Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000647

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :
 
quote:
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’

Updated: 9:52 a.m. ET July 10, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/

I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope. (Or else we Baptists need to brush up on our Latin...)

[ 23. October 2007, 12:06: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green... [Roll Eyes]

The CDF document simply states the most obvious reading of the already existing documents IMNSHO. Orthodox Churches are churches properly speaking, because they have the sacraments (in particular holy orders and the Eucharist). But as churches they are defective to at least the extent that they are not in communion with the Holy See, which is a basic principle of Church. (See Fourth Question) The communities of the Reformation do not have the sacraments (in particular holy orders and the Eucharist), so they are not churches properly speaking. (See Fifth Question) This does not stop them from being significant and important instruments of Christ's salvation. (See Second & Third Question)
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
Only fear and insecurity can cause this to be continually re-emphasized. I mean, what's the point?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
As IngoB said, nothing new - Lumen Gentium said much the same thing and that was over 40 years ago.
 
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This does not stop them from being significant and important instruments of Christ's salvation. (See Second & Third Question)

But what about the paragraph further down?

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)?
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
Allow me to indulge in the ultimate of Ship snobbery: quoting oneself.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Of course, the pope is free to say whatever he wants. That doesn't make it right or true, though.

I think that many Protestants believe that the Roman Catholic Church, despite having the same name, is not the church that existed pre-Reformation times, but rather an offspring created during the Counter-Reformation in order to specifically distance themselves from the Reformation Protestant offspring. Their claim to be the one true church is no more or less valid than that of any Reformation era church. They just inherited the nice property and kept the name.

If the Reformation had not occurred, I think the continuation of the original RCC would look profoundly different from the RCC of today.

I also suspect the Orthodox would have something to say about the Petrine ministry.

What really bothers me about this is that Roman Catholic Church still claims interest in ecumenism. It is time for them to just face facts and say that they are only interested in ecumenism on their own terms with no compromise, no negotiations, only other churches becoming Roman Catholic en masse as Roman Catholicism is now with no deviation.

This is not in the spirit of Vatican 2, no matter what the Vatican says. This is a bit more in the spirit of Protestant discrimination that existed pre-Vatican 2.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope. (Or else we Baptists need to brush up on our Latin...)

On the contrary, I think real ecumenism has to begin from an honest statement of positions.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Well, of course the Pope would say that anyone who calls themself a Christian falls under his allegedly divine jurisdiction! I mean...we can't have the Pope promoting apostasy, now, can we? [Snigger]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, of course the Pope would say that anyone who calls themself a Christian falls under his allegedly divine jurisdiction!

Sorry, he said that where? He said that Christians not under his jurisdiction are lacking a divine gift. As far as I'm aware he wasn't claiming jurisdiction over the United Methodists.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
What really bothers me about this is that Roman Catholic Church still claims interest in ecumenism. It is time for them to just face facts and say that they are only interested in ecumenism on their own terms with no compromise, no negotiations, only other churches becoming Roman Catholic en masse as Roman Catholicism is now with no deviation.

Rubbish. Go and read the document before sounding off in such a manner.

As to the alternative form of ecumenism: you accuse the Catholic Church wanting it on her own terms whilst you promote a model of ecumenism on...your own terms. So bears do shit in the woods.

quote:
This is not in the spirit of Vatican 2, no matter what the Vatican says. This is a bit more in the spirit of Protestant discrimination that existed pre-Vatican 2.
Since when did it belong to Lutherans to tell the Catholic Church what the "spirit of Vatican 2" is. Frankly, I'd rather suggest that Joseph Ratzinger might be a better judge of that than your good self - him having been there, having been a peritus at the Council and having been a Bishop in the post-Vatican 2 environment of the Catholic Church for 30 years. Its called the hermeneutic of continuity, my friend: the need to understand the teaching of the Church today in continuity with her teaching over the last 2000 years, not merely since year zero (1962).
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
IngoB

you have to be careful. I am in a denomination where some ministers have valid orders according to Rome though the vast majority don't. In other words some of our ministers were ordained Moravian . Not all Protestant orders are invalid.

Jengie
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
So...if the Catholics are the only ones with "the gift," then what are we? Sojourners? Heretics? Lost souls? Victims of our own deception?
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Lacking something. As most of us are this side of the Kingdom of God.

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.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’

Updated: 9:52 a.m. ET July 10, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/

I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope. (Or else we Baptists need to brush up on our Latin...)

Is the Pope's position any different from that of a Christian involved in inter-faith dialogue who accepts that people of other faiths have a relationship with God, yet still believes that Christianity is the fullest expession of that relationship? On one level it annoys me that the Pope thinks my church isn't a proper church, but I can still see the logic of it within a Catholic framework...
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Only fear and insecurity can cause this to be continually re-emphasized. I mean, what's the point?

Like all such clarifications by the CDF, this is basically an internal call to order. It is possible to (falsely) see an incoherence in the previously published documents, and then to use this as an excuse to re-interpret and ignore. This could further either an ultra-lib agenda ("all denominations are basically equal, the RCC claims little more than a historic place of honor") or a rad-trad agenda ("all other denominations count for nothing, since only the RCC is the Church"). The CDF is clarifying that neither take it licit, presumably because enough people were noisily pushing them for a long time.

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:
quote:
Dominus Iesus:
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

... In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been 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 Catholic Church”.66

---
(61) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.
(62) Cf. ibid., 3.
(63) Cf. ibid., 22.
...
(65) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 14.
(66) Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.

Jengie Jon, if you wish to claim the same status as the Orthodox for some of your denomination's ministers, that's fine by me - in the sense that I'm truly and totally uninterested. This sort of game frankly has infinitesimal significance to anyone but the players themselves.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
Father Trisagion, I have no doubt that you and Pope Benedict know more about Vatican 2 than me. I was only giving the perspective of one Lutheran, just as you were giving the Roman Catholic perspective.

I would like to know more about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ecumenism. What is required of others for closer relations? What would the RCC do in return? ('Nothing' is a valid answer for either one, but where does that leave us in terms of ecumenism?) It seems to me that in any healthy relationship, a little give and take is required. Communication is the key, and although I am not as well-versed in Vatican communications as you are, I can't recall any statements qualifying what would be necessary for closer relations. Could you point me to such a thing?
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
Well, by my logic it would make sense for any non-Catholic to see there would be something that they don't agree with in the Catholic Church, if you agreed with everything that the Catholic Church did/taught then surely you'd be a Catholic!

Catholics don't tend to focus on differences with ecumenism, we focus on the similarities! But at the same time the Catholic Church does acknowledge that there are differences in belief!

The Catholic Church believes and teaches that it is the church founded by Jesus Christ, through the Apostles. Apostle Peter was the first Pope, Christ's rock who instituted the Papacy. The other churches broke away from the Catholic Church and therefore broke away from the Church founded by Jesus Christ!

*shrugs*

The Reformation Protestant Churches exist because they felt the Catholic Church was corrupt, in our eyes they left the Church founded by Jesus Christ, but with good intentions and they were very sincere Christians and Christ-Followers, that has not changed!

Ecumenism is not about agreeing with every single possible doctrine, dogma and teaching that the other churches say, it's not about merging doctrines, it's about accepting the similarities, cooperation and growing ever closer in proclaiming the common truth that Jesus Christ is Lord.

One day God willing there will be unity and we must and should not stop progressing ever closer to become United together as Christians, but there are differences and we cannot pretend they do not exist! They are there and we just have to acknowledge that as reality.

Max - Who feels that he's probably as ecumenical as you can get and worships at non-Catholic places just as often as he worships at Catholic places
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The Bishop of Rome has no right to say that any other community of Christians is not a church.

Where the Spirit of Jesus is, there is Church.

The man is displaying some very strange ideas that will only widen the gap between Protestants and Catholics.

If the Catholic Church ceased to exist at breakfast time tomorrow the Body of Christ would carry on regardless. We do not need Rome or it's bishop to say whether we can be a church or not.

This statement shows the papacy for what it is - a man trying to be Christ on earth, another saviour.

He is not.

And, BTW, we Protestants are not 'separated brethren' as JPII styled us. We are not separated from anything, we are joined to Christ.

I have no desire to become adhered to the Roman religion thank you.

[ 10. July 2007, 21:42: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Most Moved Mover (# 11673) on :
 
As a liberal Baptist I think there are lots of problems with official RC doctrine and practice, just as there are problems with Baptist doctrine and practice (except that we're less centralised and have less 'official' anything I think).

The asymmetry results because I think that RCs are part of the church and they don't think the same about us. Except that maybe that asymmetry is only on the surface. Underneath it all, I think their ecclesiology stinks and is fundamentally un-Christ like so perhaps I'd be hypocritical to have a go at them for what they believe.

Even so, it proclaiming that one's church is the one true church does irritate me. I'm not sure where that leaves me though [Confused] [Smile]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...if the Catholics are the only ones with "the gift," then what are we? Sojourners? Heretics? Lost souls? Victims of our own deception?

Tolle lege, tolle lege, ...
quote:
"Catechism of the Catholic Church" writes:
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." (UR 3 § 1.)


 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Allow me to indulge in the ultimate of Ship snobbery: quoting oneself.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Of course, the pope is free to say whatever he wants. That doesn't make it right or true, though.

I think that many Protestants believe that the Roman Catholic Church, despite having the same name, is not the church that existed pre-Reformation times, but rather an offspring created during the Counter-Reformation in order to specifically distance themselves from the Reformation Protestant offspring. Their claim to be the one true church is no more or less valid than that of any Reformation era church. They just inherited the nice property and kept the name.

If the Reformation had not occurred, I think the continuation of the original RCC would look profoundly different from the RCC of today.

I also suspect the Orthodox would have something to say about the Petrine ministry.

This is not in the spirit of Vatican 2, no matter what the Vatican says. This is a bit more in the spirit of Protestant discrimination that existed pre-Vatican 2.
Although this saddens me to an extent as an Orthodox, the phrase "Spirit of Vat II" has been so abused over the past 40 years as to be meaningless now.
Yes, I wish the phrasing of the letter had more of the charity of Lumen Gentium about it.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Lacking something. As most of us are this side of the Kingdom of God.

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.

The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, certainly has something not quite nice to say about just about every other denomination in the book.
 
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

I don't have a problem with that at all, except probably what he actually said and what he meant by it.

Is there any Biblical precedent for the use of "church" to cover a denomination?

Denominations (RCC included) consist of true churches (and presumably some false ones), but are not themselves churches unless they are very small denominations indeed. All Christians are part of the true Church, which isn't co-extensive with the group that acknowledges the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Father Trisagion, I have no doubt that you and Pope Benedict know more about Vatican 2 than me. I was only giving the perspective of one Lutheran, just as you were giving the Roman Catholic perspective.

I'm pleased to say Martin L, that as a deacon I'm not properly called Father - except by my 14 year old son when he's being sarcastic!

With all due respect, you weren't "only giving a perspective" you were making a clear statement about whether this latest directive is in accordance with "the spirit of Vatican 2". You qualified the statement in no way: just a bald assertion. Hence the dispeptic reply on my part.

quote:
I would like to know more about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ecumenism. What is required of others for closer relations? What would the RCC do in return? ('Nothing' is a valid answer for either one, but where does that leave us in terms of ecumenism?) It seems to me that in any healthy relationship, a little give and take is required. Communication is the key, and although I am not as well-versed in Vatican communications as you are, I can't recall any statements qualifying what would be necessary for closer relations. Could you point me to such a thing?
I think a short trawl through a few documents would do: start with Vatican II's Lumen Gentium and then Unitatis Redintegratio . If you then moved on to Dominus Iesus and finished with this latest instruction linked to above, you'd have a pretty good idea of the official state of the question from the Catholic perspective.
 
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bishop of Rome has no right to say that any other community of Christians is not a church.

Where the Spirit of Jesus is, there is Church.

The man is displaying some very strange ideas that will only widen the gap between Protestants and Catholics.

Mudfrog, honest question: did you ever stop and think that maybe it's reactions like this one that serve to widen this gap much more than the statements themselves?

quote:
This statement shows the papacy for what it is - a man trying to be Christ on earth, another saviour.

He is not.

Oh boy, let's not utter this summoning conjure!

I know that you know that nobody believes this, so it is deliberate antagonisation on your part to suggest it. How does that serve to bridge the gap you were talking about earlier?

quote:
And, BTW, we Protestants are not 'separated brethren' as JPII styled us. We are not separated from anything, we are joined to Christ.

I have no desire to become adhered to the Roman religion thank you.

Your first two sentences blatantly contradict your third, here. If you are not separated from the RCC, than you are adhered [sic] to them. If you have no desire to become adhered to them, then you are separated from them.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Yes, I wish the phrasing of the letter had more of the charity of Lumen Gentium about it.

Whilst that might be desirable, we need to remember that what we're talking about is a document issued, inter alia to clarify what the term subsistit in from Lumen Gentium actually means. I've sat through enough Ecclesiology lectures is enough purportedly Catholic institues of higher education to know that the takes on what this meant were many and various, ranging from the hopelessly universalist to the vehemently sectarian. When this is taken into account and read without a determination to be offended, there's charity and generosity in equal measure with the juridical.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
I would like to know more about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ecumenism. What is required of others for closer relations? What would the RCC do in return? ('Nothing' is a valid answer for either one, but where does that leave us in terms of ecumenism?) It seems to me that in any healthy relationship, a little give and take is required. Communication is the key, and although I am not as well-versed in Vatican communications as you are, I can't recall any statements qualifying what would be necessary for closer relations. Could you point me to such a thing?

For the practicalities, look at the document Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism. Scroll down to paragraph 40 and following for some insight into which Catholic officials deal how with ecumenism, and to paragraph 56 and following concerning the question of ecumenical formation. Paragraph 102 and following will tell you about a range of shared activities. Etc.
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
I like that, Max.

It seems worth recognising that this is territory where it's extremely easy to offend good people. I remember being rather hurt when told by a Baptist minister that I wasn't a member of a Christian church and so I can understand how this stuff reads as pretty intolerant and unpleasant.

I'd much rather the Vatican expressed itself in terms that less alienated those it aspires to reunify. For that matter, I doubt I agree with the substance either. But the document isn't so bad. If you accept that the RC sense of "Church" is (roughly) "the eucharistic body descended from the apostles under the authority of the successors of St. Peter" then it's not surprising that there are fairly few qualifiers. And, clutching at straws, it's good to see the CDF using the term "churches" (small c) in answer to question 2. There is a recognition of the existence and value of Christian communities - not just individuals - outwith the RC/Orthodox Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
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 some denominations go much further in denying the validity of other branches of Christianity than others. It's an ugly trait in some Protestant churches and I don't like it in the RCC either.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
One of the chief areas in which Peter was given authority was in the matter of forgiveness. If the biblical account is totally reliable, he was given the right to absolve or to withhold absolution, was he not? [The reason I say "if the biblical account is totally reliable" is that I find it inconsistent, indeed almiost ludicrous, in the light of Jesus' other sayings on forgiveness, that he should give to a coward and a bully the right not to forgive.]

The way in which Peter chose to administer this right is shown in his treatment of Ananias and Sapphira. Now, AFAIK, the successors of Peter who were not complete bastards - i.e, the vast majority of them, chose to follow Jesus' example rather than Peter' (I've not heard of a single Pope who deliberately scared anyone to death, or denied them a chance to repent). So I fail to see why they cling to the Apostolic Succession as an inarguable justification for their authority.

[ 10. July 2007, 22:46: Message edited by: pimple ]
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
I like that, Max.


Phew... you don't know how nervous when I was posting that!

Max
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:


The asymmetry results because I think that RCs are part of the church and they don't think the same about us.

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.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Lacking something. As most of us are this side of the Kingdom of God.

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.

It all seems a perfectly sensible and reasonable position by the Pope to me. Catholics and Protestants disagree on various subjects to different degrees and on different levels of importance. Obviously one or other (or maybe both) are wrong, so if we're being honest and consistent about our beliefs, then of course we think there's something less than ideal about what the other lot thinks.

That's the nature of disagreement, and that's where discussion can begin. I think I'm right, you think you're right, we think that the other of us is wrong; let's talk.

I'd agree with Custard, and presumably disagree with the Pope, on my understanding of what the Church is and how one belongs to it, but that's just something else to file under the list of things to disagree and talk about.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I guess that whole "reconciliation" thing is going to have to wait until the next Pope.

What "reconciliation" exactly are you looking for? I sometimes think people use "ecumenism" as a short hand for "corporate reunion."

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

quote:
originally posted by Max
Well, by my logic it would make sense for any non-Catholic to see there would be something that they don't agree with in the Catholic Church, if you agreed with everything that the Catholic Church did/taught then surely you'd be a Catholic!

Exactly.
 
Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :
 
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?"

Chopped liver? No, you're Christians and members of the universal catholic church the same as the rest of us. (Assuming you are Christians...)

The RCC theologians has an annoying tendency to use common words, but then use their own meanings for those words.

Having the pope in charge is "a" gift, not "the" gift. (I suspect this might be a more important gift to him than it is to you.)

Remember the pope is a scholar and legalist. Precise definitions are what he does for fun. I wouldn't worry about it to much.
[Cool]
Martin L wrote, "I would like to know more about the Roman Catholic Church's position on ecumenism. What is required of others for closer relations? What would the RCC do in return?"

I think the answer to both parts is "understanding".

To me, ecumenism takes place within the people of the church. Few RCs have a deep technical understanding of RC theology, so expecting some sort of technical discussion from every RC seems forlorn. [Snore]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If my church corporately merged with the Roman Catholic church, I would leave.

Why? How would it change your church, which presumably you like?

The Episcopal Church is "in communion" with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. I am Episcopalian. I don't want to be Lutheran (although I do find it somewhat attractive). I see no reason to leave the Episcopal Church.
 
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on :
 
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. And that is where Ecumenism starts - people know where each other stands - only then can true ecumenical discussion commence.

I think more RC's know more about their theology than you give them credit for. It doesn't have to be something taught, it has to be something lived in the mass etc.
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
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! [Biased]

Max

[ 10. July 2007, 23:21: Message edited by: Max. ]
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
Max - glad it's of some comfort, but I doubt my views on this subject have much in the way of either coherence or support!
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
That's the nature of disagreement, and that's where discussion can begin. I think I'm right, you think you're right, we think that the other of us is wrong; let's talk.

It's a shame for some of us that, hundreds of years after the original disagreements, people put so much energy into defining so precisely quite why it is that they're right and the other lot is wrong, while the few people seriously talking are regarded as either eccentric enthusiasts or shadily heterodox.

Divine Outlaw Dwarf - it's an important point about the differing definitions of (C/)church. However, even accepting that, I still read RC doctrine as ascribing a less certain and fruitful status within the Body of Christ to Protestant churches than most mainstream Protestant denominations would to their counterparts. And, if I understand, the Vatican view is that churches outside the Church are only valuable insofar as their teachings happen to coincide with the RCC. Whereas Protestant thinking about truth arising from a more individual relationship with God or scripture is more more open to the possibility of insight, value and elements of truth being found outside and independent of one's particular church. Does this make any sense?
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I think more RC's know more about their theology than you give them credit for.

And I think I know less about my theology than you give me credit for [Biased]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
IngoB turns dyspeptic:
Jengie Jon, if you wish to claim the same status as the Orthodox for some of your denomination's ministers, that's fine by me - in the sense that I'm truly and totally uninterested. This sort of game frankly has infinitesimal significance to anyone but the players themselves.

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.
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
Pope John XXIII anyone?

the Pookah
 
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :
 
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.
Well, then that reconciliaion thing is going to have to wait until the next Polish pope...
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fisher
It's a shame for some of us that, hundreds of years after the original disagreements, people put so much energy into defining so precisely quite why it is that they're right and the other lot is wrong, while the few people seriously talking are regarded as either eccentric enthusiasts or shadily heterodox.

Very true. Enough with the sundering, more with the togethering. The Holy Catholic Church has been sundered enough over the past 2000 years.

My reaction to the Pope's position? [Snore]
So what else is new? It isn't something we didn't know before. The Orthodox disagree over the Petrine Ministry, and all the other details pale in comparison. We Prots took a long, hard look at the episcopate and Real Presence, and disagree on these points. Interal RC logic holds that disagreement = not RC = not fully part of the Faith. It's been said for centuries in more or less emphatic ways.

MartinL was right. Many Protestants (including myself) hold that the current Roman Catholic Churhch is as divergent from the Western Rite Church that we left as we ourselves are. We zigged, they zagged. All the Kings horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
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.
Well, then that reconciliaion thing is going to have to wait until the next Polish pope...
Eh? Do you think John-Paul II [memory eternal!] was any less Catholic in his thought? He may've been involved in ecumenical endeavours(*), but he would've surely had the same beliefs.

Give me a direct talker like Benedict anyday: we need charity, of course, but nothing is served if we cannot be open and honest. And, as it has been said, it's not all that surprising.

Ian,
defective Byzantine Christian [has a nice ring to it I think! [Smile] ]


(*)from what I hear he was, I did not pay that much attention to Church stuff, not being a church-goer, for most of his Pontificate...

[ 11. July 2007, 04:01: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :
 
If there's a place to discuss important points like, "How many angel's asses can fit in a pinstriped camaro?", it's here in purgatory.
[Two face]
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.
[Smile]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Having received some good education over the last couple of years, thanks to Catholic shipmates, I actually found this document constructive and clarifying. It helped that I'd read two of the key prior statements because of discussions in previous threads. Trisagion's "hermeneutic of continuity" and IngoB's "internal call to order" points also help to put the actual words in a proper context.

Taken in isolation, I can see how the document might stir some folks up - or be used by some elements of the media to stir up mischief. But of course, because of continuity, it really doesn't make sense to read such documents in isolation. Catholicism doesn't work that way.

I say to loads of folks that if you really want to understand nonconformity or evangelicalism (rather than subject us to cartoon-type characterisations) you'll need to do a bit of work. The same applies to Catholicism. Understanding may not bridge gaps or heal all differences, but it can help increase goodwill and reduce rancour. Particularly if you feel that is a Christian imperative anyway.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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!] [Yipee]
 
Posted by doctor-frog (# 2860) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Do you think John-Paul II [memory eternal!] was any less Catholic in his thought? He may've been involved in ecumenical endeavours(*), but he would've surely had the same beliefs.

actually, if anything, JP-II was more conservative on a whole range of issues, and in the early part of his pontificate it was the erstwhile Ratzinger that held him back from saying half of what he really wanted to say.

[rant]

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."

Attention, all of you who aren't RCC -- all you need to do is ask yourself this: which of your denominations is one inch closer to reunion than it was 40 years ago at the close of Vatican II? I don't mean did you read all the lovely agreeable language in the latest (e.g.) ARCIC document. What I mean is, have the RCC and your Church actually *done* anything about it? Answer: No. And they're not going to

[sub-rant]
Which is what always pisses me off about Anglicans who can't countenance Anglican Proposal for Change No. X because of what it's likely to do to our prospects of reunion with Rome. News flash: we don't have any, so we might as well let the traditional three-legged stool decide our doctrinal positions for us, rather than another Church.
[/sub-rant]

What boggles my mind is

a) how Shippies and intelligent folk keep getting worked up over these things every time the RCC comes out with another one (which they do all the time, and never saying anything new).

and

b) how incredibly stupid and thick and dense the Popes are in periodically releasing these kinds of statements; they're a terrible exercise in PR and they wind everybody up for the sake of no new information.

[Roll Eyes] Rook never gave me my Junior Hosting Badge, but if he had, I'd lock and kill every Roman Catholic ecumenism thread so fast you'd think you were in a US military prison in Iraq.
[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

[/rant]

[ 11. July 2007, 07:13: Message edited by: doctor-frog ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
As a good Anglican I've written off the entire Pentarcy, so Pope Benedict's comments don't really matter anyway. [Biased]
 
Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Most Moved Mover (# 11673) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Preca (# 12709) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by doctor-frog (# 2860) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Quercus (# 12761) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Quercus (# 12761) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Greyface

That's very good, particularly your point on possible BXVI motivations. 2 may overstate it a bit, but it definitely isn't 1.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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! [Smile]

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.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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]

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...
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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? [Roll Eyes]

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.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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]

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 [Biased] ), 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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
Oh, dammit. Now you're ruining my smirky smugness.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
It doesn't really suit you anyway. [Biased]
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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!] [Yipee]

Meaning, the next Pope will be the final one.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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
 
Posted by bc_anglican (# 12349) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
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! [Biased]

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.
 
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on :
 
There are those who interpret Nostradamus to say the next will be the last.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
Here is a most measured and helpful contribution to this debate.
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
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! [Biased]

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
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Very, very interesting stuff:

here
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
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'!]
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
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... [Biased] )


Max
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
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! [Biased]

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...
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
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
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
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 [Yipee]

[ 11. July 2007, 15:19: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
It's true - they love newcomers. It's the born-and-bred who then develop a mind of their own

Absolutely. It's not as though the theologian arguably most influential on Vatican II (John Henry Newman), one of the leaders of English politically radical Catholicism (Laurence Bright) and some leading 20th century Catholic philosophers (Geach, Anscombe, Dummett) were received as adults. No 'mind of their own', any of them. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"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.

I couldn't characterise the "catholic" response to criticism any better than what has just been illustrated: fingers in ears singing "la la la la lah I'm not listening".

I stated quite clearly. I was baptised and confirmed in the RCC. I did my "rhets and divs". I have read more of "Daz Panzer Kardinal" than you give me credit for, starting with "The Ratzinger Report" and including a lot of his lesser-read academic papers found throgh ATHENS, and I am not ignorant about theology, philosophy, or liturgy and I also know enough about canon law to at least have an informed argument on it. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do claim to know the Catholic faith.

So I say again:

"A hypocrite, a careerist, aloof, ignorant, and as far from God as it is humanly possible to be."

Stick your fingers in your ears and "la la lah" all you want. It doesn't make it any less true. Case in point: denouncing anyone who doesn't subject themselves to his authority as not belonging to a "church". It's a pity it ignores Matt 18:20 "wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name, there I am". I don't recall that particular passage as saying "wherever two or more of you subject yourselves to the authority of an aggrandised and pompous civil service made up of career politicians in cassocks..."
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I felt very uncomfortable when people suggested that recidite_plebians (strange handle... what does it mean? Sounds Latin, but I don't know any...) should read what Pope Benedict wrote in his books implying that this would somehow make him change his mind, that he was not well-informed before he made that comment. What's that supposed to mean? Everybody here is entitled to his own opinions on religious matters, especially if it's about his own tradition...
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
It's true - they love newcomers. It's the born-and-bred who then develop a mind of their own

Absolutely. It's not as though the theologian arguably most influential on Vatican II (John Henry Newman), one of the leaders of English politically radical Catholicism (Laurence Bright) and some leading 20th century Catholic philosophers (Geach, Anscombe, Dummett) were received as adults. No 'mind of their own', any of them. [Roll Eyes]
They used their own minds to "opt in" as it were. Fair enough on their part.

My point was that the second you find yourself in conflict with the authority of the church - perhaps because you are divorced, or have married a divorcee, or feel the need to use contraception, or have a sexual relationship outside of marriage, for example that is when you feel the full force of the self-rightous condescention, the lack of compassion, and the hostility of the "do as you are told no questions and no excpetions" attitude that leaves so many of us out in the cold and seeing Catholicism for what it is.

I could debate the finer points of theology on all of the issues I have used as an example, but they illustrate quite nicely how when you find yourself not quite ticking all of the "good little obedient catholic" boxes you get treated as an outcast, a piece of defective rubbish, mentally disordered, or in most cases just a threat to their authority that is best dismissed than engaged.

That might better illustrate the (obvious) meaning of the quote you chopped down so as to take out of context.
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"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.

I couldn't characterise the "catholic" response to criticism any better than what has just been illustrated: fingers in ears singing "la la la la lah I'm not listening".

I stated quite clearly. I was baptised and confirmed in the RCC. I did my "rhets and divs". I have read more of "Daz Panzer Kardinal" than you give me credit for, starting with "The Ratzinger Report" and including a lot of his lesser-read academic papers found throgh ATHENS, and I am not ignorant about theology, philosophy, or liturgy and I also know enough about canon law to at least have an informed argument on it. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do claim to know the Catholic faith.

So I say again:

"A hypocrite, a careerist, aloof, ignorant, and as far from God as it is humanly possible to be."

Stick your fingers in your ears and "la la lah" all you want. It doesn't make it any less true. Case in point: denouncing anyone who doesn't subject themselves to his authority as not belonging to a "church". It's a pity it ignores Matt 18:20 "wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name, there I am". I don't recall that particular passage as saying "wherever two or more of you subject yourselves to the authority of an aggrandised and pompous civil service made up of career politicians in cassocks..."

Of course, recidite_plebians simply asserts that Ratzinger is a "hypocrite, careerist, etc. etc." without the slighest shred of evidence. I suppose that says more about "recidite" and his or her Rage Against Ratzinger than it does about Ratzinger himself.
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
A semi-tangent that picks up on a few comments earlier.

Most organisations nowadays exist in awe and terror of the media. The RCC seems to almost revel in bad publicity. If they felt such a document was needed for internal discipline, anyone else would have wrapped it up in a lot of careful explanation and expressions of goodwill to soften the blow; perhaps with the Pope meeting a bunch of religious leaders or something.

In some ways, it's quite refreshing to have such a pithily unspun church. But is the - presumably important - aim of attracting doubters to the Church really helped by throwing media management out of the window and appearing so uncompromising?
 
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:

[qb] [QUOTE]


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.

If he's all these things and more why do you give a fiddler's fuck what he thinks?
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
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. Plenty of Catholics use contraceptives. There are gay Catholics and Catholics who have gay children. There are controversial theologians who haven't been excommunicated or silenced. Many people who go to Mass every Sunday will admit (ruefully, sometimes) that they haven't been to confession in a long time.

FCB said something profound about this. 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.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

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...
But it's not an excuse, is it?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Plebians isn't Latin, as far as I know. Maybe it's supposed to be English. "Fall away, rabble!"

"Plebians" isn't English either. The English would be "plebeians" or "plebs". The Latin is plebs, plebis f. -- the plebeians, the common people.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
I sometimes think these documents come from Rome to coax various people to show their true colours - as many have done on this thread.

We have done this theme over and over in my brief 2 and a bit years on the Ship, so I do not have much to add -

..... except to say that I may be a hypocrite, ignorant, and as far from God as it is humanly possible to be (as r-p alleged the clergy all are "to a man") but I protest - I am not a careerist.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
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 [Yipee]
I thought it would be due to the information age through the spread of knowledge, when enough Roman Catholics would see the papal claims for what they are, a hidebound example of the doctrine of man and precisely that which Christ spoke against being made the ecclesiology of the Church - "it shall not be so among you".

Myrrh
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
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 [Yipee]
I thought it would be due to the information age through the spread of knowledge, when enough Roman Catholics would see the papal claims for what they are, a hidebound example of the doctrine of man and precisely that which Christ spoke against being made the ecclesiology of the Church - "it shall not be so among you".

Myrrh

Ah - I see what's happening here, rather than have a serious discussion, this is going to become a thread about how evil the catholic church is! [Snore]

Wake me when you get to the baby eating!

Max
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
It's perfectly ridiculous to call the Roman Church evil. But Benedict brings this stuff on - as has the Church for centuries. Why at this point in time does this opinion have to be re-stated so forcefully?

In my, probably heretical, mind the Church is so much bigger and I am not convinced that Rome is perfectly free from all error any more than I am of my own church.

So I agree there's no point in just hurling stones there are beams enough to go around for all eyes.

[ 11. July 2007, 19:27: Message edited by: Comper's Child ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Maybe, Max, it's just a signal that all the reasonable and serious observations that can be made on the subject have been made and that the rabid anti-Catholics then inevitably take over the thread (I'm getting images of Night of the Living Dead). Sad, really.
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
People really don't like being told they're wrong, do they?
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
People really don't like being told they're wrong, do they?

That's an excellent point here. The question is who gets to say what's wrong? I think Lietuvos is right - how many times can this be beaten into a dead horse?
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
Compers Child - this is in response to you:

Right firstly - this isn't an opinion. This is what the church teaches, it's not Benedict's personal opinion (although he probably does agree with it), this is what the church teaches and all the church is doing is reaffirming that teaching. Setting things straight, it's basically saying "This is where we stand, just in case you forgot"

I have no idea why the church is reaffirming it at this point, My awfully uneducated guess would probably link it to the Old Mass indult which has also been put into place very recently. Possibly reaffirming traditional church teaching and creating the indult at the same sort of time might be to attract schismatic-catholics who left the church because they felt the Catholic Church was too liberal back into the mainstream... I don't know.

I also do believe that Christ's Church is much larger than the Catholic Church on it's own and I don't think Benedict is saying that it's not. The Holy Father is saying that there are differences between Non-Catholic Churches and Catholic Churches, they teach different things.

Non Catholic Churches and Catholic Churches are different, if they we would all be Catholic!
[brick wall]

My hero Cardinal Walter Kasper has stated recently:

quote:
declaration "does not say that Protestant Churches are not churches, but that they are not churches in the proper sense, that is they are not churches in the way the Catholic Church understands the word church".

In any case, he said, Protestant churches "do not want to be churches in the sense of the Catholic Church", because they have different ideas of what the church and its ministers should be.


 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
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.


That put it better than I did.

Follow-up question: why people go round the bend that RCs won't give non-RCs communion. If I wanted the receive communion in a Roman Catholic Church, I would become a Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and I aren't on the same page with regards to Holy Communion (we're not even in the same book).

I can just about get through a Roman Catholic wedding without being utterly cast down at not going to the rail (er, station).
 
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
I think when Catholicism looses it's Protestantism it becomes authoritarian, when Protestantism looses it's Catholicism it becomes chaos.
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
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.


That put it better than I did.

Follow-up question: why people go round the bend that RCs won't give non-RCs communion. If I wanted the receive communion in a Roman Catholic Church, I would become a Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and I aren't on the same page with regards to Holy Communion (we're not even in the same book).

I can just about get through a Roman Catholic wedding without being utterly cast down at not going to the rail (er, station).

What's even stranger is that most of the outrage over the evil of closed communion is that most Anglican Church, included TEC, officially practiced some form of closed communion up until the late 60s or early 70s that prohibited most all Protestant Christians from receiving communion. And that changed from what would become a typical pattern. Priests and bishops defied the official rule and dialogued, and dialogued, and whined, and complained, until Lambeth Conference and the General Convention directed open communion among the baptized.

Open communion among the baptized is in itself a novelty in the Christian world. Yet somehow, people seem to think that it has always been this way, and it's only because of the eeeevill careerist Pope that the Catholic Church has this hidebound rule. In this case, Benedict is only following the constant discipline (doctrine?) of the Church which he has received from his predecessors.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I think that Anglo-Catholics, at least, may get exercised about the (Not) Receiving Holy Communion thing because we believe pretty much what our Roman brethren believe about the Mass. I think Anglican and Lutheran Catholics are more likely to feel hurt or dismayed about Rome's attitude than all the rest of the Reformation bunch who simply reject "the whore of Babylon and all her nefarious ways" (or whatever). As for myself, I wish things were different, but I have to respect the discipline of the RCC and I still see the Holy Father as our chief pastor, notwithstanding our imperfect unity. By the same token, as I see it, even if some of us can't fully accept some aspect of the magisterium that touches something about which we feel strongly, we nonetheless should strive to be in obedience to the Holy See as much as that may be possible given our inability to make a formal submission to the papal discipline.

Sorry, I know that's awkwardly put. I'm sure some of my fellow Anglicans will be along straightaway to beat me over the head and yell at me.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
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.

In practice, isn't this what happens anyway on the level of the individual parishes?
quote:
Originally moaned by Rossweisse:
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.

[Roll Eyes] Yes, because the Roman Catholics are so much more exclusivist than the Anglo-Catholics who separate the Christian world into First-Class Christians Who Have The Apostolic Succession And Valid Sacraments And Who Are Therefore Catholics With A Large C, and Second-Class Christians without these things such as Free Church Protestants ...

Not to mention the near-universal Christian exclusivism which separates the world into Christians, who are RIGHT about God, and everyone else who isn't (although they may have some hints or glimmerings of the truth).
 
Posted by chadevan (# 12786) on :
 
L.S.K.:
I've no interest in beating you over the head, but am genuinely curious about this line of reasoning. If you feel the Pope is your chief pastor and that you are bound to obey him as best you can, why are you Anglo-Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic?
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think that Anglo-Catholics, at least, may get exercised about the (Not) Receiving Holy Communion thing because we believe pretty much what our Roman brethren believe about the Mass. I think Anglican and Lutheran Catholics are more likely to feel hurt or dismayed about Rome's attitude than all the rest of the Reformation bunch who simply reject "the whore of Babylon and all her nefarious ways" (or whatever). As for myself, I wish things were different, but I have to respect the discipline of the RCC and I still see the Holy Father as our chief pastor, notwithstanding our imperfect unity. By the same token, as I see it, even if some of us can't fully accept some aspect of the magisterium that touches something about which we feel strongly, we nonetheless should strive to be in obedience to the Holy See as much as that may be possible given our inability to make a formal submission to the papal discipline.

Sorry, I know that's awkwardly put. I'm sure some of my fellow Anglicans will be along straightaway to beat me over the head and yell at me.

I think that basically sums up Anglican attitudes I remember.

Here's an interesting response from the Church Society .
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think that Anglo-Catholics, at least, may get exercised about the (Not) Receiving Holy Communion thing because we believe pretty much what our Roman brethren believe about the Mass

Two points emerge from this, I think:

i. What about Confession (i.e. not every RC could receive at every Mass either)?

ii. What about Obligation (and the linked question of Spiritual Communion in situations where i. might be the case)?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The reference to the CDF formerly being known as the Inquisition is a bit of a giveaway to the attitude of the piece...

[reply to JArthur Crank]

[ 11. July 2007, 20:25: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
[qb] I think that basically sums up Anglican attitudes I remember.

Here's an interesting response from the Church Society .

No doubt the Phelps will be along with their views as to why the Pope is intolerent [Smile]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
declaration "does not say that Protestant Churches are not churches, but that they are not churches in the proper sense, that is they are not churches in the way the Catholic Church understands the word church".

In any case, he said, Protestant churches "do not want to be churches in the sense of the Catholic Church", because they have different ideas of what the church and its ministers should be.


But what makes the Roman Catholic Church arbiter of what is a church in the proper sense. If he had said in "our" sense I could have agreed but the use of the word "proper" implies that somehow the Roman Catholic Church has the right to define what is "proper" and what is "improper".

In the end I would maintain it is not even up to all Christians but from the point of view it is up to all English speakers to decide what the "proper sense" of the word "church" is.

Jengie
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
Proper in the sense that the Catholic Church has true unbroken apostolic succession, 7 sacraments, a three-fold ministry order and a continuous chain of papal authority since the Apostle Peter.
Proper being the Catholic Church and other churches are not.

Max
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
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 [Yipee]
I thought it would be due to the information age through the spread of knowledge, when enough Roman Catholics would see the papal claims for what they are, a hidebound example of the doctrine of man and precisely that which Christ spoke against being made the ecclesiology of the Church - "it shall not be so among you".

Myrrh

Ah - I see what's happening here, rather than have a serious discussion, this is going to become a thread about how evil the catholic church is! [Snore]

Wake me when you get to the baby eating!

Max

?

It was a follow on from the 'last pope prophecy'. Where is the rabid hate, evil catholic church etc. you attribute to me in this post?

Why are you so defensive about this particular rule of the Church's ecclesiology if not that Christ contradicts all papal claims in it?

So, what does it matter what the RCC/Pope Benedict thinks of other Churches since by Christ's description the RCC is not the Church He founded?


Myrrh
 
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Proper in the sense that the Catholic Church has true unbroken apostolic succession, 7 sacraments, a three-fold ministry order and a continuous chain of papal authority since the Apostle Peter.
Proper being the Catholic Church and other churches are not.

Max

Max locuta est, causa finita est.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
Proper being the Catholic Church and other churches are not
What an arrogant and blinkered statement, can you prove it. Also there is a very high chance that each one of us is part of the apostolic succession.The laying of hands did not just go straight to Rome, there were other disciples beside Peter who went out. The laying of hands went with them and has come down through the years to us. That need not have come through Rome or in fact Canterbury.

[ 11. July 2007, 21:26: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
Proper in the sense that the Catholic Church has true unbroken apostolic succession, 7 sacraments, a three-fold ministry order and a continuous chain of papal authority since the Apostle Peter.
Proper being the Catholic Church and other churches are not.

Max

Max locuta est, causa finita est.
Matthew 20:24-26 (King James Version)


24And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.

25But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;


Christus locuta est, causa finita est.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
See, this is one of the benefits to being gay. We're already well aware that the Pope has no use on earth for us and would never expect it to be any other way.... [Razz]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
But what makes the Roman Catholic Church arbiter of what is a church in the proper sense. If he had said in "our" sense I could have agreed but the use of the word "proper" implies that somehow the Roman Catholic Church has the right to define what is "proper" and what is "improper".

Oh dear! Has it not occurred to you that the term "proper" (or proprio in the language of the definitive text) means the precisely that. Surely in an internal document the Church is entitled to define its own terms: including but not limited to what it means when it uses the term Church.

quote:
In the end I would maintain it is not even up to all Christians but from the point of view it is up to all English speakers to decide what the "proper sense" of the word "church" is.

Jengie

Look the key here is to understand what the Catholic Church means when it uses the term "Church" and to ensure that when you hear the word, or read it, from a Catholic source, you are not misled into believing that something is being said that isn't. If you believe that the Church is an indispensable part of the plan of salvation and that Church in that sense means the visible eucharistic communion which subsists in the Catholic Church, then it is only proper that you use that word carefully and accurately. That's what's going on here, alongside a desire to ensure that there is no doubt in Catholic circles that the notion of the Church subsisting in the Catholic Church implies a close identification with the Catholic Church, not merely some kind of "its all over the place and it is certainly here" ecclesiology.

[ 11. July 2007, 21:40: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Trisagion said:
quote:
Oh dear!
and
quote:
Look
and went on, as far as I can see, to say again precisely the sort of thing Jengie was objecting to. And which I object to, as well.

Subsists is a fudge word, but that apart you are basically saying that something indispensable to salvation is the RCC. 'Is' is only more or less, but more more than less.

Have I got that right?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chadevan:
L.S.K.:
I've no interest in beating you over the head, but am genuinely curious about this line of reasoning. If you feel the Pope is your chief pastor and that you are bound to obey him as best you can, why are you Anglo-Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic?

As a former parish priest of mine used to say "Which chamber of horrors do you want to go to?" Actually, he was referring to liturgical horrors, but the point is nonetheless well taken in respect to polity and practice. Neither the Anglican nor the Roman Catholic churches are perfect. Indeed, there's plenty I find pretty dismal about both of 'em. However, at the end of the day, as I state in my previous post, my unwillingness to come into full and formal communion with the See of Rome is to do with one issue of the magisterium that is personally very salient for me. In the context of this particular discussion, that's all I want to say about it.

However, unlike some persons who reject any of the teachings of the RCC, I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility that I could be in error. I also acknowledge the possibility that neither my view/position nor that of the magisterium may be entirely right. I also entertain the possibility that my perspective might change or that the balance of circumstances might develop to a conclusion in which I might seek reception into the RCC. I don't really expect the RCC to change her position in my lifetime (if ever -- they could be right about the matter, after all), though it is possible that the emphasis and pastoral approach might further evolve during my remaining years. Hence my view toward my relationship to the RCC remains open, with no possibility foreclosed.
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
[ETA: reply to Hatless]

If I understand all of this, RC doctrine is that the fact that the RCC exists somewhere or other is necessary for salvation. Not that the RCC is the only church body that can legitimately offer the hope of salvation to its members.

You may very well think that this is rubbish. (I've never managed to get my head round any ecclesiology more complex than a sort of primitive communitarian congregationalism - it seems a barmy subject to waste time worrying about to me!) But is it as offensive as it sounds on first hearing? I hope not.

[ 11. July 2007, 22:23: Message edited by: fisher ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Trisagion said that quite the opposite, that the essential-for-salvation-church isn't some all over the place but definitely in the RC church, but that it is, more or less, the same thing.

It's all second-guessing God; that's what irks me. God will save whoever God pleases to save, and will not be bound by the latest generation of theologians in the RCC.
 
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
See, this is one of the benefits to being gay. We're already well aware that the Pope has no use on earth for us and would never expect it to be any other way.... [Razz]

Yes, but damn it, I'm a straight, Anglo-Catholic male who believes in seven sacraments. On top of that, I believe 100% of what the RCC teaches about 6 of those 7 sacraments. I believe a good 90% of what it teaches on Holy Orders. It hurts a little that the RCC lumps me in with all the rest of the 2 or less sacrament accepting, memorialist believing, congregationalists [Smile] . I still hold out hope that one day the Pope will at least...at least...allow me to receive the sacraments at a Roman Catholic Church.

Sadly, it is not the case. The Pope requires complete submission. I am not prepared to do that. Ecumenical dialogue is fairly pointless at this point. It is sufficient for us to check back every few years to make sure our views haven't changed. The Pope is letting me know his view hasn't changed. So, I will now respond;

Dear Benedict,

I haven't changed my opinion of you either.

Love,

Matins

[ 11. July 2007, 22:33: Message edited by: Matins ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
See, this is one of the benefits to being gay. We're already well aware that the Pope has no use on earth for us and would never expect it to be any other way.... [Razz]

Yes, but damn it, I'm a straight, Anglo-Catholic male who believes in seven sacraments.
Damn it. But it doesn't make any difference, does it? [Razz]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

It's all second-guessing God; that's what irks me. God will save whoever God pleases to save, and will not be bound by the latest generation of theologians in the RCC.

This is getting nigh-on-ridiculous. People are attacking a caricature of the RCC straight out of a Chick tract.

The RCC has one of the most 'open' positions on the salvation of people beyond its own bounds (and, for that matter, the bounds of the Christian faith) of any Christian church.
 
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on :
 
[Waterworks] No!

I'm going to have to spend my entire life in the ministry in terror of what TEC decides to do next.

I keep thinking there's got to be another option.

But...there's not [brick wall]

(crossposted with Divine Outlaw Dwarf)

[ 11. July 2007, 22:44: Message edited by: Matins ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
That's not how I read this
quote:
If you believe that the Church is an indispensable part of the plan of salvation and that Church in that sense means the visible eucharistic communion which subsists in the Catholic Church, then it is only proper that you use that word carefully and accurately. That's what's going on here, alongside a desire to ensure that there is no doubt in Catholic circles that the notion of the Church subsisting in the Catholic Church implies a close identification with the Catholic Church, not merely some kind of "its all over the place and it is certainly here" ecclesiology.
[In response to DoD]

[ 11. July 2007, 22:45: Message edited by: hatless ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
[Waterworks] No!

I'm going to have to spend my entire life in the ministry in terror of what TEC decides to do next.

I keep thinking there's got to be another option.

But...there's not [brick wall]

(crossposted with Divine Outlaw Dwarf)

I didn't realize you were a priest. (That's what I'm getting out of your post, anyway - is that right?)

If it gets really crazy, I suppose I could become an Old Catholic or something. That probably doesn't help you much, though. But I have a feeling TEC might actually get a bit more normal going forward; the next generation is different than the last. We just have to wait them out.

Pray for gridlock for the next 10 years or so. That works in politics, so why not the church?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I thought it would be due to the information age through the spread of knowledge, when enough Roman Catholics would see the papal claims for what they are, a hidebound example of the doctrine of man and precisely that which Christ spoke against being made the ecclesiology of the Church - "it shall not be so among you".

Myrrh

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Why on earth does 'the [RC] Church is an indispensable part of salvation' imply 'only members of the RCC can be saved'? You do understand that 'the plan of salvation' means God's plan of salvation for all of creation through Jesus Christ, right? Although even if it meant 'God's plan for me', Trisagion's words wouldn't imply Catholic exclusivism. That the RCC existing is an indispensible part of my salvation doesn't entail that I cannot be saved if I am not an RC.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:
Proper being the Catholic Church and other churches are not
What an arrogant and blinkered statement, can you prove it. Also there is a very high chance that each one of us is part of the apostolic succession.The laying of hands did not just go straight to Rome, there were other disciples beside Peter who went out. The laying of hands went with them and has come down through the years to us. That need not have come through Rome or in fact Canterbury.
It's strange how all those Apostolic Churches today are still in existance and either Catholic or Orthodox
 
Posted by meow (# 9273) on :
 
I wonder what ecumenical work then means in the eyes of the pope (and the catholics?): talking to (us)
primitive natives and exchanging glass beads? Or trying to convert us to the one true faith?
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, because the Roman Catholics are so much more exclusivist than the Anglo-Catholics who separate the Christian world into First-Class Christians Who Have The Apostolic Succession And Valid Sacraments And Who Are Therefore Catholics With A Large C, and Second-Class Christians without these things such as Free Church Protestants ...

Not to mention the near-universal Christian exclusivism which separates the world into Christians, who are RIGHT about God, and everyone else who isn't (although they may have some hints or glimmerings of the truth).

Yeah, Ricardus, they are more exclusivist. The plain fact is that Anglicans do have the Apostolic Succession -- which The Rat cites as necessary for True Churchiness -- which makes the rank hypocrisy and rewriting of history on the part of the RCC all the more obvious. I do not particularly care what they think about us, since we have, evidently, a better grasp of Reading for Comprehension than anyone in that crowd.

If I didn't think that having the Historic Episcopacy meant something, I wouldn't care about being Catholic. I do think it's important. But unlike our Roman brethren, I won't 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.

And if you don't believe Christianity is the truth, why do you describe yourself as a member of a Christian denomination?

Ross
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
In these days of the internet (and look at the Anglican Communion and TEC if you want an example), I'm unclear as to why the RCC would release a document that was only meant for internal use.

One can't do something and then say, "Well, that was only meant for us," without some kind of explanation given with the document.

It's now all over. I've had a family member who is Anglo-Catholic and lapsed e-mail me and say, "So why should I go back to church? I'm apparently not good enough."

And I'm stumped as to how to explain to him why the Pope said what he did and that he can still believe in Catholic doctrine.
 
Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
It's now all over. I've had a family member who is Anglo-Catholic and lapsed e-mail me and say, "So why should I go back to church? I'm apparently not good enough."

Well, if they accept the authority of the Pope to that extent, they should go directly to Rome and get it over with.
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
It's now all over. I've had a family member who is Anglo-Catholic and lapsed e-mail me and say, "So why should I go back to church? I'm apparently not good enough."

Well, if they accept the authority of the Pope to that extent, they should go directly to Rome and get it over with.
Because if you have to go through a year of classes to be confirmed, and one already believes what they are going to teach, it's a waste of time.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Because if you have to go through a year of classes to be confirmed, and one already believes what they are going to teach, it's a waste of time.

One could always take up tatting, and thereby do something constructive with those yawning hours.
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Yeah, Ricardus, they are more exclusivist. The plain fact is that Anglicans do have the Apostolic Succession -- which The Rat cites as necessary for True Churchiness -- which makes the rank hypocrisy and rewriting of history on the part of the RCC all the more obvious. I do not particularly care what they think about us, since we have, evidently, a better grasp of Reading for Comprehension than anyone in that crowd.

Do you think all Anglicans agree with your definition of the Apostolic Succession and think it as essential to their identity as you do?

quote:
If I didn't think that having the Historic Episcopacy meant something, I wouldn't care about being Catholic. I do think it's important. But unlike our Roman brethren, I won't 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.

Why do you think the billion RCs care about the 70 million Anglicans, if it's really about insecurity?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

It's all second-guessing God; that's what irks me. God will save whoever God pleases to save, and will not be bound by the latest generation of theologians in the RCC.

This is getting nigh-on-ridiculous. People are attacking a caricature of the RCC straight out of a Chick tract.

The RCC has one of the most 'open' positions on the salvation of people beyond its own bounds (and, for that matter, the bounds of the Christian faith) of any Christian church.

It's difficult to know what the RCC actually believe about this, if the claim is that doctrinal truths proclaimed by the popes are infallible then either they are not infallible or it is still necessary to be an actual member of the RCC to be saved.

quote:
"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." Unam Sanctam

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)


"Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, encyclical, June 29, 1943; Denzinger 2286)


And note these next are errors, so the opposite is RCC doctrine:

"In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way toi eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." (Pius IX, "Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1716)

"We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ." (Pius IX, "Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1717)

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal." (Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), November 21, 1964)

Myrrh
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
RP, my struggle with your post is simply that I don't know any Catholics who have been so violently suppressed as you describe.

Really? I'm surprised if that's true. I've met loads of Catholics, or ex-Catholics, or lapsed Catholics, who will tell you that they have been damaged or excluded or abused by what they see as the hypocrisy or authoritarianism of the Catholic church. I mean loads, dozens of them, easily more than all the other people I've met who said that they have been damaged or abused or excluded by all other churches put together. (And my own Dad was one of them)

Almost invariably I find that what they say the RCC teaches is not what the Catechism says, or what the Pope says, or what my Catholic friends say. But they do exist, and there are a great many of them.

Only fair to say that most of them have been from working-class Irish families, very often northern Irish. Maybe there is something rotten in the teaching of that part of the RCC that isn't reflected in other communities. And its still only a minority of people I know who were brought up in such churches.
 
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on :
 
My take.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I thought it would be due to the information age through the spread of knowledge, when enough Roman Catholics would see the papal claims for what they are, a hidebound example of the doctrine of man and precisely that which Christ spoke against being made the ecclesiology of the Church - "it shall not be so among you".

Myrrh

[Roll Eyes]
? What the problem? Orthodox hold that RCC papal claims about Petrine primacy succession are man made doctrines and it's clear from Christ's words on the subject that His description of the what the Church shouldn't be is exactly what the RCC claims it is.

Myrrh
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The apostolic succession in communion with St Peter is supposed to be the realized sign of Christian unity, after all.

the realized sign of Christian unity? Really? Not the fruits of the Spirit? Not the love we are supposed to have for one another?

When Jesus said "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples..." was he talking about holding to an ontological theory of the ordained Presbyterate, or believing in the ncessestity of the tactile Apostolic succession, or acknowledging the Bishop of Rome as the ordinary ruler of every church on earth?
 
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
I don't know if anyone has seen this, but it explains it all
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
RP, my struggle with your post is simply that I don't know any Catholics who have been so violently suppressed as you describe.

Really? I'm surprised if that's true. I've met loads of Catholics, or ex-Catholics, or lapsed Catholics, who will tell you that they have been damaged or excluded or abused by what they see as the hypocrisy or authoritarianism of the Catholic church. I mean loads, dozens of them, easily more than all the other people I've met who said that they have been damaged or abused or excluded by all other churches put together. (And my own Dad was one of them)

Almost invariably I find that what they say the RCC teaches is not what the Catechism says, or what the Pope says, or what my Catholic friends say. But they do exist, and there are a great many of them.

Yes and you can see echoes of it in this thread in comments of the "the Catholic Church says my church is not a real church etc" variety. I'm tempted to say that neither the Catholic Church nor its doctrines should be blamed for people setting up doctrinal straw men and then taking offence at them.

But then I ask where do these misconceptions come from? Why are these defective myths being perpetuated?

In part I think it comes down to problems in communicating the subtlety and inclusive nature of Catholic teaching in a world prone to sound bites and bed-rock simplification.

Take the particular piece of Catholic ecclesiology under discussion, for example. Words and terms such as "necessary" for salvation and "subsists in" are actually being used as "terms of art" in a purist and very precise Latin sense ie as technical terms. Yet they are being understood in their popular sense. So non-Catholics are left with the understandable sense that they are being told that that their churches aren't true churches and that is a Bad Thing. The truth is that their churches are not the Catholic Church by definition. We want them to be in full communion with the Catholic Church for we should all be one in Christ. But in the end the Holy Spirit is working in those other churches and they are instruments of salvation too - because it is God who decides who is saved.

So "impaired communion" with the Catholic Church it is - which is a comment on the nature of the relationship, which falls short of full communion. That is not any sort of derogatory comment on any of the non-Catholic churches - unless you imply "impaired" as referring only to the non-Catholic side of the equation. It certainly isn't meant in that way but I can see how that meaning might be read into it. It's easier to understand the worst from what are subtle and nuanced statements - and react accordingly.

Similarly, it's often said that the Catholic Church at a parish level is a very different animal to the "institutional" Catholic Church. At the parish and individual level that has a good,compassionate, charitable and pastoral side but it can also have a dark side. Nevertheless the failures of its individual followers in charity and compassion does not mean that the Catholic Church is bad/evil/intolerant/authoritarian etc.

To say otherwise is to apply far too general and uncharitable a meaning to "By their fruits shall you know them" and to disparage the good of the Catholic Church along with the bad. What it means is that some or even many of its number have fallen short of the teachings of Christ in applying those teachings. In a real sense they have missed the message.

But have we managed to communicate the message if such misunderstandings exist?
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
Do you think all Anglicans agree with your definition of the Apostolic Succession and think it as essential to their identity as you do? ...Why do you think the billion RCs care about the 70 million Anglicans, if it's really about insecurity?

I think Anglicans (and others) who have actually read the documentation on the Historic Episcopate (traditionally known as the Apostolic Succession) certainly agree. There is no question: We have it, we have always had it, and the mere fact that someone in Rome says "You don't, Just Because I Say So" is hardly sufficient authority for those of us who don't accept his claims to authority in the first place.

When you remove that irrelevancy -- given that it's not based on anything but prejudice and turf battles -- the facts speak for themselves.

Not all Anglicans think it's particularly important, I grant you. But we still have it, and I doubt that most of them would idly throw it away.

I don't think most RCs care particularly about Anglicans, or about other Christians in general. However, I think most ordinary unbigoted RCs accept us, or would if they knew more.

The essential problem is with those members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy who demand absolute obedience on everything, who condemn inquiry, who oppose independent thought. Of course they don't like us; we don't accept "Because I Say So" as an answer. Big surprise there.

Ross
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Clarification: I don't think most ordinary Roman Catholics in the pews care that much about doctrinal differences; they just care about whether someone or something is "Catholic" or not. That's what I meant about their views on other Christians.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Clarification: I don't think most ordinary Roman Catholics in the pews care that much about doctrinal differences; they just care about whether someone or something is "Catholic" or not. That's what I meant about their views on other Christians.

The converse could be said with equal justice about most ordinary Episcopalians, Anglicans, Orthodox and indeed most of Christianity, as far as I can see.

[ 12. July 2007, 03:38: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:


Yes and you can see echoes of it in this thread in comments of the "the Catholic Church says my church is not a real church etc" variety. I'm tempted to say that neither the Catholic Church nor its doctrines should be blamed for people setting up doctrinal straw men and then taking offence at them.

But then I ask where do these misconceptions come from? Why are these defective myths being perpetuated?

In part I think it comes down to problems in communicating the subtlety and inclusive nature of Catholic teaching in a world prone to sound bites and bed-rock simplification.

Take the particular piece of Catholic ecclesiology under discussion, for example. Words and terms such as "necessary" for salvation and "subsists in" are actually being used as "terms of art" in a purist and very precise Latin sense ie as technical terms. Yet they are being understood in their popular sense. So non-Catholics are left with the understandable sense that they are being told that that their churches aren't true churches and that is a Bad Thing. The truth is that their churches are not the Catholic Church by definition. We want them to be in full communion with the Catholic Church for we should all be one in Christ. But in the end the Holy Spirit is working in those other churches and they are instruments of salvation too - because it is God who decides who is saved.

So "impaired communion" with the Catholic Church it is - which is a comment on the nature of the relationship, which falls short of full communion. That is not any sort of derogatory comment on any of the non-Catholic churches - unless you imply "impaired" as referring only to the non-Catholic side of the equation. It certainly isn't meant in that way but I can see how that meaning might be read into it. It's easier to understand the worst from what are subtle and nuanced statements - and react accordingly.

Similarly, it's often said that the Catholic Church at a parish level is a very different animal to the "institutional" Catholic Church. At the parish and individual level that has a good,compassionate, charitable and pastoral side but it can also have a dark side. Nevertheless the failures of its individual followers in charity and compassion does not mean that the Catholic Church is bad/evil/intolerant/authoritarian etc.

To say otherwise is to apply far too general and uncharitable a meaning to "By their fruits shall you know them" and to disparage the good of the Catholic Church along with the bad. What it means is that some or even many of its number have fallen short of the teachings of Christ in applying those teachings. In a real sense they have missed the message.

But have we managed to communicate the message if such misunderstandings exist? [/QB][/QUOTE]

[Overused]
 
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by meow:
I wonder what ecumenical work then means in the eyes of the pope... trying to convert us to the one true faith?

Essentially.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
RP, my struggle with your post is simply that I don't know any Catholics who have been so violently suppressed as you describe.

Really? I'm surprised if that's true. I've met loads of Catholics, or ex-Catholics, or lapsed Catholics, who will tell you that they have been damaged or excluded or abused by what they see as the hypocrisy or authoritarianism of the Catholic church. I mean loads, dozens of them, easily more than all the other people I've met who said that they have been damaged or abused or excluded by all other churches put together. (And my own Dad was one of them)

Almost invariably I find that what they say the RCC teaches is not what the Catechism says, or what the Pope says, or what my Catholic friends say. But they do exist, and there are a great many of them.

Only fair to say that most of them have been from working-class Irish families, very often northern Irish. Maybe there is something rotten in the teaching of that part of the RCC that isn't reflected in other communities. And its still only a minority of people I know who were brought up in such churches.

Ken, you are right. There are lots of horrible childhood stories that I and friends can recall -- many of these involve nuns in charge of schools and classrooms. Ireland got a strong dose of this; so did France, and parts of America. And of course we could go back to James Joyce and the ferula-wielding Jesuits.

Most of the horror stories I can think of, though, were about discipline rather than doctrine. Kids were smacked for scoffing food before Mass, not for believing the wrong thing about the filioque clause.

Nowadays, in any event, it is all a lot more gentle; the children are offered Pray as you go, aka "God on your Pod" and those praise songs beloved by our Max.

I wonder how this will all change as what looks like a wave of traditionalism washes over the bow of Peter's boat.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
When I walked into the churchhouse this evening for our Wednesday gathering, the discussion was on this topic. Or at least my churchmates' understanding of how it all will work out.

So, like, a return to the Latin Mass? When most priests don't speak Latin these days and so will be reciting stuff in a language they don't speak?

A return to the attitude of the Latin Mass as well? Like, the priest with his back to the people, maybe even behind a screen or something, just offering a Mass between him and God and the people are just sort of there... why?

To eat the styrofoam wafer? They could do that anywhere, the stuff can be consecrated and sent out to them. To make a confession before the Mass? You can do that by telephone. To put money in the collection bag? You can also mail that in.

So the recent headlines are all about how the Pope doesn't think all those upstart churches out there are r-e-a-l-l-y the Lord's Church? Well, hot diggetty dog, the majority of my pewmates don't think the Pope is part of the One True Church either. Tit for tat.

I'm not sure why that aspect of it made headlines today anyway. Hasn't the Catholic Church thought that forever? Why is that new news?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Why on earth does 'the [RC] Church is an indispensable part of salvation' imply 'only members of the RCC can be saved'? You do understand that 'the plan of salvation' means God's plan of salvation for all of creation through Jesus Christ, right? Although even if it meant 'God's plan for me', Trisagion's words wouldn't imply Catholic exclusivism. That the RCC existing is an indispensible part of my salvation doesn't entail that I cannot be saved if I am not an RC.

I think I'm following all this, but there does seem something extremely odd about the way language is being used, and therefore about the communication of the RCC.

Quoting my paraphrase of Trisagion you say
quote:
Why on earth does 'the [RC] Church is an indispensable part of salvation' imply 'only members of the RCC can be saved'?
Yes, it could be that the RCC is indispensable in the sense that it must simply be there, somewhere. It could be possible to be saved by membership of a Baptist church, if and only if, the RCC continues somewhere, perhaps far overseas.

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.

You then pointed out that what Trisagion had said was that the RCC is indispensable for God's plan of salvation. I can see this is a bit different, too. God might really need the RCC, but still be able to do a bit of saving round the edges of it, as it were, by other means. Crumbs from the table. This, though is hardly friendly to those in other denominations.

I looked at Good Catholic Lad's link to the CDF's 'Response to Some Questions ..' Here are some more examples of language being used for definition rather than communication. At first sight the article is in a user friendly question and answer style. Why do we say Christ's Church 'subsists in' the RCC rather than just say 'is'? And the answer is that they want to acknowledge that there are numerous elements of sanctification and truth outside the RCC. But this friendly thought is at once withdrawn. Not only do these gifts properly belong inside the structures of the RCC - they've gone astray and we want them back - but nonetheless 'subsists in' means 'full identity' with.

And you say that's not exclusivist?

The message many RCs are giving on this thread is that people are only getting offended because they are misinterpreting the RCC's statements and doctrines. The offended are accused of interpreting the statements of the RCC uncharitably.

I think this is misplaced. The reason I care about what the RCC thinks is that I regard it as part of Christ's Church. They are my brothers and sisters. I am not out of communion with them, though they are out of communion with me. At a local and personal level I value my relationships with RCs.

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.)

As Jengie lamented, there is never an 'in our opinion.' This is not Christian speaking to Christian. There is no respect. It is just the RCC ordering the world. From the outside it is arcane, intimidating and destructive.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
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.'


unfortunately 500 years too late but they made a good point
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Yeah, Ricardus, they are more exclusivist. The plain fact is that Anglicans do have the Apostolic Succession -- which The Rat cites as necessary for True Churchiness -- which makes the rank hypocrisy and rewriting of history on the part of the RCC all the more obvious.

I think there's a bit more to it than lack of apostolic succession, otherwise the Orthodox and the Union of Utrecht would count ... Besides whatever Apostolicae Curae may say, it appears that Anglican priestly converts are only conditionally (re-)ordained.
quote:
If I didn't think that having the Historic Episcopacy meant something, I wouldn't care about being Catholic. I do think it's important. But unlike our Roman brethren, I won't divide the world into The Church and mere-schmeer-ptui "ecclesial communities."
No, merely into churches that offer valid Eucharists and churches that don't, which is the same thing in implication. At any rate, ISTM "your Eucharists are invalid" implies "your church is defective" even if you don't actually say it, in the same way that "your cakes are awful" implies "you're a bad cook".
quote:
And if you don't believe Christianity is the truth, why do you describe yourself as a member of a Christian denomination?
I do believe Christianity is the truth. I don't personally mind exclusivism, I just get annoyed at fellow-Anglicans who take monstrous offense at RC exclusivism while maintaining exclusivist positions of their own.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The apostolic succession in communion with St Peter is supposed to be the realized sign of Christian unity, after all.

the realized sign of Christian unity? Really? Not the fruits of the Spirit? Not the love we are supposed to have for one another?
Yes. These rhetorical oppositions are so terribly tiresome. As if a specific realized sign (=sacrament) of Christian unity meant that Christians cannot be united in the Spirit and communal love. In fact, of course, it's just the other way around: such a realized sign is given precisely to focus all the various kinds of Christian unity one can think of.

The absurdity of ken's questioning becomes perhaps clear once on applies it to secular matters: are the national flag and anthem truly the symbols of national unity, shouldn't it rather be working for the good of the state and appreciation for one's compatriots? Yes, they are indeed the symbols, but in a healthy nation with citizen of proper patriotic disposition there simply is no opposition here. Flag and anthem are simply the focus of all the different ways in which one loves one's country practically.

The special character of the sacrament (realized sign) is that unlike for flag and anthem, it brings about what it symbolizes. It is as if flag and anthem would somehow bring about land, citizenship, and parliament, realizing what they symbolize. This does not mean that all must be well: the flag can be torn, the anthem can be sung at the wrong occasion, the land can be in strife, citizenship can be a burden, parliament useless, etc. And just so it can be with the sacrament of holy orders and Christian unity, that's humanity for you. But unlike for secular matters, for this we have Christ's Divine guarantee that somehow and in some way it will pull through to the end. And that is a grace worth celebrating.
 
Posted by hamletta (# 11678) on :
 
quote:
To eat the styrofoam wafer? They could do that anywhere, the stuff can be consecrated and sent out to them. To make a confession before the Mass? You can do that by telephone. To put money in the collection bag? You can also mail that in.

Oh, get bent. You just insulted not only every Catholic, but every Anglican/Episcopalian and Lutheran on this board.

And I don't recall Church of Christ doctrine being all puppies and ice cream, either. Wasn't so long ago they were teaching that everyone except them was goin' to hell, and that's way beyond what Papa Ratzi said.

That said, being a Lutheran and all, I don't give a flyin' flip what any ol' pope says. And neither should you. It's a frickin' legal brief, people; a dictionary entry.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Mind you, I'm going off of NPR reports and overheard conversations -- but there seems to be some attention paid right now to the possibility of the return of the Latin Mass.


If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --

If that ever comes back around again it might as well be styrofoam wafers and called-in confessions. I hope that ground isn't lost.

(PS, I'll bring your suggestion that we include puppies in our assemblies before the elders...)

[ 12. July 2007, 09:08: Message edited by: Janine ]
 
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Mind you, I'm going off of NPR reports and overheard conversations -- but there seems to be some attention paid right now to the possibility of the return of the Latin Mass.


If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --

If that ever comes back around again it might as well be styrofoam wafers and called-in confessions. I hope that ground isn't lost.

(PS, I'll bring your suggestion that we include puppies in our assemblies before the elders...)

[brick wall] Turning Towards the Lord

[put in a tinyurl title. It is indeed your friend]

[ 12. July 2007, 09:48: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As if a specific realized sign (=sacrament) of Christian unity meant that Christians cannot be united in the Spirit and communal love. In fact, of course, it's just the other way around: such a realized sign is given precisely to focus all the various kinds of Christian unity one can think of.

The absurdity of ken's questioning becomes perhaps clear once on applies it to secular matters: are the national flag and anthem truly the symbols of national unity, shouldn't it rather be working for the good of the state and appreciation for one's compatriots? Yes, they are indeed the symbols, but in a healthy nation with citizen of proper patriotic disposition there simply is no opposition here. .

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.

(this isn't a language difference is it? Your not thinkng in German or whatever and translating into English? )
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --

Mind you, I would be offended if the priest was looking at me during the liturgy... "Look towards God, dumbass!"

Janine, the way I see it, had things been done in a different way, it would be more like secular theatre and less like worship. My priest is like me, and he represents our community during the liturgy. If I get to look eastwards, because with that physical way I turn my spiritual self towards God, then so does he. We are all together here, during the liturgy... The priest is not doing something so that I can see... The priest along with me prays to the Lord.

Allow me to speak as someone whose priests looks eastwards, prays in ancient Greek, and says some prayers in secret.

I think you over-intellectualise Christianity by thinking that the people must be able to hear and understand every single word the priest says... Liturgy is much much wider than words. Deaf people can participate, babies can participate, I can participate if I am in a foreign country and I don't speak the language... I don't go to the liturgy to understand every single word. I get there to get "liturgized" and this is too amazing to be limited to what the intellect understands.

Praying those dreadful prayers so that the rest of the people can hear sounds pretty awful to me. It's a very serious thing, and while my priest is sweating so that God can accept our offering, I pray in secret as well. Why do you find that so appalling? Is it for cultural reasons? or theological reasons? I know I would find the exact opposite of what we do in church to be improper for Christian worship...
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Clarification: I don't think most ordinary Roman Catholics in the pews care that much about doctrinal differences; they just care about whether someone or something is "Catholic" or not. That's what I meant about their views on other Christians.

The converse could be said with equal justice about most ordinary Episcopalians, Anglicans, Orthodox and indeed most of Christianity, as far as I can see.
No, I don't think it could. Not round here anyway. People in the CofE pew do not, on the whole, reject things because they are not "Anglican". And many of us would be quite happy to attend churches of other denominations if circumstances required.

I think that's generally true of Protestant churchgoers, with some obvious exceptions in small sects that think they are the only True Church on Earth, and some of the higher-up Anglo-Catholics (& maybe Lutherans) who get worked up about the Apostolic Succession. Most of us identify much more with Christianity - or if we are being sectarian with Protestant or Evangelical or Charismatic Christianity - than with a denomination.

That may not have been true a couple of generations ago when most people associated themselves with one denomination or another and there were large numbers who were culturally Methodist or Baptist or whatever. But in these days of small (and therefore often very committed) attendences cultural Anglicanism or Methodism and so on are all but dead.

One difference between us and the Catholics - you still see large numbers of (mainly Irish) people who will say they are Catholics without ever going to church or expressing much intellectual assent to Christian doctrine.

In that, they (and of course our new Muslim fellow-citizens) stand out in overwhelmingly secular Britain. But the evidence is that the later generations born of immigrants largely conform to local habits. Religion goes through a period of being "for the children", then it becomes a matter of weddings and funerals and occasional festivals, then falls off the radar altogether, as it has for the majority of the once-Protestant English.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Mind you, I'm going off of NPR reports and overheard conversations -- but there seems to be some attention paid right now to the possibility of the return of the Latin Mass.

If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --

If that ever comes back around again it might as well be styrofoam wafers and called-in confessions. I hope that ground isn't lost.

(PS, I'll bring your suggestion that we include puppies in our assemblies before the elders...)

No and thrice no. The 1962 Missal (for that is I think what you refer to) will simply be celebrated as an alternate form of the Roman Rite. The other far more widely used form of Roman Rite is the Mass celebrated all over the world. Believe me, Novus Ordo Masses in the language of whomever are alive and well.

Screens are not part of either form of the Roman Rite. I think you have us confused with the Orthodoxen* there. But then I suspect we don't share a common understanding of the Sacraments or or the Real Presence either.

And once upon a time Latin was the vernacular. Then it was a language spoken by educated persons.
At some point it became an instrument of torture for children:

"Latin is a language,
As dead as dead can be.
First it killed the Romans
And now it's killing me."

*Thanks, andreas1984 [Biased]

[ 12. July 2007, 10:04: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.

Hmmm, just like the Lord's supper in the Gospels and Epistles.

Not.
It's no wonder some people think the Mass is totally outside Biblical truth.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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.

Hmmm, just like the Lord's supper in the Gospels and Epistles.

Not.
It's no wonder some people think the Mass is totally outside Biblical truth.

Some people would be quite wrong there.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --

Mind you, I would be offended if the priest was looking at me during the liturgy... "Look towards God, dumbass!"


Surely God is omnipresent so it doens't matter which way he looks? [Two face]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Not in Latin, but at Exeter Cathedral the other week the first eastward facing mass I've attended in a long while. OK it was in English but strangely moving for all that.

I don't see anything wrong with it as long as people are taught what is going on. The 'normal' Eucharist is pretty weird to for those not in the know.
 
Posted by Fifi (# 8151) on :
 
All of which reminds me of the old joke about 'What the Church of England stands for' to which the witty response was 'Because there's only one seat, and the Pope's sat on it'.
 
Posted by C# (# 3818) on :
 
I expect this will be ridiculed as a hissy fit or, more likely, ignored but I have to say the I've had enough.

It is clear that entrenched anti-catholicism and bigotry are not ever going to go away, here or in the real world. This thread has made me weep, and I am not going to have anything to do with the Ship any more.

If you want to regard this as just another ITIWASACWS then do so, but maybe some people who profess Christ should examine their consciences in the light of the Gospel.

Christine.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely God is omnipresent so it doens't matter which way he looks? [Two face]

It takes two to tango. In our salvation, the synergy takes place between the God that saves and us that are saved. God alone is not enough for people to get saved. It takes their co-operation with God, and essentially this is what God calls us for: to be His partners in creation and life, to be equal with Him.

Man is physical and spiritual at the same time and in order for the unconscious and subconscious problems we have to get solved, conscious effort is to be made. So, by turning towards the East, knowing that this is the most ancient tradition of the church, we "log in" to the spiritual realm and connect with God through a physical means. This makes our meeting with God more efficient. The fact that God is omnipresent is not all it matters here. God approaches me but unless I approach Him back nothing happens.
 
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on :
 
"And once upon a time Latin was the vernacular. Then it was a language spoken by educated persons."

This is actually a misconception. As someone who knows a little about the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages it was actually the case that the latin spoken in the liturgy (when it changed from greek to latin with the exception of the Kyrie of course) was completely different to that spoken by the majority of the population and would have been as difficult to understand then as it is now.

Latin has always been meant as a sacred language set apart. Well that it what I have argued in the past and I have heard Michael Lang argue it as well
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

The message many RCs are giving on this thread is that people are only getting offended because they are misinterpreting the RCC's statements and doctrines. The offended are accused of interpreting the statements of the RCC uncharitably.

I think this is misplaced. The reason I care about what the RCC thinks is that I regard it as part of Christ's Church. They are my brothers and sisters. I am not out of communion with them, though they are out of communion with me. At a local and personal level I value my relationships with RCs.

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.)


hatless

I've italicised a couple of quotes which I think are questionable, but left in a context which seems to me to be fair comment. Surely if there is calculation in this, it is not directed to the thoughts of those outside Catholicism, but those inside? Offence has certainly been taken by those outside Catholicism, but I just can't see how that has been deliberately provoked.

Remembering back to the whole medieval document thing and the uproar in Islam, I'm much more inclined to believe that BXVI has a taste for precision. In terms of predicting the public response to any direct utterances, or those made with his permission, I'm sure he has advisers on how things may play. But it's pretty clear that he doesn't have a Catholic equivalent on an Alistair Campbell-type spin doctor about his person. Many of us would regard that as a "good thing".

On the second italicised quote, yes I do understand the impression, but I'm not quite sure how justified it is. I think we nonconformist anabaptist memorialists mostly get ignored. We're the bastard children of a bastard child. But I'm not ashamed of the questionable legitimacy of our spiritual parents. I find much which is wholly admirable and truthful in them. There are indeed elements of sanctification and truth in our midst, mixed up as everywhere with less attractive stuff. Well that's what I find anyway. But I give God the glory for those elements. I'm also happy to acknowledge that the historical preservations of Orthodoxy and Catholicism church provided the substance both of our agreed understandings and the issues over we still protest. But that's as far as I can go. The means and mediation of grace are ultimately a matter for the sovereignty of God. The wind of the Spirit blows where it wills.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, by turning towards the East, knowing that this is the most ancient tradition of the church, we "log in"

What I mean to say is that in ordinary life most of the people are not connected with God consciously. In order to do that, we can make use of the conscious change that can take place with eastwards pray. If one does that every time one prays, if one consciously turns to the East, signifying a turn to the Sun of Justice Himself, then our connection with the spiritual realm can get activated in an efficient manner.

I am concerned as to which extent Western denominations preserve in their life the connection between the physical and the spiritual. It would seem to me that a break has taken place, and that the ancient know-how is lost. Is this true? Have you somehow separated the physical from the spiritual realm?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Barnabas, 'calculatedly wounding' may be a phrase too far, but there is an astonishing indifference, publicly at least, to the effect of his words. And I don't see any words of regret from RCs on this thread. Indeed Csharp feels the whole discussion is distressingly anti-Catholic, and I'm very sorry about that.

Defining the word church to exclude some is not just a matter of precise definition. Think of someone insisting on precision in what it means to be British, or civilised, or a lady, or 'one of us.' It is an aggressively discriminatory act.

All talk of belonging and who is in or out, who is acceptable and who is not, touch deep feelings. Heavens, I get upset by RC statements about salvation, and I don't think of salvation like that at all! It's just a way of talking about our opinions of one another.

As Ken said, denominationalism amongst Protestant Brits is pretty much dead. If a Baptist moves to a new town it's fifty fifty at best that she'll remains a Baptist. We are happy, and think it's 'Christian' and healthy to say that one is as good as another. When the biggest of us all not only won't play happy families, but say we're not even proper families, it comes across as bullying.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Surely if there is calculation in this, it is not directed to the thoughts of those outside Catholicism, but those inside? Offence has certainly been taken by those outside Catholicism, but I just can't see how that has been deliberately provoked.

Remembering back to the whole medieval document thing and the uproar in Islam, I'm much more inclined to believe that BXVI has a taste for precision. In terms of predicting the public response to any direct utterances, or those made with his permission, I'm sure he has advisers on how things may play. But it's pretty clear that he doesn't have a Catholic equivalent on an Alistair Campbell-type spin doctor about his person. Many of us would regard that as a "good thing".

That's spot on from my perspective.

quote:
On the second italicised quote, yes I do understand the impression, but I'm not quite sure how justified it is. I think we nonconformist anabaptist memorialists mostly get ignored. We're the bastard children of a bastard child. But I'm not ashamed of the questionable legitimacy of our spiritual parents. I find much which is wholly admirable and truthful in them. There are indeed elements of sanctification and truth in our midst, mixed up as everywhere with less attractive stuff. Well that's what I find anyway. But I give God the glory for those elements. I'm also happy to acknowledge that the historical preservations of Orthodoxy and Catholicism church provided the substance both of our agreed understandings and the issues over we still protest. But that's as far as I can go. The means and mediation of grace are ultimately a matter for the sovereignty of God. The wind of the Spirit blows where it wills.
That's gracious indeed.

I'm not that comfortable with the phrase "ecclesial communities" either. But that term along with "the Church" or "church" are being used in a precise theological sense to summarise a whole series of positions on the Apostolic succession, about the primacy of the Pope and so on. 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.)

And most of the rest of you are my fellow Christians, part of the Body of Christ, working out your own path to salvation. "Ecclesial communities", while I don't like it as a phrase, describes your community in Christ in a "church" sense. It isn't the Catholic concept of church though.

And the rest who aren't Christians are people of good will whose willingness to listen and debate I respect. I don't think you'd be here if that comment "people of good will" couldn't be fairly applied to you.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Duo Seraphim said
quote:
And most of the rest of you are my fellow Christians, part of the Body of Christ, working out your own path to salvation. "Ecclesial communities", while I don't like it as a phrase, describes your community in Christ in a "church" sense. It isn't the Catholic concept of church though.

And the rest who aren't Christians are people of good will whose willingness to listen and debate I respect. I don't think you'd be here if that comment "people of good will" couldn't be fairly applied to you.

And that is gracious too, and much appreciated. Indeed, I could ask for nothing more than what you say here: "And most of the rest of you are my fellow Christians, part of the Body of Christ, working out your own path to salvation. "

Taken together with your expression of discomfort over the phrase 'ecclesial communities' I am fully persuaded of your goodwill and respect. There is no problem.

But it isn't what your hierarchy is saying.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
And it doesn't seem to be what the hierarchy say to people like me who were brought up in the Catholic Church and who have since left.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by C#:
I expect this will be ridiculed as a hissy fit or, more likely, ignored but I have to say the I've had enough.

It is clear that entrenched anti-catholicism and bigotry are not ever going to go away, here or in the real world. This thread has made me weep, and I am not going to have anything to do with the Ship any more. ...

This sort of attitude still manages to startle me, after all these years.

Let's see. The Pope, or one of the Usual Suspects here on the Ship, makes remarks that denigrate other Christian denominations, generally or specifically, and makes unsustainable negative claims about us.

Non-Roman Catholics then disagree with some aspect of those remarks and claims.

In response, certain Roman Catholics immediately begin to shriek about "bigotry," "anti-Catholicism," ask when the accusations of eating babies are going to begin, etc., all because non-Roman Catholics have had the absolute effrontery to disagree with the untruthful things said about us.

Well, here's a news flash: If we all agreed with all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, we would (I feel certain) all convert. We don't, so we haven't. We are actually entitled to disagree. If you can't deal with that, perhaps you're not best served by an open discussion.

I love some aspects of the Roman Catholic Church, but I deeply oppose certain aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine. (Obviously.) I don't think rigid authoritarianism is the way to go, and I think the notion of papal infallibility is about as heretical as you can get.

That doesn't make me "anti-Catholic." I'll be happy to discuss all my real-life and online prayer and interaction with friends and family who happen to be members of the Church of Rome, if you're interested.

But if you're going to fling around mass accusations of "bigotry" at those who disagree with the Pope and certain RC zealots here, then permit me to suggest that you're as guilty of prejudice as those you accuse.

Ross
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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.

Hmmm, just like the Lord's supper in the Gospels and Epistles.

Not.
It's no wonder some people think the Mass is totally outside Biblical truth.

Oh of course, Biblical Truth!
And the Lord's Supper was celebrated in King James English too!

I will repent of my wicked ways and stop going to the Catholic Mass which obviously only pretends to be biblical!

Oh wait

Max
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
And it doesn't seem to be what the hierarchy say to people like me who were brought up in the Catholic Church and who have since left.
Saved?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Apparently not - see para 846
 
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on :
 
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>
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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)?
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Preca (# 12709) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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]


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.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks cor

Yes I know that ecclesiastical is there. But not ecclesial.

Here's an online definition which shows the point I'm making.

[ 12. July 2007, 13:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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. [Overused] 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...
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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.......
 
Posted by Quercus (# 12761) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
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
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
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"??
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
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!] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
No, I don't think there are. I'm not sure why Ross is bring it up.

Thurible
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :
 
Recidite_plebians wrote, "Allow me to explain." Followed by a long sad story.
[Tear]
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.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
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.



 
Posted by hamletta (# 11678) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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] would make further headway if they took the same approach.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.


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 ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Yes, your thoughts, Barnabas, are much the same as mine. There is no Baptist Church; there are Baptist churches, and they associate in various ways. So a local congregation isn't quite the Church in all its fullness, it needs its links with others.

Ecclesial communities looks like a roundabout way of saying 'churches' or 'churchoids.' Things which are like churches, but which we don't want to call that.

I don't mind, in that I'm happy to be slapdash about all these things. We can't nail God down, and can't be precise about the things of God: eucharist, salvation, church, prayer, etc.

But I suppose I react negatively when I detect that someone is using words in a clever and unnatural way in order to be precise about the things of God, and in a way that promotes themselves at the expense of Christian unity.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Ecclesial communities looks like a roundabout way of saying 'churches' or 'churchoids.' Things which are like churches, but which we don't want to call that.

It is, pretty much, a way of saying what a lot of Protestants mean when they say 'church', yes. It implies the absence of some things Catholics sometimes mean when they say 'church', such as bishops ordained in the apostolic succession and the seven sacraments. But, presumably, most Protestants don't feel this as a lack. As I said above, I really can't see what the problem is.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
With Protestants you rather get "we are all fine living as separate parts"[...]

I agree that such a view exists, but for clarity would state that it certainly isn't my view.

I think that the True Church can be divided - that is, I think that this is a possibility rather than an impossibility - but not in the least that it ought to be divided, or that it should be at all tolerable that it is divided. I don't think that we are fine as we are.
 
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
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.
<more pedantry> I think you mean dog Latin. Pig Latin is a kind of American slang, I think from the 1940s, things like ixnay for nix (noun and verb for saying no to something, Pennsylvanian German from German nichts) and 'Amscray!' for another bit of dated slang, 'Scram!' No, I was never in the cast of 'Annie'. From those examples you can see how the game works. </more pedantry>

As Catholic as I am I've known and acknowledge people who've been treated shittily by representatives of the holy, Catholic, apostolic and Roman church. Many RC priests' people skills suck.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, your thoughts, Barnabas, are much the same as mine. There is no Baptist Church; there are Baptist churches, and they associate in various ways. So a local congregation isn't quite the Church in all its fullness, it needs its links with others.

Ecclesial communities looks like a roundabout way of saying 'churches' or 'churchoids.' Things which are like churches, but which we don't want to call that.

I don't mind, in that I'm happy to be slapdash about all these things. We can't nail God down, and can't be precise about the things of God: eucharist, salvation, church, prayer, etc.

But I suppose I react negatively when I detect that someone is using words in a clever and unnatural way in order to be precise about the things of God, and in a way that promotes themselves at the expense of Christian unity.

I like churchoids! That really is neat - probably too neat for the CDF. That sort of fearless felicitous invention probably has to be heresy for several centuries before passing into common parlance.

I think you're being a little grumpy by the way, but given some of the crap we have to take from our "elders and betters" it's not surprising. Funny isn't it? Congregational ecclesiology really can't get too worked up about this stuff. I guess we're just used to folks calling us names.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
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] would make further headway if they took the same approach.

Clarifications issued by the CDF are not primarily intended for informing the wider world about Catholic theology. They are primarily intended to sort Catholics out! It's interesting that every single document of the Vatican now gets so much attention by the press, but why precisely should all Vatican documents be dumbed down and PC-ified to a level where everybody understands and nobody complains? If people have such great interest in the RCC, then they should inform themselves sufficiently to understand what she says. The RC faith and the RCC herself are generally just not simple enough to be compressed into smooth soundbites. Deal.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Maybe so many people get their knickers in a knot because they feel judged by the Church and secretly worry that her teaching is right!
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Oh no, now I'll have a bunch of angry Anglicans and mudfrogs after me for sure [Eek!] [Ultra confused] [Eek!] [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on :
 
Its possible.

Do you think Roman Catholics get so upset with Jack Chick because they fear his teachings are correct?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Chick is a dick, but funny in an absurd way if one can keep one's humour.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Its possible.

Do you think Roman Catholics get so upset with Jack Chick because they fear his teachings are correct?

[Killing me] I don't care who you are, that's funny!

L Sv K. 'Fess up now, you hear?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Whoops! X-posted, L Sv K. I see you did 'fess up (in a way) ....
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Barnabas62 said to me
quote:
I think you're being a little grumpy by the way,
How can I resist? You know I can't! Oh, all right then, yes I am being unduly grumpy, and its an indulgence. I shall try to cultivate that against which there is no law. [Smile]

Thanks.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
but why precisely should all Vatican documents be dumbed down and PC-ified to a level where everybody understands and nobody complains?

Because there are ways of presenting the same information and arguments that don't cause offence to those people you claim to be reaching out to as ecumenical partners with a view to eventual reunion.

I guess that's not an important issue to you, so I take it you wouldn't be unhappy if I called you a fuckwit according to my earlier definition every time I think you've made a mistake? I won't do that of course, but I hope you get the point.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Lovely post, hatless. That nice Duo may be along shortly suggesting this sort of indulgence for your confessed one. But too late! James 5:16 will do nicely!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
What do I say about the Church?
I believe the Church is all those who are 'in Christ' and I believe that The Salvation Army is not 'a church' per se but is an 'evangelical movement that is an integral but distinctive part of the Universal Christian Church.

That said, I believe that the Army is a denomination in its own right - clergy, doctrines, a central authority - but if there were suddenly to be a worldwide decree that forced all denominations to come under the Bishop of Rome, then TSA would easily (if not happily) fit in as an Order within the Catholic Church.

Jesuits, Franciscans, Salvationists...

Yes, I can see it now. General Booth would have to be made a saint in order for Salvationists to accept the new authority over us.

Hmmm, a brass band playing in St Peter's Square and tambourines, flags and shouts of "Hallelujah!" inside the basilica.

Hey, are you Romans prepared for such a style of worship?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Oh Mudfrog you know they are (ready for the S.A. band)! It sounds like a good vision to me -- the beatific vision, perhaps. You have only erroneous doctrines to lose, you have a Church to gain!
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Because there are ways of presenting the same information and arguments that don't cause offence to those people you claim to be reaching out to as ecumenical partners with a view to eventual reunion.

Actually, I don't think that this is true. The basic point here is simply that the Vatican thinks other denominations are in one way or the other deficient. No amount of explanation or sweet-talking obfuscation can insure that members of those denominations won't take offense.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I guess that's not an important issue to you, so I take it you wouldn't be unhappy if I called you a fuckwit according to my earlier definition every time I think you've made a mistake? I won't do that of course, but I hope you get the point.

Yeah, it's a crap analogy. A proper analogy to this CDF clarification would be that in a public blog intended to discuss theological matters with friends from your denomination, you refer to me as "follower of those deficient RC doctrines". And guess what, that would indeed not be a concern for me at all. In fact, I would consider that as an entirely fair description - given that I think you are honestly mistaken about whose doctrines are deficient.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Oh Mudfrog you know they are (ready for the S.A. band)! It sounds like a good vision to me -- the beatific vision, perhaps. You have only erroneous doctrines to lose, you have a Church to gain!

Pray tell what our erroneous doctrines are. (and before you suggest it, our non-scramental stance is not doctrinal but practical).
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Actually, I don't think that this is true. The basic point here is simply that the Vatican thinks other denominations are in one way or the other deficient. No amount of explanation or sweet-talking obfuscation can insure that members of those denominations won't take offense.

I agree to an extent, but expressing things that way limits the potential offence to the actual facts over which the Catholics and the rest disagree - and we might make some headway towards reunion out of that because it's focussed on the issues.

That's not what I'm getting at. It's that the CDF is choosing to express its beliefs as to the nature of other communities in a way that unnecessarily implies things the technical language does not intend. The Catechism acknowledges that the word church has many meanings. It's hard then not to see the act of denying the word to insufficiently-Catholic communions as insulting, and this seems particularly strange as it's apparently being done in the interests of technical precision!

Consider the case of the Church of England. My understanding is that the Catholic Church's view of the CofE could be stated in the following ways:

1. The Church of England is a Church that maintains many of the marks of the Catholic Church that she inherited from the pre-Reformation Church, but is deficient in several areas particularly in having lost her Catholic orders.

2. The Church of England cannot properly be called a Church. This is because a Church requires Catholic orders and the Church of England doesn't have them. Of course, according to the other definitions of the word church, which we acknowledge and happily use, the Church of England would be a Church but we're not going to call her one.

My contention is that 1 is less misleading than 2, less likely to cause offence, and more likely to lead to a fruitful discussion.

quote:
Yeah, it's a crap analogy.
It's a fair cop. I tried my best.

quote:
A proper analogy to this CDF clarification would be that in a public blog intended to discuss theological matters with friends from your denomination, you refer to me as "follower of those deficient RC doctrines".
No, that's a crap analogy because you've missed the point. That would be the equivalent of my 1 above.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
That Matthew Parker was consecrated archbishop according to the proper forms, with the proper intentions evident, and by qualified bishops is a fact.

Given that the Thirty-Nine Articles deny that the consecration of bishops is a sacrament, I find it rather hard to believe that the intent was there.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Given that the Thirty-Nine Articles deny that the consecration of bishops is a sacrament, I find it rather hard to believe that the intent was there.

Firstly, that's not true. They don't deny that at all - to be honest they're ambiguously worded so you can think what you like about five of the sacraments but can't deny baptism and the eucharist.

Secondly, it doesn't make sense to say that, because the specific intent to perform a sacramental action isn't usually cited as a requirement, just the intent to do what the Church does - if one's understanding of what the Church does is wrong, that's not necessarily a barrier. See the Catholic teaching on baptism carried out in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by denominations that don't believe in sacraments, for example.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Was Parker consecrated though by any bishop in who had been consecrated by the Roman Catholic Church? My understanding was that he'd been consecrated by a mixture and Edwardine and Henrician bishops and that the Catholic Marian bishops had refused to participate. In what sense therefore can we as Anglicans say that strict AS has been maintained and that the Branch Theory is valid?

[ 13. July 2007, 09:12: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
[Sorry, couldn't even get it right on editing [Hot and Hormonal] - last post should have read "consecrated by a mixture of Edwardine and Henrician bishops"]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Firstly, that's not true. They don't deny that at all - to be honest they're ambiguously worded so you can think what you like about five of the sacraments but can't deny baptism and the eucharist.

Yes, but the question isn't how they can be interpreted, but how they would have been understood at the time.
quote:
Secondly, it doesn't make sense to say that, because the specific intent to perform a sacramental action isn't usually cited as a requirement, just the intent to do what the Church does - if one's understanding of what the Church does is wrong, that's not necessarily a barrier. See the Catholic teaching on baptism carried out in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by denominations that don't believe in sacraments, for example.
Which churches baptise but don't believe in sacraments?
 
Posted by Malin (# 11769) on :
 
Brethren for one. Exclusive Brethren baptise everyone (my group were divided between infant and adult baptism) before they can take part in the Lord's Supper/communion. These are seen as two separate events - baptism for its own sake as a witness to faith in Christ; and then later on (weeks, months or potentially years) to ask to take part in the Lord's Supper which is agreed by the men in the meeting (or not) depending on whether they think you understand it properly. But they are very strictly memorialist and very, very anti-sacramental.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but the question isn't how they can be interpreted, but how they would have been understood at the time.

But if the intent was to state that ordinations were not sacraments, Cranmer, Parker et al made a thoroughly inept job of it. I can only conclude it's a skillfully written piece of fudge, and the meat is there in the affirmation of baptism and eucharist as sacraments.

quote:
Which churches baptise but don't believe in sacraments?
There are plenty of churches that believe baptism has no salvific effect, that it's nothing more than a public affirmation of faith. I'll try and draw up a list if you like but it's probably not worth the effort.
 
Posted by hamletta (# 11678) on :
 
I'm starting to re-think this, only because I looked up ELCA Bp. Mark Hanson's statement just to see his reaction:
quote:
The Vatican's statement, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" ("Responses to Questions"), does not appear to change previously stated positions. It does, however, restate known positions in provocative ways that are before us in the ongoing U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic bilateral dialogue.

[...]

The anguished response of Christians around the world to the Vatican's statement, however, clearly indicates that what may have been meant to clarify has caused pain.

Bp. Hanson's a big boy, and he's also president of the Lutheran World Federation, which engages in ecumenical dialogue with anybody and everybody.

If a guy who works in this milieu every day says, "Dude, that's harsh!" maybe there's something to the idea that the tone was a bit off.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Which churches baptise but don't believe in sacraments?

I'll second Malin's Brethren example - the Exclusive's tend to believe in 'household' ie: infant baptism but state that, whilst it may get you "into the outer courts" (ie: give you some kind of mysterious spiritual head-start in life), faith alone can save you. The Open Brethren, along with the Baptists, practise believer's baptism only and deny that it or the Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Communion has any sacramental effect (the Baptists' traditional designation for both is 'ordinance'); in addition, all of the house churches I've encountered have had basically the same theology as Baptists and OBs on the subject - believers' baptism only, Baptism and Communion are not sacraments.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
My contention is that 1 is less misleading than 2, less likely to cause offence, and more likely to lead to a fruitful discussion.

There is a fundamental difference between your statements 1 and 2, as much as you have tried to make them sound alike by careful wording, and the RCC considers this difference to be essential. The difference concerns the question "What is Church?" Unfortunately, 1 is simply false according to the RC answer to that question and saying so nevertheless would amount to a lie about an important religious teaching - which is the worst kind of lie according to St Augustine. So no matter how useful it would be to say something like 1, the RCC has no choice but to say something like 2. One may not do evil to achieve good.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I guess that means the canonisation of Pope Paul VI is right out, then.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Doesn't matter, he is among the saints anyway (and we're all getting there)

m
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Greyface

Don't think you're going to win. Anglicans belong to a networked ecclesial community. The argument remains about the legitimacy and authority of the network and the network leaders.

Interestingly enough, using that sort of language, I'm very happy to acknowledge that the Catholic church is a networked ecclesial community with excellent references for its legitimacy but, unfortunately, overweening claims about its authority.

Its not about the blooming labels at all, really, but it is about our apparently irreconcilable differences over legitimacy and authority. Well, lets get on with sanctification and truth ..
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Crossposted with Barnabas62: yes, and that means ALL of us.

m
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think you're going to win.

Agreed. I've never managed to change Ingo's mind about anything.

Mind you, Ingo, with that last argument I'm quite looking forward to you having to consistently refer to my branch of the Church as the Ecclesial Community of England - or commit a grave sin.
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
Recidite_plebians wrote, "Allow me to explain." Followed by a long sad story.
[Tear]
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.

Forgive me for being blunt but:

1. It's an over-simplification of the whole theology of redemption, and I'm not going there...

2. You don't know your facts. I highlighted SOME of what has taken place in my life, and it is far more complex than that. This isn't the time or place for some huge great big "'fess up" and "mea culpa" about the events of my life. I used some details of my own experiences to highlight my treatment at the hands of the clergy as I am one of literally hundreds of thousands of people world wide who have experienced the same. I used the example to give authority to my claims as I have been accused of being hostile to the RCC. I would suggest that the RCC has been hostile to me.

3. You are in no position to make any sort of judgement or statement such as you have, no matter how well intentioned it may be. I asked the church for support on many occasions through my difficulties and received precisely none. Again, I won't be going into huge amounts of detail to recount each one.

Why should I just forgive and forget? It will not make the blindest bit of difference to the way the church perceives me. The RCC does not want reconciliation, it wants domainance. I have said, this is nothing to do with compassion or humanity on their part but the arrogant belief that it is God on earth. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The RCC may think of itself as the external discipline and inter locutor of grace. It presumes too much. It may believe, or promote the belif, that it is only interested in the salvation of souls. On its way down the path to hell it may have started out that way but what has happened is the narrow-minded, rule bound hierarchy where individual and corporate ambition and lust for power has peverted its mission. Forgiving it what it has done to me will not stop it from doing the same to me again, and again, and again. I have no desire to fight it, or see it change, I don't care if it goes up in flames quite frankly. You cannot tell me I am welcome back if I forgive it when its own clergy treat me like I am something they have stepped in. I am not aceptable to the church because I don't fit its narrow ideals, it is as simple as that. Until it sees the world and humanity for what it is far too many of us who the church ought to be reaching out to are just going to be left outside in the cold.

Jesus spent his time with the tax collectors, the sinners, the sick, the lame. The church is more interested in telling us that we shouldn't be tax collectors, siners, sick, and lame. It is too busy creating volumes of canon law to legislate agains the tax collectors et al. It is too busy with its layers of buraucracy on how to deal with and process its canon laws on the tax collectors et al. It is too busy defining who are and are not the tax collectors et al. It is too busy finding ways of casting the first stone. It is too busy arguing about who should be the stone throwers-in-chief. The stone-throwers-in-chief are too busy in their fancy clothes in their fancy palaces, with their cooks, cleaners, secretaries, private staff, their finances, their repositories of jewels, art, their cocktail receptions and parties and their engagement with the great and good of civic society to even know who the tax collectors et al are to invite them down from the tree and ask if they can share enter their house and bring peace upon it.
 
Posted by Quercus (# 12761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Mind you, Ingo, with that last argument I'm quite looking forward to you having to consistently refer to my branch of the Church as the Ecclesial Community of England - or commit a grave sin.

No, that's still fine under definition 4(ii)(b) of 'Church': a group of alleged Christians who've managed to organise themselves but are not Some of Us (courtesy title only).
[Razz]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think you're going to win.

Agreed. I've never managed to change Ingo's mind about anything.

Mind you, Ingo, with that last argument I'm quite looking forward to you having to consistently refer to my branch of the Church as the Ecclesial Community of England - or commit a grave sin.

He'll have you for that "the", Greyface. You might hope to get away with "An Ecclesial Community of England."

Alternatively, you could join hatless and me in our independent congregational assemblies and learn how to take the condescension and the unintended insults with a smile (or a grump). Its really good for humility [Biased]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He'll have you for that "the", Greyface. You might hope to get away with "An Ecclesial Community of England."

Thanks for pointing that out. It was unforgivably sloppy of me, and I hope you won't be offended at the implication that your own congregations are not themselves ecclesial communities of england, albeit ones that are seriously deficient in capitalisation.
quote:
Alternatively, you could join hatless and me in our independent congregational assemblies and learn how to take the condescension and the unintended insults with a smile (or a grump). Its really good for humility [Biased]
I admit it sounds attractive. What's the beer like? [Biased]

[ 13. July 2007, 11:14: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
The RCC does not want reconciliation, it wants domainance. I have said, this is nothing to do with compassion or humanity on their part but the arrogant belief that it is God on earth.

That would indeed be a very arrogant, nay blasphemous, belief. Do you have the tiniest thread of evidence that the RCC holds it?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Mind you, Ingo, with that last argument I'm quite looking forward to you having to consistently refer to my branch of the Church as the Ecclesial Community of England - or commit a grave sin.

Sure, when that is appropriate: like for example if the CDF should ever ask me to write a clarification on Anglican ecclesial matters. Otherwise I will follow the usual customs of politeness and use the names and titles this ecclesial community of England uses for herself. Just like I would simply address an Anglican priest as "Father", without launching into a discussion of the status of his orders. I think the Vatican's treatment of the ABC during his recent visits has not been a source of complaints, has it? (Other than from RC rad trads...) All this ado remains precisely what it has been from the beginning: pointless seeking of offense.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He'll have you for that "the", Greyface. You might hope to get away with "An Ecclesial Community of England."

Thanks for pointing that out. It was unforgivably sloppy of me, and I hope you won't be offended at the implication that your own congregations are not themselves ecclesial communities of england, albeit ones that are seriously deficient in capitalisation.

[Killing me] Seriously deficient in capital would be more like it!

Beer.

You might have a problem with hatless "oop North" if his congo are "strict and particular" but I wouldn't have thought that was very likely [Biased] . The beer's normally good there.

You can get Adnams in a lot of Norwich pubs. One of our groups meets in a pub. Since my heart trouble I just drink wine, but I do miss a glass of beer.
 
Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on :
 
I can feel the first schism coming in AECoE
But at least it's about something important - beer
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Strictly speaking, in beer terms hatless has to be considered a southerner because he's the wrong side of Masham.

I remember an encounter with some Adnams Broadside at a beer festival once. Well, I say remember, I think I do. Well, I say I think I do, I don't actually remember it much at all. Must have been good stuff.

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, the AECoE. Nice one, petrified. Do you want to be Arch-not-bishop of the South or the North?
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
The RCC does not want reconciliation, it wants domainance. I have said, this is nothing to do with compassion or humanity on their part but the arrogant belief that it is God on earth.

That would indeed be a very arrogant, nay blasphemous, belief. Do you have the tiniest thread of evidence that the RCC holds it?
Blasphemous eh? Whooptie shit, better watch out for those bolts of lightening. Recalling the scene from the Life of Brian now... Jehova, Jehova, Jehova.

Actually, more pertinently and more to the point, do you have a single shred of evidence that it doesn't?

There are none so blind as will not see. Come on, wake up. You are sleepwalking here. The RCC is possibly one of, if not the, most corrupt and political organisation on earth. Ask yourself, what other organisation wants to impose its own discipline on everyone it comes into contact with, even those who want nothing to do with it? Who else has the arrogance to publish documents telling people who are nothing to do with it how they should perceive themselves in light of its own understanding of their own errors? And you call me arrogant?

The only way that the RCC can once again become the "church" of the Petrine mandate and the apostolic succession it must dismantle itself, divest itself of all of its pretentions, and reform. This was the hope of Vatican 2, a hope that went unrealised and a potential that went unfulfilled. To do this would have meant the relinquishment of power from the centre, and when powerful, ambitious men have power they are not going to give it up without a fight that will destroy the institution that supports their power base. Perhaps this is what must happen for the RCC to once again be the church of Christ.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Xposted. Couldn't help noticing IngoB's "this". And this

quote:
All this ado remains precisely what it has been from the beginning: pointless seeking of offense.
Not "all". And not "precisely" either. But I do agree that a lot of the ado has been that.

En passant, IngoB, do you have an opinion about the use of the term "ecclesial community" as opposed to "ecclesiastical community". Is it a novel term? Does it represent a clarification? See this previous post and this explanation. I've enjoyed the diversion but I was asking a serious question.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:


Actually, more pertinently and more to the point, do you have a single shred of evidence that it doesn't?


I don't have a shred of evidence that Billie Piper doesn't believe herself to be the true Dalai Lama. Your point is what? When you've given up this crusade, why not go and investigate the concept of 'burden of proof'?

quote:

There are none so blind as will not see. Come on, wake up. You are sleepwalking here. The RCC is possibly one of, if not the, most corrupt and political organisation on earth.

Really, believe me, it's not. I've worked in and with real political organisations.

You do have a certain point about imposing church discipline on non-members. I've made the same point on the Ship. It is worth being aware, however, that this is not a uniquely RC vice. It is, after all, not the RCC in the UK which thinks its bishops ought to sit by right in an unelected legislative chamber. But this thread isn't about the position of churches in pluralist democracies, it is about the RCC's beliefs about other churches. And surely the RCC is perfectly entitled to believe what it likes about other churches. As an Anglo-Catholic, I'm sad that the curia believes what it seems to about Anglicans*, but such is their perogative.

*My own view, rejecting Apostolicae Curae (not least because, were its principles consistently applied, virtually every sacrament administered everywhere by anyone would be thrown into doubt), is that Anglicans are in a similar position to that IngoB describes the Orthodox as being in.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.

I have trouble believeing that someone as intelligent as you can really believe that.

I have trouble believeing that someone as intelligent as you can believe that the Pope really believes that.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he recognises that the basic structures of the Catholic church grew and altered during the first few generations of Christians and were not explicitly prescribed either by Jesus or the Apostles.
 
Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :
 
Recidite_plebians wrote, "Forgive me for being blunt but:"

You have no need for for forgiveness. It's nice to see that we're in agreement.

I'm sorry that you feel I was judgmental. The only judgment I made was that you were continuing your just fight against the RCC instead of forgiving it because you thought you would be treated poorly time and again. (This continued poor treatment I agree would almost certainly happen.)

No "real" man would put up with such treatment. Fighting is the only "real" option. But then I'm not a "real" man.

I also was (and am) mistreated by the RCC church. The RCC is never going to like me. I lowered my expectations and moved on with my life. I left the hatred behind.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
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.

That's pretty much what happened to me.

quote:

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.

That is not at all like what happened to me. Quite the opposite. Yet again something someone has posted on this Ship has given me cause to thank God I am a Protestant.

quote:

By this time you have met someone else, settled down again, had a family.

Unfortunatly that has not happened to me. But I still live in hope.

quote:

You want to have your children baptised, only the priest is uncomfortable with this.

I know its too late now, but you should have complained to the Bishop. This is not and never has been Roman Catholic doctrine.

And your priest is obnviously a small-minded bigot. Who is refusing the direct commands both of his church and Jesus.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
your ER analogy is simply bizarre.

I thought it was rather good. Rather accurate, too.


I found it innacturate, irrelevant to this discussion, and insulting.

IO see the Holy Spirit blessing people in and through churches that are not in Communion with Rome. Hundreds of millions of people hjave come to Christ through the evangelisatin of those churches. IngoB is writing off that work of God as a diseased limb or a paralysed spine. That is foul.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Seeing as we seem to be baring our souls here...
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:

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.

Snap, except I was part of a house church at the time (having left the CC about a dozen or so years before) and the elders subsequently made me a housegroup leader.

quote:
You move away, stop going to church, then try and go back a little while after somewhere else.
Did that for a bit, then went back to my old church.
quote:
By this time you have met someone else, settled down again, had a family.
Been fortunate enough to have been able to do that.

I'm torn between, like Ken, feeling glad I'm no longer Catholic when I read stories like yours, but also acknowledging that it is I think fairly atypical of the Catholic Church today - it's just that that particular priest sounds like a total bastard.
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[qb] 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. [/qb

Did he now?

Can you point me to where He created the distinction between Bishops and Archbisops? or the bit about suffragan diocese and Metropolitans? or the role of Vicars General or Canons Major and Minor? The bit about creating 3 distinctions of Monseignor perhaps?

Can you point me to the biblical tract where He created "Cardinal Princes" maybe?

Can you point me to the bit where He mandated a buraucratic Curia? A Vatican Bank?

Can you tell me where He mandated a Code of Canon Law?


The descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost did one thing and one thing only, and that was invest the recipients with the faculties we come to think of as the "Ordinary of the Priesthood". It was a man-made divice that then set up the rank structure of priestly ordination beneath it and witheld from many of its own ordained the full faculties. To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure the RCC has the mandate to do anything but ordain to the full "ordinary" all of its clerics and then impose a standard discipline as to when those powers (especially pertaining to ordination)may be used and for the diocesan bishop to be "primus inter pares" amongst his own.

To suggest that the RCC looks anything like what Jesus created, let alone intended, is laughable. In fact comments like that deserve little more than ridicule and derision as the nonesense they are.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
All this ado remains precisely what it has been from the beginning: pointless seeking of offense.

I didn;t take offences. I started reading this thread with a "so what?" attitude. Bears, woods, whatever. I know the Pope doesn't think Protestant churches are real churches. If he did he probably wouldn't be Pope.

But then some people started saying really quite offensive things that went way beyond what the Pope said. So I ended up feeling offended.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
En passant, IngoB, do you have an opinion about the use of the term "ecclesial community" as opposed to "ecclesiastical community". Is it a novel term? Does it represent a clarification? See this previous post and this explanation. I've enjoyed the diversion but I was asking a serious question.

The definition in question that you refer to:
The term "ecclesial community" (and its Latin counterpart) are already found in Dominus Iesus (2000), Ut Unum Sit (1995), Communionis Notio (1992), Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), and Unitatis Redintegratio (1964, Vatican II). My instinct is that the choice of "ecclesial" rather than "ecclesiastical" has not the significance in these documents that you try to attribute to it. Not because it is denied that your community partakes in the mystery of Christ, rather to the contrary: RC are used to identify "Church as a structured institution" with "Church as a mystery". The distinction is a technical one, one talks about two aspects of the same thing, not a real one. So when Lumen Gentium (1964, Vatican II) talks about "ecclesiastical communities", then it is not in any contradiction to Unitatis Redintegratio of the same Council, it simply talks about an organisational aspect. (If the distinction is intended at all, it may well be that the terms were simply - perhaps sloppily - taken as synonymous.)

ken, I believe that, I'm very sure that the pope believes that, and I said "principle structure" for good reason: the power to bind and loosen to all apostles, the keys only to St Peter, and the apostolic succession. That's the principle governing structure of the Church Militant. The details of how that principle is realized have developed, but the principle remains till Christ returns.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
is it Catholic or nothing for you recidite_plebians ?

There are after all plenty of churches where being divorced and remarried isn't considered a scandal, and wouldn't prevent you playing a full part in the work of the church, and which would be happy to baptise your children.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
IO see the Holy Spirit blessing people in and through churches that are not in Communion with Rome.

I do, too. In fact, I see the Holy Spirit at work outside of Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Hundreds of millions of people hjave come to Christ through the evangelisatin of those churches. IngoB is writing off that work of God as a diseased limb or a paralysed spine. That is foul.

I did no such thing. The analogy was intended to illustrate a point about church governance. Evangelisation was not the point! No analogy captures all aspects of a situation accurately, or the analogy would simply be the reality.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There are after all plenty of churches where being divorced and remarried isn't considered a scandal, and wouldn't prevent you playing a full part in the work of the church, and which would be happy to baptise your children.

There are deep issues that have to do with authority. recidite_plebians spoke of Pentecost. In Orthodox terms, we all struggle to get our personal Pentecost, and those who have reached that point can guide others on their way to getting born from above. In those terms, deacons, priests, bishops, are supposed to be part of the community rather than impose a supernatural authority-power over the community. This is all good and holy, but real life shows things are not what they are supposed to be by Orthodox standards.

I have heard of married/divorced priests being treayed as second-class (or should that be tenth-class? you get the point...) people, I have heard of bishops oppressing their priests, of laity not having the nerve to stand up for justice in front of their bishops, etc etc.

So, when the structures are disfunctional, this has to be pointed out. What's the point of admiring power and majesty, when these things are of human origin and they are opposing the powerlessness and humility of God? In the end, all these things not only show how far the doers are from God, but also prevent people that seek God from finding Him.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
The RCC does not want reconciliation, it wants domainance. I have said, this is nothing to do with compassion or humanity on their part but the arrogant belief that it is God on earth.

That would indeed be a very arrogant, nay blasphemous, belief. Do you have the tiniest thread of evidence that the RCC holds it?
Blasphemous eh? Whooptie shit, better watch out for those bolts of lightening. Recalling the scene from the Life of Brian now... Jehova, Jehova, Jehova.

Actually, more pertinently and more to the point, do you have a single shred of evidence that it doesn't?
.....

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:


Actually, more pertinently and more to the point, do you have a single shred of evidence that it doesn't?


I don't have a shred of evidence that Billie Piper doesn't believe herself to be the true Dalai Lama. Your point is what? When you've given up this crusade, why not go and investigate the concept of 'burden of proof'?

Moot point here. Since the RCC has a long established tradition of claiming that it/its Bishop of Rome represents God on earth then those claiming it doesn't do need to provide proof that the RCC has changed and is no longer claiming such a thing.

It also has a long history of being argued against on this point and many like the following Free Presbyterians of Cork have collections of examples to remind them of the RCC's "very arrogant, nay blasphemous belief" -


quote:
(The following is a brief outline of some of the claims of the Pope. These are facts which should be studied and their implications thought through very carefully indeed. There is no misrepresentation - Rome speaks for herself.

1) "We the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, humbly offer you our warmest congratulations on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of your ordination to the priesthood… our thoughts go back to that great event fifty years ago by which your Holiness was taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that pertain to God, was made a minister of Christ and a dispenser of His mysteries, received power over the real and mystical body of our Saviour and became a mediator between God and man - another Christ." Address to Pope Pius Xll in 1949:-

Note: Although we are including these offending words ("a mediator between God and men - another Christ") in relation to the Pope…if you read the address carefully, they actually refer to him as a mere priest…and so is believed of every priest including your local "Father" But they do but "set the scene" for the blasphemies to come.

2) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)

3) The Lateran Council addressing Pope Julius II in an oration delivered by Marcellus said: "Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth." (Council Edition. Colm. Agrip. 1618)

4) Pope Nicholas said of himself: "I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ." (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)
continued on:([qb]WHO DOES THE POPE CLAIM TO BE?
)

See St Mark of Ephesus for the Orthodox summary of its view about the papal claims.

Also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 882 in which the Vicar of Christ [vicar=stand in for someone who is absent] claims supreme unhindered power over the universal Church. By implication not even Christ Himself can hinder the application of this power.

Also see Unam Sanctam in which Boniface VIII unpacks this claim by explaining that Christ and His Vicar are not two heads, like some monster, but One.

This "blasphemous" claim came to flower from Nicholas I's use of the false decretals written to bolster this view of the papacy, but denounced by Photios and Pope John VIII at the Ecumenical 8th; although about a century later the RCC went back to the Nicholas 8th council which had been anathematised and continued on the path of this "blasphemous" claim.

So, have you any proof that the RCC no longer infallibly teaches this doctrine?


Myrrh
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
is it Catholic or nothing for you recidite_plebians ?

There are after all plenty of churches where being divorced and remarried isn't considered a scandal, and wouldn't prevent you playing a full part in the work of the church, and which would be happy to baptise your children.

To an extent yes.

I have no problem with the theology of the RCC, only its practices. That falls into 2 parts as far as my ability to be reconciled with the RCC is concerned.

First is the issue of the validity of my former marriage. I am not going to suggest to my wife that we are not properly married simply because the RCC sees it that way and so I will not persue an anulment (even though I would likely get on on the basis of my ex's maturity and understanding of the sacramental commitment being flawed) having re-married. Had I felt it appropriate I would have done so before that.

If the RCC were what it ought to be the local bishop could pronounce the former debacle null and void without the need for formal tribunals and subsequent automatic appeals to Rome. The fact that that is currently required is just power play on the part of the RCC and "jobs for the boys". It's part of the tiers of hierarchy that should not, and do not need to exist and which ought to be dismantled if the church is to be a "church" in my understanding of the word (and hence why I find it ironic that the least "churchlike" of all should be telling everyone else that they should stop pretending).

The second is the attitude of clergy generally. They suffer from what I could only describe as the "catholic paradigm" whereby everyone expects obedience to the rule of law that the RCC expects. Neither priests nor people are neulogoically wired to comprehend the concept that not everyone sees the world in the dogmatic, authoritarian way they do. Just look at the responses of some of the posters on eher that ignore the points being made to them by going on to fulminate on the answers to the uestions they wished they had been asked rather than responding to what has actually been said to them.

That being said, the culture of catholicism in regards everything except the contempt they show everyone not as perfect as they withstanding, is so great as to be compelling. I just wish they could see past the aggrandizing of it all and look into the hearts of man rather than the trappings of power and privilige.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
All I can say is: I didn't much care what the Pope said last week, and I still don't care this week.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
ken, I believe that, I'm very sure that the pope believes that, and I said "principle structure" for good reason: the power to bind and loosen to all apostles, the keys only to St Peter, and the apostolic succession. That's the principle governing structure of the Church Militant. The details of how that principle is realized have developed, but the principle remains till Christ returns.

If you're referring to Matthew 16 then firstly Christ didn't give the keys there and then but was saying that they would be given at a future time, and they were given to all which is the power to bind and loose, to forgive and to damn.

To separate out keys from their function is sloppy proof texting, but anyway, as Matthew 18 covers, Christ elaborates on this theme and when Peter thinks about it he comes back with a question on it - and this is the heart of the matter here - how many times should he forgive?

And the answer he gets is yer bog standard Christian teaching, do not judge, do not condemn, forgive, forgive and then forgive some more.


And, the RCC claim about Peter is false, he was one of those to whom Christ explained what the Church should not be - "it shall not be so among you". The description of what it should not be is precisely, but precisely, what the RCC has created of itself.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
All I can say is: I didn't much care what the Pope said last week, and I still don't care this week.

My only reason for caring at all is the ugly mess - the fallout from such unnecessary statements of which most of what's been said here is a good example.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
All I can say is: I didn't much care what the Pope said last week, and I still don't care this week.

My only reason for caring at all is the ugly mess - the fallout from such unnecessary statements of which most of what's been said here is a good example.
Well, isn't it better that everybody knows exactly what's what, so we can proceed without laboring under any delusions?
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Also see Unam Sanctam in which Boniface VIII unpacks this claim by explaining that Christ and His Vicar are not two heads, like some monster, but One.

Unam Sanctam is quite balanced and sane if you follow the reasoning. A bit fierce, perhaps, but in those times of distress and universal brouhaha, a little rigour went a long way.
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
All I can say is: I didn't much care what the Pope said last week, and I still don't care this week.

My only reason for caring at all is the ugly mess - the fallout from such unnecessary statements of which most of what's been said here is a good example.
Well, isn't it better that everybody knows exactly what's what, so we can proceed without laboring under any delusions?
Exactly. Though I think the audience for this document was not so much other churches as it was certain theologians (and bishops) who were stretching "subsists in" to a greater degree than the CDF thought warranted.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks for the reply IngoB - I'll look at the other docs and may get back if a supplementary occurs to me. I appreciate your findings and I also think we are talking about two aspects of the same thing. But not in the same way at present.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Also see Unam Sanctam in which Boniface VIII unpacks this claim by explaining that Christ and His Vicar are not two heads, like some monster, but One.

Unam Sanctam is quite balanced and sane if you follow the reasoning. A bit fierce, perhaps, but in those times of distress and universal brouhaha, a little rigour went a long way.
And our reply is still the same....:

quote:
"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism— the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God." St Mark of Ephesus, Pillar of the Orthodox Church(aka "the Greeks" of Unam Sanctam)
Potted background:
(St. Mark of Ephesus: A True Ecumenist)


Myrrh
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
r_p,

the Ship is certainly a place for people to vent their rage, but at last here in Purgatory you will have to forgive me for trying to draw conclusions from what you vent. And the only conclusion I can draw from much of what you've said is that any RC who does not share your rage must be either willfully blind, stupid, or corrupt. Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?
 
Posted by brackenrigg (# 9408) on :
 
The Anglo-Catholic wing regularly pray for the Pope, are Forward In Faith, believe in transubstatiation etc., have continued singing mass (if not saying it) in Latin for the last 30-odd years, and yet they are not full members.
What else do we have to do to become a full member apart from go to Rome?

It is only the folk-masses and guitars that keep us from joining them, and Papa Razzi is doing his best to do away with them.
 
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :
 
Quote From today's Tablet:
"Indeed, the CDF under Cardinal William Levada seems no more solicitous towards the Church's ecumenical partners than his predecessor was. It has rather unnecessarily reiterated the verdict of the CDF's Declaration Dominus Iesus in 2000 that Protestant and Anglican "ecclesial communities" are not proper Churches because they lack the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. Apart from giving an impression of arrogance, this sweeps away decades of progress in ecumenical dialogue that had been exploring precisely how to overcome such theological differences. Why chill the ecumenical atmosphere like this?" endquote

I have nothing more to add.
 
Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:

It is only the folk-masses and guitars that keep us from joining them, and Papa Razzi is doing his best to do away with them.

And the people. My dear!
 
Posted by DmplnJeff (# 12766) on :
 
FCB wrote, "Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?"

Yes. Some of us are very forgiving. I also have suffered from the RCC's sins.

Yet I remember that the Church is largely composed of sinners. I hope Christ forgives my sins, and I in turn, am willing to put up with a lot of crap.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
IngoB is writing off that work of God as a diseased limb or a paralysed spine. That is foul.

The main problem with the analogy, which I don't think IngoB has realised, is that you've got the body of Christ with a paralyzed leg, a missing arm, a diseased limb and a dicky ticker. But the rest of the body is absolutely fine and functionally normally. Which is not true: even if we accept IngoB's analogy what he hasn't realised is that the body can't work, can't pick up or handle anything, etc. What is objectionable about the analogy is that it's as if the eye can say to the leg 'I don't need you' or to the arm 'I don't need you'.

IngoB wants to deduce from his analogy that the state of the body of Christ has no implications for the functioning of the RCC. Whereas what he should deduce is that the RCC is in a pretty bad state.
To sum up: IngoB is saying, like the curate, that parts of his egg are very good.

Dafyd
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Whereas what he should deduce is that the RCC is in a pretty bad state.

Actually, I think he made this point himself.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
FCB wrote, "Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?"

Yes. Some of us are very forgiving. I also have suffered from the RCC's sins.

Hmmmm. I don't think I am particularly forgiving (and certainly not very forgiving), so I guess I'm stuck with blind, stupid or corrupt as my options.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
IngoB wants to deduce from his analogy that the state of the body of Christ has no implications for the functioning of the RCC. Whereas what he should deduce is that the RCC is in a pretty bad state.
To sum up: IngoB is saying, like the curate, that parts of his egg are very good.

Don't put words into my mouth, at least not so stupid ones.

I had Christ after a bad car crash in the emergency room with a paralyzed leg, a smashed arm, a severed hand and malfunctioning internal organs. A doctor may diagnose that Christ's lungs luckily didn't collapse. But that doesn't mean that He's ready for a triathlon, not by a long shot. Christ is substantially in bad shape, and as I already wrote, He could become "healthy" again if all those sick body parts are removed - but in that case "healthy" only as a cripple. To be truly healthy as He should be, He needs healing - not mutilation.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Lol. People healing Christ. That's a new one. [Projectile]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Hey cool, I don't think that I've ever made an analogy that was misunderstood in so many different ways. It's almost as if people are trying damned hard to misunderstand it. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear man, do you understand what you are typing? How can you write these things about Jesus? How on earth, no matter what point you think you are making, how can you use such imagery for the Healer of mankind, for the One that makes us whole? Don't you realize how much that imagery sucks?
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
So, Andreas, do you think one should never say that the body of Christ needs healing (and where did Ingo ever say that we heal Christ's body?)? Or are you just cruising for opportunities to disagree with Ingo?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
FCB, I notice that today you are using inflammatory language. You attributed rage to the guy with the strange nickname a while ago, and now you speak of cruising. I don't know if I should reply to you now, or if I should wait until you get back to normal.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
IngoB

This may not be all you were intending to say, but this is what I got personally from your analogy.

The church is the body of Christ. It's divisions are a continuing wound and disfigurement. And Christ is identified with his church. He gave himself so that it might exist. He laid down his life for his friends. And his friends are divided from one another. That is a tragedy. It weakens the body of Christ in the world. We are today his hands, his feet, his head, his heart. Our divisions therefore wound his body. Prevent it displaying in full, the fullness of the resurrection life.

I am sure I have not fully "got" you and I can see why some Shipmates have found some of the wording unhelpful. It's a bit like reading a CDF document ...
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
FCB, I notice that today you are using inflammatory language. You attributed rage to the guy with the strange nickname a while ago, and now you speak of cruising. I don't know if I should reply to you now, or if I should wait until you get back to normal.

If it helps, I'll rephrase my question: are you just looking for opportunities to disagree with Ingo?

Certainly there is nothing inflammatory about the word "looking."
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
IngoB has made many posts about that. Only tonight did I respond to that. Is this me looking for opportunities to disagree?

I think your(pl) mistake is that you apply Jesus' prayer to the institutions that bear the Christian name. I do not think that Jesus was praying for such a unity, and I could never imagine a prayer from Jesus not being fulfilled by the Father. So, as far as I am concerned, Jesus' prayer has been fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled till He returns in Glory.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
Andreas,

Fine. I see your point, though it seems to me closer to a kind of Free Church ecclesiology than an Orthodox one (i.e. a complete disjunction between the body of Christ and ecclesiastical institutions). But this may simply show my lack of understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Still -- just to be clear -- Ingo was not suggesting that we are the ones who heal Christ. I presume he thinks that in the end it is only God who can bring about the wholeness of Christ's body.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear FCB,

I think that it is worth searching the way our churches and cultures view institutions, but anyway.

Aside from who is supposed to heal Christ, the idea of a Christ in need seems unacceptable to me. Christ is in no need whatsoever even when we think he is poor. A Christ in need of healing is not Jesus.

I also think that especially in this thread we need to examine Jesus' prayer as recorded in John more carefully. For whom does He pray? What is the content of His prayer?
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Christ is in no need whatsoever even when we think he is poor. A Christ in need of healing is not Jesus.

Matthew 25:34-40 would seem to say something different.
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Hmmm, a brass band playing in St Peter's Square and tambourines, flags and shouts of "Hallelujah!" inside the basilica.

Hey, are you Romans prepared for such a style of worship?

Could I bring an Electric Guitar? Tamborines are wayyy too old fashioned for my Catholic Church!

Max
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
FCB, those verses crossed my mind, but what are you saying? We have Christ talking with the Samaritan woman for example. While he was hungry before he met her, he is satisfied by the time his disciples return. The same approach he takes when Satan asks him to turn stones into bread. What was his need? If he was in need of food or of followers or of glory or of anything else, it would have been very easy that he satisfied his needs. In my view Jesus acts in complete freedom and in that freedom He calls us as well. We are called to be like Him, full of richness even when the world thinks we are afflicted, with living water, even if the world thinks we are thirsty.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How can you write these things about Jesus? How on earth, no matter what point you think you are making, how can you use such imagery for the Healer of mankind, for the One that makes us whole? Don't you realize how much that imagery sucks?

We are the Body of Christ on earth. I am, you are, ken is, Gordon Cheng, and even Myrrh... But this Body is sick here on earth - weak, twisted, bruised, divided, and torn. To deny this is to deny reality. We can - and ought - contribute to making it less so. We are true moral agents and this is our Christian duty. Of course, all the good we achieve in this and any other matter is by the grace of God. (Are you suggesting to read more St Augustine? How ... curious.) You could try to work this into the analogy by talking about the immune system being supported by psychological disposition of the Head. Whatever. Grace was not the point of my analogy, and it doesn't have to serve all possible purposes at once.

Barnabas62, you have understood one important part of my analogy very well, but ignored the other entirely. Or perhaps you simply do not accept that part, namely where the "substance" of Christ's body is.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
May I point out on the FCB Andreas1984 that to my eyes one of you is showing distinct hyper Calvinistic tendencies while the other seems to have adopted proof texting. I am not sure what either of these argument techniques are doing in an exchange between a Roman Catholic and an Orthodox but am interested to note there use.

Oh and as liberal Reformed Churches has spent ages proving that there was no single pattern to the early church. No this has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, its just that so many of our brethren have claimed to be recreating the pure early church just as Jesus left it, that it rather got in the way of integrity within debate. I really am not sure what Roman Catholics think they are doing reviving this idea.

Jengie
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
Perhaps someone can tell me how to use scripture without proof texting. We Catholics are pretty new to using this so-called "Bible."

[ 13. July 2007, 19:44: Message edited by: FCB ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
When Jesus prays to the Father that His disciples are one like They are One, he describes for whom He is praying. He says that He gives them His peace, that they will be having joy that cannot be taken from them, that whatever they ask from the Father, He will fulfill, that they will be having eternal life, etc etc. Are we like that? To what extent are we like that? Because, in my view, the prayer for union refers to those people.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
This feels strange:

The maxim I was taught is that a text should not be cited without reference to context and to wider references. In particular that text is part of a parable which reflects on judgement day.

Christ is pictured as a ruler judging people. He as a ruler can takes the kindnesses done and the hurts inflicted on his followers as done to him, this is similar to the actions of earthly rulers. If her majesty's ambassador is insulted is that not an insult to her majesty? What about Saving Private Ryan, is not the ideas in that similar. Christ is behaving as an earthly potentate and accepting what happens to his followers as if it happened unto him. To go further and think it means Christ is injured could well be argued as stretching a apocalyptic parable too far.

Jengie
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
To go further and think it means Christ is injured could well be argued as stretching a apocalyptic parable too far.

Well, the non-apocalyptic Acts 9:4 seems to imply that Christ can suffer in his members. Colossians 1:24 can also be interpreted in the same way. I really did not think that the idea that Christ suffers in his members was a controversial idea, but apparently I was wrong (not the first time).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

Barnabas62, you have understood one important part of my analogy very well, but ignored the other entirely. Or perhaps you simply do not accept that part, namely where the "substance" of Christ's body is.

I suppose that is because I believe there is a great miracle at work here. That God is working His purpose out despite the disfigurement our divisions cause. Our church leader says concerning the church. "It is God's plan A and He has no plan B". And so that may be where I think your analogy breaks down. If I break out of the analogy, in the life of the world to come, the only wounds which will be visible for all eternity are those of Christ. As the hymn writer puts it

"Those wounds yet visible above
In beauty glorified"

So I think Christ lives today both in and despite the wounds to his body. We cannot kill him, or the newness of life there is in him. His wounds are a part of his resurrection life in us. They are a reminder that, for the present, the kingdom is, and is not. They are a reminder of our kinship in him and with one another. And also of our pigheadedness and our frailty. But I still believe God will be all in all.

I suppose I am talking about essence, rather than substance, because, essentially, that is what I see.
 
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on :
 
As others have said here and elsewhere, many of us who are Protestant are very thankful that the Pope and the Vatican have said what they have said, even though we disagree strongly. Too many non-RCs have had their heads in the sand for a long time when it comes to ecumenism and church union (and by that I mean outward union of denominations, not the unity for which Jesus prayed and which all true believers have).

Friendly relationships between Catholics and Protestants are to be applauded, but not if we play make-believe and fail to acknowledge the very serious differences in doctrine which exist. It is tragic that a basic understanding of salvation is at stake and yet we say so many conflicting things on the subject. One church claiming to be the only true church doesn't help matters, but it is better to know that this is official Roman Catholic belief than to stumble about in the dark.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The maxim I was taught is that a text should not be cited without reference to context and to wider references. In particular that text is part of a parable which reflects on judgement day.

And is the context and wider references of a parable that reflects on judgement day?

Is Jesus reflecting upon judgement day just to give his disciples some information on the end of the world? Or is apocalyptic, like prophecy, actually about the present state of affairs?

Dafyd
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Don't put words into my mouth, at least not so stupid ones.

I apologise.
Nevertheless, I suggest that if your analogy is being widely misunderstood, that might mean that the analogy is not a very good one.

Dafyd
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How can you write these things about Jesus? How on earth, no matter what point you think you are making, how can you use such imagery for the Healer of mankind, for the One that makes us whole? Don't you realize how much that imagery sucks?

Next thing he'll say Jesus was crucified and died or something.

Dafyd
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Jengie Jon, could you explain what you mean by me showing distinct hyper Calvinistic tendencies?

Dafyd, firstly even on the Cross Jesus was in no need. He wasn't crucified out of need, but out of freedom for our need. We were in need; He could easily get down from the Cross and bring myriads of angels to deal with His crucifiers. Secondly, the illustration used makes us worse than those that crucified Him. I am amazed that you think we can use such imagery for the holy one. Perhaps this is where the emphasis on death and suffering Western Christianity puts as far as Christ is concerned leads us. I don't know.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas, I think the confusion exists because there is a difference in the 'here and now' between "Christ" and "Christ in us". Which I don't think IngoB made clear initially, but I think he has made clear subsequently. At present, and for that reason, I don't find the analogy offensive, but I'm not sure I fully understand it. I haven't heard back from IngoB yet, so who knows? Maybe I'll be offended after all?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Barnabas, there are two issues, one has to do with the imagery used, which I find sick, and the other has to do with the notion that the church can be divided, which I find a relatively modern concept.

I spoke earlier of a compromise the Catholic Church has to make now, because of the way their understanding of what the church is developed. The idea that we are divided and that Christ prayed that we get one is part of that compromise, I think.

I think the more traditional view is "they came from us but they were not of us". Today the lines between heresy and orthodoxy are blurred. Which leads to contradicitons and compromises.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks andreas. I want to ponder on that and do a bit of reading. I'll get back to you.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

Perhaps this is where the emphasis on death and suffering Western Christianity puts as far as Christ is concerned leads us.

No, the view that Jesus was a needful, thirsty, desperate, blood-drenched, criminal is the where the orthodox view, shared by East and West, that Jesus was fully human gets us. It has also a source of comfort to millions of suffering people down through the ages. No doubt, it is shocking to use such 'imagery of the Holy One', but God shocking - being sufficiently humble to accept death, 'even death on a cross'.

Please, please, could you stop trying to pass off your heterodox rejection of traditional and scriptural language as somehow 'Orthodox', and claiming that the problem is that we Westerners simply don't understand it.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Please, please, could you stop trying to pass off your heterodox rejection of traditional and scriptural language as somehow 'Orthodox', and claiming that the problem is that we Westerners simply don't understand it.

lol. Dwarf, having read about the way theologians like Tillich present Christ to you, I am not surprised you think my view is the heterodox one. However, I will re-affirm my view that Western Christianity over-emphasizes suffering in Jesus, and I can point you to all sort of Orthodox theologians that view that "emphasis" as the cause for all sorts of problems.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
andreas, I am about as theologically similar to Tillich as I am similar in appearance to Kate Moss.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I didn't say you were similar to him. I spoke about theologians like him, Tillich being an example of influential Western theologians.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

The sharp exchanges between you and DOD were on the point I was pondering. I remembered a comment by Kallistos Ware and a quote from the mystic, Julian of Norwich.

"Death has both a physical and a spiritual aspect and of the two it is the spiritual that is the more terrible .. We should not think only of the bodily sufferings ... the scourging, the stumbling beneath the weight of the Cross, the nails, the thirst, the heat, the torment...The true meaning of the Passion is found, not in this only, but much more so in his spiritual sufferings - in his sense of failure, isolation and utter loneliness, in the pain of love offered but rejected

Kallistos Ware"


Isaiah has it right. He was despised and rejected. A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. This cannot be minimised, but nor should it be overstated to the point of morbidity either. So here is Julian of Norwich

"Wouldst thou learn the Lord's meaning in this thing? Who showed it thee? Love. What showed he thee? Love. Wherefore showed it he. For Love ...Then said our good Lord Jesus Christ. 'Art thou well pleased that I suffered for thee'. I said 'Yea, good Lord, I thank thee; yea good Lord, blessed mayst thou be'. Then said Jesus our kind Lord 'If thou art pleased, I am pleased; it is a joy, a bliss, an endless satifying to me that ever I suffered Passion for thee; and if I might suffer more, I would suffer more'".

Remarkable words, also quoted by Kallistos Ware at the end of his section on the suffering of Christ in "The Orthodox Way".

andreas, there are undoubtedly morbid aspects to Western Christianity - some have called these Crosstianity. But I think Kallistos Ware is being both orthodox and Orthodox in what he says, and in his use of the Julian quote. And this particular protestant nonconformist finds himself in agreement with him.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Barnabas

I have read bishop Kallistos' The Orthodox Way. I have found there richness, pearls that come from antiquity find their way to our world through that book. I have also found some things of concern, namely bishop Kallistos' own contribution to theology.

At one point he explains that the creation fell because of Satan's Fall, a spiritual event that took place before Adam's Fall. That way, he tries to explain the scientific fact that death existed before the first man. However, in doing so, he should have made it clear that this is his own personal opinion, and not the patristic consensus. You see, for the fathers, death comes with man and not with Satan. It is the entire world Adam's sin changes, I think because he is the one that partakes in both the sensible and the spiritual world, and not Satan.

So, the bishop inserts his explanation but he does not make it explicit that this is not what the ancients thought... Moreover, his explanation becomes problematic, if we take into account not just the paleontological evidence that death existed, but also the scientific theory of natural selection! If death is due to Satan, then a) Satan becomes the creator of the living beings and b) God would have created a life-less Universe hadn't Satan inserted death which through natural selection led to life.

Moreover, I found of concern the bishop's idea that Jesus experienced separation from God, and that this is what "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" refers to. Although I think this view has been expressed in the past, and that it is not unique to the bishop, I think that the patristic consensus is that Jesus never experienced separation from God. In my view, that would be absurd, because Jesus is not a man in union with God, but God coming in the flesh... so even His flesh could not have experienced alienation from God, because that would mean alienation also from God the Word Himself, which cannot have happened in the One Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyway, we are discussing about the way we view the church. I think that the blurred boundaries between heresy and orthodoxy is at the core of our discussion. When they are blurred, it is easy to think of one Christianity divided. When they are clear, it is easier to see that in terms of "the Western part of the Roman Empire broke away from the Church and the early Reformers broke away from Catholicism, and the numerous Protestant denominations broke away from each other".

[ 14. July 2007, 11:57: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I think the heart tugging emphasis on Christ's passion is exaggerated by the doctrine of PSA and the like. Yes He suffered, as we do, but a heck of a lot of mankind has suffered far worse. When the emphasis is on the incarnation of God into humanity firstly by bridging the gap between the Creator and created and thus into the human condition (fall or no fall) then the perspective naturally changes.

I know it was posted earlier but I can't remember how Kallistos used the "Satan" information in this. Far as I know the story relates to the Fall in the angelic realms and the, ongoing, battle of ego in usurping the place of God (and from this the battle with the 'principalities and powers) in which the Archangel Michael leads the defenders for God and the defence is in his name which is a question, Who is like God?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

I appreciate we've become tangential here, but maybe one more exchange?

I'm glad we've identified that key difference, for it would indeed affect the way you look at the cross, or any meditations on it, or analogies drawn from it. Here is what Kallistos Ware says.

A second glimpse is given us at the Crucifixion, where Christ cries with a loud voice "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me". Once again, full weight must be given to these words ... Each word from the Cross means what it says. And if the cry "My God, my God .." is to signify anything at all, it must mean that at this moment Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God. Not only does he shed his blood for us, he accepts even the loss of God.

I truly thought this was common ground. How, otherwise, is the cry of dereliction explained?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

What is common ground is what the Divine Outlaw Dwarf said, about Christ's humility... This is very important and it can't be stressed enough, that God is a humble God and He does not impose Himself, but waits for our response... He is like the gentle breeze and not like an earthquake (to use the imagery of Elijah).

Amazing stuff. God becomes man and comes as an unknown fellow in Bethleem, lives with unimportant people, etc etc.

Now, as far as bishop Kallistos' explanation is concerned... In my view, what Jesus was doing on the Cross, when he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is chanting. He was chanting, "epselne" (in Greek, the verb being related with the noun psalmos, which means psalm), He was reciting the Psalms, pointing us to the psalm hat begins that way, to its content and to the things the psalm says about the Resurrection. So, far from experiencing alienation!

And as to how we are to understand the prayer in Gesthimane, I found an explanation in Stelios Ramfos' latest work, which I find interesting. His sadness had to do with the fact that he could not communicate Himself to anybody; His disciples could not understand Him, they could not feel Him, He was there but the reason for Him being there was not communed to anybody. Like what happened on the Cross. Under the Cross, there were Romans and Jews and priests and His disciples, but they were not in communion with Him.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

Now, as far as bishop Kallistos' explanation is concerned... In my view, what Jesus was doing on the Cross, when he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is chanting. He was chanting, "epselne" (in Greek, the verb being related with the noun psalmos, which means psalm), He was reciting the Psalms, pointing us to the psalm hat begins that way, to its content and to the things the psalm says about the Resurrection. So, far from experiencing alienation!

This is pretty much standard use in Judaism, and even in referring to Anglican hymns, quoting the first line includes the whole. The whole of the psalm needs to be read to understand Christ here.


Myrrh
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I agree. Also note that in bishop Kallistos' book, in the chapter where he speaks about that, the quotes he makes from Orthodox sources, they don't speak about Jesus experiencing spiritual death - alienation from God, but about Jesus experiencing physical death for us.

[ 14. July 2007, 13:26: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

I think I'll leave it there. Of course I know the Psalm 22 source argument. It leaves open the issue of why that Psalm, and that particular cry from it, should have struck him as so appropriate. A matter of both identification with humanity and separation from God. Thanks to you and to Myrrh for your explanations.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
No problem Barnabas. I have re-read that psalm, and I see the psalmist not in separation from God. On the contrary, he says something about God being with him. His cry has to do with the other people and the way they afflict him - are not with him... the way I read it it's about the people being separated from him, he cries about the physicality of what happens, about other people, and not about his own self. Is your reading of that psalma different? What do you think about my reading? Sorry for pursuing that tangent here.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Dear andreas

First verse separation. Second one as well. But then he begins to reflect on his own sufferings and his knowledge that others who have put their trust in God have "not been disappointed". He pleads in verse 11. "Do not be far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no one to help". And then recounts his suffering and his anguish. leading to the key verse 19.

"But you O Lord, be not far off! O my strength, come quickly to help me (NIV)".

The hope of the one experiencing scoffing and persecution, having lost any sense of God near him, that God will not be as far off as He is being experienced. That's faith. Sometimes its like crying out from the bottom of a deep well.

I'd say the Psalm is about the experience of suffering, made worse by both a sense of forsakenness. God's absence and the knowledge that He has helped others who were faithful. It has always seemed very reasonable to me to see this as a reflection on what it was like to be Jesus the man as that point in time. So I don't see it as a representative act of prayer from the cross, but as a personal one, deeply relevant to his circumstances. And if so, I can't escape the conclusion that the words of the Psalm themselves confirm both the separation and its temporary nature, as the last verse makes clear.

This is a brief overview, done rapidly. I'm bothered that we're derailing the thread. PM if you like - we can look at what we discuss offline and maybe put some stuff back here or elsewhere afterwards.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
Just to try to get this a bit back on track, we are discussing the passability of the Church, Christ's body, not the passibility of Christ the head.

Is the Church incapapble of suffering?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
PM if you like - we can look at what we discuss offline and maybe put some stuff back here or elsewhere afterwards.

I have started a new thread in Kerygmania
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Just to try to get this a bit back on track, we are discussing the passability of the Church, Christ's body, not the passibility of Christ the head.

Is the Church incapapble of suffering?

Apologies FCB. You've said succinctly what I was trying to say before the detour.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Is the Church incapapble of suffering?

The Church triumpant, that worships in the eternal presence of God? I've no idea. Though it is I think eternally undivided, because Christ is undivided, so if it suffers it does not suffer from its own division.

Particular churches on earth? Of course they are capable of suffering.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Is the Church incapapble of suffering?

I always take Act's 'Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me ?' to be fairly descriptive about the linkage between Christ and his Church. We suffer 'in Christ' and he 'in us' as far as I can tell.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
We suffer 'in Christ' and he 'in us' as far as I can tell.

More or less my thoughts on this matter.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
I have just read the last 5 pages of this thread and the one thing that I felt really required comment, that no-one else had picked up on was this:

quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"And once upon a time Latin was the vernacular. Then it was a language spoken by educated persons."

This is actually a misconception. As someone who knows a little about the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages it was actually the case that the latin spoken in the liturgy (when it changed from greek to latin with the exception of the Kyrie of course) was completely different to that spoken by the majority of the population and would have been as difficult to understand then as it is now.

Latin has always been meant as a sacred language set apart. Well that it what I have argued in the past and I have heard Michael Lang argue it as well

I am quite sure that neither Cicero nor Ovid would agree that Latin has always been meant as a sacred language set apart. Or is this a stange, new definition of "always" that I was not previously aware of?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I am quite sure that neither Cicero nor Ovid would agree that Latin has always been meant as a sacred language set apart.

I think the point is that the Latin of the Mass is quite a different dialect from that written by Cicero or Ovid. And that Latin was different again from the Vulgar Latin spoken in the streeets.

Though I suspect (not knowing Latin at all well) that give or take a few hundred Hebrew words and technical theological terms, the ancients would easily have been able to read Church Latin.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
This thread seems to have degenerated -- rightly so probably -- into tangents. That being the case, let me add that what I was taught in high school Latin was that by the 3rd century or so the language of the common people in Rome itself was no longer much like the literary Latin of the "Golden Age". It's always seemed to me that the Latin of the Mass is gramatically simple compared to classical Latin, with less rigour of agreement of parts of speech and a modernised and more standardised word order than in the highly inflected classical Latin (which also has at times tremendously long and complex sentences, for which Cicero is one notorious exemplar). The most immediate weirdness, however, is the pronounciation differences between classical Latin and its Italianate ecclesiastical daughter (there's also those extra letters that monks invented).
 
Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on :
 
Sorry, to clarify I did mean the use of Latin in an Ecclesiastical Liturgical context.
 
Posted by Bonaventura (# 1066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

At one point he explains that the creation fell because of Satan's Fall, a spiritual event that took place before Adam's Fall. That way, he tries to explain the scientific fact that death existed before the first man. However, in doing so, he should have made it clear that this is his own personal opinion, and not the patristic consensus.

TANGENT

Interesting, the last time I exchanged views on this with Myrrh she said that the fall of Satan myth was pretty much standard Orthodox teaching.

(Mind you this version of the fall is in line with certain pseudoepigraphical Jewish writings.)

/TANGENT
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

At one point he explains that the creation fell because of Satan's Fall, a spiritual event that took place before Adam's Fall. That way, he tries to explain the scientific fact that death existed before the first man. However, in doing so, he should have made it clear that this is his own personal opinion, and not the patristic consensus.

TANGENT

Interesting, the last time I exchanged views on this with Myrrh she said that the fall of Satan myth was pretty much standard Orthodox teaching.

(Mind you this version of the fall is in line with certain pseudoepigraphical Jewish writings.)

/TANGENT

OK, I might have got confused here because I meant the story was common teaching, but I've never heard that creation fell with that, as Andreas explains above. Does seem that Kallistos is presenting a new idea here, some sort of conflation of the two events, interesting and I wouldn't automatically dismiss it, can anyone remember where it was posted? The "fall" however does refer back to the St Michael story and not to Adam and Eve which is referred to "ancestral sin". I think it's only recently that the Orthodox have been using the Augustinian term out of discussions with the West, but it does seem to create more confusion as if the differences weren't confusing enough already.

Myrrh
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Yes, that's exactly my point. He sees that paleontology and theology contradict each other and he modifies the traditional theory pretending he is just repeating it... In his book, The Orthodox Way, in the chapter God as Creator, in sub-chapter 8 "evil, pain and man's fall" (in my version) he tells that story.

Bonaventura, I'm not saying that his mentioning the fall of Satan is strange, I'm saying that his connecting it with the death that pre-existed Adam is strange (none of the fathers did that; they all connected death with Adam, since they did not have the paleontological evidence we now have). But even that, is contradicted by the modern understanding of natural selection which the bishop has not taken into account. Still, it's an attempt to "discuss" with modern world and science...
 
Posted by Bonaventura (# 1066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The "fall" however does refer back to the St Michael story and not to Adam and Eve which is referred to "ancestral sin".

The difference is in which of the two myths one assigns the origin of evil to. The theological difference is that if the origin of evil (the fall) is assigned to the rebellion of the angels, then human beings are less perpetrators than victims of evil. The ancestral sin scenario on the other hand stresses human responsibility and choice.

I think some of the earliest fathers held the cosmic rebellion myth as the origin of evil.
Kallistos is certainly not presenting a new idea here. However, his new slant on it is original.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:


The difference is in which of the two myths one assigns the origin of evil to. The theological difference is that if the origin of evil (the fall) is assigned to the rebellion of the angels, then human beings are less perpetrators than victims of evil. The ancestral sin scenario on the other hand stresses human responsibility and choice.

I think some of the earliest fathers held the cosmic rebellion myth as the origin of evil.
Kallistos is certainly not presenting a new idea here. However, his new slant on it is original. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that it isn't implicit as a possibility in Orthodox view which doesn't see the origin of evil in Adam and Eve.

Original Sin and Ancestral Sin are distinctly different concepts.

The first posits an immortal Adam and Eve living in God's grace which he created as link between creator and created and with free will,
both of which were lost when A&E disobeyed 'the injunction not to eat from the tree'. Losing grace by their choice they fell into 'sinful nature' which is damned and which included death and the absence of free will to turn to God, and this was the punishment for the disobedience of the actual act of eating from the tree which is seen as, and I'm going on an explanation of this by Pope John Paul II, as wanting to know the moral base of existence which it says is God's prerogative only.

Contrast with Orthodox who view the prototype mankind as neither mortal nor immortal and see the injunction as a warning of consequence in eating the fruit (rather than a prohibition of eating from that tree) which is both good and evil and entailed no loss of grace or free will in the relationship with God. Some fathers say their disobedience was in eating before they were 'adult' enough, but however, the Adam and Eve story is seen as mankind's exploration into the nature of what they were created to be in the image and likeness of God so rather than moral knowledge itself being prohibited it's a given that includes this knowledge - "they have become like Us" can hardly been seen as a "fall"... The exclusion from the garden as written, lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever, seen as excluding them from immortality (they were neither mortal nor immortal) until they learned to live without sin, hence they say the reason for Christ's incarnation.

As prototype of mankind Orthodox see each child born in their original innocence and until the age of reason, being able to tell the difference between good and evil, without sin.

Two completely different views of mankind. The first Augustinian is very much Manichean, damned nature from evil as material creation itself by a lesser God, only changing the emphasis on blame, to putting the blame for being in it onto the original parents.

This Augustinian view of course can't be supported by the text because its claim begins with a perfect immortal state which isn't written or implicit anywhere and actually contradicted.


Myrrh
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
r_p,

the Ship is certainly a place for people to vent their rage, but at last here in Purgatory you will have to forgive me for trying to draw conclusions from what you vent. And the only conclusion I can draw from much of what you've said is that any RC who does not share your rage must be either willfully blind, stupid, or corrupt. Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?

That of a critically open mind perhaps?

There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.

Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.

Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?

I guess I was curious as to what you thought was going on with people like me, who perceive flaws in the Church, but would reject the claim that "as an institution it is rotten" and do not share your sense of outrage. Of the options you list above, I guess I'd fall into the "misplaced loyalty" category.

For myself, I would say that part of what attracts me to Catholicism is its deep embededness in history. It is a tradition in the full blown sense of the word: not simply a set of ideas, but an actual embodies community extended through time and around the world. I see this rooted in the fundamentally sacramental approach of Catholicism. But the price we pay for this is in a lumbering and sometimes insensitive institutional superstructure, careerism and pigheadedness among clergy, etc. But it's a price I am, thus far, willing to pay to be part of this tradition, because I don't see an alternative. After all, Jesus could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had forgotten the whole "apostle" idea and done everything himself. But somehow it seemed to be part of his plan to surround himself with fallible, sinful, pigheaded, careerist people to whom he entrusted his message.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are shouting. Not me. Or my "pals", whoever they may be.

You may assert as much as you like, and shout and shout as much as you please, and try to torment and accuse the Catholic Church of ill-motives and spurious intentions. ...

Sorry, no. I have not "shouted." You just can't admit that there's another side to anything than the official RCC line. You have shown no interest in the facts as presented by others. I can't say more about your or your motivations without getting unPurgatorial.

Your exclusivist assertions don't make us any less Catholic.

Ross
 
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I have not "shouted." You just can't admit that there's another side to anything than the official RCC line. You have shown no interest in the facts as presented by others. I can't say more about your or your motivations without getting unPurgatorial.

Your exclusivist assertions don't make us any less Catholic.

Ross, I'm not a Catholic, so that might make it easier to correspond with me. I am, however, curious about what facts you are referring to. Could you elaborate, or at least enumerate?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Professor, I think Rossweisse refers to something like this and also to the catholic theology that is still found in (parts?) the Anglican communion.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Andreas actually has a great deal of the right of it.

I've posted assorted evidence for the Anglican position a number of times. I regret that I do not have time to do it again right now. But the Greek Orthodox accepted our orders and sacraments at one time, at least, since GOs in the US who could not attend their own churches were encouraged to attend and receive the sacraments in Episcopal churches.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:

There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.

Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?

I would say that the Church (whether by that you mean the Catholic Church or the RCC+us "defective ecclesial communities") is an always has been a community of saints and sinners, and the clergy, despite whatever ontological change may be wrought by ordination, are no exception to that. As I've said earlier, I've known some very good Catholic clergymen but if, like you, I want to bang my drum, I've also come across some bastards along my way and I've encountered similar in Protestant churches too.

'Twas always ever thus and 'twilt always be so, this side of the eschaton.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
for interest:

quote:
Papal-primacy compromise out, Orthodox church official says

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24233


A Russian Orthodox official who represents his church on a Catholic-Orthodox commission said his church rules out any compromise on papal primacy.

"Historically, the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Christian church, from our point of view, was that of honor, not jurisdiction --the jurisdiction of the pope of Rome was never applied to all the churches," said Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria, who represents the Russian Orthodox Church on the International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches.

The commission is scheduled to meet in October in Ravenna, Italy, for the 10th plenary since its creation in 1979. After a six-year break, the 60-member commission reconvened in September to debate conciliarity and authority.

"There can be no compromise whatsoever" on papal primacy, Bishop Hilarion said in a May 28 interview with Russia's Interfax newsagency.

He added that "the aim of the theological dialogue is not at all to reach a compromise. For us, it is rather to identify the church's original view of primacy."

The Moscow Patriarchate was drafting its own document on primacy, which would help him "assert our official point of view" at future talks, said Bishop Hilarion.

Full article:
(Papal-primacy compromise out, Orthodox church official says)



[ 17. July 2007, 17:55: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
I know just how much you like long passages of internet to read Myrrh, so I am posting this one for you. No need to respond [Biased]

Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Prinmacy

Hey look! I've learnt to make my links bold just like you do [Yipee]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Just noticed they were in bold... They look nice that way. Hm. I will read the text you linked us TT and perhaps make a reply later [Razz]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Father, I read much of the text's first half. Remember what Myrrh said at another point about the Cardinal dealing with Catholic-Orthodox dialogues saying that the Patriarch of Constantinople is not, for the Orthodox, the equivalent of the Pope of Rome?

I think we have here a misunderstanding similar to that.

I mean, the author of that text seems to be reading the ancient sources attributing a particular meaning to their words (words like preside, etc.) that the original authors did not intend. The ancient texts he quotes could have been written now by Orthodox bishops towards an Orthodox Rome (or are being said for the Orthodox Archbishop of New Rome)... Of course, their meaning would be very different to what the author understands.

Anyway, the text is very long, it doesn't mention many historical incidents from that period that do not support the Catholic view on primacy, and I will stop here.
 
Posted by recidite_plebians (# 12793) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I guess I was curious as to what you thought was going on with people like me, who perceive flaws in the Church, but would reject the claim that "as an institution it is rotten" and do not share your sense of outrage. Of the options you list above, I guess I'd fall into the "misplaced loyalty" category.

For myself, I would say that part of what attracts me to Catholicism is its deep embededness in history. It is a tradition in the full blown sense of the word: not simply a set of ideas, but an actual embodies community extended through time and around the world. I see this rooted in the fundamentally sacramental approach of Catholicism. But the price we pay for this is in a lumbering and sometimes insensitive institutional superstructure, careerism and pigheadedness among clergy, etc. But it's a price I am, thus far, willing to pay to be part of this tradition, because I don't see an alternative. After all, Jesus could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had forgotten the whole "apostle" idea and done everything himself. But somehow it seemed to be part of his plan to surround himself with fallible, sinful, pigheaded, careerist people to whom he entrusted his message.

And in your last paragraph I am in almost complete agreement with you save that the alternative that was thrust upon me was to become "unchurched" as a direct consequence of the hostility show towards me because my first marriage failed. What hurts is the way the RCC "tore the ball out of my hands and took it away" and would do no more than let me watch the game carry on once I had been told to leave the park (sorry, bad analogy, but it has been a long day and it's the best I can do right now). Everyone else appears to be playing happily the way I once did, except they are oblivious to the bad calls made by the ref while I now see those calls for what they are. I wish it were different, but it's not so there is no sense pretending otherwise.

God, I think, is a cynic with a cruel sense of humour regarding who he plays favourites with.
 
Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I know just how much you like long passages of internet to read Myrrh, so I am posting this one for you. No need to respond [Biased]

Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Prinmacy

Hey look! I've learnt to make my links bold just like you do [Yipee]

Clever clogs!!
[Two face]
But one spelling mistake I fear,Father! [Biased]
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
Sorry for jumping back into the mix so late in the game, but I gave myself some time to have a look at the documents suggested to me on pages 1 and 2 of this thread before commenting further.

The pope's message didn't surprise me. As has been stated, it is nothing new. It does slightly cause me a bit of concern for two reasons, the first because it does not offer any way for the other 'communities' to become 'churches' in the eyes of the RCC. The pope could have very simply stated something like, 'Through the continuing dialogue that we share with our brothers and sisters in baptism, we remain committed to seeking ways to strengthen our relationship and build each other up as the Church through joint witness, service, and prayer in the world.'

Second, on a more technical level, I wonder if the translation from Latin to English (and a possible spin or bias) has placed too great a separation between the translations of church and ecclesial. In the Latin, wouldn't the words be very similar?
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
Look, as an Anglican, I take the recent emanation from Rome as par for the course.

What the current Pope says is in no way binding on me.

That is what is important.

Leaving aside theology or any backhand swipes at Rome, this is a fairly conservative, inward looking Pope in my reading.

Someone else in his position probably would have used more conciliatory language but he doesn't.

This is, in a way, a "party statement" by the CEO of Vatican Inc.

Holy Orthodoxy does not have such a Roman legalistic approach to authority nor one "Big Boss" but goes back to the decisions of the First Seven Councils of the (then undivided) Church. Authority is, if you like, conciliar. But that Council has to be one of the whole Church. Orthodox, even though they believe they could do so, have never done.

One of the reasons I remain an Anglican is that, like the late Archbishop Ramsey and the current Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe it is possible to be a perfectly orthodox Catholic Christian in the Anglican Church.

I think, with the formal split between East and West in 1054, the position of the Pope became exaggerated in the West. In the East he was regarded as having a special place of honour but not having the authority to define Christian teaching, which was the prerogative of an Ecumenical Council of the Church (like the First Seven Councils).

The late Sebastian Bullough, a Dominician and former Catholic Chaplain at Cambridge, UK, once published an article to that effect in the journal then called "Tomorrow" and was, as far as I know, not arraigned for heresy.

The "conciliar" view of church authority was once popular in RC circles around the time of Vatican Two.

It was supported by people of some standing like the late Bishop Christopher Butler OSB, a former Abbott of Downside.

Now the statement has come, I agree with DOD that we need to be able to have a fair and frank exchange of views from the different churches.

One of the dangers of a lot of well meaning ecumenism is that it's heavy on motherhood statements and good intentions but little else.

Therefore I support the right of those from a straight Protestant background (or any other point of view), like Mudfrog, to speak out in conscience. Without personal vilification which I don't think M indulged in.

I do, personally, have reservations about where Rome stands on several matters. That doesn't stop me having tremendous respect and affection for my Catholic friends.

There was a stage when we Christians were vilifying, murdering and torturing each other (and Jews, Muslims and "pagans") in the name of God.

Thank God we've improved slightly since then!

My own personal opinion is that we, as Christians, are all in schism with each other.

May God forgive us all for this mutual, long term sin against the Holy Ghost.

In love and sadness to you all,

P
 
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
I've read thru this thread.......I've also said to myself that I was not going to post to it but........

Martin L., I agree with what you would have liked to have seen. So would I. However, such a statement would be counter to RC ecclesiology, their teachings regarding the supremacy of the Papacy, and about a dozen or so other teachings. It just isn't going to happen under this Pope regardless of his personal support for the Augsburg declaration on Justification or anything else. To do so would nulligy much of the statements of Trent and those that have come down during the last 4 centuries many of which seem aimed at solidifying and hanging on to power by the Vatican establishment.

The Vatican is not going to give up it's claims to be the "one, true Church" in which resides the "fullness of truth". Benedict's recent statements simply serve to reinforce the RCC's long standing position.
 
Posted by Bonaventura (# 1066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Original Sin and Ancestral Sin are distinctly different concepts.

I do know your views on Augustine rather well and I do not wish to engage with them. Especially since what we are discussing in this tangent belongs to the ante-nicene era, well before Augustine.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Martin L., I agree with what you would have liked to have seen. So would I. However, such a statement would be counter to RC ecclesiology, their teachings regarding the supremacy of the Papacy, and about a dozen or so other teachings. It just isn't going to happen under this Pope regardless of his personal support for the Augsburg declaration on Justification or anything else. To do so would nulligy much of the statements of Trent and those that have come down during the last 4 centuries many of which seem aimed at solidifying and hanging on to power by the Vatican establishment.

The Vatican is not going to give up it's claims to be the "one, true Church" in which resides the "fullness of truth". Benedict's recent statements simply serve to reinforce the RCC's long standing position.

I just meant it would have been a good idea from a PR standpoint for the pope to also provide an emphasis on his church's already-avowed willingness to dialogue ecumenically. It would have softened the blow.

Even though Benedict is German, I think it is very easy for the folks at the Vatican to forget that much of the rest of the world is not as totally Roman Catholic as the Diocese of Rome. The release of this statement probably didn't even make the news in Southern Europe, but it was blown out of proportion in the rest of the world.

It makes me wonder if things would have been different if Archbishop Foley had still been at the helm of Social Communications.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
[qb]
It makes me wonder if things would have been different if Archbishop Foley had still been at the helm of Social Communications.

I have fond memories of Bishop Agnellus Andrew OFM
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Not really.

There are several issues on the go here. One is the fact that "The Vatican" does not really exist as a single entity. There are various Dicasteries, such as CDF, the Congregation for Bishops etc, and they tend to operate quite independently. CDF is different in that it is in effect above all the other dicasteries, and everything they publish has to be seen first by CDF. But CDF itself is a law unto itself and has no equivalent responsibility to check its documents with other dicasteries. I know, for example, that some (quite high up) in the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and also at the Pont. Council for Promoting Christian Unity, were livid when Dominus Iesus was published because they were never consulted prior to its publication. That appears scandalous, but it's the reality.

The other is that PR is not a major concern. To American eyes that must seem bizarre I would imagine. I was intrigued in watching The West Wing that the Director of Communications was part of all policy discussions. That seems a good thing. There is no equivalent person at the Holy See (Abp Foley's brief was something quite different). So no-one would have been at the CDF gathering specifically to discuss the issue of "how will this play in Washington, London, Bogota?" etc. Even at local Bishops' Conference level there is no similar post. Again, those who have to deal with media enquiries about policy decisions will not have been part of drafting that policy, simply having to publish it and then field questions. That seems to me (after The West Wing) a major shortcoming, but it's not one the Bishops seem at all concerned about.

Abp Foley, by the way, was not in any way responsible for the press releases of the Holy See - that belongs to the Sala Stampa, the Press Office of the Holy See. The Pont. Council for Social Communications has a much wider brief than that.

One of my friends said a few years ago that the problem with Vatican documents was that they left Rome at 40 Volts, but by the time they hit you they carried 40 000 Volts. I think that is probably accurate. One should also remember that documents from Rome are usually reactions to something, rather than pro-active publications. Rome is not constantly issuing thunderbolts willy-nilly at whim. They prefer local churches to deal with matters. A great head of steam has to build up before Rome intervenes. This is true of CDF as well.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
Yikes! It is a marketing catastrophe waiting to happen. Some day somebody's going to say the wrong thing and it will be amusing to watch the others spin it to align with church teaching. I can see why Luther wanted a flatter organizational structure.

I imagined PR was not a concern, but it should be. When the sensus fidelium is restricted to only the crème de la crème of Cardinal-Deacons, that is a scary thought.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
... "The Vatican" does not really exist as a single entity. There are various Dicasteries, such as CDF, the Congregation for Bishops etc, and they tend to operate quite independently. CDF is different in that it is in effect above all the other dicasteries, and everything they publish has to be seen first by CDF. But CDF itself is a law unto itself and has no equivalent responsibility to check its documents with other dicasteries. I know, for example, that some (quite high up) in the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and also at the Pont. Council for Promoting Christian Unity, were livid when Dominus Iesus was published because they were never consulted prior to its publication. That appears scandalous, but it's the reality.

The other is that PR is not a major concern....

One of my friends said a few years ago that the problem with Vatican documents was that they left Rome at 40 Volts, but by the time they hit you they carried 40 000 Volts. I think that is probably accurate. One should also remember that documents from Rome are usually reactions to something, rather than pro-active publications. Rome is not constantly issuing thunderbolts willy-nilly at whim. They prefer local churches to deal with matters. A great head of steam has to build up before Rome intervenes. This is true of CDF as well.

Bravo, TT for once again shining your light on dark places! [Cool]

I think many non-Catholics don't realize what a vast bureaucracy the Vatican is and assume anything issuing therefrom is from "Der Holy Fadder" (Cease Irish accent.). This is patently not so.

The Pope is also human. Ancient but human. He does make errors of judgement.

I think, if we see him as such, we tend to realize the relativity of most of what he says. "Infallibility" is limited to matters of Faith and Morals when he addresses the whole (Roman Catholic) Church.

I do think there are a lot of semi-professional Vatican watching ecumenists-of sorts-who are not RC who get their nappies in knots evertime Benedict does anything.

Benedict is not my favourite Pope. A rather tubby Italian was.

Nonetheless, I don't think Benedict will do much harm.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Ah, let me do some CDF role-play here [Biased]

So, there are 2 very blatant mistakes in your post. The first is to imagine that there are not some major cock-ups from time to time. I suggest you check anything the Prefect of the Pontifical Council for the Family has to say. [Eek!] . His patent nonsense about the permeability of condoms springs to mind, and seemed to me at the time to be marshalling bad science to back up bad doctrine.

The second is to think it's all about Cardinals. In fact CDF is composed of a number of theologians. This is the profile:
quote:
The congregation is now headed by Prefect Cardinal William Joseph Levada. It has a secretary, His Excellency Mgr. Angelo Amato, S.D.B., an under-secretary, P. Joseph Augustine Di Noia, O.P., a Promotor of Justice Mgr. Charles Scicluna, and a staff of 37, according to the "Annuario Pontificio" or "Pontifical Yearbook." It also has 23 members - cardinals, archbishops and bishops - and 33 consulters. Given the nature of its task, congregation work is divided into four distinct sections: the doctrinal office, the disciplinary office, the matrimonial office and that for priests.


The staff of 37 are the people who do most of the work. When a document is issued it has usually been through quite a lot of process already. The Cardinals etc who constitute the board, as it were, are not in fact the ones who have done any of the work!

The corollary to this is that things actually work bottom-up rather than top-down in these dicasteries. The Cardinals do all the glamorous things, but matters crossing their desks have usually crossed a few other desks first.

There is of course no mechanism to measure the sensus fidelium. That little phrase is often invoked by those who don't like what Roman documents say - but it has little real value as currency in the decision making processes. One might of course argue that is a bad thing, but it is the reality. Fides et Ratio is a good watchword of course - there are some matters which are regarded as being part of Fide, and thus divine revelation, and so not subject to majority opinion anyway.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
The above post was for MartinL. But continuing CDF role play: [Two face]

There is one major mistake in your post gracious Sir Pellinore: the Vatican bureaucracy is not vast - it is in fact quite small. Note the CDF only has 37 on its staff. That's a very small number having to deal with a helluva lot of stuff. The sum total of those working in all the dicasteries of the Roman Curia is less than 5000, as I recall. Heck, I think the Town Hall of an American city has more bureaucrats than the Vatican.

[ 19. July 2007, 23:37: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...PR is not a major concern. ...

Trip, I didn't realize you had such a gift for understatement!

Ross
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
But every one of my posts is an understatement [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But every one of my posts is an understatement [Big Grin]

No, that's an overstatement!
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
[Killing me] - I give you full marks for that riposte
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
Thanks for the clarification. Believe it or not, I do understand many of the parts of the machine that exists in Vatican City. In addition to my own interest in politics and faith, I attended a Roman Catholic university, taking Roman Catholic theology courses. Not many RCs can claim the same interest in or study of my faith. I am an armchair commentator, of course, and not a RC theologian. Unfortunately, my hyperbole simply doesn't translate online.

The Roman Catholic Church is humongous, and it always amazes me the different interpretations that one gets from different sources. On the one hand, we have priests here who would never dream of ever saying what you said about the Prefect of the Pontifical Council for the Family. In fact, they would never consider saying anything against the higher-ups at all. On the other hand, we have sensible priests (like yourself, TT) who take a more learnèd approach.

The general sense among non-RCs seems to be that the RCC is a rigid, inflexible body whose doctrine was chiseled in stone sometime before the fall of Rome. With that being the prevailing attitude, it can be confusing to see different authority figures from the same location issuing different statements. On the one hand we have the document Dominus Iesus being released by the CDF, but on the other hand we have the leader of the PCPCU sending different messages and celebrating mass at Taizé.

The question for me is, why would a church that declares people out of communion with them if they differ in belief allow the leaders to differ in belief? (Please take this as the honest academic question I mean it to be. My translation to online sentences doesn't seem to be working too well today. [Smile] )

[ 20. July 2007, 01:28: Message edited by: Martin L ]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
[Killing me] - I give you full marks for that riposte

<curtsies>
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
MartinL: The question for me is, why would a church that declares people out of communion with them if they differ in belief allow the leaders to differ in belief?
Ah, now there's the rub. I think Catholics would say "We did not unchurch you - you unchurched yourself. It was not first of all us who declared you out of communion - you declared yourselves out of communion". Excommunication usually only follows long after a decisive breach has been made.

RC ecumenism is of course "you must come back to us". Pope John Paul in Ut Unum Sint tried to recognise that a major obstacle to the restoration of unity, on our part, was the way the Petrine Office was exercised, and invited other churches to comment on this. However, when senior RC figures like Rembert Weakland tried to take him up on the offer, they were promptly slapped down - it wasn't Catholics who were being invited to comment! I thought Rome was parodying itself by showing precisely how some of its actions were offensive!

In theory at least, the "come back to us" is not simply a matter of trot down to the local RC parish and blend in. It does include that aspect of "we too need to fix some things to get back to one Church". I guess from our perspective we have done a great deal of that, beginning with the counter-Reformation and certainly including the reforms of Vatican II. Of the substantive points that caused the Reformation to erupt, how many still actually exist?

But there has been a whole lot of drift since then, and entirely new issues which present themselves. That's understandable, as none of us have stood still.

What RCs cannot sign up to is the kind of pan-Protestant idea of church unity which is a kind of federation of independent denominations doing their own thing. It just makes no sense from a Catholic ecclesiological perspective. (I would think that ecclesiology has been the major theological field of debate and research in the RC Church over the past century, so the thing we are most attuned to. The spirituality of communion is the in thing since JPII).

My positive spin on the CDF document would be that if we did not take other churches seriously there would be no need for such discussions.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
MartinL: The question for me is, why would a church that declares people out of communion with them if they differ in belief allow the leaders to differ in belief?

I wasn't even referring to non-RCs here. I should have been more specific. My thought was that if a Roman Catholic layperson (for example) disagrees with church teaching on birth control, uses birth control, and has no intention to stop using birth control, that person has placed him/herself out of communion with the church. (Am I correct on this?)

On a similar vein, if one bishop (just for example) declared that other non-RC churches are not really churches, while another bishop says that is ridiculous, then what of the communion? Which one is right and which one is wrong? Who has placed himself out of communion with the church? Is there a difference if it is a clergyman or a layperson? Does it matter which teaching is renounced or called into question?

Apologies for not being more specific earlier.

[ 20. July 2007, 03:09: Message edited by: Martin L ]
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
RC ecumenism is of course "you must come back to us".

If that is the true intent, then I fear we are forever going to be in dialogue and nothing more. It's not a matter of coming back. The RCC changed itself after the Reformation.

It's amazing that the sale of indulgences is what started this whole mess. I think both sides would overwhelmingly agree that is ridiculous.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
RC ecumenism is of course "you must come back to us".

If that is the true intent, then I fear we are forever going to be in dialogue and nothing more. It's not a matter of coming back. The RCC changed itself after the Reformation.

It's amazing that the sale of indulgences is what started this whole mess. I think both sides would overwhelmingly agree that is ridiculous.

Absolutely - hence the Counter-Reformation and Vatican II, for a start. But the point is that you would be coming back to the Catholic Church as it is now post Vatican II, not as it was then. That may still mean eternal dialogue, unfortunately. But it wouldn't be along the old Reformation battle lines.

These days indulgences aren't for sale. In fact now if, for example, a plenary indulgence is announced (such as the one available for participating in the WYD 08 Veneration for the WYD Cross and the icon, both currently on tour in Australia) the Catholic Church goes to great lengths to avoid any suggestion that the indulgence is being sold or is of any value other than spiritual benefit according to the terms of the indulgence.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
Can I ask MartinL what you have to profess to become a Lutheran ?

I see reunification as an unlikely dream primarily because of the fact that the Catholic church has a defined position on so many things. This doesn't seem to fit with the Protestant mindset.

I wonder if Lutheranism is different. To be confirmed as an Anglican, I just had to promise that I believe in God the Father who made the world, in his son Jesus Christ who redeemed mankind, and in the Holy Spirit who gives life to the people of God. Plus in the services I say the Nicene creed.

Pretty much everything else is open as far as I know. When I meet people in my bible study group, noone is surprised or concerned that we disagree about all sorts of things. That's just in one church, let alone the variety of church styles that are in Anglicanism.

The fact that I see that as good and I expect Catholics to see it as bad seems to be a huge obstacle.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Not MartinL but I presume something along the lines of the Augsburg Confession, with possibly the Book of Concord (depending on what sort of Lutheran one is) and possibly also Luther's Catechism(s)
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
Seems like the Lutherans might have a better chance then, if they are used to the idea of a fairly comprehensive list of things to believe.

Matt, when thinking about becoming Catholic yourself, how did you feel about the idea of promising to believe all the church's teachings ? I'm guessing you haven't had to do that in the same way as a Baptist or Anglican.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
[snip]
It's amazing that the sale of indulgences is what started this whole mess. I think both sides would overwhelmingly agree that is ridiculous.

Perhaps this needs another thread (I hope not!) but I don't think that the sale of indulgences is what started the Reformation. Luther's attack on the practice was certainly central, but the Reformation was already well under way by then.

K.
 
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Tiara, When I said "The Vatican", I was using it in the same way one might refer to the coporate collection of political entities who work out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as "The White House".

What does one have to do/believe to become a Lutheran? One needs to be baptised. However, we baptise a person as a member of the holy catholic and apostolic church and not into the Lutheran Church.

The Baptismal Liturgy is almost the same for either infants or adults. I believe it looks very much like the 1979 BCP.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

Matt, when thinking about becoming Catholic yourself, how did you feel about the idea of promising to believe all the church's teachings ? I'm guessing you haven't had to do that in the same way as a Baptist or Anglican.

I think someone else on the thread concerned in AS referred to a list of doctrinal 'tick boxes', of which initially on becoming Catholic s/he could only agree with some, disagree with others and on some have to say 'don't know' and that now, after many years in the Italian Mission, 'disagrees' have become 'don't knows' and 'don't knows' 'yesses'...or something like that...anyway, that would kind of have worked for me - there has to be a degree of 'taking on trust' stuff which you either don't understand or downright disagree with.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
What I was wondering Organmeister is whether a reunification of Lutherans and Catholics on the basis of an agreed set of beliefs between the leaderships makes sense.

For Anglicans it seems to me such an agreement would be very unlikely because there is such a short list of things that Anglican leaders can say all Anglicans are supposed to believe. Whereas there is a long list of things all Catholics are supposed to believe.

I was wondering where Lutherans have a large diversity of beliefs or not.
 
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Moonlit Door,

I don't see any possibility for any kind of substantiative reunification of Lutherans and RC's. I believe the principal stumbling blocks would be the divergent beliefs regarding ecclesiology, the claims of Petrine Supremacy, and the validity of orders. The best one could hope for--and I find even this to be extremely unlikely--would be recognition of Lutheran churches as full and complete churches and not merely "ecclesial bodies" and allowing Lutherans to receive the Eucharist in RC churches. However, due to the reason I've mentioned, I don't see this happening any time soon, certainly not during Benedict's pontificate. I believe +Hanson had asked JPII to consider allowing Lutherans to receive in RC church in 2017 but unless there is some sort of divine thundebolt that rocks the Vatican, I have relegated this to wishful thinking.

Regarding beliefs.......Lutherans do not vary much in their beliefs, at least not in the same sense that Anglicans do. When I first boarded the ship I was amazed to find Anglicans debating the nature of the Eucharist. I thought this had been settled with the 39 Articles and other 16th cent. documents. Lutheran beliefs are generally set out in the Small Catechism (readily available on-line), the Large Catechism, the Augsburg Confession, and the Book of Concord. Acceptance of these documents is pretty much the norm although we do produce the occasional heretic.

There is a fairly wide variance in pracice at least here in the US. I annot speak for European Lutherans. The Lutheran presence here on the east coast is largely due to the 18th cent. immigration of Germans from the Palatine and a few Swedes. They early on formed a close association with the resident Anglicans and thus Lutheran practice here in the East tends to be more high-church in flavor. We also have a few who are described as Confessional Lutherans, and these folks tend to be very high church. Lutheranism was brought to the American mid-west largely by immigrants from Sweden, Norway, and a few very conservative Germans (who now make up the Missuori-Synod). The Scandinavians, having been heavily influence by Pietism, tend to be more low-church. As an example, the recent agreements with the Anglicans to restore apostolic succession and the historic episcopacy were greeted as non-events in my region. Opposition to the agreement was centered in the midwest and a few groups left the ELCA over this issue. But understand that these are generalities and not written in stone.
 
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
Organmeister wasn't it Luther who wanted his churches to be called an ecclesial body? That's what my priest said, but hey look where I got it from.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
Organmeister wasn't it Luther who wanted his churches to be called an ecclesial body? That's what my priest said, but hey look where I got it from.

Even if that were the case, it doesn't so much matter. Our identity now is church, and it has been for quite some time. The churches of the Reformation are no more committed to the exact words spoken in the 1500's than the Roman church is. If it were, there would still be an indulgence salesperson in the Holy Roman Empire and our Good Friday prayers would still be quite offensive to non-Christians. If the priest is working under the assumption that everything Luther said sets our doctrine, then he needs to spend some more time in study. I have to give him credit though, most RC priests around here don't even bother to try to find out about other faiths.

[ 20. July 2007, 16:28: Message edited by: Martin L ]
 
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Le me reinforce what Martin L. said. We agree and teach Luther's theological concepts but we also are aware that he was very much a person of his time and place. I've often thought that there were times i his life when he started to believe his own publicity and allowed his ego to inflate. He wrote hateful, vicious things about the Jews, especially when they failed to convert to Lutheranism, and I trust that all contemporary Lutherans would repudiate those rantings with disgust. I think he looked around him and saw the world descending into chaos so when the peasants revolted he had no problem failing to speak out against their slaughter in the name of keeping an orderly society. Brilliant theologian. Very fallible human being.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0