communion in a RCC after going to confession in a RCC in the US...at least that is what is OK with the RCC in the US and what I was told by Diocese officials when I left the RCC. This applies to all Orthodox and not just former RCs returning to the fold.

2.) Many RC Cathecists mistakenly believe the same holds true for Orthodox Churches...that it is recipricated...which it is not.

3.) I have persoanlly witnessed groups of Polish National Catholics receiving Communion in a RC parish en mass after they lost their own priest. They were however required to stand...they all stood and then genuflected and crossed themselves after after receiving. I do not know what has happened to that samll polish group...I heard some converted to Orthodoxy while others merely adopted the RCC ways in the US and no longer standout at that parish with their women's heads covered and the genuflecting after Holy Communion.

I think the RCC is desparate to increase the numbers of those allowed to receive...as evidenced by this and a resual to apply Church teachings on receipt of the Eucharist for publicly apostate members...Many formerly devout Catholics are leaving the Church for more conservative denominations. This is a sign of the RCC's failing. They have been trying despartely to make mass in the US appeal to the masses -- polka masses, guitar masses, youth masses.....Singing Kumbeya just does not appeal to people today...yet we still see parishes where the "folk mass" is played out in a misguided attempt to keep people interested and entertained.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2004, 03:28:53 PM »



Quote
"Dominus Iesus" and "Ut Unum Sint" are not "mere opinions" of the Pope. They are not infallible pronouncements, either
.

Right, they are not infallible and can contain error!

Quote
However, these two documents are expressions of the Catholic Church's MAGISTERIUM. They are the official teachings of the Church!

Must we follow the teachings of the Magisterium when they are teaching error? There are several examples in history of the Magisterium falling to heresy and teaching error, and many Saints, who were greatly persecuted, resisted these teachings.

Quote
Heed them. Otherwise, you are not that Catholic.

It seems that Pope Amdo has excommunicated me.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2004, 03:30:56 PM »

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but "polka masses" have been going on since the 1965 and the first liturgical reform.  My father still has the bulletin from the first and last such Mass at my old parish near Pittsburgh.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2004, 03:35:02 PM »


Quote
As for your question, the Orthodox churches are "sister" churches to the Catholic Church.
 

The term "Sister Churches" was used in the early Church only to refer to those Churches in communion with each other, so this term can not be applied to the RCC and the EOC. This idea of the two Churches being "sister Churches" is a recent development and contrary to previouse Catholic teaching, and Catholic dogmas and doctrines.

Quote
Contrary to what polemicists on both sides would want us to think, the basic Christian of these churches share the same faith.
 

Sorry, but the Orthodox and Catholic Churches do not share the same faith.

Quote
Because most Christians are not theologians and do not grapple with the nuances of the Filioque and Papal Infallibility, but would rather try to live good Christian lives by partaking of the Sacraments, the Orthodox and Catholic churches are indeed in an "imperfect communion" with one another, as the Holy Father and the Magisterium have said recently and repeatedly.


The Filioque and Papal Infallibilty are Catholic dogma, and have been declared neccesary for salvation by the Catholic Church, so these can not be ignored for the sake of unity, they provide a major stubling block for unity, no matter who says otherwise.

Quote
Catholic theology teaches that the Orthodox churches have "valid Sacraments".


True. But remember the Catholic Church also says SSPX has "valid sacraments" and yet declare SSPX to be schismatic.

Quote
If so, then they obviously have grace.


Of course, I wasn't denying this.

Quote
If they have grace, then God deems them "okay".  Of course this is incredibly simplistic, but I don't have the time nor the energy to sit and write out an enormous discourse on this and that's the basic barebones reasoning.

This is not true. There are many groups or Churches that the RCC says has "valid sacraments" yet is schismatic, and certainly schism is not "okay" to God.
 
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 03:36:35 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2004, 03:37:48 PM »

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but "polka masses" have been going on since the 1965 and the first liturgical reform.  My father still has the bulletin from the first and last such Mass at my old parish near Pittsburgh.

1965 is when the worst of the worst started. It went all down hill from the 62 missal.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2004, 03:39:39 PM »

Schultz,

Quote
Apparently you know better than the Holy Father.

You should go easy on Ben, since he's asking reasonable questions (and putting forward reasonable objections.)  Up until Vatican II, the Orthodox were "Greek Schismatics."  I have pre-concilliar RC books in my possession which speak in such terms.  Indeed, according to the once popular "My Catholic Faith" family catechism (last published in the mainstream in 1954 - though it's since been re-published by a "traditionalist" RC publishing house) the Orthodox are...

"Thus it can be seen that today the Orthodox Eastern Church is not merely schismatical, but truly heretical;  for it holds primary doctrines in a different light.  But it has valid orders." (pg 143)

I wouldn't doubt that John Paul II is against speaking of the Orthodox anymore as "schismatics" - but as Ben asks, what are they then from an RC p.o.v.?  Orthodoxy emphatically rejects all Papal claims, save the canonical rights (rooted in older pre-concilliar custom) Rome once had when it was part of the Orthodox Church.  That is text book definition schism in Catholicism, and still is no matter how liberalized and loosey goosey RC ecclessiology has become.  Perfect evidence of this is the case of the "Society of St.Pius X" led by the late Archbishop Lefebvre; their whole separation from Rome is characterized as a schism, and laymen are warned to stay away from them on those grounds except for some special circumstances.

Now, how does a group which actually recognizes both the office of the Papacy and it's current occupent (John Paul II) become "schismatical", while the Orthodox who do neither, are not?  This is not an attempt to defend the Papacy on my part (hardly!) - but the logic hear doesn't make sense.

Unless we should conclude that the RCC is in reality a terribly desacralized, political organism (more so in our days than ever), which is really neither hot nor cold enough to particularly care what Orthodox really believe, so long as they can be "restored" as citizens of the Pope's church.  That seems to me to be a very credible conclusion, since what the RCC says and does has no obvious consistancy.

Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2004, 03:47:06 PM »

Very well put Augustine. I wonder was the Catholic Church in total error up until these past 30 years? I mean the Orthodox Church hasn't accepted any of the Catholic dogmas that they have always rejected, yet now they aren't allowed to be called schismatics. What happened? Is the current Holy Father and Magisterium preaching error? Or have they libertated us from centuries of erroneus Catholic teaching?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 03:51:31 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2004, 03:47:07 PM »

Jack, there is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church working for and promoting unity. But when the blessed Sacrament is allowed to be given to those declared schismatics and heretics by the RCC, you have gone beyond the promotion of unity and end up humilating the Catholic Church and her teachings.

There is an informal fallacy whereby one asserts that what is true of the whole is also true of its parts.  To give a ridiculous example, simply because an automobile is a means of motorized transport does not make that true of the car's ashtray.  Now if it is true that a particular church body is schismatic and/or heretical it does not follow that such is true of its members.

The truth is, Ben, the things that we argue about in this forum don't even occur to most of the faithful, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or members of the Polish National Catholic Church.  Most of them just go to the church they were raised in, and don't give it a second thought.  Now circumstances may be such that someone is placed in a situation where they don't have ready access to one of their own churches.  What are we to do, tell them that they are unworthy to receive the sacrament because they, through accident of history, found themselves members of an institution that is in schism with the Roman bishop?  And this, even though they receive a real and valid sacrament in their own Church?

In the liturgy we say, "Lord we are not worthy to receive you; but only say the word and we shall be healed."  We are all unworthy to eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord.  Neither the Church nor her teachings are humiliated by allowing members of the Polich National Catholic Church take communion in the circumstances described.  The only humiliation we should feel should come from the artificial and inane barriers we have put up between ourselves.
Logged

NULL
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2004, 03:48:05 PM »

And who is saying the Orthodox Church is not fully Catholic?

JoeS  Huh

When I said schismatics I was refering to schismatic groups, like the PNCC. As for the Orthodox Church, I know John Paul II says the word schismatic is not the right word, but I wonder what is, from the RC point of view? I mean the official Catholic teaching is that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, established by Christ, and outside of this Church there is no salvation. And no where in Catholic teaching is there room for "sister" Churches being a part of the true Church if they are not under the authority of the Pope. Some may not like this, but this is just Catholic doctrine. So, if the Catholic Church calims to be the original true Church, and if you must be under the authority of the Pope and accept the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church to be apart of this Church, then what are the Orthodox?? The only word that would make sense, from a RC point of view, is SCHISMATIC.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2004, 03:49:52 PM »

Neither the Church nor her teachings are humiliated by allowing members of the Polich National Catholic Church take communion in the circumstances described.

I disagree, by betraying centuries of Catholic dogma and doctrine, and the writtings of nemerous saints and Popes, the Catholic Church is greatly humilating itself.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2004, 03:50:45 PM »

And who is saying the Orthodox Church is not fully Catholic?

JoeS  Huh

The dogmas and doctrines of the RCC are.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2004, 03:58:35 PM »

Ben, you are the first person I have ever run across who says that Unam Sanctum is considered to be an infallible teaching.  What is your source for that statement?
Logged

NULL
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2004, 03:58:56 PM »

What say you on the concept of "Development of Doctrine", Ben?

What about Dominus Iesus?

And our friend Jack said all I would ever want to say.  

I would add that the skulls of armchair internet theologians also pave the floor of hell.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 04:00:41 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2004, 04:02:32 PM »

Ben, you are the first person I have ever run across who says that Unam Sanctum is considered to be an infallible teaching.  What is your source for that statement?

It has been defined three times that only those who die as Catholics can be saved:

Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1198-1216: Ex cathedra: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

Pope Boniface VIII, A.D. 1294-1303: Ex cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter." (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugene IV, A.D. 1431-1447: Ex cathedra: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, or heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

Two of these definitions, are from Holy and Venerable Ecumenical Councils.  The Church has always held that all of the ecumenical councils are ex cathedra, infallible; (Vatican II is an exception as the Pope chose that it be only a pastoral Council; Paul VI stated that he did not promulgated it as ex cathedra; that is however the only exception to the rule.)

We can see this from the ex cathedra teaching of Vatican I.  When papal infallibility was defined, the Council said the following:

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, THAT IS, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, HE DEFINES a doctrine concerning faith or morals TO BE HELD by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." (Denz. 1839)

So, when a pope "defines" something "to be held" it is "ex cathedra".  But, in the run up to this, the Vatican I also defined:

"Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, according to the dictates of time and circumstances, sometimes by calling ECUMENICAL COUNCILS or asking the opinion of the Church dispersed throughout the world, sometimes through particular synods, sometimes by using other means which divine providence supplied, DEFINED those things which MUST BE HELD and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions." (Denz. 1836).

So, prior to Vatican I, popes "defined", things which "must be held" - and called ecumenical councils to prepare for this.  But, as we just saw, when he does that, it is ex cathedra.  Therefore, we may see from the teaching of Vatican I that there have been many ex cathedra definitions prior to Vatican I - particularly those which came upon the invocation of ecumenical councils.

From Unam Sanctam:

"Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"

It is clear Pope Boniface was meeting the requirements of speaking "ex cathedra".

I am surprised you haven't heard this before, I haven't even met a NO priest who denies Unam Sanctam to be infallible.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 04:05:45 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2004, 04:05:22 PM »

You know I can't get over how easily some EO and now it seems RCs think they know best about everything.

I can't see how you can sidestep the official teaching of your church by saying that it isn't an infallible pronouncement when it is intended to be a clear presentation of the RC faith.

You seem to be saying that ONLY infallible statements need to be taken notice of, the rest are open to your judgement. That surely isn't the intention of the Holy Father when he issues an encyclical. Surely he intends his encyclicals to be true expressions of the RC faith. That means that they might not be preserved from some error, but you seem to be saying that much of this explanation of the RC faith is in fact erroneous.

How then can you remain an RC? And how can it be necessary for the Orthodox to be under the authority of the Pope if in fact he is teaching error? Surely an heretical Pope does not require the submission of all the faithful?

If he is not a heretic then how are you contradicting him? And if he is a heretic how can it be necessary to demand that all submit to an heretic?

Now I am confused?

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2004, 04:11:19 PM »

If he is not a heretic then how are you contradicting him? And if he is a heretic how can it be necessary to demand that all submit to an heretic?

Now I am confused?

Peter


There is a difference between a "formal" and "material" heretic in RC theology.

You are a “material” heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;

you are a “formal” heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway.

Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one’s heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions* to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, 1). But nobody can authoritatively admonish the Pope (canon 1556), and the Bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the Pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.

* To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior (cf., canon 2233).  The point is not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious (canon 2195; 2197).

Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven.

A Pope can only be condemened as a formal Heretic after he is no longer a Pope, or after he is dead. So I can not judge the Holy Father as a heretic, but I can diagree with him, if his fallible opinions or encyclicals contain error.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 04:17:03 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2004, 04:16:28 PM »


Quote
What say you on the concept of "Development of Doctrine", Ben?

According to RCC teaching, a Doctrine can not develope after it has been proclaimed one by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. The "Development of Doctrine" only is used to defend dogmas like Papal Infallibilty that were declared over 1800 years after Christ's Church was founded. The defense is that the essential part of the doctrine has always been believed, but the way in which it was used and interpreted developed over the centuries. However, Papal Infallibilty can not change or stray from the declarations from Vatican I. What I mean is that Papal Infallibilty is forever as it was declared in Vat I, there is no room for interpretation in matters where it has been specifically decided by an Ecumenical Council or the Pope, according to RC teaching.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2004, 04:26:25 PM »

Wow! How can it be that the Pope cannot ex officio ever be an heretic.

Is that true - other RCs.

How can the Pope not be a material heretic if he maintains an heretical teaching? Surely above all others he cannot be considered to have mistakenly continued to persist in teaching error - which is what I read you are saying?

In present RC teaching can a Pope not be deposed?

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2004, 04:32:47 PM »

Quote
How can the Pope not be a material heretic if he maintains an heretical teaching?


A Pope can be a material heretic, he can even be a formal heretic, he just can't be condemned as a formal heretic until his papacy has ended or after he is dead.

Quote
Surely above all others he cannot be considered to have mistakenly continued to persist in teaching error - which is what I read you are saying?

If the Pope is teaching error without knowing if he objectively contradicting what God has said, but through no fault of his own, he is a material heretic.

However, if the Pope is pertinaciously contradicting what God has said, i.e., knowing that he is denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway, then he is a formal heretic. But only a superior can declare you a formal heretic, and the Pope, according to RC teaching has no superior on earth while he is the Pope, so only after his papacy ends or after his death, can a pope be condemned as a formal heretic.


Quote
In present RC teaching can a Pope not be deposed?

Nope.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 04:34:12 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2004, 04:34:54 PM »

Don't you think that is pretty ...... problematic? How do you cope with that as an RC?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2004, 04:35:45 PM »

Indeed what happens if a materially heretic Pope declares something materially heretical ex-cathedra - how would that be dealt with?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2004, 04:39:54 PM »

Indeed what happens if a materially heretic Pope declares something materially heretical ex-cathedra - how would that be dealt with?

Interesting question.

If a Pope was a heretic, formal or material, and declared a dogma ex-cathedra that was in fact heretical. Hmmmm...I don't know. I can only think of two answers.

1) The Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from all error in declaring something "ex-cathedra", so in all reality the Pope couldn't declare something heretical ex-cathedra.  

or

2) The next Pope would by himself, or convene a council, condemn the previous Pope as heretical, making all of his declarations null and void.

Those seem to be the only two answers for such a question, I will look into it though.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2004, 04:53:09 PM »

Then would it be possible for a future Pope to declare ex-cathedra that the non-Orthodox controversial issues in the RCC were heretical and that all the pronouncements made in support of them were null and void?

I am serious about the question.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2004, 05:10:45 PM »

Then would it be possible for a future Pope to declare ex-cathedra that the non-Orthodox controversial issues in the RCC were heretical and that all the pronouncements made in support of them were null and void?

I am serious about the question.

Ex-Cathedra is used for declaring dogmas and doctrines, so I don't see a Pope saying "I ex-cathedra make this and that null and void." However, the RCC teaches that the Pope does have the authoirty to use ex-cathedra, and when he does he is prevented from all error by the Holy Ghost.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2004, 05:35:25 PM »

So it could happen and would be authoritative?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2004, 05:38:03 PM »

Yes it could happen, theoreticaly, as far as I know. I could be wrong on this though.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2004, 05:44:07 PM »

That's encouraging then, so there could be a future Pope who authoritatively brought about union with the EO and OO.

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2004, 05:50:24 PM »

But there is a problem. The OO and EO don't accept Papal Infallibilty, so for a Pope to use Papal Infallibilty to unite with the OO and EO, wouldn't work. And I wonder why a paticular Pope, who wanted to be Orthodox, would use Papal Infallibilty, which he wouldn't believe in, to further his cause. It just wouldn't make any sense.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 06:04:01 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2004, 06:12:44 PM »

But surely you would be bound by his statement that he was ex-cathedra defining that papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as have been understood in the RCC were rejected? You could not reject his ex-cathedra redefinition of these doctrines for you have already said that you are bound to accept them for your salvation.

Since the situation would end up with these problematic doctrines being redefined there would be no obstacle. The last exercise of papal infallibility would be to reject it.

It seems from what you say that you would have to accept this, you could not get rid of such a pope or say that he was a heretic, and if he defined ex-cathedra that papal infallibility had been misunderstood then how could you not be bound to this teaching?

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2004, 06:27:14 PM »

But surely you would be bound by his statement that he was ex-cathedra defining that papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as have been understood in the RCC were rejected? You could not reject his ex-cathedra redefinition of these doctrines for you have already said that you are bound to accept them for your salvation.

Since the situation would end up with these problematic doctrines being redefined there would be no obstacle. The last exercise of papal infallibility would be to reject it.

It seems from what you say that you would have to accept this, you could not get rid of such a pope or say that he was a heretic, and if he defined ex-cathedra that papal infallibility had been misunderstood then how could you not be bound to this teaching?

Peter

If a Pope wanted to be Orthodox, or wanted the Catholic Church be Orthodox and abolished all Catholic dogmas declared after the schism, ex-cathedra, he would be using something he doesn't believe in, and knows isn't the true faith, so only a truly messed up guy would do this. And he would meet a large amount of resistence, and probably the college of Cardinals would elect another Pope, and that Pope would declare the other Pope heretical, it would be a huge mess. Or when he dies, the next Pope would probably say he was a heretic and what he did meant nothing, but hoenstly from an RC point of view this couldn't happen, because it is believed that the Holy Ghost guides the Pope speaking ex-cathedra, and prevents him from all eror.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 11, 2004, 06:33:18 PM »

I'm not trying to be too silly with this, just wondering what would be possible in the RCC structure.

Would he find overwhelming opposition? I thought the whole thrust of your earlier posts was that the RCC was abandoning a strict adherence to your interpretation of dogma. If that was the case then would it not be increasingly possible that a future pontiff might use the means available to him to bring about union with Orthodoxy and that this would produce less resistance than you are now suggesting?

If a future pontiff said, 'look, some of the earlier statements about the filioque are misunderstood or even just plain wrong. We actually confess an economic filioque not an ontological one'. How many would actually mount a resistance? I don't believe you are actually in the RC communion? Are you? How many actual RC's would find such a statement impossible to cope with?

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #44 on: June 11, 2004, 06:40:58 PM »

Indeed what happens if a materially heretic Pope declares something materially heretical ex-cathedra - how would that be dealt with?

The Holy Spirit doesn't let that happen.  But he doesn't speak infallibly all that often.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2004, 06:49:52 PM »

Quote
I'm not trying to be too silly with this, just wondering what would be possible in the RCC structure.

I understand, but you must understand that the possibilty of this ever happening is at best rare, if not impossible.
Quote
Would he find overwhelming opposition?

I know he would. It is one thing to reinterpret RC dogma to the point where "traditionalist" groups form in opposition, but to reject and abolish RC dogma, and to deny that the CC is the true Church is totally different, something Vatican II or even Paul VI didn't even think of doing.

Quote
I thought the whole thrust of your earlier posts was that the RCC was abandoning a strict adherence to your interpretation of dogma.


The current pope along with the vast majority of bishops and priests are reinterpreting Catholic dogmas to the point that they are not longer what they were orginaly, it is laughable at best. It is very concerning, but the same Catholic dogmas in 1950 are the dogmas of the Catholic Church today. They may have strange opinions about the Church's teachings and so on, but no dogma was abolished with the Vatican II reforms. You are talking about a Pope totally rejecting the Roman Catholic faith and expecting his subjects to do the same, that is much different than reinterpreting dogmas to a point where traditionalist groups are formed to protect the faith. But I must be honest, there does come a point when you have reinterpreted something so much that you find yourself rejecting the faith, this is why I am concerned, but we are not there yet. But I shouldn't get too worried because the Pope isn't declaring anything "ex-cathedra" he merely holds opinions, along with most of the Bishops, that I don't agree with.

Quote
If that was the case then would it not be increasingly possible that a future pontiff might use the means available to him to bring about union with Orthodoxy and that this would produce less resistance than you are now suggesting?

But see you are talking about the Pope abolishing the Roman Catholic faith, repenting of Roman erros and joining the Orthodox Church, this would be a huge step that if happened anytime soon would meet great resistance. The Cardinals would probably dig up some Papal Bull saying that if a Pope was a formal heretic prior to his Papacy the votes of the Cardinals are null and void, and then proove the current Pope was a formal heretic before his Papacy, and then finally they'd just go elect a true Pope, who would in effect condemn the "anti-Pope."

Quote
I don't believe you are actually in the RC communion?


huh? Why do you doubt me being a Roman Catholic?

Quote
Are you?


Yes I most certainly am, would you like to see my Confirmation Cirtificate?! Lol, I mean what proof do you need?


« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 06:52:11 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2004, 06:52:17 PM »

No proof required, nor needed, but I thought you belonged to a trad. RCC group? or is that 'within' the RCC?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2004, 06:55:03 PM »

No proof required, nor needed, but I thought you belonged to a trad. RCC group? or is that 'within' the RCC?

The only "trad" RC groups surely not in the RCC are the Sedevacantists.

SSPX...some doubt.

As for where I go to Mass...complex situation, that would take us off topic, please PM for more info if you wish.  Smiley
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 06:56:15 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #48 on: June 11, 2004, 07:03:33 PM »

It has been defined three times that only those who die as Catholics can be saved:

Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1198-1216: Ex cathedra: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

Pope Boniface VIII, A.D. 1294-1303: Ex cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.  The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter." (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugene IV, A.D. 1431-1447: Ex cathedra: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, or heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

Two of these definitions, are from Holy and Venerable Ecumenical Councils.  The Church has always held that all of the ecumenical councils are ex cathedra, infallible; (Vatican II is an exception as the Pope chose that it be only a pastoral Council; Paul VI stated that he did not promulgated it as ex cathedra; that is however the only exception to the rule.)

We can see this from the ex cathedra teaching of Vatican I.  When papal infallibility was defined, the Council said the following:

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, THAT IS, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, HE DEFINES a doctrine concerning faith or morals TO BE HELD by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." (Denz. 1839)

So, when a pope "defines" something "to be held" it is "ex cathedra".  But, in the run up to this, the Vatican I also defined:

"Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, according to the dictates of time and circumstances, sometimes by calling ECUMENICAL COUNCILS or asking the opinion of the Church dispersed throughout the world, sometimes through particular synods, sometimes by using other means which divine providence supplied, DEFINED those things which MUST BE HELD and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions." (Denz. 1836).

So, prior to Vatican I, popes "defined", things which "must be held" - and called ecumenical councils to prepare for this.  But, as we just saw, when he does that, it is ex cathedra.  Therefore, we may see from the teaching of Vatican I that there have been many ex cathedra definitions prior to Vatican I - particularly those which came upon the invocation of ecumenical councils.

From Unam Sanctam:

"Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"

It is clear Pope Boniface was meeting the requirements of speaking "ex cathedra".

I am surprised you haven't heard this before, I haven't even met a NO priest who denies Unam Sanctam to be infallible.

I haven't heard it before.  There's nothing in what you say that says that Unam Sanctum is, in fact, held by the Church to be infallible, though I'll concede you make a compelling case for it.  As I'm sure you're aware, however, the teaching of the Church is that being a Catholic as a requirement of salvation applies only to those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, not to those who are unaware of it through no fault of their own.  Moreover, there are other Churches with valid sacraments.  Since sacraments impart grace, it follows that there can be salvation outside of the Catholic Church.  Of course, you are free to reject what I've said as being some modern day watering down of the Catholic faith, but it does represent what the Church says through its Magisterium.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #49 on: June 11, 2004, 07:16:24 PM »


Quote
I haven't heard it before.


 Shocked I am honeslty surprised. It just goes to show you how uneducated Catholic faithful are in matters of doctrine these days. *sigh*

Quote
There's nothing in what you say that says that Unam Sanctum is, in fact, held by the Church to be infallible, though I'll concede you make a compelling case for it.
 

Pope Boniface declared the contents of Unam Sanctam EX CATHEDRA, look at the requirements for ex cathedra, and you will see he met them all. And Vatican I states the Pope is protected from all error when speaking ex-cathedra, and is in effect Infallible. Papal Infallibilty wasn't invented at Vatican I, to hold such an absurd opinion would show great ignorance.

Quote
As I'm sure you're aware, however, the teaching of the Church is that being a Catholic as a requirement of salvation applies only to those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, not to those who are unaware of it through no fault of their own.


Before the tragic reforms of the post-Vatican II era, that meant those who never heard about Christ or the Catholic Church. Today it has been twisted to mean anybody who doesn't think the Catholic Church is the true Church, which would include everyone but faithful Catholics, even those who left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or any other religion.

 
Quote
Moreover, there are other Churches with valid sacraments.


Of course, I never denied this.

Quote
Since sacraments impart grace, it follows that there can be salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
 

WHOA!!!! You just said something that Vatican II didn't even say! Holy Cow! You are a Catholic and yet you believe you can be saved outside of the Catholic Church?! This is totally contrary to Catholic dogma and doctrine. If this is true, then there is no reason for me to be Catholic! There is no reason why I shouldn't join the Orthodox Church. Heck who cares about luther, or SSPX, or the PNCC, schism...who cares! Heresies...who cares! It don't matter cause salavation exists outside of the Catholic Church!

Quote
but it does represent what the Church says through its Magisterium.  


Umm I highly doubt that the Modern Magisterium teaches there is Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. These days you usually get..."We only know the Catholic Church is the true Church and if Non-Catholics are saved, it is by the Catholic Church or through the Catholic Church"...which isn't all that bad.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #50 on: June 11, 2004, 07:19:55 PM »

And don't forget, jack:

Pope Eugene IV, A.D. 1431-1447: Ex cathedra: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, or heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

The Council of Florence is for sure taught to be INFALLIBLE by the RCC.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
PieX
Banned
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2004, 07:39:57 PM »

What is Heresy?
 "Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines." (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

 What must we believe?
 "By the divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed." (Vatican Council I, Denzinger 1792)

 Who does not believe all those things taught by the Magisterium of the Church?
 "Any baptized person who GǪ obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)

Codes for the Sources can be found at the end of this posting.
 
Current Teachings vs.
Truth of Divine and Catholic Faith

1.
The Catholic Church Lacks Unity.
UUS:7-10
Christian unity is the Catholic Church.
 Pius XI, MA:3,15.

2.
Infants can be saved without baptism.
EV:99, 3/25/1995
Infants need Baptism for salvation.
St. Zosimus I, D.102.

3.
Muslims worship the One True God.
CH:141, 1994
Only Catholics can worship God.
Gregory XVI, SJS

4.
Heretical sects have an apostolic mission.
LOR, 06/10/1980
The Catholic Church is the only apostolic mission.
Leo XIII, SCG:35

5.
The Holy Spirit uses sects as means of salvation.
CT:32, 10/16/1979
The Holy Spirit does not give life to heretics.
Leo XIII, SCG:18

6.
We must pray with heretics for unity.
UUS:21, 05/25/1995
If anyone prays with heretics, he is a heretic.
St. Agatho I, SCN:XXI:635

7.
Liberty of conscience is a right of man.
LOR, 09/01/1980
Liberty of conscience is insanity.
Gregory XVI, D. 1613

8.
Heretics are Christians.
LOR, 12/23/1982
Only Catholics can be Christians.
Pius VI, D. 1500

9.
Each man is united with Christ.
RH:13.3, 1979
Christ is not in all men.
St. Pius X, D.2103

10.
Heretics have the Apostolic Faith.
US:62, 05/25/1995
True Faith cannot be found outside the Church.
Pius IX, Sqi

11.
The New World Order is holy unity.
PA:39, 1987
The New World Order is evil.
Pius XI, MA:1-2

12.
God loves heretics, pagans, etc.
PA:48, 1978
Without the Catholic faith, it is impossible to please God.
Paul III, D.787

13.
Jews are our elder brothers in the faith.
 CH:99, 1994
The Jews reject the One Faith of Jesus Christ.
Gregory I, ETC

14.
Masons are sons of God the Father.
LOR, 05/22/1984
The Masons are sons of the Devil.
Pius IX, Sqa

15.
Heretics are our brothers in Christ.
LOR, 09/16/1980
Heretics are sons of the Devil.
Clement I, EIC:42,46

16.
Ecumenical Councils do not need to defend the truth.
CH:162, 1994
Ecumenical Councils must defend the truth.
Pius II, D.717

17.
Dogmas and doctrines grow and evolve.
EDA, 1987
Evolution of dogma and doctrine is condemned.
St. Pius X, P:12-27

18.
All inter-religious marriages are good.
FC, 11/22/1981
All inter-religious marriages are discouraged.
Gregory XVI, SJS:1-9

19.
Buddhism is a great religion.
PM:147, 06/17/1984
Buddhism is a false pagan religion.
St. Pius X, P:14

20.
All men have a human dignity of equal rights.
PP:478, 09/01/1980
Equal rights for all men is senseless.
Pius VI, QA

21.
The New World Order is needed for the world.
PP:809, 09/02/1981
The New World Order is a reign of terror.
Benedict XV, TBR:35

22.
Luther had a profound religious spirit.
PM:105
If anyone does not condemn heretics, let him be anathema.
Vigilius, D.223

23.
John Paul II prayed with Jews: "our dearest brothers."
LOR, 04/13/1986
The Jews are not "our dearest brothers."
Innocent III, ETN

24.
Christ's Body is not only the Catholic Church.
LOR, 07/08/1980
Christ's Body is only the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, MC:17-18

25.
All men are saved.
LOR, 05/06/1980
All outside the Catholic Church cannot be saved.
Eugene IV, D:714

26.
Christ's miracles do not prove His messianic dignity.
LOR, 11/11/1983
Christ's miracles did prove His messianic dignity.
St. Pius X, D.2028

27.
All men have the right of religious liberty.
CCC:2106, 10/11/1992
All have the right of religious liberty is heresy.
Pius IX, D.1690,99

28.
Infidels can be saved for : "May Ghandi live forever!"
SME:9
All infidels are damned!
St. Pius X, GOH:13

29.
The Catholic Church rejoices when heretics preach.
CH:141, 1994
The Catholic Church condemns a heretic's talk.
Paul IV, ACA

30.
Heretics can be Christian martyrs outside the Church.
UUS:84, 05/25/1995
Outside the Church there are no Christian martyrs.
Pelagius II, D.247

31.
Heretics legally can receive the sacraments from us.
UUS:46, 05/25/1995
Heretics cannot legally receive the sacraments.
Leo XIII, ENL

32.
Heretics are not our enemies, but our brothers.
UUS:42, 05/25/1995
Heretics are our enemies.
St. Clement I, EIC:42,46

33.
The Catholic Church has sinned against unity.
UUS:34, 05/25/1995
The Modernists say: the Church has erred.
Pius XI, MA:8

34.
Love is when we join in prayer with heretics.
UUS:21, 05/25/1995
Heresy: is when we join in prayer with heretics.
Piux XI, D.2199

35.
Anti-Christs have the human right of religious liberty.
FCR:2, 09/01/1980
Only Catholics have the right to religious liberty.
Pius IX, D.1690, 1699

36.
The State cannot forbid non-Catholic religions.
FCR:2-4, 09/01/1980
The State must forbid non-Catholic religions.
Pius IX, D.1777, 1778

37.
Heretical sects can have the life of the Church.
CT:32, 10/16/1979
Heretical sects cannot have the life of the Church.
St. Gregory I, EP5

38.
Christian unity subsists in the Catholic Church.
CCC:820, 10/11/1992
Christian unity is the Catholic Church.
 Pius XI, MA:7

39.
"Dialogue" is required to bring unity to the Church.
CCC:821, 10/11/1992
The Catholic Church forbids meetings for "unity."
Pius XI, MA:15

40.
Sanctification and truth can be found in heretical sects.
CCC:819, 10/11/1992
It is heresy to say: all religions are true.
St. Pius X, P:14

41.
Today's heretics are not to be blamed for their heresy.
CCC:817, 10/11/1992
Today's heretics have despised the True Faith.
Pius XI, MA:16

42.
The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
CCC:816, 10/11/1992
The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, MC:17-18

43.
There is hope for infants who die without baptism.
CCC:1261, 10/11/1992
Outside the Church there is no hope for salvation.
Pius IX, D.1717

44.
The understanding of dogmas grow by man's experience.
CCC:94, 10/11/1992
Evolution of dogma is an error of the Modernists.
St. Pius X, P:12-13,25-27

45.
All men belong to the Catholic Church.
CCC:836, 10/11/1992
Only Catholics are members of the Church.
Pius XII, D.2286

46.
The Catholic Church is joined to heretics.
CCC:838, 10/11/1992
Heretics are separated from the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, D.2286

47.
The Old Law is alive and working to God's call.
CCC:839, 10/11/1992
Old Law ceased, and fulfilled by the New Law.
Eugene IV, D.712

48.
The plan of salvation includes the Muslims.
CCC:841, 10/11/1992
It is heresy to say: salvation is open to Muslims.
Gregory XVI, VM:13

49.
The Catholic Church has a bond with false religions.
CCC:842, 10/11/1992
False religions are separated from the Church.
Eugene IV, D.705

50.
False religions seek the One True God Who saves.
CCC:843, 10/11/1992
False religions worship the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

51.
At Assisi, 150 false religions "prayed with one voice to the Lord."
US:76, 05/25/1995
At Assisi, 150 false religions worshiped the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

52.
John Paul II prayed with Anglican-heretics in 1982.
UUS:24, 05/25/1995
If anyone prays with heretics: he is a heretic.
Benedict XV, C.2338.2

53.
One can be saved outside the Church by a moral life.
VS:3, 08/06/1993
True morality and salvation are only in the Church.
Gregory XVI, D.1613

54.
Salvation is not only for those who are explicitly in the Church.
Rmi:10, 12/07/1990
Salvation is found only in the Catholic Church.
Boniface VIII, D.468-469

55.
Apostate Jews and Christians have "a common heritage."
PM:135, 04/13/1986
Apostate Jews do not have the Faith of salvation.
St. Gregory I, ETC

56.
In 1991, John Pual II prayed with Lutherans for "unity."
UUS:25 05/25/1995
Praying with heretics for "unity" is heresy.
Pius IX, D.1685-1687

57.
Dialogue meetings can bring Christian unity.
UUS:31,32, 05/25/1995
These "assemblies" for "unity" are condemned.
Pius XI, MA:15

58.
Christian unity is possible if we say the Catholic Church failed.
UUS:34, 05/25/1995
The modernists hold that the Church has erred.
Pius XI, MA:13

59.
Catholics can legally receive the Sacraments from heretics.
UUS:46, 05/25/1995
No one can pray with heretics and be a Catholic.
St. Agatho, SCN:XI:635

60.
Catholics must rejoice when heretics shed their blood.
UUS:47, 05/25/1995
Catholics must anathematize all heretics.
St. Martin I, D.271-272

61.
John Paul II gave a blessing to Lutherans in 1991.
UUS:73, 05/25/1995
If anyone patronizes heretics: he is a heretic.
Innocent III, RCH:I:441

62.
The "faith" of heretics praises and thanks God.
UUS:74, 05/25/1995
It is heresy to say: heretics can praise God.
Pius IX, D.1718

63.
A communion of faith exists between heretics and Catholics.
UUS:75, 05/25/1995
Catholics and heretics share no unity of faith.
Leo XIII, SCG:18,27-18

64.
Heretics honor Holy Scripture with a true religious zeal.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995
Heretics dishonor the Holy Scriptures.
Pius IX, D.1788

65.
The Holy Spirit gives "sanctifying power" to heretics.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995
Heretics cannot live in the life of the Holy Spirit.
Pius XII, D.2286

66.
God wills and inspires heretics to shed their blood for Him.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995
All heretics who shed their blood go to Hell!
Eugene IV, D.714

67.
God's Church is build up when heretics receive the Eucharist.
UUS:12, 05/25/1995
Heretics sin when they receive the Eucharist.
Leo XIII, ENL

68.
Catholic Church and Eastern Schismatic Church are one in faith.
UUS:59,62
Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.
St. Pius V, CCT:101

69.
Apostate Jews worship the One True God.
PM:135, 04/13/1986
Apostate Jews do not worship the One True God.
Gregory XVI, SJS

70.
Every human being is the way of the Church.
DM:3, 11/13/1993
Heresy: the Church is a collective conscience.
St. Pius X, P:23

71.
All nations form but one community.
CCC:842, 10/11/1992
Heresy: all nations form but one community.
Pius XII, MC:18

72.
The UN is the supreme forum of peace and justice.
PP:112, 10/02/1979
The Church is the supreme forum of peace.
Pius XI, MA:1-17

73.
The Catholic Church respects the Islamic spirutial tradition.
PP:2443, 08/19/1985
It is heresy to say: all religions are true.
 St. Pius X, P:14

74.
All men are brothers with a human dignity.
PP:826, 09/05/1983
Only Catholics have a human dignity in Christ.
St. Pius X, LFH

75.
Goodness and truth are found in false religions.
CCC:842, 10/11/1992
It is heresy to say: all religions are good.
Pius XI, MA:2

76.
The religious experience of Islam deserves respect.
CH:93, 1994
It is heresy to say: Muslims can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

77.
Modernism renews and unites the Church of Christ.
CH:76, 1994
Modernism attempts to destroy the Church.
St. Pius X, P:23

78.
In Hinduism men take refuge in God with love and trust.
CH:80, 1994
It is heresy to say: Hindus can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

79.
Buddhists by higher help reach liberty and supreme illumination.
CH:80, 1994
It is heresy to say: Buddhists can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

80.
The Church rejects nothing holy and true in false religions.
CH:80, 1994
Outside the Church the Truth cannot be found.
Gregory XVI, D.1617

81.
The Holy Spirit works effectively a common root in all religions.
CH:81, 1994
It is heresy to say: all religions are true.
 St. Pius X, P:14

82.
Praying with false religions can bring peace.
CH:81, 1994
Praying with false religions for peace is heresy!
Pius XI, MA:1-17

83.
Animist religions prepare many to be Christians.
CH:82, 1994
It is heresy to say: Animists can experience God.
St. Pius X, P:14

84.
John Paul II prayed with animists and was amazed at it.
LC, 08/23/1985
It is heresy to think: all religions are good.
Pius XI, MA:2

85.
The sphere of salvation includes those not in the Church.
CH:140, 1994
No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716

86.
With God, man creates his personal salvation.
CH:195, 1994
No one can be saved outside the true faith.
Pius IV, D.1000

88.
The Catholic Church is present in all its elements in heretical sects.
CN, 05/28/1992
Outside the Catholic Church there is no holy unity.
St. Leo IO, DJP:129,II:3

89.
Vernacular languages should be used for Mass.
SC:36, 12/04/1963
Heresy: popular language should be used for liturgy.
Pius VI, D.1566

90.
Unbaptized catechumens are members of the Church.
LG:14, 11/21/1964
The unbaptized are not members of the Church.
Paul III, D.895

91.
Outside the Church there is remission of sins.
LOR, 11/20/1989
Outside the Church there is no remission of sins.
Boniface VIII, D.468

92.
Man's dignity is: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
ALL, 04/1980
Freemasonry is: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
St. Pius X, LFH

93.
Evolution is more than just an hypothesis.
LOR, 10/23/1996
Evolution is the doctrine of the Modernists.
St. Pius X, P:26

94.
Worship in common with heretics is good.
UR:8, 1965
Worship in common with heretics is condemned!
Benedict XV, C.1258

95.
The rite of Mass should be simplified.
SC:34,50, 1965
The rite of Mass should be simplified: is heresy!
Pius VI, D.1533

96.
John Paul II prayed with sorcerers, calling out the "spirits."
LOR, 08/11/1985
John Paul II worshiped the Devil.
Gregory XVI, SJS

97.
Outside the Church there is no salvation is not Catholic exclusively.
CH:141, 1994
The Catholic Church is the only way of salvation.
Eugene IV, D.714

98.
John Paul II did not profess the filioque with eastern schismatics.
UUS:24, 12/06/1987
JPII was anathematized for patronizing heretics.
Innocent III, RCH:1:441

99.
All deceased men "are standing before" God as saints.
LOR, 11/01/1993
No one can be saved who is not in the Church.
Pius IX, D.1716

100.
It is unevangelical to condemn heretics.
UUS:15, 05/25/1995
It is evangelical to condemn heretics.
St. Martin I, D.271-272

101.
Buddhism is a religion of salvation.
CH:84-85, 1994
Buddhism is a religion of damnation
Eugene IV, D.714
 
Table of Sources - Abbreviations

Abb.
Source: Name, Author, Publisher, Date, etc.

AAS
Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium officiale, Rome, 1909 (Tomus I) ff.

ACA
Ad Catholicos Angliae, Pope Paul IV

ALL
Allocution (a private audience with the Roman Curia)

C.
Canon number cited from 1917 Code of Lanon Law of Pope Benedict XV

CCC
Catechism of the Catholic Church, of John Paul II, 1992, Liguori Publications

CCT
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius V, TAN Books, Rockford, IL

CH
Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1994

CN
Communionis Noito, Letter to Bishops on "Communion," May 28, 1992

CT
Catechesi Tradendae, Exhortation of John Paul II, Oct. 16, 1979, Pauline Books

D.
Enchiridion Symbolorum, "The Sources of Catholic Dogma," edited by Fr. Henry Densinger, B. Herder Book Co., Imprimatur, 1955

DJP
De Jejun. Pent., sermon 129, II:3, of Pope St. Leo the Great

DM
Dives in misericordia, Encyclical of John Paul II, Nov. 30, 1980, Pauline Books

EIC
Epistle to the Corinthians of Pope St. Clement I

EDA
Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, motu proprio of John Paul II, Jyly 2, 1988, Pauline Books

ENL
Exima Nos Laetitia, Decree of Pope Leo XIII

EP5
Exposition on Psalm V Poenit., tom. 3 of Pope St. Gregory the Great

ETC
Epistle to the Cledonius, of Pope St. Gregory the Great

ETN
Epistle to the Count of Nevers, 1208 AD, of Pope Innocent III

EV
Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical of John Paul II, March 25, 1995, Pauline Books

GOH
Gate of Heaven, Sister Catherine Clarke, MICM, Boston: Ravengate Press, 1952

FC
Familiaris Consortio, Encyclical of John Paul II, Nov. 22, 1981, Pauline Books

FCR
The Freedom of Conscience and Religion, letter of John Paul II to the heads of state of the nations who signed the Helsinki Final Act., Sept. 1, 1980, Pauline Books

LC
La Croix, a French Periodical

LFH
Letter to the French Hierarchy of Pope St. Pius X in 1910, C.M.R.I. Center

LG
Lumen Gentium: A Vatican II Council Decree, Nov. 21, 1964

LOR
L'Osservatore Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition

MA
Mortalium Animos, Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI on Fostering True Religious Unity, Jan. 6, 1928, AAS 20 (1928), 5ff. Angelus Press

MC
Mystici Corporis, Encyclical of Pius XII, June 29, 1943, AAS 35 (1943), 202ff.

P
Pascendi, the Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, Sept. 8, 1907, AAS 40 (1907), 593ff.

PA
The Pope Comes to America, Publications International, Ltd. Stokie, IL, 1987

PM
Peter Lovest Thou Me? Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Angelus Press

PP
Path to Peace: A Contribution. Liturgical Publications Inc., Brookfield, WI, 1987

QA
Quod Aliquantulum, of Pope Pius VI

RCH
Readings in Church History, Fr. Barry, Westminster, MD, Newman Press, 1965

RH
Redemptor Hominis, Encyclical of John Paul II, March 4, 1979, Pauline Books

Rmi
Redemptoris Missio, Encyclical of John Paul II, Dec. 7, 1990, Pauline Books

SC
Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II Council Decree, Dec. 4, 1963

SCG
Satis Cognitum, Encyclical of Leo XIII, June 29, 1896, AAS 28 (1896/96), 711 ff.

SCN
Sacrorum Conciliorium, Archbishop John Mansi, Thomas Florentiae: 1759

SJS
Summo Jugiter Studio, Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI, May 27, 1832

Sqi-Sqa
Singulari Quidem and Singulari Quandem, Encyclical of Pope Pius IX

SME
Syllabus of Modern Errors: Papal Series, 1996, Michael Malone. Sacred Heart Press, 1419 Springcrest, Mesquite, TX 75149

TBR
The Brotherhood Religion: Is it Anti-Christian? Rev. Edward F. Brophy, 1954, The Christian Book Club of America, P.O. Box 638, Hawthorne, CA 90250

UUS
Ut Unum Sint, Encyclical of John Paul II, May 25, 1995, Pauline Books

VS
Veritatis Splendor, Encyclical of John Paul II, Aug. 1993, Pauline Books
Logged

"Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)Â
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2004, 07:45:26 PM »

Egads PieX, that's one long list. Somebody might ask you to explain it all, good luck.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #53 on: June 11, 2004, 07:55:24 PM »

Pie X.....

Doesn't you screen name mean Pius in french?

Anyway, the Pope and his bishops may hold peronsal heresies but this doesn't  effect their Sacraments, or in the case of the Pope, their office. For you as a laymen you have no right to judge the Pope as either a heretic or an anti-Pope.

According to Catholic teaching only your superior can declare you a heretic and excomunicate you, but the Pope has no superior on earth, so we can only hope that if the current Pope is a heretic, the next Pope will condemn him to be so, but until the next Pope or an ecumenical Council, under the authority of the Pope, does so, we can not judge Pope John Paul II, nor can we judge his bishops, for we are not their superiors!

There is no Catholic Saint who condemned a Pope on his or her own authority and dismissed him as a heretic and refused to acknowledge him as the Pope, but there are many Saints who have resisted the teachings of the Holy Father that contained error and simply held strong to the true faith without turning into a sedevacantist!

May I ask where you copied and pasted that list from? I am interested to know your resources.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2004, 08:14:42 PM »

Honestly, I think the RC heirarchy wants to say "oops, we goofed" and turn a new page in it's relationship with other Christian bodies (whether Orthodox or Protestant) - or at least have the flexibility to engage these groups as something other than "heretics" or "schismatics", but also doesn't want to lose it's credibility entirely.  Hence, the mental gymnastics involved in reconciling the "old" (and relatively recent) RCC with the "new, ecumenical, inviting" RCC.

Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2004, 08:18:49 PM »

Ben,

These accusations and contradiction lists are on many SSPX sites, PieX should have been the hint.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
PieX
Banned
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2004, 08:28:05 PM »

But I provided proof of every statement! Why the contradictions?
Logged

"Any baptized person who … obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)Â
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2004, 08:30:01 PM »

Yea Jakub...in my last post I said Pie meant Pius in French.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2004, 08:47:02 PM »

Correction, examples of contradictions within the RCC.

james

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #59 on: June 11, 2004, 10:28:14 PM »

You know I can't get over how easily some EO and now it seems RCs think they know best about everything.
Peter

I don't come down to this forum much...

Well, Subdn. Peter, to quote James Thurber, your realization is "My world and welcome to it."  There are times when I come across a website that "knows best about everything" and I have to check to see if it's RC or EO. (and that's one reason I'm still Anglican.)  

For some years the PNCC used a chapel in the Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul aka "The National Cathedral" where the late President Reagan's state funeral was today. They don't any more as I recall.  But for a long time at the yearly festival in the autumn they sold wonderful homemade pierogies.

(I'll just go quietly now)

Respectfully,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 12, 2004, 01:19:03 AM »

Ebor, I hear you - there is a difference between believing in an infallible church, which of course both RCs and EOx do, and the arrogance one often finds in the online RC and EO world.

I've written about the PNCC on the blog - you should be able to search on it to find the entry. Long story short, the Nats are an 1890s immigrant schism actually parallelling the beginnings of Russian Orthodoxy in America - Slavs treated badly by Irish-born and Irish-American RC bishops. They started off very liberal, though - the founding bishop denied an eternal hell, made confession optional, allowed priests and bishops to marry after ordination and entered intercommunion with the Episcopal Church (who crowed about it at the time as the Reformation coming to these people). But the rooted cultural conservatism of the Polish-Americans offset all that and today they are quite conservative, even though liturgically they really just copy the Novus Ordo. Now that they're not really Polish anymore but American, the cultural issue that really caused the split no longer exists. But they're a small but real church - real congregations, generational members - based in the same Rust Belt heartland as the OCA and ACROD.

The RCs and Eastern Catholics say that born, ex-Protestant and ex-nonchristian Orthodox have an open invitation to Communion if they're in the state of grace, just like their own and just like the Nats. (State of grace = confession not required.)

Of course the Orthodox usually don't allow that, certainly in the US.

In the Middle East it's a different story. Christian Arabs are a minority that stick together, so many Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites intermarry, have their children baptized at each other's churches (Catholics go to the Orthodox shrine at Said Naya, for example, and have their children baptized) and intercommune all the time. The only separation is the clergy don't concelebrate. (This is also fuelled by the cultural custom that the wife joins her husband's church. Source: Archimandrite Serge (Keleher).)

I've read that immediately pre-Communist Romania was like that too, with a very large (about 20% of the population) Byzantine Catholic church - in villages with both Romanian Catholic and Romanian Orthodox churches, since the parish priest couldn't hear his wife's confession, the Orthodox priest would be the BC priest's wife's confessor and vice versa. (Source: Stuart Koehl, an Internet authorityGäó.)

The Communists, when they banned the BCs and tried to force everybody into the Romanian Orthodox Church, which by then they controlled, basically ended that by turning the groups against each other.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2004, 01:21:21 AM by Serge » Logged

Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #61 on: June 12, 2004, 10:38:48 AM »

Ebor, I hear you - there is a difference between believing in an infallible church, which of course both RCs and EOx do, and the arrogance one often finds in the online RC and EO world.

Indeed.  and often the response to suggestions that such an attitude is arrogance is "No it's not.  We're just telling the Truth." or in one case I remember years ago "That's their pride getting in the way. They should be humble and listen to what We're saying." Apparently taking a softer tack would be somehow "watering things down" or "false love" because it wouldn't be letting the Other know that they're All Wrong.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 12, 2004, 12:01:56 PM »

Yes, lots of little boys with big attitudes. The religious stuff is their p-e-n-i-s as it were.
Logged

Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 12, 2004, 03:09:41 PM »

I remember when I first "turned the corner" regarding an infallible Church when leaving Protestantism -- the temptation is definitely there to build up these indestructable walls of infallibility, knowing that "no other opinion will ever withstand the omnipotent power of my Church!  We are the epitome and definition of truth; all else is lies and heresy!"

Thankfully, under the guidance of some very mature priests (first RC and then EO), I was led to read the word "infallible" as "ultimately trustworthy."  Not always airtight according to human standards, but ultimately able to save our souls.

Or, as a former protestant minister of mine said (though his definition of the church hardly applies): "The Church is like Noah's Ark: sometimes it stinks, but at the end of the day, it's the only thing afloat."
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 12, 2004, 10:13:36 PM »

Pedro,

Quote
Thankfully, under the guidance of some very mature priests (first RC and then EO), I was led to read the word "infallible" as "ultimately trustworthy."  Not always airtight according to human standards, but ultimately able to save our souls.

I think that is basically an apt way of defining infallibility.  Rigoristic, human notions of infallibility always fall short as they ultimatly place infallibility in the hands of mere men.  This is the fundamental error of Papism, but it's not one which Orthodox themselves are immune to (indeed, it's instructive to note that the Popes once were Orthodox!).

At the same time, this humility should not obscure the fact that it is the Orthodox confession which is sound, and which has been deviated from.  Rather, our humility should reside in the knowledge that so many among us (high and low) fall way short of our sacred heritage, and otherwise give it a bad name by our terrible example.

Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #65 on: June 14, 2004, 12:28:41 PM »



 Shocked I am honeslty surprised. It just goes to show you how uneducated Catholic faithful are in matters of doctrine these days. *sigh*

Well, I'm not a trained theologian or a seminary student, so I have no choice but to admit that there are many who are more educated than me.  On questions of doctrine I usually start with the Catechism, although I do consult the Fathers when I am able to find something.  And, of course, there is the scripture.  Last, but certainly not least, there are the priests of my parish.  I'll have to ask one of them about the infallibility status of Unam Sanctum.  As for now I am compelled to point out that you have provided no quote showing that Unam Sanctum is considered by the Church to be an infallible statement in the same way as, say, the declaration on the Assumption.  Moreover, the Church clearly teaches that those who are not Catholics may be saved.  It is difficult to see how Unam Sanctum, if it is to be applied to non-Catholics, can be true if the teaching of the Church regarding the salvation of non-Catholics is also true, since non-Catholics are clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
Pope Boniface declared the contents of Unam Sanctam EX CATHEDRA, look at the requirements for ex cathedra, and you will see he met them all. And Vatican I states the Pope is protected from all error when speaking ex-cathedra, and is in effect Infallible. Papal Infallibilty wasn't invented at Vatican I, to hold such an absurd opinion would show great ignorance.

Well, I don't hold to that opinion, so at least I can hope that my ignorance isn't great.
 
Before the tragic reforms of the post-Vatican II era, that meant those who never heard about Christ or the Catholic Church. Today it has been twisted to mean anybody who doesn't think the Catholic Church is the true Church, which would include everyone but faithful Catholics, even those who left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or any other religion.

Of course, I never denied this.  

WHOA!!!! You just said something that Vatican II didn't even say! Holy Cow! You are a Catholic and yet you believe you can be saved outside of the Catholic Church?! This is totally contrary to Catholic dogma and doctrine. If this is true, then there is no reason for me to be Catholic! There is no reason why I shouldn't join the Orthodox Church. Heck who cares about luther, or SSPX, or the PNCC, schism...who cares! Heresies...who cares! It don't matter cause salavation exists outside of the Catholic Church!  

Umm I highly doubt that the Modern Magisterium teaches there is Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. These days you usually get..."We only know the Catholic Church is the true Church and if Non-Catholics are saved, it is by the Catholic Church or through the Catholic Church"...which isn't all that bad.

Ben, the secret to everything is that Jesus died for everybody's sins.  The sins of everyone are forgiven.  Hell is an individual's rejection of the Love freely given without price, and without preconditions.   The reason to be Catholic (in my view) is not because we're going to be eternally tortured if we don't, but because it is what God wants, and, if we love God, we will do what he wants.  

As for the modern Magisterium's teaching about salvation outside the Church, Vatican II specifically stated that non-Catholic churches can be means of salvation.
Logged

NULL
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #66 on: June 14, 2004, 01:01:46 PM »

Ben:

It's now clearer to me.

You do not give, or have not given, any merit to the conciliar documents of Vatican II.

Considered by the RCC and, therefore, by any "normal" Catholic, to be an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II governs.

Amado
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #67 on: June 14, 2004, 04:25:27 PM »

Quote
Well, I'm not a trained theologian or a seminary student, so I have no choice but to admit that there are many who are more educated than me.


I understand, and please forgive me if I seemed rude in dismissing your opinion on this as ignorant, and if I came off as making fun of you in anyway.

Quote
On questions of doctrine I usually start with the Catechism, although I do consult the Fathers when I am able to find something.  And, of course, there is the scripture.  Last, but certainly not least, there are the priests of my parish.


Not so bad. Smiley

But my I ask why you don't go to the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils, which are considered to be totally infallible? Why not go streight to the dogma itself?

Quote
I'll have to ask one of them about the infallibility status of Unam Sanctum.  As for now I am compelled to point out that you have provided no quote showing that Unam Sanctum is considered by the Church to be an infallible statement in the same way as, say, the declaration on the Assumption
.

I agree, I have provided no quote. Because it is not neccesary. Look, if you are going to assert that previous to Vatican I there was no such thing as a Pope speaking ex-cathedra, then you might as well admit that the idea of a Pope speaking ex-cathedra was an invention at Vatican I, and that the Roman Catholic faith developes and changes, not in just understanding, but in the acctual essence of faith, which the RC has taught is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

Unam Sanctam meets all the requirements for "ex-cathedra" as set down by Vatican I, but if you refuse to admit this, then I wonder your thoughts on the two quotes I provided from two Ecumenical Councils, which are surely considered to be infallible by the RCC.

Quote
Moreover, the Church clearly teaches that those who are not Catholics may be saved
.  

Yes, I agree, and perhaps I haven't been clear, the Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, can be saved through the Catholic Church if they use the graces given to them by God, this is even clearly stated in the Baltimore Catechism.

Quote
It is difficult to see how Unam Sanctum, if it is to be applied to non-Catholics, can be true if the teaching of the Church regarding the salvation of non-Catholics is also true, since non-Catholics are clearly not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Well it is Catholic teaching that every Baptism done correctly is a Catholic Baptism, and therefore all baptized Christians are subject to the Roman Pontiff. But due to ignorance of the truth of God, the Church teaches one can be saved with out formally being a member of the Catholic Church, but if they use the graces given to them by God, are somehow mysticaly a member of the Catholic Church and can be saved.

Quote
Ben, the secret to everything is that Jesus died for everybody's sins.  The sins of everyone are forgiven.

I totally agree, but the Church teaches you must accept this forgiveness through the Catholic Church, the only true Church in existence, accept for those individuals, who through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic faith is the truth, and reject it.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #68 on: June 14, 2004, 04:41:36 PM »



Considered by the RCC and, therefore, by any "normal" Catholic, to be an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II governs.

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, but a pastoral one. Both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI made clear that the Council was pastoral, and that nothing would be declared ex-cathedra, and nothing was!
« Last Edit: June 14, 2004, 04:56:21 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,472


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 14, 2004, 06:11:25 PM »

Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, but a pastoral one. Both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI made clear that the Council was pastoral, and that nothing would be declared ex-cathedra, and nothing was!

What about the two "dogmatic" constitutions at Vatican II?  

Honestly, I never understood the distinction between a "pastoral" ecumenical council and a "dogmatic" ecumenical council.  As far as I can tell, every ecumenical council dealt with both types of issues.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #70 on: June 14, 2004, 06:16:13 PM »

Vatican II declared no dogmas and abolished none, and nothing was declared ex-cathedra at Vatican II by either Pope John XXIII, or Pope Paul VI. And in fact both expressed that Vatican II was only a pastoral councils on several occasions.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,472


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 14, 2004, 06:26:37 PM »

Again, what do you make of the two dogmatic constitutions Vatican II put out?  

And how is there a distinction, in the class of "ecumenical councils" itself, between "pastoral" and "dogmatic" councils?  It is clear that the RCC regards Vatican II as an ecumenical council.  The council documents refer to it as an ecumenical council, and all "Novus Ordo" liturgical books have a blurb on the title page that says something like "Revised in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council"; other examples could be cited.  If an ecumenical council is infallible (as you no doubt believe), then what is the purpose of a "pastoral" ecumenical council?  Why does one need an infallible council to rule solely on pastoral issues?  And if Vatican II was an ecumenical, "pastoral" council, then why the outcry against the liturgical reforms of Vatican II?  Those are pastoral issues, and apparently protected by the Holy Spirit if they are infallible.  Help me understand this distinction in councils, because honestly, it makes no sense.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #72 on: June 14, 2004, 07:45:14 PM »

Okay....

Every Ecumenical Council except for Vatican II defined or declared a dogma, and was called for that purpose or for the purpose of dealing with a dogmatic or doctrinal controversey.

Vatican II was called a Pastoral Council by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. A Pastoral Council is one that deals with the Pastoral needs of the Church only, while declaring and defining no dogma or doctrine.

Now, yes there were Dogmatic Constitutions at Vatican II.

Dei Verbum (November 18,1965 Passed: 2344 to 6) and Lumen Gentium (November 21, 1964 Passed: 2151 to 5), but neither were proclaimed ex-cathedra by the Roman Pontiff, for niether declared or defined a dogma.

Now there was only one Constitution, which was not a dogmatic one, that dealt with the Liturgy - Sacrosanctum Concilium. However, this Constitution did not call for a new liturgy or the abandonment of the Tridentine Mass.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #73 on: June 15, 2004, 12:15:31 PM »



I understand, and please forgive me if I seemed rude in dismissing your opinion on this as ignorant, and if I came off as making fun of you in anyway.

No problem.  I'm proud of the way I can keep up with the rest of you guys.


Not so bad. Smiley

But my I ask why you don't go to the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils, which are considered to be totally infallible? Why not go streight to the dogma itself?.

Sometimes I do that too.
 
I agree, I have provided no quote. Because it is not neccesary. Look, if you are going to assert that previous to Vatican I there was no such thing as a Pope speaking ex-cathedra, then you might as well admit that the idea of a Pope speaking ex-cathedra was an invention at Vatican I, and that the Roman Catholic faith developes and changes, not in just understanding, but in the acctual essence of faith, which the RC has taught is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

Unam Sanctam meets all the requirements for "ex-cathedra" as set down by Vatican I, but if you refuse to admit this, then I wonder your thoughts on the two quotes I provided from two Ecumenical Councils, which are surely considered to be infallible by the RCC..  

I don't think that Vatican I invented papal infallibility.  Papal infallibility has been around since Peter's confession.  My primary source for believing in papal infallibility is not Vatican I, but Matthew 16, which provides an even fuller explanation of what it is.  I think a lot of misunderstanding has arisen on both sides of the debate because they talk about it as if Vatican I said all there is to say on the issue.  That's why I would take issue with simply taking the wording of Vatican I and applying it in cookie-cutter fashion to papal statements throughout history.

Yes, I agree, and perhaps I haven't been clear, the Church teaches that those who through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, can be saved through the Catholic Church if they use the graces given to them by God, this is even clearly stated in the Baltimore Catechism.Well it is Catholic teaching that every Baptism done correctly is a Catholic Baptism, and therefore all baptized Christians are subject to the Roman Pontiff. But due to ignorance of the truth of God, the Church teaches one can be saved with out formally being a member of the Catholic Church, but if they use the graces given to them by God, are somehow mysticaly a member of the Catholic Church and can be saved.I totally agree, but the Church teaches you must accept this forgiveness through the Catholic Church, the only true Church in existence, accept for those individuals, who through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic faith is the truth, and reject it.

Well, we might actually agree on this.  On the other hand, we might disagree on the meaning of the "through no fault of their own" language.

Ben, I really enjoy talking with you, and hope that we can continue.  I ask one favor of you though.  You will notice that even though I have separated out your quote, I have left out nothing that was in your posting; nothing has been edited out.  If you could do that for me, I would appreciate it.  Thanks a lot.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #74 on: June 15, 2004, 02:17:50 PM »

Quote
I don't think that Vatican I invented papal infallibility.  Papal infallibility has been around since Peter's confession.  My primary source for believing in papal infallibility is not Vatican I, but Matthew 16, which provides an even fuller explanation of what it is.


Okay, so if you agree that Vatican I didn't invent Papal Infallibility, then you must also agree that if this were so, then certainly Popes spoke ex-cathedra previous to Vatican I.

Vatican I defined ex-cathedra as when a Pope declares or defines something that must be held by the entire Church, and there are many examples, such as Unam Sanctam, of Popes previous to Vatican I declaring or defining something that must be held by the whole Church.

If Vatican I didn't invent Papal Infallibility then we can not ignore the ex-cathedra declarations of Popes, such as Boniface VIII, who were around long before Vatican I

Quote
Well, we might actually agree on this.  On the other hand, we might disagree on the meaning of the "through no fault of their own" language.

Well the "through no fault of their own" is in both the Catechism of Trent and the new Catechism.

Quote
I ask one favor of you though.  You will notice that even though I have separated out your quote, I have left out nothing that was in your posting; nothing has been edited out.  If you could do that for me, I would appreciate it.  Thanks a lot.

Sometimes I delete statements that there is no need to reply to, such as "No problem.  I'm proud of the way I can keep up with the rest of you guys." I only quote those parts of your post that I feel a need to respond to.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,472


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 15, 2004, 07:07:55 PM »

Vatican II was called a Pastoral Council by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. A Pastoral Council is one that deals with the Pastoral needs of the Church only, while declaring and defining no dogma or doctrine.

Now, yes there were Dogmatic Constitutions at Vatican II.

Dei Verbum (November 18,1965 Passed: 2344 to 6) and Lumen Gentium (November 21, 1964 Passed: 2151 to 5), but neither were proclaimed ex-cathedra by the Roman Pontiff, for niether declared or defined a dogma.

First, John XXIII and Paul VI may have called it a "Pastoral Council", but they also called it an Ecumenical Council, and the council itself refers to it as such.  

In the sense that Vatican II did not "declare or define any (*new*) dogma", you are right, it merely reiterated the teaching of the RCC.  However, that reiteration itself is dogmatic because it is the teaching of dogma.  Also, if the RCC really believes that when an ecumenical council defines a dogma, it is really just declaring definitively what was always believed in the Church and not some novel teaching of recent origin, then no council has ever declared new dogma, so any declaration is reiteration of existing Church teaching.  I still can't see how there is any real distinction between Vatican II and, say, Trent.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, every ecumenical council (no matter how many you accept Wink ) dealt with dogmatic and pastoral issues.  When has there been  an ecumenical council which dealt only with one or the other?
« Last Edit: June 15, 2004, 07:08:17 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #76 on: June 15, 2004, 07:14:25 PM »


Quote
First, John XXIII and Paul VI may have called it a "Pastoral Council", but they also called it an Ecumenical Council, and the council itself refers to it as such.  


I have not denied that it was called an Ecumenical Council, and that it is one. I am just stating, as Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI did, that it was a Pastoral one.

Quote
In the sense that Vatican II did not "declare or define any (*new*) dogma", you are right, it merely reiterated the teaching of the RCC.  However, that reiteration itself is dogmatic because it is the teaching of dogma.


There were only two Dogmatic Constitutions at Vatican II, and I do not think either one reiterated RC teaching to a point where the teaching of the dogma itself was affected. I understand what you are saying, but you must understand that these two Dogmatic Constitutions did not change or redefine any dogma.

Quote
Also, if the RCC really believes that when an ecumenical council defines a dogma, it is really just declaring definitively what was always believed in the Church and not some novel teaching of recent origin, then no council has ever declared new dogma, so any declaration is reiteration of existing Church teaching.  I still can't see how there is any real distinction between Vatican II and, say, Trent.


Vatican II did not define a Dogma, Trent did.

Quote
Furthermore, to my knowledge, every ecumenical council (no matter how many you accept Wink ) dealt with dogmatic and pastoral issues.  When has there been  an ecumenical council which dealt only with one or the other?  
 

Vatican II was only a pastoral Council in the sense that it defined or declared no dogma. It dealt with the Pastoral needs of the Church, and though addressing some dogmatic issues, no dogma was defined, redefined, declared, or abolished.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,472


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 15, 2004, 07:22:08 PM »

I have not denied that it was called an Ecumenical Council, and that it is one. I am just stating, as Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI did, that it was a Pastoral one.

I'd really appreciate more input from other Catholics, because I really am confused now.  So what if it was "Pastoral" as long as it was "Ecumenical"?  What is the point of making such a distinction?

Quote
There were only two Dogmatic Constitutions at Vatican II, and I do not think either one reiterated RC teaching to a point where the teaching of the dogma itself was affected.

What?  

Quote
I understand what you are saying, but you must understand that these two Dogmatic Constitutions did not change or redefine any dogma.

Why must a dogma be changed, altered, or re-worked in some way, shape, or form in order for the council at which this occurred to be regarded as a "dogmatic" council?  Why is the teaching of the faith not considered enough of a dogmatic task?  

And I am not sure if you are being imprecise in your language.  Does the RCC really believe that a dogma can be "changed"?  What is the scope of "redefinition"?  

Quote
Vatican II was only a pastoral Council in the sense that it defined or declared no dogma. It dealt with the Pastoral needs of the Church, and though addressing some dogmatic issues, no dogma was defined, redefined, declared, or abolished.

In addition to referring to my remarks above, I also have to ask how on earth a dogma can get "abolished" in the RCC?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #78 on: June 15, 2004, 07:31:51 PM »

Quote
I'd really appreciate more input from other Catholics, because I really am confused now.  So what if it was "Pastoral" as long as it was "Ecumenical"?  What is the point of making such a distinction?

The Second Vatican Council is an Ecumenical Council, I *never* denied this. However, it was not a dogmatic Council because it didn't declare or define any dogmas, and it wasn't called to deal with dogmatic problems. For example, Trent was called to deal with Protestantism and the reformation. Vatican II was called to deal with the Pastoral needs of the Church, that it is why it was and is called a Pastoral Council.

Quote
Why must a dogma be changed, altered, or re-worked in some way, shape, or form in order for the council at which this occurred to be regarded as a "dogmatic" council?  Why is the teaching of the faith not considered enough of a dogmatic task?


A Dogmatic Council is one that deals with dogma. Either by solving a heresy and/or declaring and defining dogmas of the Church. Vatican II was not called to deal with a heresy, nor was it called to define or declare any dogmas, and it clearly didn't, so we can not call Vatican II a Dogmatic Council.

Quote
And I am not sure if you are being imprecise in your language.  Does the RCC really believe that a dogma can be "changed"?  What is the scope of "redefinition"?  In addition to referring to my remarks above, I also have to ask how on earth a dogma can get "abolished" in the RCC?  


No, a dogma can not be changed or abolished in the RCC, but many traditionalists like to say that Catholic dogma, in paticular Purgatory, was somehow redefined or abolished at Vatican II, when in fact it wasn't.

Its a silly lie that many like to propagate to either show Vatican II was not a true Council, or that it somehow changed our faith.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 04:00:18 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2004, 04:01:29 PM »



Okay, so if you agree that Vatican I didn't invent Papal Infallibility, then you must also agree that if this were so, then certainly Popes spoke ex-cathedra previous to Vatican I.

Vatican I defined ex-cathedra as when a Pope declares or defines something that must be held by the entire Church, and there are many examples, such as Unam Sanctam, of Popes previous to Vatican I declaring or defining something that must be held by the whole Church.

If Vatican I didn't invent Papal Infallibility then we can not ignore the ex-cathedra declarations of Popes, such as Boniface VIII, who were around long before Vatican IWell the "through no fault of their own" is in both the Catechism of Trent and the new Catechism.Sometimes I delete statements that there is no need to reply to, such as "No problem.  I'm proud of the way I can keep up with the rest of you guys." I only quote those parts of your post that I feel a need to respond to.


You're right.  We can't ignore the infallible statements of popes prior to Vatican I.  Now which ones are infallible?  I think Vatican I correctly declared papal infallibility, but it didn't provide the exclusive guidance as to when it occurs.  From Matthew 16 I derive that he must speak in communion and consultation with his fellow bishops.  That doesn't mean he needs their consent, but that they be part of the process.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #80 on: June 16, 2004, 04:14:15 PM »

You're right.  We can't ignore the infallible statements of popes prior to Vatican I.  Now which ones are infallible?  I think Vatican I correctly declared papal infallibility, but it didn't provide the exclusive guidance as to when it occurs.  From Matthew 16 I derive that he must speak in communion and consultation with his fellow bishops.  That doesn't mean he needs their consent, but that they be part of the process.

Vatican I defined ex-cathedra as when a Pope declares or defines something that is to be held by the entire Church.

If you read the Bull Unam Sanctam, and many bulls previous to Vatican I, you will see that they define and/or declare something to be held by he entire Church.

I agree that the bishops of he Church should have some involvement in any doctrinal issue, however the RC teaching is clear, the Roman Pontiff does not need the consent of an Ecumenical Council or of any bishop to declare or define something that mus be held by the entire Church.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2004, 04:36:59 PM »

I believe that the council is needed for most crucial decisions, I also believe that a true council has more authority than a Pope/Patriarch, heck I'm sounding more & more Orthodox everyday.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #82 on: June 16, 2004, 04:50:21 PM »

James aren't you Catholic?

I am wondering because you obviously reject Vatican I and Papal Infallibility, which would mean you are a heretic, not by my standards, but by those of the RCC.

Please, I am not trying to offend you, its just that I was under he impression that you were Catholic.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 04:55:04 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2004, 05:19:58 PM »

I am presently a cradle RC, x-altarboy etc..........but with time my ideas have changed just like the RCC, I do converse with priests from the Orthodox and RC & EC.

I try not to get caught up in all theological differences and debates, my heart knows when it is comforted and at peace, that is the point is it not ?

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2004, 05:51:17 PM »


Quote
I am presently a cradle RC, x-altarboy etc..........but with time my ideas have changed just like the RCC, I do converse with priests from the Orthodox and RC & EC.

Well, the RCC hasn't changed its teaching on Papal Infallibiliy, and honestly it can't.

Quote
I try not to get caught up in all theological differences and debates, my heart knows when it is comforted and at peace, that is the point is it not ?

I don't know, I know plenty of Muslims, Buddhists, and Mormons who are totally at peace with their faith. They are comforted by their faith and are perfectly happy.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2004, 06:04:12 PM »

Ben,

Are you saying that being a good Roman Catholic hingies on Papal infallibilty ? I doubt that, or has it been added to the creed like the filioque ?

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2004, 06:20:08 PM »

Ben,

Are you saying that being a good Roman Catholic hingies on Papal infallibilty ? I doubt that, or has it been added to the creed like the filioque ?

james

To be a good Catholic you must accept all the dogmas of the Catholic Church, if you do not, you are a Heretic, this is even clearly stated in the new Catechism, and the new Canon Law.

If you, as a Catholic, reject the dogmas of the Filioque and/or Papal Infallibility, you are a heretic and therefore not a good Catholic, this is not just my opinion, but official Catholic teaching.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 06:21:35 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2004, 06:47:13 PM »

Ben,

You and I agree to disagree on this topic and I can live with it.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2004, 06:51:03 PM »

I can also live with it. Smiley But I must express that I am only echoing official Catholic teaching, I have said nothing that isn't clearly expressed even in the new Catechism and the new Canon Law. You can disagree with me, a lot of people do, and thats fine, but please understand I haven't expressed merely my opinion, rather the official teaching of the Church that you belong to.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2004, 07:36:40 PM »

Ben,

Not every household has a Catechism or a copy of Canon Law in it, most have a bible or prayer book if they are lucky.

It would make sense if the Catechism was the Catholic Manual of Faith, that the Church would at least issue one to a family with updates when needed instead of the laity buying one, the odds are maybe 2 out of 10 families might have one.

Quoting Canon Law & the CCC to the average member of the American laity will be like speaking German to them.

james
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 07:37:32 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #90 on: June 16, 2004, 08:04:40 PM »

James, you can freely access the Catechism and the Church Canon Law at the offical Vatican website, if you don't have the internet at home you can use a computer at the local library, or you could visit your local parish, most if not all Catholic parishes have a copy of the Catechism laying around some where.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 08:09:57 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #91 on: June 16, 2004, 08:16:39 PM »

Ben,

We are a little off topic of this thread, however I do own several different copies of the CCC, thank you, its the average person that I was referring to. I see you are a convert to Catholicism, most converts I know are very zealous in their new faith, more then most cradle RC's. If you don't mind the comparison, its like a real non smoker & ex smoker, I'm a smoker but those ex's will raise total hell with you.

If you want maybe we should open a thread "Orthodox and RCC Catechism's".

james
« Last Edit: June 16, 2004, 08:18:43 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #92 on: June 16, 2004, 08:22:25 PM »

James,

I realize we got off topic, but the point is there is no excuse for a Catholic not to know their faith in this modern world. You bring up that the average person doesn't have a Catechism, which in fact I don't believe, well if that is so, then there are many other ways they could get their hands on one.

For a Catholic not to know that they must believe in the Filioque and Papal Infallibility, is absurd.

I don't think it's neccesary to start a new thread, I have said all that I have to say.

Gbu! Smiley
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #93 on: June 17, 2004, 03:35:01 PM »

Vatican I defined ex-cathedra as when a Pope declares or defines something that is to be held by the entire Church.

If you read the Bull Unam Sanctam, and many bulls previous to Vatican I, you will see that they define and/or declare something to be held by he entire Church.

I agree that the bishops of he Church should have some involvement in any doctrinal issue, however the RC teaching is clear, the Roman Pontiff does not need the consent of an Ecumenical Council or of any bishop to declare or define something that mus be held by the entire Church.

Yes, I acknowledge that he doesn't need their consent, but I think Matthew 16 makes it clear that he must act in communion with them.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #94 on: June 20, 2004, 10:26:38 PM »

Yes, I acknowledge that he doesn't need their consent, but I think Matthew 16 makes it clear that he must act in communion with them.

I agree, but it depends on how you define "in communion with them"
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #95 on: June 21, 2004, 12:39:46 PM »

I agree, but it depends on how you define "in communion with them"

Read Matthew 16:13-23.  When Peter makes his confession of faith he is in the presence of the other apostles.  When he later takes Jesus aside and rebukes him, resulting in the famous "Get behind me Satan," he is apart from them.  I'm not sure of all of the implications of this, but it appears that Peter's infallibility is somehow linked to his being with the other apostles.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #96 on: June 21, 2004, 09:51:28 PM »

Notice when the Lord asks the apostles who he is, all but Peter answer with wrong answers. They all answer with the opinions of the others, only Peter, with the help of the Holy Ghost, and on his own, answers the questions correctly. Soloviev expands on this moment in the Gospels and what is means in relation to the Papacy, in his book "Russia and the Universal Church", if you haven't read it, I highly reccomend you do so.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Etienne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

OC.net


« Reply #97 on: July 18, 2004, 01:31:41 PM »

Looking at the post about the P N C C and RCs, I note the RCs appear to state that the P N C C clergy have valid ordinations

The RC regards itself as the true church, but you can split off and retain 'grace' and perform 'sacraments'? This as an Orthodox appears novel, something more akin to magic than anything else surely!
Logged

It is afterwards that events are best understood
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #98 on: July 19, 2004, 10:34:43 PM »

Well, I know Orthodox priests and bishops who believe that Catholic ordinations are valid, actually the only priests I have found that reject Catholic sacraments as null and void, were ROAC, and I have met my fair share of Orthodox priests!

In fact an OCA priest told me that Catholic priests who convert to Orthodoxy are always "vested", never ordained. Their ordination lacked something, but was not null and void, and for that reason there is no need to ordain them as if they were just entering the priesthood.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #99 on: July 20, 2004, 12:51:45 AM »

Ben,

The OCA priest did a good job of explaining the Russian position.  Of course, the Greek position differs, and even the GOA reordains RC priests.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2004, 08:32:00 PM »

The fact that there is a difference like that between the Greeks and the Russians really does concern me!

This may be a stupid question, but if a RC priest entered the OCA, and was not reordained, would GOA not consider him to be a priest? Would GOA priests refuse to concelebrate with him?
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #101 on: July 21, 2004, 02:58:08 AM »

Notice when the Lord asks the apostles who he is, all but Peter answer with wrong answers. They all answer with the opinions of the others, only Peter, with the help of the Holy Ghost, and on his own, answers the questions correctly.

No, they correctly answered the question that Jesus asked of them, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?". Only after they have answered this question does Jesus ask them, "But who do you say that I am?".

Do you honestly believe that if Peter hadn't spoken up first, the other apostles would have answered incorrectly?

John.
Logged
iustinos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 57

OC.net


« Reply #102 on: July 21, 2004, 09:10:37 PM »

"The fact that there is a difference like that between the Greeks and the Russians really does concern me!

This may be a stupid question, but if a RC priest entered the OCA, and was not reordained, would GOA not consider him to be a priest? Would GOA priests refuse to concelebrate with him?"


The difference is in a broad application of economia versus a more restricted application.  For example, I know many Orthodox who consider baptism of Catholics proper, but wouldn't deny that those who are chrismated are fully Orthodox.  It's a matter of economia vs. acrivia.

Justin
« Last Edit: July 21, 2004, 09:11:17 PM by iustinos » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #103 on: July 21, 2004, 11:19:02 PM »

The fact that there is a difference like that between the Greeks and the Russians really does concern me!

This may be a stupid question, but if a RC priest entered the OCA, and was not reordained, would GOA not consider him to be a priest? Would GOA priests refuse to concelebrate with him?

No, because as St Cyprian finally admitted to St Stephen in his final letter to him, each bishop has the responsiblity for exercising ekonomia.  All ordinations by one Orthodox Church are accepted by those she is in communion with.*

anastasios

* One exception lately, long story.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Etienne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150

OC.net


« Reply #104 on: July 22, 2004, 11:15:43 AM »

The application of the principles of 'strictness' and 'economy' will vary from place to place, and from time to time. The use of the priniciple of 'economy' being a pastoral response or condesenscion. The perceived difference between contemporary Russian and Greek practice should not be in itself a scandal.

As long as we, the Orthodox, do not adopt the 'magic' principle where one supposedly may be 'validedly' ordained, depart from the Faith, but one's supposedly 'sacramental' actions thereafter are effective? Such a notion is novel and clearly belongs to the realm of western rationalism and philosophy, not Christianity. Wink
« Last Edit: July 22, 2004, 11:20:43 AM by Etienne » Logged

It is afterwards that events are best understood
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #105 on: August 16, 2004, 09:26:16 PM »

It appears the PNCC is dialoging with the Antiochian Archdiocese WRV as well as the Catholic Church.

The stats are a little off.  According to their website they have 25,000 members and 135 parishes in 5 dioceses covering the US and Canada.

http://www.saintpeterorthodox.org/write.htm

"Q. Are there any other Western Rite Christians (besides the Roman Catholic and Anglican Episcopalian) who have approached the Orthodox Church for acceptance?

A. The Polish National Catholic Church, which severed its communion with the Episcopal Church over the ordination of women, has approached the Antiochian Archdiocese. This is a group which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in 1897. This Church has 282,000 members in 162 parishes and five bishops. The members of the Western Rite Commission are at present in dialogue with the Polish National Catholic Church."

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Tags: Polish 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.292 seconds with 133 queries.