|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Allow me to speak as someone whose priests looks eastwards, prays in ancient Greek, and says some prayers in secret.
<pedantry> Liturgical Greek not ancient Greek as in Attic. Nor is it the koine of the New Testament. It's mediæval Greek. </pedantry>
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
See for us, the Church means the Catholic Church. All of Orthodoxy is a church that would be the Church, except for a disagreement over the role and office of the Pope - and from my perspective it's a small difference too. (Let's say I remain hopeful.)
Duo, you've said this a couple of times now. It can't be the case that Church means the Catholic Church in this kind of Catholic writing, because in these things the Orthodox are referred to as Church(es). So it's something a little different from what you're suggesting - it's that these Catholic writings are defining Church as an ecclesial community that also has valid orders and the proper understanding of the Eucharist and so on.
Now, being a technically minded sort, as I said earlier I don't get upset at being told I'm in an EC and not a Church because I know what's meant by it, but I have to say that I've grown more uneasy about this as the thread's gone on. Even ignoring the deranged barking from the usual quarters it's plain that the use of this terminology is causing pain to a lot of people in impaired communion with Rome, and frankly I don't see why it's necessary. If the Pope feels it's important to point out that in Catholic terms the Protestant churches lack valid orders and a proper understanding of the Eucharist then he should say so without using a form of words that implies in the minds of many listeners that we're play-acting at being Christians.
I don't really understand what's going on. If I had nothing else to go on but these kind of statements I'd assume that the current Pope was either a) a bit stupid, b) radically anti-ecumenical or c) politically inept. Fr Ratzinger's record as a theologian makes a) frankly ludicrous, b) seems highly unlikely given the Joint Declaration and so I provisionally conclude c) is the truth. Is there a d)?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Recidite is a plural imperative. It means "Fall away!" or "Lapse!" or "Come to naught!"
Plebians isn't Latin, as far as I know. Maybe it's supposed to be English. "Fall away, rabble!"
RP, my struggle with your post is simply that I don't know any Catholics who have been so violently suppressed as you describe.
It comes from the pig-Latin phrase recidite plebians gero rem imprialem, or "go away plebians I am on imperial business". As it is pig Latin and your Latin is probably better than mine there would be little point in pulling the grammatical structure of the phrase to bits - I need a username, it was a quick think that did the job, nothing more intellectual than that and no hidden meaning intended on my part.
The reason why you don't know so many people that the RCC has been shitty to is that we don't tend to hang around the pews at the end of mass to try and convince people that we have had shitty treatment. In fact we don't usually go anywhere near church any more because we don't usually seek to put ourselves in a position where we can be shittily treated on a ritualistic basis.
Allow me to explain. Imagine you have served the church for years, been as faithful a practitioner as you can, been an active member of your parish. Then your marriage breaks down. You aren't entirely free of all guilt, but the majority of the reason is that your former wife got bored and buggered off with someone else because she wanted more fun out of life than than the marriage would provide. Then your parish priest asks you not to serve mass any more, or be so active in the various things in the parish because people talk and it would likely bring scandal on the church. You find that you are no longer asked to assist the parish in any way, the parish priest barely acknowledges you after mass, won't return your calls or talk to you or counsel you other than to insist you seek an annulment. You suddenly find yourself in an akward position of being a 1-dimentional problem for the parish.
You move away, stop going to church, then try and go back a little while after somewhere else. By this time you have met someone else, settled down again, had a family. You want to have your children baptised, only the priest is uncomfortable with this. You get lectured about how you should have done the right thing and sought an annulment before getting re-married. Your request for a baptism is treated like as if you are asking the priest to poke shit with a stick. He won't let the baptism happen during mass, or on Sunday, and he would prefer it to be a "quiet affair" with no more than immediate family and no friends, and preferably early in the morning, so as not to draw attention to the "scandal". He insists you should start coming back to mass if he is to baptise your child, but only the very early morning one on sunday when there are only 10 or so people there. he would prefer if you sat at the back and saw him afterwards for a blessing rather than come to the front during communion so as not to draw attention to yourself.
By contrast you see people who never go near church except for baptisms, weddings, and funerals, getting the ful "kids baptised on Sunday during the main mass" 4-star treatment. You know neither they nor their kids will step foot inside that church again until the first communion 7 years later, that your child will be advised to "have seperately so as not to draw attention to the fact that mummy and daddy weren't married with the church's blessing".
This kind of "supression" isn't violent. That is why you don't notice it. It is invisible, certainly to those to whom it will never happen. The other aspect to it is that the "catholic mentality" is to go into denial when confronted by people recounting their stories. I had an argument with a bishop on the phone a few weeks ago that got quite heated (subject for another day). The issue surrounded me asserting my rights under the Data Protection Act, which he demanded I drop. He attempted to remind me of his "authority", and as I pointed out to him his authrotiy only stood with those catholics who chose to accept it and the vast majority of people baptised in the catholic faith exercised their right to reject episcopal authority either by lapsing in the practice of their faith or by ignoring moral teachings such as contraception. He called me a liar and told me I didn't know what I was talking about.
If you don't think that this is "abuse" of one form or another, imagine what it would be like to grow up in a community and then find yourself gradually being ostracised by it. You just get writen out of the equation altogether and in the eyes and mind of the church simply cease to exist or at best are treated as an akward parasite that would be better for all if you were to just dissapear.
So like I say, it's easy to say we don't exist when you aren't confronted with it, but you won't be confronted with us because you will rarely get the opportunity to hear first hand our accounts of our treatment at the hands of the church we were told loved and cared for us no matter what, only to find that not to be quite the case. We exist, and we exist, quite lierally, in our hundreds of thousands all over the world.
quote:
[/qb] Catholicism, he said, is reasonably strict about the letter of the law. But it is surprisingly loose about who can belong. The strict definition of a "good Catholic" can be known -- you read the Catechism or the posts of some of our more conservative brethren. But you can go some distance from this and still be Catholic, and still be accepted by the Church. [/QB]
Actually, no.
It is strict about the law because without it, it has no power. Vatican 2 was supposed to "throw open the windows" and re-establish the simplicity of the early church. The only thing off the table for discussion was papal authority. Funny that! With papal authority comes curial authority. Diocesan authority, Diocesan curial authority. With all of those bureaucratic mechanisms come "jobs for the boys", power, influence, even if it is only over your own layer of bureaucracy. The on thing that both liberal and conservative wings of the RCC agree on is that they want power, they just disagree about who should have it. The best way to keep the body of the church from asking itself the relevant question about how the church should govern itself is to divert the argument elsewhere. They did this over liturgical reform. Every so often the left and right get a new hobby horse, but in the background, unseen by the church-going faithful, are the political battles. It is a simplistic argument, but one that if I were to go into it would be compelling.
But back to the argument about law and latitude. There is a law, there is no latitude. The starting point for anyone wishing to be considered "catholic" is the acceptance of authority, even just that of the "humble" (sic) priest. I have come accross many who just make it up as they go along. If you were to ask 10 priests for their interpretation of the canon regarding infant baptism you would likely get 15 different answers as to whether it must be done in the first 4 weeks before the parents are in a state of mortal sin, or whether it should be done as soon as is practical, given the arrangements that might need to be made, family wishing to be there to celebrate the event etc. What it all boils down to is some guy in a dog collar telling you should do what he thinks, even if that is quite a loose interpretation of what the church thinks. But he calls the shots. And he gets to decide if you are a "good catholic" or not, not you.
Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Look the key here is to understand what the Catholic Church means when it uses the term "Church" [/QB]
Do you remember Pres. Clinton? A young girl named Monica Lewinsky gave him oral sex outside the Oval Office and he ejaculated all over her dress. He denied having "sexual relations" with "that women".
He was deposed and prosecuted and it was found that, contrary to what he had said, that he had received a blow job from Monica Lewinsky and then lied about it. His defence was then to go on to argue the semantics about "it depends on what the definition of "is" is".
Let's not try and defend what is a bold-as-brass statement denying that every other gathering or community of faith that does not accept the authority of the pope or his bishops is actually a church. That is what he said and that is what he meant. Agree with me, accept my authority, or you are not a "church". The next implication is that while he does not speak for God in denying that every other congregation is not a church, but he does speak for the church, which is God's instrument on earth.
Let's not get into trying to say that the message means one thing to Catholics, but ought to mean something less defined to non-catholics by using the "it depends on what the definition of "church" is" argument. It made Clinton look like a duplicitous, hypocritical, lying little shit, it does the same for the catholic church. The fact that the Matthew's gospel doesn't quite support the popes assault and siezure of the spiritual high ground not withstanding, it just demonstrates that the catholic church is not about love and understanding (Ubi Caritas, but only for us thanks) but about power.
Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Don't be silly IngoB. If you read back what you wrote you'd know perfectly well that you don't believe it to be true. Your emphasis on the word "the" says that it the only one that counts, and that's not what you meant. Just as you know perfetly well that flags and anthems are not "the" symbols of national unity by a long shot.
Yes, it's more like land, citizenship and parliament, as I've written, just that it is a symbol like flag and anthem, too. No ken, I quite mean what I say. If there were no apostolic succession in communion with the successor of St Peter, there would be no Church proper, there would not be a "Christianity", and hence there could not be a unity thereof. The principle structure of the RCC is precisely what the Lord Himself set up for His followers to be part of in their earthly pilgrimage. No substitute for it in Christian life is available till the very end of time.
The only difficulty here is to understand that this does not mean that non-RCs are not Christians or that the RCC is all Divine. It does not even mean that non-RCs have nothing to contribute to Christianity beyond what RCs have at the time. This is just what got clarified in Vatican II and re-stated in this document. The crucial concept being used here is that of substance, as in the statement that Christ's Church subsists in the RCC. That's the true stumbling block here, because we moderns simply do not think in terms of the "substance" of a thing. See hatless' questions on this thread.
I think the best way of explaining this is to be more concrete and less philosophical, and focus on the Church as Christ's Body. Well, Christ had a really bad car crash. He's now lying in the emergency room. He has a paralyzed leg (the Orthodox), because the nerve bundles connecting it to the spinal cord (pope) have been severed. Which is tragic, because otherwise that leg is in good shape - no broken bones or such (valid sacraments). He has some badly bruised internal organs, which are malfunctioning (heretics and the lukewarm). Then there's the arm, which is smashed - the nerves are sort of working, but the bones are broken and the tendons torn (perhaps Anglo-Caths). On the other arm, the hand has been torn off (Protestants). It has been found at the site of the accident though, and is packed in ice - it's still "alive" and perhaps a skilled surgeon can yet reattach it.
That's Christ then in the ER. Now, in one sense all of that is Christ, including the severed hand. And so all the properly baptized are Christians. However, if you asked "Where is Christ?" then you would mentally narrow the scope, you would (perhaps unconsciously) think of His substance. You would not point to the severed hand and say "There He is." And say Christ lost not only that hand, but also the smashed arm and the paralyzed leg would have to be amputated. You would still point to that mutilated figure on the bed as answer to the question, with tremendous sadness about what had happened to Him. For that still would be Christ in substance, although a much reduced Christ. It is quite clear that for Christ to be as He should, that hand should be reattached, the nerves in the leg should be healed, the arm should mend, and the internal organs should be cured. All of these parts have an important function for the healthy organism of Christ, in His proper state of bodily unity. However, if all that was left on the bed would be the severed hand and the amputated leg and arm, you would not say "There is Christ." These truly are parts of Christ, even living ones for a while, but Christ does not subsist in them.
We only know that Christ's Body will survive on earth, not in what state it will do so. That we should strive for Christian unity simply means that we should not let Christ become a sick, weak cripple on earth. Even for those who invariably will find the above offensive, this conclusion should stand.
It has perhaps escaped attention here that the Catholic Church in this document has also declared herself to in fact not be properly Catholic (=universal) in a sense:
quote:
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.
That is to say, it is not enough that there are plenty of Catholics everywhere, the other Christians can not simply be dismissed as irrelevant. The Catholic Church here admits that she is in fact only a cripple, she cannot ever be whole without all those other Christians. Her "hand" is indeed severed, and that matters since she can't regrow another one. The non-RCs are not like shed hair or fingernail clippings. Christ is in the ER, and when RC recite the creed and talk about the Catholic Church, then in one important sense they are not talking about the Church they belong to now, but likely only about what shall be in heaven.
--------------------
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
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
RP, it certainly sounds like you have run up against some shitty, or at least extremely mediocre, priests. Perhaps more than the usual quota (certainly more than I've run up against). I'm just not sure how to avoid having shitty priests (or deacons or bishops), since we are forced to employ human beings. I'm also not sure how to have the Church possess any discernible identity without rules and some subset of the Church that is given the role of enforcing those rules. But this stil leaves us with the problem of the fallout of the inadequacies of the clergy, which can sometimes be considerable.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
This is a pretty counterintuitive idea. It seems natural to think that the way we are saved by the Church is by belonging to it, but I can see the possibility that we are saved by the right church even though we belong to the wrong one.
Indeed. Although I disagree about it being counterintuitive. Every Mass includes in its intercessory work, in the words of Roman Eucharistic Prayer IV, 'all those who seek [God] with a sincere heart.' Once one believes that salvation is always 'our' salvation, and never just 'my' salvation, our intuitions change.
[ 12. July 2007, 12:42: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Preca
Apprentice
# 12709
|
Posted
"Well, if they accept the authority of the Pope to that extent, they should go directly to Rome and get it over with."
It's what many will be doing as I see little or no authority in the Anglican Church and the only hope for the future being those Traditional African Bishops.
Maybe the mooted "home" for Anglicans to be in communion with the RCC is just around the corner and that this ecumanical talking shop will soon cease,as the Anglican Church has just done about everything in its power to put a spoke in it...Women clergy,gay priest/bishops and acceptance that gay clergy can marry and openly ignore the rules laid down rules by the Church.#
There is contempt from those in the Church from those who only seek to further their own causes and it's not surprising to see it being torn apart.
Hearbreaking and sad that this once great spiritual rock is now no longer unable to meet the spiritual needs of this great country.
Posts: 41 | From: North of England | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I wonder if Trisagion is looking at this thread? I think the term Ecclesial Community is new (e.g. I dont find it in Lumum Gentium). It looks like the hermeneutical imperative of continuity may require this kind of invention in the new document. The CDF document clearly cannot say "Church" or "churches" so it has to use a different descriptor for those communities where "the elements of sanctification and truth are present".
While I can see why some folks find this demeaning, or patronising, or condescending, it occurs to me that the meaning is very open. There is a lot of negotiating room in the term. It acknowledges both assembly and the element of mystery (the document does not say "ecclesiatical").
If the document had used some equivalent term like assemblies, or gatherings, for example, there are a whole load of nonconformists who would have said "yeah, right, that's exactly what we belong to". We are the church and we go to chapel. And we see the church at the congregational level is an assembly, or gathering, of Christians.
So there may be rather more scope for movement ("wriggle room" if you like) because of the use of this term. Or I may be just being hopeful. But I'd like to hear from one of the Catholic shipmates whether or not I'm just shooting the breeze.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
our Roman brethren, [...] divide the world into The Church and mere-schmeer-ptui "ecclesial communities." That, to me, is a token of their basic insecurity, that they have to bolster their own status by trying to dismiss others.
It seems to me that the fundamental difference of opinion is on the question of whether the Church can, as a matter of principle, actually be divided. A Protestant (Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans being "Protestant" for this purpose) view would be that as a matter of empirical fact, the Church can be and is divided into parts not in communion with one another. A Catholic (the Orthodox being "Catholic" for this purpose) view would be that the Church is as a matter of faith a visible unity, and cannot by definition be anything else.
Given that the Catholics think that, of all the denominations, one of them really will have the fullness of faith, and none of the others will be quite there, it's natural enough that they have chosen to join, or remain in, the Church that they best judge to be the one that Jesus started. The view that the rest of us aren't "Church" in the full sense isn't derogatory per se, it is an inevitable result of thinking (firstly) there is a True Church on earth at all; and (secondly) that this True Church is a visible denomination that cannot be in schism with itself.
The CCC is pretty clear that membership of another church in good faith is not sin, and that Christians in other churches are in some sense united to the True Church and can be saved.
I'm a Protestant because I think the Catholic view is wrong. I think the fact that Jesus prayed for the unity of his Church presupposes that the thing prayed against - its disunity - is at least a conceptual possibility. As I have no a priori reason to suppose that the Church must of necessity be united, I have no problem thinking that Pope Benedict is fully a part of the True Church, just as he says he is, and that I am as well.
My problem with the RCC position is not that it doesn't think the CofE is the True Church. It is that I think we are called to unity, and that the RCC requires too much of Christians before admitting them to unity with itself. There might have been a time when it was reasonable, or even necessary, to require (for example) confession to a priest, or belief in the real Presence as a discipline or doctrine for all Christians, but the situation now, when the consensus has for better or worse been lost, does not in my view justify making these things (about which a Christian may legitimately have doubts) a barrier to unity (about the call to which, IMHO, we have been given no room for doubt).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Preca, I think you will find that many of the supposedly 'traditional' Anglican bishops, African and otherwise, have a myriad of problems with Rome - as would Rome with them. Conservative protestantism, as a form of thought, grew up in opposition to Roman Catholicism. Just because some evangelical bishops agree with Rome on some issues (albeit that their reasons for their stances on those issues is often very different from Rome's), it doesn't mean that unity is around the corner.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
RP, I agree with FCB. What a horrid priest. Those rather frightening sayings of the Lord about the millstone round the neck come to mind. He may have a lot to answer for one of these days.
The Church (mostly the clergy, but I include many laypeople here) is a hierarchy. That enables it to do all sorts of things that less tightly structured organisations can't. But it makes it vulnerable to abuses, especially those involving power. My experience has been that there are correcting mechanisms in place, especially after Vatican II and after the sex abuse scandals, to balance that. Your experience suggests that there is still a long way to go. I can understand that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the best way of explaining this is to be more concrete and less philosophical, and focus on the Church as Christ's Body. Well, Christ had a really bad car crash. He's now lying in the emergency room. He has a paralyzed leg (the Orthodox), because the nerve bundles connecting it to the spinal cord (pope) have been severed. Which is tragic, because otherwise that leg is in good shape - no broken bones or such (valid sacraments). He has some badly bruised internal organs, which are malfunctioning (heretics and the lukewarm). Then there's the arm, which is smashed - the nerves are sort of working, but the bones are broken and the tendons torn (perhaps Anglo-Caths). On the other arm, the hand has been torn off (Protestants). It has been found at the site of the accident though, and is packed in ice - it's still "alive" and perhaps a skilled surgeon can yet reattach it.
That's Christ then in the ER. Now, in one sense all of that is Christ, including the severed hand. And so all the properly baptized are Christians. However, if you asked "Where is Christ?" then you would mentally narrow the scope, you would (perhaps unconsciously) think of His substance. You would not point to the severed hand and say "There He is." And say Christ lost not only that hand, but also the smashed arm and the paralyzed leg would have to be amputated. You would still point to that mutilated figure on the bed as answer to the question, with tremendous sadness about what had happened to Him. For that still would be Christ in substance, although a much reduced Christ. It is quite clear that for Christ to be as He should, that hand should be reattached, the nerves in the leg should be healed, the arm should mend, and the internal organs should be cured. All of these parts have an important function for the healthy organism of Christ, in His proper state of bodily unity. However, if all that was left on the bed would be the severed hand and the amputated leg and arm, you would not say "There is Christ." These truly are parts of Christ, even living ones for a while, but Christ does not subsist in them.
IngoB,
While I think there's much potential for misunderstanding (and even offence) in that, I do think I get it, and, well, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Where I differ is that in terms of your analogy, it is conceptually and practically impossible to divide a single living human body into two, and retain fullness of life in both. I don't think it is conceptually impossible so to divide the Church.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
This page might be of interest. It's a record of ecumenical activity -- speeches, conferences, letters, papal audiences that spoke of ecumenism, and the like. Much of this can be retrieved from the Vatican website, if you can make its rather clumsy search engine work.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
In my view, the New Testament meaning of salvation is very specific and it has to do with the regeneration and conscious and constant experience of God in one's heart. In this sense, and in this sense only, I think that the ancients were very right in saying that there is no salvation outside the church. For me, the ancient way that leads to that salvation has been kept inside the Orthodox Church, and even there, it is nowadays hard for a seeker to find.
However, the Catholic Church does not see salvation in these terms. I get the feeling that they are trying hard to overcome a contradiction. On the one hand they have the very strict and clear ancient "outside of the church there is no salvation", and on the other hand they have the monumental opening towards the non-Caholics achieved in Vatican 2. In my view, since the current Pope is Benedict, he doesn't feel that comfortable with Vatican 2 and he tries to make a compromise leaning towards a more conservative approach.
Note that we are talking about compromises here... Whether the compromise has a conservative leaning or a more liberal leaning is another issue.
Now, new terminology is being used, like "ecclesiastical communities". In my view, this is a silly use of the language. If these communities are ecclesiastical, they are churches. So, when one uses that phrase, as far as I can see, one is either trying to say "politely" that these communities are not Church, or one tries to express a more "nuanced" opinion, that although they are not part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, they are Christian and they are in relation to God and they can get saved but the grace (in a mysterious and undefined way) is not as full as it is in the Church.
I also think that saying other churches are saved through the Roman Catholic Church is very patronizing.
Moreover, I am very touched with what recidite_plebians, and I do think that the institutions developed in the Catholic Church and their relation to power is very problematic from a Christian point of view. Take the ecumenical Patriarch for example. He has no right whatsoever in moving a priest in Thessaloniki. Or the Archbishop of Athens. He cannot move a priest in the nearby city of Megara. He cannot even visit a church in Megara, unless the bishop of Megara gives him his permission. That's very democratic, and in my view it is in accordance with the Spirit of Christ. Unlike the power the Popes got to themselves.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the term Ecclesial Community is new (e.g. I dont find it in Lumum Gentium).
Barnabas, I think it's there in §15 of Lumen Gentium -- in English, "ecclesiastical communities"; in Latin communitates ecclesiastica.
[ 12. July 2007, 13:21: Message edited by: cor ad cor loquitur ]
--------------------
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
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Where I differ is that in terms of your analogy, it is conceptually and practically impossible to divide a single living human body into two, and retain fullness of life in both. I don't think it is conceptually impossible so to divide the Church.
Perhaps the different here is the tendency of Catholics to think of the Church in terms of the corpus mysticum Christi and of Protestants to think of it as a congregatio fidelium (I'm not sure how to characterize the Orthodox view -- perhaps "temple of the Spirit"?). One can imagine dividing a group of people in ways that one could not imagine dividing a living body. Of course this is a matter of emphasis rather than an absolute distinction; Protestants certainly believe the Church to be Christ's body and Catholics see it as the assembly of the faithful. But I would venture that the Catholic view of the Church tends to be a more "organic" one that makes it very difficult to imagine how the Church could be divided in such a way that all of the divided parts would have an equal claim to be the Church.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
The Church is the Body of Christ, comprising all those incorporated in Christ by baptism.
The Church is the visible organic community of the faithful.
The Church is the People of God hierarchically assembled.
The Church is the sum total of all Christians.
The Church is the sum total of all that Christians believe and teach (as in "The Church teaches....." )
The Church is that community founded, established and sent by Jesus Christ, under the Apostles, the Bishops being their successors.
The Church in its basic unit is a local manifestation of the whole, gathered around a bishop, normally called a Diocese.
Church is a word we sometimes use to describe a denomination (as in Methodist Church).
A church is a building in which Christians meet for worship.
A particular Church is a component of the Universal Church in a specific locale, or using a particular historical rite.
etc etc. "Church" can mean a whole host of things, depending on context and the subject under discussion.
The Catholic Church makes use of all these terms. The Catholic Church comprises a wide range of particular Churches, from dioceses in the Latin Rite to ancient particular rite churches. It relates to all other bodies of Christians, and to each according to their own history and doctrine. They are not all simply lumped together as "those others over there".
How it relates to each Church depends on the self-identification and historical development of that Church. Relating to the Orthodox entails a different approach from relating to Southern Baptists.
The CDF document is making clear that each of our ecumenical partners must be related to according to realities, not wishful or woolly thinking.
The ones who are always most upset are Anglicans who place themselves within a Catholic spectrum, because the Catholic Church does not acknowledge them as a particular Church in the Catholic sense. Of course most of their fellow Anglicans do not understand themselves in this way either, but that does not deter them from making their claims to be part of "the Church Catholic" or a "branch of the Catholic Church" and so on. Frankly, this is your issue, and it won't change just because you shout louder and lose your temper everytime this matter is discussed.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Where I differ is that in terms of your analogy, it is conceptually and practically impossible to divide a single living human body into two, and retain fullness of life in both. I don't think it is conceptually impossible so to divide the Church.
Exactly. That, and not who is "the" Church, is the most crucial question. Precisely for this reason RCs and Orthodox are closer to each other in ecclesial matters than RCs and Protestants are - even though in fact both RCs and Orthodox claim to be "the" Church, whereas Protestants generally don't. RCs and Orthodox may be in disagreement who is the "substantial" Christ and who is the "paralyzed leg", but they do agree that there can only be one "substantial" Christ and that the "paralyzed leg" must be healed. In some sense then this difference does not matter, as long as one gets a "substantial" Christ with a "healthy leg" again! With Protestants you rather get "we are all fine living as separate parts", which to RC (and Orthodox...) ears sounds as crazy as a freshly quartered man declaring that he is having a good time...
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
RCs and Orthodox may be in disagreement who is the "substantial" Christ and who is the "paralyzed leg"
This is very arrogant.... Like what a Catholic once said to me about how he understand "two lungs" theory: "yes, there are two lungs, but one has cancer". If this is "ecumenism" then I will pass.
None of the Orthodox I have ever spoken to or I have heard speaking or I have read suggested such a dreadful thing. I would like to say in the most emphatic way that I do not see the Catholic Church as a "paralyzed leg" or anything like that and never had that kind of thought crossed my mind.
[ 12. July 2007, 13:35: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I do think that the institutions developed in the Catholic Church and their relation to power is very problematic from a Christian point of view. Take the ecumenical Patriarch for example. He has no right whatsoever in moving a priest in Thessaloniki. Or the Archbishop of Athens. He cannot move a priest in the nearby city of Megara. He cannot even visit a church in Megara, unless the bishop of Megara gives him his permission. That's very democratic, and in my view it is in accordance with the Spirit of Christ. Unlike the power the Popes got to themselves.
I am not sure of the geography, but I presume you are talking about priests in different dioceses. There is precisely no difference in the Catholic Church. The Pope will not suddenly intervene and tell my Bishop to make me parish priest of St Alban's. Neither can the Archbishop of Southwark intervene in this diocese, or my bishop, the Cardinal, intervene in his. Indeed, should the Cardinal be invited to celebrate Mass in the Archdiocese of Southwark, he would need to ask the Archbishop of Southwark for permission to enter his diocese. How does this differ from Orthodox practice and show some sort of "lust for power" in the Catholic Church?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
andreas1984, did you read Eliab's and my posts above of which this was a continuation?
If you disagree in the terms of my analogy explained before the post you commented on, then I would like to hear how you see the RCC in those same terms. From what I've read from you about the RCC, I would have thought that "paralyzed leg" would be a quite appropriate analogy for your position...
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
RCs and Orthodox may be in disagreement who is the "substantial" Christ and who is the "paralyzed leg"
This is very arrogant.... Like what a Catholic once said to me about how he understand "two lungs" theory: "yes, there are two lungs, but one has cancer". If this is "ecumenism" then I will pass.
None of the Orthodox I have ever spoken to or I have heard speaking or I have read suggested such a dreadful thing. I would like to say in the most emphatic way that I do not see the Catholic Church as a "paralyzed leg" or anything like that and never had that kind of thought crossed my mind.
Rather, from what you have told me, the Orthodox don't think the Catholic Church is even a leg at all.......
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quercus
Shipmate
# 12761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The ones who are always most upset are Anglicans who place themselves within a Catholic spectrum, because the Catholic Church does not acknowledge them as a particular Church in the Catholic sense. Of course most of their fellow Anglicans do not understand themselves in this way either, but that does not deter them from making their claims to be part of "the Church Catholic" or a "branch of the Catholic Church" and so on. Frankly, this is your issue, and it won't change just because you shout louder and lose your temper everytime this matter is discussed.
Eh? If we're told that we (Anglicans) are not a C(c)hurch under whichever definition was *really* meant, that's our problem and we should just stop complaining about it?
Hooray for inter-denominational understanding.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
"Complaining" is of little value. Show the statement to be false might be a better approach. So far the Anglican Church has been unconvincing in this regard because it cannot agree with itself about what it is.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
How does this differ from Orthodox practice and show some sort of "lust for power" in the Catholic Church?
I don't believe that lust for power is a valid accusation against the Catholic Church. I think that the fact that the Pope has the power he has is contrary to the gospel of Christ and that these things have no place in the church he instituted.
I don't think I understand what you said. Has the Pope of Rome the power to depose or move a priest in a city other than Rome? Because in Orthodoxy no primate has that power, not the Patriarch, not the Archbishop, not anybody.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Frankly, this is your issue, and it won't change just because you shout louder and lose your temper everytime this matter is discussed.
This is a particularly uncharitable thing to say.
The reason the Anglo-Catholics shout loudest, is because they accept to a large degree the Catholic ecclesiology and genuinely perceive the Body of Christ to be wounded. Less A-C Anglicans don't lose their temper because they're thinking "The Pope is talking bollocks about us. In other news, Paris is still the capital of France."
I wonder if you wouldn't mind answering the question I raised earlier? If the Roman Catholic branch of the Church* really does want to bring about reunion with us so-called ecclesial/ecclesiastical communities, why keep using such inflammatory terminology?
* If you object to Branch Theory, well frankly, this is your issue.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
None of the Orthodox I have ever spoken to or I have heard speaking or I have read suggested such a dreadful thing. I would like to say in the most emphatic way that I do not see the Catholic Church as a "paralyzed leg" or anything like that and never had that kind of thought crossed my mind.
Oh please. Your friend Myrrh has said that she doesn't believe that Catholics worship the same God as the Orthodox. If that is not a "paralyzed leg" (or, in fact, something worse) I don't know what is.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Rather, from what you have told me, the Orthodox don't think the Catholic Church is even a leg at all.......
None of the Orthodox here, as far as I can tell, has ever implied that the Catholic Church is being saved through the Orthodox Church. That would be very patronizing and just plain wrong. On the contrary, I have seen the Orthodox saying that your salvation is an issue between you and God, which is very true and applies for us all.
From what I have told you, I do not consider the Catholic Church to be of the same faith with the ancient Church. I am very clear about that, yes. I have also said that the Pope of Rome is the true Patriarch of what was once the Western part of the Roman Empire. I am not confused as to whether your church is a church or not. Of course it is. It's not Orthodox, but this is how things turned out over the course of many centuries...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...Frankly, this is your issue, and it won't change just because you shout louder and lose your temper everytime this matter is discussed.
Who's shouting, Trip, besides you and your pals? Your denial of the facts is your issue. The facts won't change just because you invoke the Because We Say So clause that's one of the least admirable aspects of Roman Catholicism.
IngoB, your ER analogy is simply bizarre.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB
quote:
With Protestants you rather get "we are all fine living as separate parts"
Actually I would love to be a member of a universal church. But I'm not sure how I could honestly become one. There's a whole long list of things I'm supposed to believe before I can become a Catholic. That approach rather presupposes that I can just choose to believe what the church teaches, and obviously that does work for several hundred million people.
But I don't experience belief as a conscious choice, where I can just decide to believe what someone else tells me I should. My actions I do experience as a choice, so I could choose to live the way the church tells me to. I don't know where my belief comes from but it doesn't feel like it's from the will.
So I'm stuck with being a Protestant where what I do believe is considered enough.
--------------------
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
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Ross,
You keep mentioning "facts" in a way I find puzzling. I'm afraid that I don't see Anglican possession of Apostolic Succession as a "fact" in any simple way. One would first need to define "Apostolic Succession," both as to what it is and what is required for its transmission, and achieve an agreement on this definition before two parties in a discussion could treat this as a "fact". Absent such agreement, "fact" becomes simply a club with which to beat your opponent.
So, while I might agree that the Nag's Head Fable is not a fact, I would think that before we could agree on the facticity of Anglican possession of Apostolic Succession we would have to explore many issues beyond the question of whose hands were laid on whom (unless, of course, one wants to subscribe to a wholly magical understanding of the sacraments). To draw an analogy (which I hope you won't find bizarre), the mere fact of a Mormon being immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is something different, in the Catholic view, from the "fact" of their being baptized.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
your ER analogy is simply bizarre.
I thought it was rather good. Rather accurate, too.
Thurible - an Anglican who isn't terribly surprised that the Pope thinks that the Catholic Church is, well, Catholic.
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
So, while I might agree that the Nag's Head Fable is not a fact, I would think that before we could agree on the facticity of Anglican possession of Apostolic Succession we would have to explore many issues beyond the question of whose hands were laid on whom (unless, of course, one wants to subscribe to a wholly magical understanding of the sacraments).
The italicised, parenthetical clause is almost exactly what I've been accusing too many of my Anglican brothers and sisters of recently - of all stripes and hues. How depressing all this is.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...Frankly, this is your issue, and it won't change just because you shout louder and lose your temper everytime this matter is discussed.
Who's shouting, Trip, besides you and your pals? Your denial of the facts is your issue. The facts won't change just because you invoke the Because We Say So clause that's one of the least admirable aspects of Roman Catholicism.
IngoB, your ER analogy is simply bizarre.
Ross
I thought it was pretty well outlined in "Apostolicae Curae"??
--------------------
"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
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
The Nag's Head business is a well-known lie. That Matthew Parker was consecrated archbishop according to the proper forms, with the proper intentions evident, and by qualified bishops is a fact.
Not that I expect people whose claims to exclusivity rest on finding excuses to delegitimize others' claims to Catholicity to agree....
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
In this context, the recent remarks of B16 and those they build on are surely calculatedly wounding. To use the word 'church' of the Orthodox but not the various Episcopal churches and to justify this use, this is surely not only offensive but intended to be offensive. (And I say this as a Baptist. I get the very clear message from the RCC that I am totally off the scale.)
I think the RCC has two main reasons for doing this, one the necessity for internal recognition as Apostolic those Orthodox Churches they've gained during the last millennium, which they'd been treating as second class RC, and the more recent political alliance with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
But anyway, I'm at a loss to understand why any of the Protestant Churches would get upset about this since splitting from Rome was for perceived doctrinal abuse, what's changed? I should think the majority of RCC churches still don't have communion in both species for their laity, for example.
Of course the RCC is still going to act snooty about your leaving since it claims to be the Church as divinely organised by Christ papacy and you didn't much care about that when you left, so it can hardly recognise you as Churches now since you're an internal problem for it and you still need it to 'prove' your Apostolic succession. The Orthodox have their own distinct antecedents to Christ and the Apostolic Church and don't need Rome to prove anything.
The Orthodox also have a far better claim to being the main "petrine primacy succession" if push came to shove, not that there's actually any such doctrine, so the RCC has to tread a bit more carefully with us...
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I went into a medieval country church in england once which obviously was once RC but has been Anglican sionce th reformation. In the visitors' book was a comment from a visiting catholic that said words to the effect of, 'we want our church back.'
That's RC unity - getting it all back into Roman ownership and jurisdiction.
You don't think that they might have just been...erm...having a laugh?
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The Nag's Head business is a well-known lie. That Matthew Parker was consecrated archbishop according to the proper forms, with the proper intentions evident, and by qualified bishops is a fact.
Not that I expect people whose claims to exclusivity rest on finding excuses to delegitimize others' claims to Catholicity to agree....
Ross
Oh no, there aren't people who still believe the 'Matthew Parker down the Nag's Head' fable, are there? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
No, I don't think there are. I'm not sure why Ross is bring it up.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The Nag's Head business is a well-known lie. That Matthew Parker was consecrated archbishop according to the proper forms, with the proper intentions evident, and by qualified bishops is a fact.
Not that I expect people whose claims to exclusivity rest on finding excuses to delegitimize others' claims to Catholicity to agree....
Ross
Ross, the Nag's Head calumny isn't really what this business is about, nor the tactile succession. You might want to read Saepius Officio, the response of the Archbps of Canterbury and York to Apostolicae Curiae. The real problem revolves around what the CoE intended to do when it made bishops, priests and deacons using the Reformation ordinals. It is argued that even though the CoE kept the traditional names for the three-fold ministry, they were not intending to ordain men into the orders as they were understood by the Catholic Church. This especially was to do with a faulty understanding of the Eucharist and what priests do at Mass. Saepius Officio makes some worthy counter-arguments, though seems to skirt over some issues. I just want to underscore that it really isn't primarily about tactile succession. Rome basically acknowledges that Anglicans have that, but rightly says that the mere hand-game isn't enough. So the problem is really a defect of intention (according to Rome).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Recidite_plebians wrote, "Allow me to explain." Followed by a long sad story.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Your story reminded me of the story of a friend of mine. My friend worked hard for his church. He was continually running around trying to help people and do what he thought was right. But he messed up politically and stepped on some toes.
Suddenly, everything he did was wrong. A clergy member (who later became pope) publicly renounced him. No one would have anything to do with him.
One of his former friends actually framed him for a crime and had the civil authorities try him. The court found him guilty and executed him on a cross.
The reason you are not acceptable to the church isn't all the stuff you've been through. It's because, having walked where Jesus walked, having suffered what Jesus suffered, you turned against you enemies and fought against them as you felt they deserved. But that's not the Christian way.
Jesus turned and forgave his enemies. He called us to do the same. Yes, that's bullshit, but it's also Christianity. If your willing to forgive us our many sins, your welcome back.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks cor
Yes I know that ecclesiastical is there. But not ecclesial.
Here's an online definition which shows the point I'm making.
Barnabas, you're right. The new responses from the CDF says quote:
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities (Ecclesiis et communitatibus ecclesialibus) not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.
Now we need someone learned, like TT, to tell us the fine difference between "ecclesial" and "ecclesiastical" in RC Latin and English. Perhaps your Google definition is right.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Who's shouting, Trip, besides you and your pals? Your denial of the facts is your issue. The facts won't change just because you invoke the Because We Say So clause that's one of the least admirable aspects of Roman Catholicism.
Ross
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, that's you invoking a "Because I say so" approach. The most recent thread about this died out because you had personal business to attend to (for which I posted a prayer for you) and then Myrrmeneutics took over. The discussion was just getting interesting. But you have come and asserted the same rubbish as if it were indisputable fact here on this thread, about turf wars and the petrified Catholic Church trembling at the threat posed by the Anglican Church and nags heads (wtf is that all about - I have no idea what you are talking about). The tune is always the same, and I will challenge it every time I see it because it is in disharmony with truth.
As I said before - it's no use simply saying "We are Catholic". My response is "I am the Emperor of Japan". One cannot simply make an assertion about oneself and expect others to say "Oh yes, just like you say". Get your friend, fellow Anglican and priest Gordon Cheng to say he is a Catholic and I might begin to listen to your assertion a bit more closely.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Frankly, this is your issue, and it won't change just because you shout louder and lose your temper everytime this matter is discussed.
This is a particularly uncharitable thing to say.
The reason the Anglo-Catholics shout loudest, is because they accept to a large degree the Catholic ecclesiology and genuinely perceive the Body of Christ to be wounded. Less A-C Anglicans don't lose their temper because they're thinking "The Pope is talking bollocks about us. In other news, Paris is still the capital of France."
I wonder if you wouldn't mind answering the question I raised earlier? If the Roman Catholic branch of the Church* really does want to bring about reunion with us so-called ecclesial/ecclesiastical communities, why keep using such inflammatory terminology?
* If you object to Branch Theory, well frankly, this is your issue.
No, sorry, it isn't. It's yours. "Branch Theory" is an Anglican peculiarity that sprang into existence in the last century. It may be of comfort to some Anglicans, but it is not something I have to deal with. It does not feature on the radar of Catholic ecclesiology.
Your question concerns the "inflammatory language" of the CDF document. Of course, it is inflammatory to you because it pushes that branch theory button. I don't think that is the intention. Why does the CDF document say what it does? Well, let it speak for itself:
quote:
The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction....
The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hamletta
Shipmate
# 11678
|
Posted
quote:
to RC (and Orthodox...) ears sounds as crazy as a freshly quartered man declaring that he is having a good time...
It's only a flesh wound!
Posts: 108 | From: Nashvegas | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'm not sure why Ross is bring it up.
Presumably because I mentioned it. But I will note that I mentioned it in the context saying that I thought it was a fact that it was untrue, so I don't know what Ross is flailing at on that count.
As to the claim that Parker was consecrated "according to the proper forms, with the proper intentions evident. . . is a fact" -- this is simply another club-like use of the term "fact." The Nag's Head fable is not at issue; the question of form and intention is. So this is simply question begging.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Fr TT, this looks analogous to calling someone a fuckwit, later clarifying the meaning in context of the word as "someone who through no fault of their own is mistaken on one precise issue" and then going on to call them a fuckwit again.
I've already said I'm not offended by the language because I have a technically-minded approach to these things. But plainly, many people are. The CDF et al could avoid that by rephrasing, but instead they choose to repeat the offence. I notice you are at pains to show the multiple meanings of the word church, and even to go so far as to identify the meaning of validity as a Catholic-oriented term. I appreciate that, and I think your denomination ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) would make further headway if they took the same approach.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks cor
Yes I know that ecclesiastical is there. But not ecclesial.
Here's an online definition which shows the point I'm making.
Barnabas, you're right. The new responses from the CDF says quote:
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities (Ecclesiis et communitatibus ecclesialibus) not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.
Now we need someone learned, like TT, to tell us the fine difference between "ecclesial" and "ecclesiastical" in RC Latin and English. Perhaps your Google definition is right.
cor ad cor loquitur
What interests me as a nonconformist is that I find the term "ecclesial community" to be completely unexceptionable! hatless is a horse from the same stable, and may see things differently of course, but that is part of the fun of engaging in conversation with nonconformists!
Here's the argument. The term ekklesia has a double meaning.
- The whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company of which Christ said (Matt 16;16) "I will build my church (Gr ekklesia)"
- A company or an assembly of professed believers (e.g. Acts 20.28)
Like most folks these days, I say I belong to a local church. But really that is a sort of convenient shorthand. Within nonconformity (or the congregational expression of it to which I belong) it is actually more accurate to say that I am a regular member of an ekklesia, an assembly or gathering, even a community (e.g. the Acts 20:28 meaning). Some of the old boys in my tradition thought it was better to use the term "church" only for the first meaning in my list, and they preferred the term "assembly" for the local expression. It was an acknowledgement that the full membership of the church throughout the ages (Matt 16:16) was known to God, would be made clear at the day of judgement. What we have, they would say, is a more modest thing; an assembly of declared believers. Or, in other words, an ecclesial community.
This argument has sometimes been described, inaccurately, as the "visible" versus "invisible" views of the church. The truth is that nonconformists have always known that the church is both visible and invisible. But our take on those aspects, and the descriptive language we use, are rather different to those within Catholicism.
So, whether the CDF meant it or not, I am quite happy as an nonconformist to accept the term ecclesial community. And happy to report that there is indeed sanctification and truth within that community. But we're not coming back in a hurry!
[ 12. July 2007, 17:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
