|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
IngoB, I'm looking for the charity in this, and I'm not finding it. Hell, I'd be satisfied with finding a speck of utility, but I'm not finding any of that either.
Getting yourself ordained in some apostolic line that Rome recognizes, unless you are a natural part of one of those communities, contributes willfully to perpetuating Christian disunity. Ignoring such attempts is about as charitable as I can manage... Perhaps Jengie Jon was not referring to such "apostolic succession shopping", but simply pointing out that there's a closed subgroup in his denomination which has an apostolic line recognized by Rome. In which case his answer misses my original point, because that subgroup would then not be a proper "community of the Reformation" in my understanding. And of course I do think that all communities with proper apostolic succession should reunite with Rome ASAP, because every one of their ordinations represents an abuse of that sacrament (although one the current generations are largely not culpable for). The apostolic succession in communion with St Peter is supposed to be the realized sign of Christian unity, after all.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
As a good Anglican I've written off the entire Pentarcy, so Pope Benedict's comments don't really matter anyway. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petrified
Ship’s ballast
# 10667
|
Posted
Why do we have to have ecumenism = reunion, if I have learned one thing on the Ship it is that reunion isn't going to happen soon or ever.
As has been said if you thought the RCC had it right you would be an RC, you aren't so must think they have got it wrong, Big News™ they think you have it wrong.
What always puzzles me is why non RCs care what the Pope thinks. I have been told I am not a Christian and will burn in hell - am I bovvered?
For reunion someone will have to give up strongly held beliefs and that isn't going to happen, nor in my view should it. So lets just agree to differ and get on with working on those areas where progress is possible.
--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"
Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
As for the ecumenical stuff specifically, none of this has changed in 40 years. Benedict isn't saying anything his predecessors haven't been saying since Vatican II. But, then, the theology behind it is, in any case, slightly more subtle than the face-value stuff that the papers delight in reporting.
And, moreover, although they talk a good game, the RCC never ever move on ecumenism -- not really -- not in any substantial way -- because, frankly, with well over half the 1 billion Christians in the world, they don't need us. They have all the negotiating power, and (given that) are usually far more gracious than they actually have to be -- but never actually get any further than that.
The real RCC position on ecumenism is: "It's never too late for y'all to come back to us."
[/rant]
That last bit is in fact correct. But then given that we are all called to unity and the Catholic Church teaches that it is the Church founded by Christ - well you wouldn't really expect anything else.
I'm amazed that you write off the following ecumenical dialogues as the Catholic Church "never ever mov[ing] on ecumenism -- not really -- not in any substantial way". I really doubt that John Paul II, Benedict XVI (witness his recent letter concerning Chinese Catholics written with a subtle weather eye to Beijing) or Cardinal Walter Kasper would agree with you.
It's about dialogue - the sort of dialogue that gave rise to the Joint Declaration on Justification, dialogue that has lead to reconciliation and full communion with the Melkite Church. Dialogue is not about selling out your doctrines or your beliefs. As Cardinal Kasper says
quote:
The confession that in Jesus Christ the fullness of time appeared once and for all implies that concrete, firm and decisive affirmations are typical of Christian witness. The Christian message withstands every syncretism and relativisation, also every relativisation in the name of a wrongly understood dialogue. Dialogue means living in relation but does not mean relativism. “Tolle assertiones et christianismum tulisti,” wrote Martin Luther against Erasmus whom he blamed for his scepticism.
However, this determination of Christian witness is fundamentally different from sectarian fundamentalistic uncommunicativeness and does not at all contradict dialogical openness. For Jesus Christ is the fulfilment and fullness of dialogue, not its end or suppression. The Second Vatican Council states: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [i.e. other] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men...The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture.” (Nostra aetate, 2)
So a dialogue to be meaningful must have intellectual and moral integrity. We can't sell ourselves short spiritually. But dialogue must also be respectful. quote:
Understood in this sense dialogue and mission are not opposites, they do not exclude each other. Through every dialogue I do not only intend to impart something to somebody else, I also intend to impart what is most important and dearest for myself to him. I even wish that the other one partakes in it. Hence, in a religious dialogue I intend to impart my belief to somebody else. Yet, I can only do so by paying unconditional respect to his freedom. In a dialogue I do not want and am not permitted to impose anything on anybody against their will and conviction.
Otherwise "dialogue" is simply ranting and demigog uery.
We want you all back - no limits! We'll talk for as long as it takes.
--------------------
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
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
Reading all this stuff has given more encouragement to go and do a on-line registration to become a bishop/matey. On becoming a matey will do my best to recognise Pastor Benny for what he is.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Most Moved Mover
Shipmate
# 11673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Well hang on. There is an important difference in what you mean by 'the church'. You, I would guess, think that 'the church' consists of all believers in Christ, in fellowship with one another. Rome believes that you are both a follower of Christ and in fellowship with other Christians. Rome, in denying that Baptist churches are qua churches part of the Church, is denying that they have bishops and priests, set apart sacramentally to administer the seven sacraments and preside at the eucharistic sacrifice. You, presumably, do not believe that Baptists have these either.
So Rome, in your terms, believes you are part of the church. You, in Rome's terms, deny that Baptist churches are part of the Church. I fail to see the problem.
That's a good point and a worthwhile clarification of my thinking, although personally speaking I do regard (at minimum) communion and baptism as being sacramental and consider that they are entirely valid regardless of who administers them.
--------------------
www.HOPEHIV.org
Posts: 169 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Preca
Apprentice
# 12709
|
Posted
The Holy Father need worry not,as Anglicans(like me---for now) will be as irrelevent as the methodists/URC as they march cheerfully towards a slow extinction.
Posts: 41 | From: North of England | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
doctor-frog
small and green
# 2860
|
Posted
Now responding in a slightly more level-headed way, having got the rant off my chest.
Duo, I honestly have every respect for the Catholic Church and, as an anglo-catholic Anglican, I have far more in common doctrinally with you lot than with more than a few on t'other side of my Church (with whom, BTW, I am happily in communion with).
What I doubt -- as someone who has sat in the presence of Cardinal Kaspar with all the clergy of his diocese, to be told (in the nicest and most diplomatic possible way, of course) that there wasn't a hope in hell of us getting back together anytime soon -- is that all the dialogue is getting us much of anywhere.
What I also doubt -- as someone who has put in considerable research into the ecumenical movement -- is that the current state of "ecumenical-speak" is sufficient to carry any denominations any further than they already are. The modern ecumencial movement has a distinct language of its own, which has come to exist as much for its own sake as anything else, and you could easily make a case that changing the status quo is a threat to that, actually. (I'm not sure if I would do; but I might.)
I agree with you that dialogue is absolutely necessary as a foundational step. **But** just because dialogue is going on doesn't necessarily mean that the foundations are actually being laid. There is dialogue, and then there is dialogue.
I also stand by my belief that it's bloody stupid for Popes to keep re-iterating and re-iterating the same warmed-over Vatican II pronouncements over and over again, just so the papers can report it wrong and everyone can get all het up over nothing.
Posts: 981 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:
... although personally speaking I do regard (at minimum) communion and baptism as being sacramental and consider that they are entirely valid regardless of who administers them.
That's true of Trinitarian baptism for sure. The Catholic Church recognises baptism in other churches according to the Trinitarian formula. But I think you'd have to unpack your understanding of the nature of a sacrament and of the sacramental nature of communion a bit for me to understand the first part of your statement.
--------------------
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
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by doctor-frog:
I agree with you that dialogue is absolutely necessary as a foundational step. **But** just because dialogue is going on doesn't necessarily mean that the foundations are actually being laid. There is dialogue, and then there is dialogue.
Well that's correct but that is no reason to stop trying. Likewise it is a salutary warning against talking for the sake of doing so or being seen to do so. But hey, the Catholic Church has only been engaged in any sort of ecumenical activity since 1928. This will take time.
quote:
I also stand by my belief that it's bloody stupid for Popes to keep re-iterating and re-iterating the same warmed-over Vatican II pronouncements over and over again, just so the papers can report it wrong and everyone can get all het up over nothing.
The papers write what they will, I'm afraid. I'm with Trisagion and IngoB on this - this was a message directed within the city walls as a matter of internal unity and discipline.
And to be honest it has to be read in the larger context of the Vatican II documents - we'll still be chewing those over into the next century - and in terms of encyclicals such as Ut Unum Sint.
--------------------
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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And of course I do think that all communities with proper apostolic succession should reunite with Rome ASAP, because every one of their ordinations represents an abuse of that sacrament
Take note, all ye Orthodox sacrament-abusers.
While we're on about charity, it seemeth to me that there are two ways of interpreting these things. Given that Benedict is working with the actual Roman Catholic position rather than making it up as he goes along, in reminding Catholics of how Rome sees the rest of us, he could be
1. poking the nasssty Protestants in the eye again, just to remind them who's boss, and as a precursor to getting the Reformation wars underway again and reinstating the one-time zeal for burning hereticks that is the mark of the One True Church
2. poking in the eye those complacent Roman Catholics who either don't give a toss that their Christian brothers and sisters are in Churches and communities that lack something that might be very useful to them, or who mistakenly believe it's Roman Catholic teaching that we have these things already.
Fr Ratzinger's track record should, in my humble opinion, be enough to convince us that his motivation resembles 2 rather than 1.
Does anybody really believe that reunion will come about by a Pope coming out and saying "Well actually, Leo XIII was a complete imbecile when it came to Anglican orders, every Council since Chalcedon is suspect, the Orthodox are quite right about the role of the Patriarch of Rome (sorry), there are only two sacraments (if that) and we'll be chucking every theology book written since St Augustine in the bin, apart from those by that nice Mr Luther and that even nicer Mr Calvin?"
It ain't gonna happen. If reunion ever comes about it will be a result of patient effort on both sides to resolve doctrinal differences, followed by a lot more patient effort to figure out how to work it out in practice without causing further schisms from the hawks on both sides.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
But let's not forget that being a Christian is all about loving God and one another. What divides us is insignificant compared to what unites us.
Oh, don't spoil it!
One of the best things about being a Ship's atheist is seeing how all you different versions of Christians argue endlessly about whom of you are 'lacking'. These recurring Ship of Fools Roman Catholic Niggle Threads are superb smirk fodder for we doomed.
Keep it up! You're doing a great job for Jesus!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quercus
Shipmate
# 12761
|
Posted
The most visible problem, at least to me as a humble pew-warmer, is the RC refusal of communion to non-RC Christians. I attended a RC wedding service with Eucharist, and the priest apologised that he was unable to give communion to non-Catholics, however much he wished it were otherwise. The CofE of course permits any member of a Christian church to take communion.
The discussion of doctrine and history, and whether Christians outside the RCC are part of "a church" or "The Church" are all very fine and interesting. The desire for ecumenism and unity are undoubtedly sincere. But like any outworking of faith, it's the actions, not the words, that are important, and the outcome at the moment is that non-RC members are turned away from the Lord's Table. It's not surprising that members of other denominations take from this the message that they are not really proper Christians, even though that's not the expressed reason, and official pronouncements like that in the OP will continue to generate much heat and little light.
--------------------
"I meant," said Iplsore bitterly, "what is there in this world that makes living worthwhile?"
Death thought about it. CATS, he said eventually, CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 321 | From: Up on a hill | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quercus
Shipmate
# 12761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
But let's not forget that being a Christian is all about loving God and one another. What divides us is insignificant compared to what unites us.
Oh, don't spoil it!
One of the best things about being a Ship's atheist is seeing how all you different versions of Christians argue endlessly about whom of you are 'lacking'. These recurring Ship of Fools Roman Catholic Niggle Threads are superb smirk fodder for we doomed.
And by obsessing about internal minutiae, our energy is directed inwardly and stops us going out into the world and annoying atheists going peacefully about their lives. It's a complete win-win.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"I meant," said Iplsore bitterly, "what is there in this world that makes living worthwhile?"
Death thought about it. CATS, he said eventually, CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 321 | From: Up on a hill | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Greyface
That's very good, particularly your point on possible BXVI motivations. 2 may overstate it a bit, but it definitely isn't 1.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The Episcopal Church is "in communion" with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
"In communion with" is not the same as "corporate union" or "merger".
I should, therefore, ask what "ecumenism" means (because it seems to mean different things to different people) and if it doesn't mean "corporate merger" why the Pope's latest is particularly problematic?
HT, I ditto what you said in your previous post and will take a stab at answering this one: I would say it's less about merger than about mutual recognition of orders and sacraments.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quercus:
And by obsessing about internal minutiae, our energy is directed inwardly and stops us going out into the world and annoying atheists going peacefully about their lives. It's a complete win-win.
A lovely idea!
But, however sarcastic, my point was serious. How can such inward energy direction and osession do anything to help The Cause™ of Christianity? Has it ever?
Seems to me you lot haven't learnt anything. Ho hum. I'll put the kettle on.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Actually dogwonderer, what you're observing is what happens when two billion people try to live together in a single community, however geographically widespread that might be. My observation is that the difficulty of maintaining peace in a community is an exponential function of the number of individuals therein.
You atheists have it easy. There are far fewer of you for a start, and you don't have any moral imperative flowing from that atheism to try to love one another.
To try a more in-depth answer, one person's legitimate diversity is another indispensable fundamental.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Take note, all ye Orthodox sacrament-abusers.
Snipping off the important qualification and explanation I gave makes it so much easier to insert a rhetorical wedge, right? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
How can such inward energy direction and osession do anything to help The Cause™ of Christianity? Has it ever? Seems to me you lot haven't learnt anything.
Yeah, we haven't achieved the secular serenity of politics and diplomacy yet...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yeah, we haven't achieved the secular serenity of politics and diplomacy yet...
Touche. But that's my point, really. All this factional/denominational stuff is very akin to party politics in Britain. Tediously off-putting. Counter-productive, even.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You atheists have it easy. There are far fewer of you for a start, and you don't have any moral imperative flowing from that atheism to try to love one another.
Yes- you're quite right. [BTW, that’s the sort of thing I meant in my post on that other thread on why do atheists (etc.) come to the Ship.] It's lovely to be able to sleep at night in the smug-snug comfort of knowing we atheists cannot be accused of that particular hypocrisy.
But, back to my point, why is it that these two billion Christians must insist on their interminable factional bickering? Can’t you see how awful it looks from outside? Don’t you care? Or is it that you simply cannot resist the self-indulgence, despite yourselves?
I guess there’s a Mother-in-Law effect here. You’re all stuck with each other- like it or not. You can’t just kill each other (these days). Bickering is bound to happen, I suppose.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Snipping off the important qualification and explanation I gave makes it so much easier to insert a rhetorical wedge, right?
Offensive Protestant Argument A: Catholics who venerate statues are guilty of idolatry.
Offensive Protestant Argument B: Catholics who venerate statues are guilty of idolatry, although the current generation of Catholics are largely not culpable for it. After all, God told us not to worship graven images.
Is Argument B really less offensive?
If you didn't want to accuse those who have valid orders yet are not in communion with you of abusing sacraments, you might not want to use the phrase "abuse of that sacrament" in your post.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
It's lovely to be able to sleep at night in the smug-snug comfort of knowing we atheists cannot be accused of that particular hypocrisy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
But, back to my point, why is it that these two billion Christians must insist on their interminable factional bickering?
Well, by and large I'd say we don't all that much in general.
This is a debate board. I don't go out of my way to engage other denominations in theological arguments in real life even though, like Ingo, I enjoy arguing.
quote:
]Can’t you see how awful it looks from outside? Don’t you care? Or is it that you simply cannot resist the self-indulgence, despite yourselves?
Actually to my mind this is an argument in favour of trying to resolve our differences. If the best we can do in being one Church is to go our separate ways and thumb our noses across a metaphorical or literal armed border, that's a poor witness.
Resolving differences is messy. If I'm having a stand-up row with my wife (not that I ever do that ), it doesn't mean I don't love her or value her opinion. Quite the opposite, I don't have stand-up rows with people I don't care about.
quote:
I guess there’s a Mother-in-Law effect here. You’re all stuck with each other- like it or not. You can’t just kill each other (these days). Bickering is bound to happen, I suppose.
True enough, but sometimes out of the bickering, truth and reconciliation emerges. You have to take the risk, it seems to me.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Oh, dammit. Now you're ruining my smirky smugness.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
It doesn't really suit you anyway.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
Mirrizin wrote, "So...if the Catholics are the only ones with "the gift," then what are we? Sojourners? Heretics? Lost souls? Victims of our own deception?"
With respect, correct.
No, it isn't correct at all. From Unitatis Redintegratio: quote:
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
...Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise.
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: “You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again - through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”.
It's one thing to be clear about what the Church teaches. As Unitatis Redintegratio also says, "Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded." But nowhere does it label Protestants as heretics or lost souls. Let's be clear about that as well.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Is Argument B really less offensive?
Yes it is, and that's even though you didn't get the analogy to the explanation part right.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If you didn't want to accuse those who have valid orders yet are not in communion with you of abusing sacraments, you might not want to use the phrase "abuse of that sacrament" in your post.
Except that I explained in what way this is an abuse, and in that particular way the charge could be reversed easily. So I do not say that an Orthodox priest going about his business is somehow abusing his valid orders. I'm saying that his becoming ordained itself is not the realized sign of Christian unity that it should be! And an Orthodox Christian could just as well maintain that the RCC abuses the sacrament because the priest is not ordained into unity with the Orthodox Church. (In fact, most Orthodox would simply say that he's not ordained at all because of that, as far as I understand their position. For them this is an invalidating abuse of the sacrament.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Cor ad Cor:
"It's one thing to be clear about what the Church teaches. As Unitatis Redintegratio also says, "Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded." But nowhere does it label Protestants as heretics or lost souls. Let's be clear about that as well."
Fair point. Although I don't think it has to. Mortalium Animos, using the same polite language is a bit more explicit explicit ( Encyclical).
[tinyurl.com is your friend]
[ 11. July 2007, 14:39: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
DOD said:
quote:
The thing that annoys me about this is the way people seem to think that it is only Rome which thinks other churches have got things wrong. United Methodists presumably believe that there are things which are sub-ideal about the Roman Catholic Church. Rome seems to get it in the neck for being open about its views.
But it isn't the same. United Methodists don't think the CofE isn't a "church" as such or that they are the one true fullness of whatever. Neither do I see Methodism as inferior to Anglicanism, just a different way of doing things. Which is the more "perfect" expression of the true faith isn't something that can be known this side of the hereafter. It's the claims RCism makes for itself that is the annoyance.
Duo said:
quote:
Well that's correct but that is no reason to stop trying.
Actually I think it is. If the RCC is inexorably wedded to this idea of it's own superiority then what possible value is there in continuing dialogue anyway? What possible purpose would it serve and for whose benefit? The sooner we wind ARCIC up the better.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
VPG referred to Mortalium Animos, an encyclical of Pope Pius XI promulgated in 1928.
I am glad that the Vatican no longer uses the language of this document, e.g. "...this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics".
No, as Ingo pointed out above, a lot of RC energy goes into ecumenism, and ecumenical assemblies, done in the right way, are positively encouraged.
Nor do they assert, with the Syllabus of Errors that "Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship".
Nor, any longer, do RC priests admonish Jewish converts, "Horresce judaicam perfidiam, respue hebraicam superstitionem" (Dread Jewish treachery; reject Hebrew superstition); with similar things said to Muslims, Orthodox and Protestants.
All that is gone. Doctrine and practice grow and develop. Deo gratias!
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the next pope is also going to be Catholic.
And the last one.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Meaning, the next Pope will be the final one.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
I am not sure why there is all this angst over the Catholic Church forbidding communion to non-Catholics.
(a) have you tried to take communion in an Orthodox church? Do you know what the Orthodox have to say about the Catholic Church or Protestant churches? At least have a three-way whinge, if you must whinge.
(b) there are also Protestant churches that are restrictive - or at least cautious - about admitting strangers to communion. Try taking communion in some Presbyterian churches where they hand out cards long before the day and come and visit you first.
Any church that has any kind of communion discipline is going to query believers from other denominations, especially where the doctrines differ. Perhaps this is even more likely when the particular church sees the visible church (which has to mean itself) as being in some sense "sacramental", and not just as a utilitarian means to the ends of teaching and evangelism (in which case, why not hop denominations - they are interchangeable, aren't they?).
And as for doctrinal differences, do not Protestants mostly think that Catholic practices, like asking the saints to intercede for us or prayer for the dead, are "defective"? If not, why don't Protestants do them? How would Protestants react at (say) a joint prayer meeting if a Catholic started the Rosary? If you feel that Catholics "should leave that behind" when they meet for fellowship with non-Catholics, then maybe you don't accept all their Christianity as valid. I often see "ecumenical" gatherings organised by Protestants that look just like "let's all us Catholics and Protestants meet up and be Protestants together!"
In my fellowship, at least in times past when it was more ecumenical and had both Catholics and Protestants in it, the Catholics went to mass before the fellowship met and refrained from "our" communion and "we" refrained from Catholic communion if we attended mass (or had a visiting Catholic priest say mass at our meeting). What we learned (and experienced) in this was the brokenness of the body of Christ. We saw "not taking" one another's communion as sacramental, if you like - bearing or suffering the divisions as a prayer for unity.
I think this is a better way than getting upset about "they won't let us take communion".
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Ho-hum...same old tired exclusivist history-ignoring bigoted crap. So lovable Pope Benny drops the mask and lets The Rat pop back out of his hole -- who's really surprised?
If any Christian body has the right to claim the label One True Church -- and I don't believe that to be the case -- it would be the Orthodoxen, not the RCs. Where are they in his calculations?
It seems to me that Benedict & Co. really need to get over themselves, and their severe collective case of cognitive dissonance.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I don't think Rome will ever say that Catholicism and Protestantism are equally valid. I don't think even John XXIII would have signed to that.
But it does raise up several issues that I don't think can be captured by Anglican whining that Rome wouldn't accept their episcopal succession or Roman triumphalism. What exactly is that unites us if we do aim for the eventual merging of churches? The Creeds? The Scriptures?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Ingo, I apologise for my prickly post. Your turn of phrase got under my skin.
To me, the word abuse carries unpleasant implications of deliberate intent to use something in the way it was not intended for nefarious reasons. Seen in that light, not only are Orthodox bishops not culpable in your terms but I'd argue they're guilty of misuse rather than abuse.
I think this is probably what you're saying anyway?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petrified:
Why do we have to have ecumenism = reunion, if I have learned one thing on the Ship it is that reunion isn't going to happen soon or ever.
As a Baptist, I'm not interested in any institutional "reunion" (whereby either one side wins or both are replaced by some central compromise authority), but rather some sort of "reconciliation" whereby the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations agree to treat each other "like two Baptist churches treat each other", which in my view operates on three levels:
1) acknowledgement of the others' right to exist,
2) cessation of the statements designed to force the other under your control,
3) occasionally cooperating in joint endeavors
(and a fourth would be: 4) agreeing to play each other in recreational softball and basketball leagues..) :-)
To summarize, some sort of agreement that the "real enemy" is not each other.
If the Pope has his panties in a wad over the fact that there are professed followers of Christ out there that don't practice the "sacraments" that "proper churches" do, that's a shame, (and I'm not saying that this traditional view is unworthy of dialogue and should be dismissed outright).
But unless he's interested in picking another full-scale 16th-century skirmish, he needs to realize that the world has changed, and in light of inter-Christian squabbling, secular forces have taken over, and at this time the Kingdom is better served by general cooperation within the body of Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Petrified:
What always puzzles me is why non RCs care what the Pope thinks. I have been told I am not a Christian and will burn in hell - am I bovvered?
Because when the Pope pulls stunts like this, it's the non-Christians who win.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I don't want to be a Roman Catholic. If I did, I would go and become one (I understand they are very welcoming to newcomers). If my church corporately merged with the Roman Catholic church, I would leave. After all
Yes - I can vouch for that, the Catholic Church are lovely to newcomers! And if you ever change your mind, give me a shout!
Max
It's true - they love newcomers. It's the born-and-bred who then develop a mind of their own and find that the authority the priests and bishops wish to impose on matters that ought not to concern irrelevant that they hate and detest.
I find myself torn between a nostaligia for liturgy and practice and all of the good things that are born of catholicism that I love and the utter, cynical, power demanding, careerism of the clergy, especially bishops, that sicken me to the core.
I had hopes for this pope, but it seems he is just like the rest. A hypocrite, a careerist, aloof, ignorant, and as far from God as it is humanly possible to be. It would be far more honest if these men in cassocks ran for political office on the "I want to f*ck you over in the name of good" ticket than to try and maintain the pretence that their careers are managed by the will of the Holy Spirit. Machiavellian bunch of sh*ts that they are - to a man.
Oh, and before I am denounced as an "outsider" with no right to comment on the workings of the Curia I was baptised and confirmed RC.
Please people, don't defend the indefensible it just insults my intelligence.
Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"A hypocrite, a careerist, aloof, ignorant, and as far from God as it is humanly possible to be."
I think that is completely unfounded and an utterly unfair analysis of the current Pope.
I suggest reading his work.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I never cease to be amazed at the way in which so many flap around and squawk when the Pope issues a statement indicating a Catholic understanding of the Catholic Church. I don't care whether the Pope thinks my best shot at salvation is inside the RCC - if he didn't, he'd be a pretty namby-pamby evangelist for his church.
I'm with HT. If I thought he was right, I'd join the R.C. and I'm sure they'd have me. It's just a short walk across the neighborhood, too. If my church suddenly merged with the R.C.C., I'd have to think about leaving, because I'm not an R.C.
I tend to think IngoB is right that this sort of thing is more directed internally, even though the Vatican would not be surprised at the reaction of other Christian groups. I don't really see why it would surprise anyone, though.
Up next: "Luxembourg is small".
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Meaning, the next Pope will be the final one.
I'm afraid to ask how you know this ... do you have inside info about the End Times?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petrified
Ship’s ballast
# 10667
|
Posted
There are those who interpret Nostradamus to say the next will be the last.
--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"
Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
From what I have read from Orthodox participants in these discussions, the Roman Catholics have come to the ecumenical dialogue with sincerety and they have been very generous in all things.
Judging from the posts in this thread, the goals of ecumenical dialogue are not that clear... I don't know. We don't seem to have the same expectations from it. There are other issues as well. Take the discussions between the Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonians for example. They reached into agreement on Christology, and yet the people is not being educated/informed and the discussion doesn't seem to lead to a union... this leads to all sorts of questions... I really don't know...
By the way, Laura, read this.
[ 11. July 2007, 15:01: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
Here is a most measured and helpful contribution to this debate.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I don't want to be a Roman Catholic. If I did, I would go and become one (I understand they are very welcoming to newcomers). If my church corporately merged with the Roman Catholic church, I would leave. After all
Yes - I can vouch for that, the Catholic Church are lovely to newcomers! And if you ever change your mind, give me a shout!
Max
It's true - they love newcomers. It's the born-and-bred who then develop a mind of their own and find that the authority the priests and bishops wish to impose on matters that ought not to concern irrelevant that they hate and detest.
I find myself torn between a nostaligia for liturgy and practice and all of the good things that are born of catholicism that I love and the utter, cynical, power demanding, careerism of the clergy, especially bishops, that sicken me to the core.
I had hopes for this pope, but it seems he is just like the rest. A hypocrite, a careerist, aloof, ignorant, and as far from God as it is humanly possible to be. It would be far more honest if these men in cassocks ran for political office on the "I want to f*ck you over in the name of good" ticket than to try and maintain the pretence that their careers are managed by the will of the Holy Spirit. Machiavellian bunch of sh*ts that they are - to a man.
Oh, and before I am denounced as an "outsider" with no right to comment on the workings of the Curia I was baptised and confirmed RC.
Please people, don't defend the indefensible it just insults my intelligence.
Dear recidite_plebians
Obviously your experience of the Catholic Church is very different to mine and to the experience of a lot of fellow Catholics. I've always found that the Catholic Church actually allows me to exercise and question the Church in a whole new way that I wasn't able to before I was a Catholic, in fact I've found myself developing my mind and my faith a lot further than before, I know that the Catholic Church celebrates this also!
Pope Benedict isn't that bad and just like Vesture Jester Posture I'm going to urge you to read some of his stuff, he's very close.
I would say though that I think he has managed to find himself in Bad press possibly because of they way he phrases stuff and emphasises traditional teaching. He just doesn't have the same media knack that John Paul II had!
If you still have issues with Benedict after doing some reading, I suggest you take it to hell!
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Very, very interesting stuff:
here
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petrified:
What always puzzles me is why non RCs care what the Pope thinks. I have been told I am not a Christian and will burn in hell - am I bovvered?
For reunion someone will have to give up strongly held beliefs and that isn't going to happen, nor in my view should it. So lets just agree to differ and get on with working on those areas where progress is possible.
Exactly. The Pope's pronouncement rouses the same amount of indifference in me as would a similar pronouncement upon my faith by the Dalai Lama or some mullah's fatwa. Though I doubt His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, would ever be so arrogant as to pronounce other faiths invalid or even other Buddhist practices as "not Buddhist".
Which is why I regard the Dalai Lama as a holy man, and the Pope, well, not so much.
LAFF
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
I'd be veerrry surprised if Mudfrog got his prediction about the next Pope from our friend Nostradamus!!
[Sings:
'Three leagues from the gates of Rome
A Pope named Paul is doomed to die
A great Wall that divides a city
At that time is cast aside
I am the Eyes of Nostradamus
All your ways are known ..to me'!]
--------------------
'Angels and demons dancing in my head,
Lunatics and monsters underneath my bed' ('Totem', Rush)
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Meh - if the next Pope is Peter II then I'm gonna set up a really big schism which will take 50% of the church's population and I'll declare myself pope!
(Well, if you've got nothing to lose... )
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I don't want to be a Roman Catholic. If I did, I would go and become one (I understand they are very welcoming to newcomers). If my church corporately merged with the Roman Catholic church, I would leave. After all
Yes - I can vouch for that, the Catholic Church are lovely to newcomers! And if you ever change your mind, give me a shout!
Max
It's true - they love newcomers. It's the born-and-bred who then develop a mind of their own and find that the authority the priests and bishops wish to impose on matters that ought not to concern irrelevant that they hate and detest.
I find myself torn between a nostaligia for liturgy and practice and all of the good things that are born of catholicism that I love and the utter, cynical, power demanding, careerism of the clergy, especially bishops, that sicken me to the core.
I had hopes for this pope, but it seems he is just like the rest. A hypocrite, a careerist, aloof, ignorant, and as far from God as it is humanly possible to be. It would be far more honest if these men in cassocks ran for political office on the "I want to f*ck you over in the name of good" ticket than to try and maintain the pretence that their careers are managed by the will of the Holy Spirit. Machiavellian bunch of sh*ts that they are - to a man.
Oh, and before I am denounced as an "outsider" with no right to comment on the workings of the Curia I was baptised and confirmed RC.
Please people, don't defend the indefensible it just insults my intelligence.
Yes and no. I have a certain sympathy and agreement with your post as an ex-cradle Catholic myself up to the word "utter" in your second paragraph.
I have two uncles who are Catholic priests and have known and still know many others plus a couple of bishops; none of them are as you describe.
That said I confess to being deeply uncomfortable with how documents such as Lumen Gentium and the Catechism describe the likes of you and me...
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
So while the Pope did not officially declare the Protestants to be "unsaved", he would make such a declaration if he could get away with it (i.e. he believes it, even though he's not allowed to say it)?
This would be the very same man who as Cardinal Ratzinger pushed through the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Lutheran World Federation against considerable resistance in the Catholic Church? It helps to actually read the documents, instead of relying on reporters fabricating news:
Isn't this another example of the general policy of obfuscation by the Pope/Magisterium which, as mentioned above, re "subsists in", provides many happy hours of analysis for those who take such things seriously?
(The Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification by Robert Sungenis)
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Meh - if the next Pope is Peter II then I'm gonna set up a really big schism which will take 50% of the church's population and I'll declare myself pope!
When I first heard of that prophesy, I imagined that the list ends there because the Orthodox and the Catholic Church would come into a union. Of course, this could be a valid hypothesis were the prophesies real... Thankfully, our generation will live to find that out
[ 11. July 2007, 15:19: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
