Neil,

As an independent assessment, thank you for pointing this out. Basically he and I indeed are in agreement.

Deacon Tony


That being said...

I would have to take exception to this conclusion. That is, for instance:
Who's saying this now? Who were the initiators of the assessment that "Prior to Vatican II, the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church made the Church of Rome and the Catholic Church co-terminous." In one way this is correct but in the broad sense it is so poorly stated that it leaves room for numerous misinterpretations.


He's not alone since as pointed out above by Neil I've been essentially saying the same thing.

This needs to be discussed in more detail and documented. I believe it is an incorrect assessment of the pre- and post- VCII ecclesiologies and the development of the one to the other.

I would nuance things a bit differently than he does, but a fair and unbiased appraisal shows that his point has great merit.

Perhaps it would help if you could illustrate the item in OE that says this, Stuart. I do not doubt that what you say that it says accurately reflects the commonly held view of what the document says, but I have read OE on numerous occasions and simply cannot see that it says anything new, but only reiterates that existing views on the Eastern rites/ churches are correct and clarifies where abuses have arisen. This fits entirely with the spirit of VII, which clarified, rather than invented doctrine anew (despite what some sixties theologians would like to believe).

In order to have you fairly appraise my interpretation, I have posted a number of quotations from the document that I believe support my reading of it. It would greatly assist if you could do the same regarding this document where you feel I interpret incorrectly.

It should also be noted that your argument that it would only have been necessary to issue OE at VII if previous practice was wrong undermines the entire reason for the council, which was primarily convened to REAFFIRM the nature of the Church in the modern world. By your argument, if there was nothing wrong with the Church there would have been no reason to have a council, since you only have councils and issue decrees about things that are going wrong.

Advances in communication technology have made us all quite a bit more aware of the broader world and the people living in far away places. I can't help thinking this whole discussion confuses this reality and realities about human nature with the doctrine of the Church.

That is, if your experience of a things homogeneous and one-sided, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the whole thing to be more of the same.

I am a Canadian, but I have never thought that citizens of the United States (who make bold to call themselves "American") thought they were the only inhabitants of the whole of North and South America. I just accept that there are a lot of them and that they pay little attention to the few of us.

Anyway I'm no expert, but I have read quite a lot of pre-conciliar writing, and what scant attention is paid to the East seems consistent with a correct understanding, even if it does seem quaintly in awe of these exotic peoples and their oriental ways.