|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches
|
Bonaventura
Wise Drunkard
# 1066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
At one point he explains that the creation fell because of Satan's Fall, a spiritual event that took place before Adam's Fall. That way, he tries to explain the scientific fact that death existed before the first man. However, in doing so, he should have made it clear that this is his own personal opinion, and not the patristic consensus.
TANGENT
Interesting, the last time I exchanged views on this with Myrrh she said that the fall of Satan myth was pretty much standard Orthodox teaching.
(Mind you this version of the fall is in line with certain pseudoepigraphical Jewish writings.)
/TANGENT
--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco
Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
At one point he explains that the creation fell because of Satan's Fall, a spiritual event that took place before Adam's Fall. That way, he tries to explain the scientific fact that death existed before the first man. However, in doing so, he should have made it clear that this is his own personal opinion, and not the patristic consensus.
TANGENT
Interesting, the last time I exchanged views on this with Myrrh she said that the fall of Satan myth was pretty much standard Orthodox teaching.
(Mind you this version of the fall is in line with certain pseudoepigraphical Jewish writings.)
/TANGENT
OK, I might have got confused here because I meant the story was common teaching, but I've never heard that creation fell with that, as Andreas explains above. Does seem that Kallistos is presenting a new idea here, some sort of conflation of the two events, interesting and I wouldn't automatically dismiss it, can anyone remember where it was posted? The "fall" however does refer back to the St Michael story and not to Adam and Eve which is referred to "ancestral sin". I think it's only recently that the Orthodox have been using the Augustinian term out of discussions with the West, but it does seem to create more confusion as if the differences weren't confusing enough already.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Yes, that's exactly my point. He sees that paleontology and theology contradict each other and he modifies the traditional theory pretending he is just repeating it... In his book, The Orthodox Way, in the chapter God as Creator, in sub-chapter 8 "evil, pain and man's fall" (in my version) he tells that story.
Bonaventura, I'm not saying that his mentioning the fall of Satan is strange, I'm saying that his connecting it with the death that pre-existed Adam is strange (none of the fathers did that; they all connected death with Adam, since they did not have the paleontological evidence we now have). But even that, is contradicted by the modern understanding of natural selection which the bishop has not taken into account. Still, it's an attempt to "discuss" with modern world and science...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura
Wise Drunkard
# 1066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The "fall" however does refer back to the St Michael story and not to Adam and Eve which is referred to "ancestral sin".
The difference is in which of the two myths one assigns the origin of evil to. The theological difference is that if the origin of evil (the fall) is assigned to the rebellion of the angels, then human beings are less perpetrators than victims of evil. The ancestral sin scenario on the other hand stresses human responsibility and choice.
I think some of the earliest fathers held the cosmic rebellion myth as the origin of evil.
Kallistos is certainly not presenting a new idea here. However, his new slant on it is original.
--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco
Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
The difference is in which of the two myths one assigns the origin of evil to. The theological difference is that if the origin of evil (the fall) is assigned to the rebellion of the angels, then human beings are less perpetrators than victims of evil. The ancestral sin scenario on the other hand stresses human responsibility and choice.
I think some of the earliest fathers held the cosmic rebellion myth as the origin of evil.
Kallistos is certainly not presenting a new idea here. However, his new slant on it is original. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure that it isn't implicit as a possibility in Orthodox view which doesn't see the origin of evil in Adam and Eve.
Original Sin and Ancestral Sin are distinctly different concepts.
The first posits an immortal Adam and Eve living in God's grace which he created as link between creator and created and with free will,
both of which were lost when A&E disobeyed 'the injunction not to eat from the tree'. Losing grace by their choice they fell into 'sinful nature' which is damned and which included death and the absence of free will to turn to God, and this was the punishment for the disobedience of the actual act of eating from the tree which is seen as, and I'm going on an explanation of this by Pope John Paul II, as wanting to know the moral base of existence which it says is God's prerogative only.
Contrast with Orthodox who view the prototype mankind as neither mortal nor immortal and see the injunction as a warning of consequence in eating the fruit (rather than a prohibition of eating from that tree) which is both good and evil and entailed no loss of grace or free will in the relationship with God. Some fathers say their disobedience was in eating before they were 'adult' enough, but however, the Adam and Eve story is seen as mankind's exploration into the nature of what they were created to be in the image and likeness of God so rather than moral knowledge itself being prohibited it's a given that includes this knowledge - "they have become like Us" can hardly been seen as a "fall"... The exclusion from the garden as written, lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever, seen as excluding them from immortality (they were neither mortal nor immortal) until they learned to live without sin, hence they say the reason for Christ's incarnation.
As prototype of mankind Orthodox see each child born in their original innocence and until the age of reason, being able to tell the difference between good and evil, without sin.
Two completely different views of mankind. The first Augustinian is very much Manichean, damned nature from evil as material creation itself by a lesser God, only changing the emphasis on blame, to putting the blame for being in it onto the original parents.
This Augustinian view of course can't be supported by the text because its claim begins with a perfect immortal state which isn't written or implicit anywhere and actually contradicted.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
r_p,
the Ship is certainly a place for people to vent their rage, but at last here in Purgatory you will have to forgive me for trying to draw conclusions from what you vent. And the only conclusion I can draw from much of what you've said is that any RC who does not share your rage must be either willfully blind, stupid, or corrupt. Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?
That of a critically open mind perhaps?
There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.
Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?
Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.
Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?
I guess I was curious as to what you thought was going on with people like me, who perceive flaws in the Church, but would reject the claim that "as an institution it is rotten" and do not share your sense of outrage. Of the options you list above, I guess I'd fall into the "misplaced loyalty" category.
For myself, I would say that part of what attracts me to Catholicism is its deep embededness in history. It is a tradition in the full blown sense of the word: not simply a set of ideas, but an actual embodies community extended through time and around the world. I see this rooted in the fundamentally sacramental approach of Catholicism. But the price we pay for this is in a lumbering and sometimes insensitive institutional superstructure, careerism and pigheadedness among clergy, etc. But it's a price I am, thus far, willing to pay to be part of this tradition, because I don't see an alternative. After all, Jesus could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had forgotten the whole "apostle" idea and done everything himself. But somehow it seemed to be part of his plan to surround himself with fallible, sinful, pigheaded, careerist people to whom he entrusted his message.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are shouting. Not me. Or my "pals", whoever they may be.
You may assert as much as you like, and shout and shout as much as you please, and try to torment and accuse the Catholic Church of ill-motives and spurious intentions. ...
Sorry, no. I have not "shouted." You just can't admit that there's another side to anything than the official RCC line. You have shown no interest in the facts as presented by others. I can't say more about your or your motivations without getting unPurgatorial.
Your exclusivist assertions don't make us any less Catholic.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I have not "shouted." You just can't admit that there's another side to anything than the official RCC line. You have shown no interest in the facts as presented by others. I can't say more about your or your motivations without getting unPurgatorial.
Your exclusivist assertions don't make us any less Catholic.
Ross, I'm not a Catholic, so that might make it easier to correspond with me. I am, however, curious about what facts you are referring to. Could you elaborate, or at least enumerate?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Professor, I think Rossweisse refers to something like this and also to the catholic theology that is still found in (parts?) the Anglican communion.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Andreas actually has a great deal of the right of it.
I've posted assorted evidence for the Anglican position a number of times. I regret that I do not have time to do it again right now. But the Greek Orthodox accepted our orders and sacraments at one time, at least, since GOs in the US who could not attend their own churches were encouraged to attend and receive the sacraments in Episcopal churches.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.
Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?
I would say that the Church (whether by that you mean the Catholic Church or the RCC+us "defective ecclesial communities") is an always has been a community of saints and sinners, and the clergy, despite whatever ontological change may be wrought by ordination, are no exception to that. As I've said earlier, I've known some very good Catholic clergymen but if, like you, I want to bang my drum, I've also come across some bastards along my way and I've encountered similar in Protestant churches too.
'Twas always ever thus and 'twilt always be so, this side of the eschaton.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
for interest:
quote:
Papal-primacy compromise out, Orthodox church official says
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24233
A Russian Orthodox official who represents his church on a Catholic-Orthodox commission said his church rules out any compromise on papal primacy.
"Historically, the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Christian church, from our point of view, was that of honor, not jurisdiction --the jurisdiction of the pope of Rome was never applied to all the churches," said Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria, who represents the Russian Orthodox Church on the International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches.
The commission is scheduled to meet in October in Ravenna, Italy, for the 10th plenary since its creation in 1979. After a six-year break, the 60-member commission reconvened in September to debate conciliarity and authority.
"There can be no compromise whatsoever" on papal primacy, Bishop Hilarion said in a May 28 interview with Russia's Interfax newsagency.
He added that "the aim of the theological dialogue is not at all to reach a compromise. For us, it is rather to identify the church's original view of primacy."
The Moscow Patriarchate was drafting its own document on primacy, which would help him "assert our official point of view" at future talks, said Bishop Hilarion.
Full article:
(Papal-primacy compromise out, Orthodox church official says)
[ 17. July 2007, 17:55: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I know just how much you like long passages of internet to read Myrrh, so I am posting this one for you. No need to respond ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Prinmacy
Hey look! I've learnt to make my links bold just like you do ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Just noticed they were in bold... They look nice that way. Hm. I will read the text you linked us TT and perhaps make a reply later ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Father, I read much of the text's first half. Remember what Myrrh said at another point about the Cardinal dealing with Catholic-Orthodox dialogues saying that the Patriarch of Constantinople is not, for the Orthodox, the equivalent of the Pope of Rome?
I think we have here a misunderstanding similar to that.
I mean, the author of that text seems to be reading the ancient sources attributing a particular meaning to their words (words like preside, etc.) that the original authors did not intend. The ancient texts he quotes could have been written now by Orthodox bishops towards an Orthodox Rome (or are being said for the Orthodox Archbishop of New Rome)... Of course, their meaning would be very different to what the author understands.
Anyway, the text is very long, it doesn't mention many historical incidents from that period that do not support the Catholic view on primacy, and I will stop here.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I guess I was curious as to what you thought was going on with people like me, who perceive flaws in the Church, but would reject the claim that "as an institution it is rotten" and do not share your sense of outrage. Of the options you list above, I guess I'd fall into the "misplaced loyalty" category.
For myself, I would say that part of what attracts me to Catholicism is its deep embededness in history. It is a tradition in the full blown sense of the word: not simply a set of ideas, but an actual embodies community extended through time and around the world. I see this rooted in the fundamentally sacramental approach of Catholicism. But the price we pay for this is in a lumbering and sometimes insensitive institutional superstructure, careerism and pigheadedness among clergy, etc. But it's a price I am, thus far, willing to pay to be part of this tradition, because I don't see an alternative. After all, Jesus could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had forgotten the whole "apostle" idea and done everything himself. But somehow it seemed to be part of his plan to surround himself with fallible, sinful, pigheaded, careerist people to whom he entrusted his message.
And in your last paragraph I am in almost complete agreement with you save that the alternative that was thrust upon me was to become "unchurched" as a direct consequence of the hostility show towards me because my first marriage failed. What hurts is the way the RCC "tore the ball out of my hands and took it away" and would do no more than let me watch the game carry on once I had been told to leave the park (sorry, bad analogy, but it has been a long day and it's the best I can do right now). Everyone else appears to be playing happily the way I once did, except they are oblivious to the bad calls made by the ref while I now see those calls for what they are. I wish it were different, but it's not so there is no sense pretending otherwise.
God, I think, is a cynic with a cruel sense of humour regarding who he plays favourites with.
Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I know just how much you like long passages of internet to read Myrrh, so I am posting this one for you. No need to respond
Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Prinmacy
Hey look! I've learnt to make my links bold just like you do
Clever clogs!!
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
But one spelling mistake I fear,Father!
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Sorry for jumping back into the mix so late in the game, but I gave myself some time to have a look at the documents suggested to me on pages 1 and 2 of this thread before commenting further.
The pope's message didn't surprise me. As has been stated, it is nothing new. It does slightly cause me a bit of concern for two reasons, the first because it does not offer any way for the other 'communities' to become 'churches' in the eyes of the RCC. The pope could have very simply stated something like, 'Through the continuing dialogue that we share with our brothers and sisters in baptism, we remain committed to seeking ways to strengthen our relationship and build each other up as the Church through joint witness, service, and prayer in the world.'
Second, on a more technical level, I wonder if the translation from Latin to English (and a possible spin or bias) has placed too great a separation between the translations of church and ecclesial. In the Latin, wouldn't the words be very similar?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Look, as an Anglican, I take the recent emanation from Rome as par for the course.
What the current Pope says is in no way binding on me.
That is what is important.
Leaving aside theology or any backhand swipes at Rome, this is a fairly conservative, inward looking Pope in my reading.
Someone else in his position probably would have used more conciliatory language but he doesn't.
This is, in a way, a "party statement" by the CEO of Vatican Inc.
Holy Orthodoxy does not have such a Roman legalistic approach to authority nor one "Big Boss" but goes back to the decisions of the First Seven Councils of the (then undivided) Church. Authority is, if you like, conciliar. But that Council has to be one of the whole Church. Orthodox, even though they believe they could do so, have never done.
One of the reasons I remain an Anglican is that, like the late Archbishop Ramsey and the current Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe it is possible to be a perfectly orthodox Catholic Christian in the Anglican Church.
I think, with the formal split between East and West in 1054, the position of the Pope became exaggerated in the West. In the East he was regarded as having a special place of honour but not having the authority to define Christian teaching, which was the prerogative of an Ecumenical Council of the Church (like the First Seven Councils).
The late Sebastian Bullough, a Dominician and former Catholic Chaplain at Cambridge, UK, once published an article to that effect in the journal then called "Tomorrow" and was, as far as I know, not arraigned for heresy.
The "conciliar" view of church authority was once popular in RC circles around the time of Vatican Two.
It was supported by people of some standing like the late Bishop Christopher Butler OSB, a former Abbott of Downside.
Now the statement has come, I agree with DOD that we need to be able to have a fair and frank exchange of views from the different churches.
One of the dangers of a lot of well meaning ecumenism is that it's heavy on motherhood statements and good intentions but little else.
Therefore I support the right of those from a straight Protestant background (or any other point of view), like Mudfrog, to speak out in conscience. Without personal vilification which I don't think M indulged in.
I do, personally, have reservations about where Rome stands on several matters. That doesn't stop me having tremendous respect and affection for my Catholic friends.
There was a stage when we Christians were vilifying, murdering and torturing each other (and Jews, Muslims and "pagans") in the name of God.
Thank God we've improved slightly since then!
My own personal opinion is that we, as Christians, are all in schism with each other.
May God forgive us all for this mutual, long term sin against the Holy Ghost.
In love and sadness to you all,
P
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
I've read thru this thread.......I've also said to myself that I was not going to post to it but........
Martin L., I agree with what you would have liked to have seen. So would I. However, such a statement would be counter to RC ecclesiology, their teachings regarding the supremacy of the Papacy, and about a dozen or so other teachings. It just isn't going to happen under this Pope regardless of his personal support for the Augsburg declaration on Justification or anything else. To do so would nulligy much of the statements of Trent and those that have come down during the last 4 centuries many of which seem aimed at solidifying and hanging on to power by the Vatican establishment.
The Vatican is not going to give up it's claims to be the "one, true Church" in which resides the "fullness of truth". Benedict's recent statements simply serve to reinforce the RCC's long standing position.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura
Wise Drunkard
# 1066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Original Sin and Ancestral Sin are distinctly different concepts.
I do know your views on Augustine rather well and I do not wish to engage with them. Especially since what we are discussing in this tangent belongs to the ante-nicene era, well before Augustine.
--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco
Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Martin L., I agree with what you would have liked to have seen. So would I. However, such a statement would be counter to RC ecclesiology, their teachings regarding the supremacy of the Papacy, and about a dozen or so other teachings. It just isn't going to happen under this Pope regardless of his personal support for the Augsburg declaration on Justification or anything else. To do so would nulligy much of the statements of Trent and those that have come down during the last 4 centuries many of which seem aimed at solidifying and hanging on to power by the Vatican establishment.
The Vatican is not going to give up it's claims to be the "one, true Church" in which resides the "fullness of truth". Benedict's recent statements simply serve to reinforce the RCC's long standing position.
I just meant it would have been a good idea from a PR standpoint for the pope to also provide an emphasis on his church's already-avowed willingness to dialogue ecumenically. It would have softened the blow.
Even though Benedict is German, I think it is very easy for the folks at the Vatican to forget that much of the rest of the world is not as totally Roman Catholic as the Diocese of Rome. The release of this statement probably didn't even make the news in Southern Europe, but it was blown out of proportion in the rest of the world.
It makes me wonder if things would have been different if Archbishop Foley had still been at the helm of Social Communications.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
[qb]
It makes me wonder if things would have been different if Archbishop Foley had still been at the helm of Social Communications.
I have fond memories of Bishop Agnellus Andrew OFM
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Not really.
There are several issues on the go here. One is the fact that "The Vatican" does not really exist as a single entity. There are various Dicasteries, such as CDF, the Congregation for Bishops etc, and they tend to operate quite independently. CDF is different in that it is in effect above all the other dicasteries, and everything they publish has to be seen first by CDF. But CDF itself is a law unto itself and has no equivalent responsibility to check its documents with other dicasteries. I know, for example, that some (quite high up) in the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and also at the Pont. Council for Promoting Christian Unity, were livid when Dominus Iesus was published because they were never consulted prior to its publication. That appears scandalous, but it's the reality.
The other is that PR is not a major concern. To American eyes that must seem bizarre I would imagine. I was intrigued in watching The West Wing that the Director of Communications was part of all policy discussions. That seems a good thing. There is no equivalent person at the Holy See (Abp Foley's brief was something quite different). So no-one would have been at the CDF gathering specifically to discuss the issue of "how will this play in Washington, London, Bogota?" etc. Even at local Bishops' Conference level there is no similar post. Again, those who have to deal with media enquiries about policy decisions will not have been part of drafting that policy, simply having to publish it and then field questions. That seems to me (after The West Wing) a major shortcoming, but it's not one the Bishops seem at all concerned about.
Abp Foley, by the way, was not in any way responsible for the press releases of the Holy See - that belongs to the Sala Stampa, the Press Office of the Holy See. The Pont. Council for Social Communications has a much wider brief than that.
One of my friends said a few years ago that the problem with Vatican documents was that they left Rome at 40 Volts, but by the time they hit you they carried 40 000 Volts. I think that is probably accurate. One should also remember that documents from Rome are usually reactions to something, rather than pro-active publications. Rome is not constantly issuing thunderbolts willy-nilly at whim. They prefer local churches to deal with matters. A great head of steam has to build up before Rome intervenes. This is true of CDF as well.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Yikes! It is a marketing catastrophe waiting to happen. Some day somebody's going to say the wrong thing and it will be amusing to watch the others spin it to align with church teaching. I can see why Luther wanted a flatter organizational structure.
I imagined PR was not a concern, but it should be. When the sensus fidelium is restricted to only the crème de la crème of Cardinal-Deacons, that is a scary thought.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
... "The Vatican" does not really exist as a single entity. There are various Dicasteries, such as CDF, the Congregation for Bishops etc, and they tend to operate quite independently. CDF is different in that it is in effect above all the other dicasteries, and everything they publish has to be seen first by CDF. But CDF itself is a law unto itself and has no equivalent responsibility to check its documents with other dicasteries. I know, for example, that some (quite high up) in the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and also at the Pont. Council for Promoting Christian Unity, were livid when Dominus Iesus was published because they were never consulted prior to its publication. That appears scandalous, but it's the reality.
The other is that PR is not a major concern....
One of my friends said a few years ago that the problem with Vatican documents was that they left Rome at 40 Volts, but by the time they hit you they carried 40 000 Volts. I think that is probably accurate. One should also remember that documents from Rome are usually reactions to something, rather than pro-active publications. Rome is not constantly issuing thunderbolts willy-nilly at whim. They prefer local churches to deal with matters. A great head of steam has to build up before Rome intervenes. This is true of CDF as well.
Bravo, TT for once again shining your light on dark places! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I think many non-Catholics don't realize what a vast bureaucracy the Vatican is and assume anything issuing therefrom is from "Der Holy Fadder" (Cease Irish accent.). This is patently not so.
The Pope is also human. Ancient but human. He does make errors of judgement.
I think, if we see him as such, we tend to realize the relativity of most of what he says. "Infallibility" is limited to matters of Faith and Morals when he addresses the whole (Roman Catholic) Church.
I do think there are a lot of semi-professional Vatican watching ecumenists-of sorts-who are not RC who get their nappies in knots evertime Benedict does anything.
Benedict is not my favourite Pope. A rather tubby Italian was.
Nonetheless, I don't think Benedict will do much harm.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Ah, let me do some CDF role-play here
So, there are 2 very blatant mistakes in your post. The first is to imagine that there are not some major cock-ups from time to time. I suggest you check anything the Prefect of the Pontifical Council for the Family has to say. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) . His patent nonsense about the permeability of condoms springs to mind, and seemed to me at the time to be marshalling bad science to back up bad doctrine.
The second is to think it's all about Cardinals. In fact CDF is composed of a number of theologians. This is the profile: quote:
The congregation is now headed by Prefect Cardinal William Joseph Levada. It has a secretary, His Excellency Mgr. Angelo Amato, S.D.B., an under-secretary, P. Joseph Augustine Di Noia, O.P., a Promotor of Justice Mgr. Charles Scicluna, and a staff of 37, according to the "Annuario Pontificio" or "Pontifical Yearbook." It also has 23 members - cardinals, archbishops and bishops - and 33 consulters. Given the nature of its task, congregation work is divided into four distinct sections: the doctrinal office, the disciplinary office, the matrimonial office and that for priests.
The staff of 37 are the people who do most of the work. When a document is issued it has usually been through quite a lot of process already. The Cardinals etc who constitute the board, as it were, are not in fact the ones who have done any of the work!
The corollary to this is that things actually work bottom-up rather than top-down in these dicasteries. The Cardinals do all the glamorous things, but matters crossing their desks have usually crossed a few other desks first.
There is of course no mechanism to measure the sensus fidelium. That little phrase is often invoked by those who don't like what Roman documents say - but it has little real value as currency in the decision making processes. One might of course argue that is a bad thing, but it is the reality. Fides et Ratio is a good watchword of course - there are some matters which are regarded as being part of Fide, and thus divine revelation, and so not subject to majority opinion anyway.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
The above post was for MartinL. But continuing CDF role play:
There is one major mistake in your post gracious Sir Pellinore: the Vatican bureaucracy is not vast - it is in fact quite small. Note the CDF only has 37 on its staff. That's a very small number having to deal with a helluva lot of stuff. The sum total of those working in all the dicasteries of the Roman Curia is less than 5000, as I recall. Heck, I think the Town Hall of an American city has more bureaucrats than the Vatican.
[ 19. July 2007, 23:37: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...PR is not a major concern. ...
Trip, I didn't realize you had such a gift for understatement!
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
But every one of my posts is an understatement ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But every one of my posts is an understatement
No, that's an overstatement!
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) - I give you full marks for that riposte
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Thanks for the clarification. Believe it or not, I do understand many of the parts of the machine that exists in Vatican City. In addition to my own interest in politics and faith, I attended a Roman Catholic university, taking Roman Catholic theology courses. Not many RCs can claim the same interest in or study of my faith. I am an armchair commentator, of course, and not a RC theologian. Unfortunately, my hyperbole simply doesn't translate online.
The Roman Catholic Church is humongous, and it always amazes me the different interpretations that one gets from different sources. On the one hand, we have priests here who would never dream of ever saying what you said about the Prefect of the Pontifical Council for the Family. In fact, they would never consider saying anything against the higher-ups at all. On the other hand, we have sensible priests (like yourself, TT) who take a more learnèd approach.
The general sense among non-RCs seems to be that the RCC is a rigid, inflexible body whose doctrine was chiseled in stone sometime before the fall of Rome. With that being the prevailing attitude, it can be confusing to see different authority figures from the same location issuing different statements. On the one hand we have the document Dominus Iesus being released by the CDF, but on the other hand we have the leader of the PCPCU sending different messages and celebrating mass at Taizé.
The question for me is, why would a church that declares people out of communion with them if they differ in belief allow the leaders to differ in belief? (Please take this as the honest academic question I mean it to be. My translation to online sentences doesn't seem to be working too well today. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
[ 20. July 2007, 01:28: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
- I give you full marks for that riposte
<curtsies>
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
MartinL: The question for me is, why would a church that declares people out of communion with them if they differ in belief allow the leaders to differ in belief?
Ah, now there's the rub. I think Catholics would say "We did not unchurch you - you unchurched yourself. It was not first of all us who declared you out of communion - you declared yourselves out of communion". Excommunication usually only follows long after a decisive breach has been made.
RC ecumenism is of course "you must come back to us". Pope John Paul in Ut Unum Sint tried to recognise that a major obstacle to the restoration of unity, on our part, was the way the Petrine Office was exercised, and invited other churches to comment on this. However, when senior RC figures like Rembert Weakland tried to take him up on the offer, they were promptly slapped down - it wasn't Catholics who were being invited to comment! I thought Rome was parodying itself by showing precisely how some of its actions were offensive!
In theory at least, the "come back to us" is not simply a matter of trot down to the local RC parish and blend in. It does include that aspect of "we too need to fix some things to get back to one Church". I guess from our perspective we have done a great deal of that, beginning with the counter-Reformation and certainly including the reforms of Vatican II. Of the substantive points that caused the Reformation to erupt, how many still actually exist?
But there has been a whole lot of drift since then, and entirely new issues which present themselves. That's understandable, as none of us have stood still.
What RCs cannot sign up to is the kind of pan-Protestant idea of church unity which is a kind of federation of independent denominations doing their own thing. It just makes no sense from a Catholic ecclesiological perspective. (I would think that ecclesiology has been the major theological field of debate and research in the RC Church over the past century, so the thing we are most attuned to. The spirituality of communion is the in thing since JPII).
My positive spin on the CDF document would be that if we did not take other churches seriously there would be no need for such discussions.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
MartinL: The question for me is, why would a church that declares people out of communion with them if they differ in belief allow the leaders to differ in belief?
I wasn't even referring to non-RCs here. I should have been more specific. My thought was that if a Roman Catholic layperson (for example) disagrees with church teaching on birth control, uses birth control, and has no intention to stop using birth control, that person has placed him/herself out of communion with the church. (Am I correct on this?)
On a similar vein, if one bishop (just for example) declared that other non-RC churches are not really churches, while another bishop says that is ridiculous, then what of the communion? Which one is right and which one is wrong? Who has placed himself out of communion with the church? Is there a difference if it is a clergyman or a layperson? Does it matter which teaching is renounced or called into question?
Apologies for not being more specific earlier.
[ 20. July 2007, 03:09: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
RC ecumenism is of course "you must come back to us".
If that is the true intent, then I fear we are forever going to be in dialogue and nothing more. It's not a matter of coming back. The RCC changed itself after the Reformation.
It's amazing that the sale of indulgences is what started this whole mess. I think both sides would overwhelmingly agree that is ridiculous.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
RC ecumenism is of course "you must come back to us".
If that is the true intent, then I fear we are forever going to be in dialogue and nothing more. It's not a matter of coming back. The RCC changed itself after the Reformation.
It's amazing that the sale of indulgences is what started this whole mess. I think both sides would overwhelmingly agree that is ridiculous.
Absolutely - hence the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II, for a start. But the point is that you would be coming back to the Catholic Church as it is now post Vatican II, not as it was then. That may still mean eternal dialogue, unfortunately. But it wouldn't be along the old Reformation battle lines.
These days indulgences aren't for sale. In fact now if, for example, a plenary indulgence is announced (such as the one available for participating in the WYD 08 Veneration for the WYD Cross and the icon, both currently on tour in Australia) the Catholic Church goes to great lengths to avoid any suggestion that the indulgence is being sold or is of any value other than spiritual benefit according to the terms of the indulgence.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Can I ask MartinL what you have to profess to become a Lutheran ?
I see reunification as an unlikely dream primarily because of the fact that the Catholic church has a defined position on so many things. This doesn't seem to fit with the Protestant mindset.
I wonder if Lutheranism is different. To be confirmed as an Anglican, I just had to promise that I believe in God the Father who made the world, in his son Jesus Christ who redeemed mankind, and in the Holy Spirit who gives life to the people of God. Plus in the services I say the Nicene creed.
Pretty much everything else is open as far as I know. When I meet people in my bible study group, noone is surprised or concerned that we disagree about all sorts of things. That's just in one church, let alone the variety of church styles that are in Anglicanism.
The fact that I see that as good and I expect Catholics to see it as bad seems to be a huge obstacle.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Not MartinL but I presume something along the lines of the Augsburg Confession, with possibly the Book of Concord (depending on what sort of Lutheran one is) and possibly also Luther's Catechism(s)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Seems like the Lutherans might have a better chance then, if they are used to the idea of a fairly comprehensive list of things to believe.
Matt, when thinking about becoming Catholic yourself, how did you feel about the idea of promising to believe all the church's teachings ? I'm guessing you haven't had to do that in the same way as a Baptist or Anglican.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
[snip]
It's amazing that the sale of indulgences is what started this whole mess. I think both sides would overwhelmingly agree that is ridiculous.
Perhaps this needs another thread (I hope not!) but I don't think that the sale of indulgences is what started the Reformation. Luther's attack on the practice was certainly central, but the Reformation was already well under way by then.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Tiara, When I said "The Vatican", I was using it in the same way one might refer to the coporate collection of political entities who work out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as "The White House".
What does one have to do/believe to become a Lutheran? One needs to be baptised. However, we baptise a person as a member of the holy catholic and apostolic church and not into the Lutheran Church.
The Baptismal Liturgy is almost the same for either infants or adults. I believe it looks very much like the 1979 BCP.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Matt, when thinking about becoming Catholic yourself, how did you feel about the idea of promising to believe all the church's teachings ? I'm guessing you haven't had to do that in the same way as a Baptist or Anglican.
I think someone else on the thread concerned in AS referred to a list of doctrinal 'tick boxes', of which initially on becoming Catholic s/he could only agree with some, disagree with others and on some have to say 'don't know' and that now, after many years in the Italian Mission, 'disagrees' have become 'don't knows' and 'don't knows' 'yesses'...or something like that...anyway, that would kind of have worked for me - there has to be a degree of 'taking on trust' stuff which you either don't understand or downright disagree with.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
What I was wondering Organmeister is whether a reunification of Lutherans and Catholics on the basis of an agreed set of beliefs between the leaderships makes sense.
For Anglicans it seems to me such an agreement would be very unlikely because there is such a short list of things that Anglican leaders can say all Anglicans are supposed to believe. Whereas there is a long list of things all Catholics are supposed to believe.
I was wondering where Lutherans have a large diversity of beliefs or not.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Moonlit Door,
I don't see any possibility for any kind of substantiative reunification of Lutherans and RC's. I believe the principal stumbling blocks would be the divergent beliefs regarding ecclesiology, the claims of Petrine Supremacy, and the validity of orders. The best one could hope for--and I find even this to be extremely unlikely--would be recognition of Lutheran churches as full and complete churches and not merely "ecclesial bodies" and allowing Lutherans to receive the Eucharist in RC churches. However, due to the reason I've mentioned, I don't see this happening any time soon, certainly not during Benedict's pontificate. I believe +Hanson had asked JPII to consider allowing Lutherans to receive in RC church in 2017 but unless there is some sort of divine thundebolt that rocks the Vatican, I have relegated this to wishful thinking.
Regarding beliefs.......Lutherans do not vary much in their beliefs, at least not in the same sense that Anglicans do. When I first boarded the ship I was amazed to find Anglicans debating the nature of the Eucharist. I thought this had been settled with the 39 Articles and other 16th cent. documents. Lutheran beliefs are generally set out in the Small Catechism (readily available on-line), the Large Catechism, the Augsburg Confession, and the Book of Concord. Acceptance of these documents is pretty much the norm although we do produce the occasional heretic.
There is a fairly wide variance in pracice at least here in the US. I annot speak for European Lutherans. The Lutheran presence here on the east coast is largely due to the 18th cent. immigration of Germans from the Palatine and a few Swedes. They early on formed a close association with the resident Anglicans and thus Lutheran practice here in the East tends to be more high-church in flavor. We also have a few who are described as Confessional Lutherans, and these folks tend to be very high church. Lutheranism was brought to the American mid-west largely by immigrants from Sweden, Norway, and a few very conservative Germans (who now make up the Missuori-Synod). The Scandinavians, having been heavily influence by Pietism, tend to be more low-church. As an example, the recent agreements with the Anglicans to restore apostolic succession and the historic episcopacy were greeted as non-events in my region. Opposition to the agreement was centered in the midwest and a few groups left the ELCA over this issue. But understand that these are generalities and not written in stone.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
Organmeister wasn't it Luther who wanted his churches to be called an ecclesial body? That's what my priest said, but hey look where I got it from.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
Organmeister wasn't it Luther who wanted his churches to be called an ecclesial body? That's what my priest said, but hey look where I got it from.
Even if that were the case, it doesn't so much matter. Our identity now is church, and it has been for quite some time. The churches of the Reformation are no more committed to the exact words spoken in the 1500's than the Roman church is. If it were, there would still be an indulgence salesperson in the Holy Roman Empire and our Good Friday prayers would still be quite offensive to non-Christians. If the priest is working under the assumption that everything Luther said sets our doctrine, then he needs to spend some more time in study. I have to give him credit though, most RC priests around here don't even bother to try to find out about other faiths.
[ 20. July 2007, 16:28: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Le me reinforce what Martin L. said. We agree and teach Luther's theological concepts but we also are aware that he was very much a person of his time and place. I've often thought that there were times i his life when he started to believe his own publicity and allowed his ego to inflate. He wrote hateful, vicious things about the Jews, especially when they failed to convert to Lutheranism, and I trust that all contemporary Lutherans would repudiate those rantings with disgust. I think he looked around him and saw the world descending into chaos so when the peasants revolted he had no problem failing to speak out against their slaughter in the name of keeping an orderly society. Brilliant theologian. Very fallible human being.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
