|
0 members (),
295
guests, and
159
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,542
Posts417,786
Members6,198
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 194
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 194 |
With all due respect, Deacon Richard, I am not aware that the Catholic Church has ever authoritatively issued anything that says that a division does, or could, exist within the Church. The Ravenna Document seems to reinforce this notion of the inherent unicity of the Church: 32. Each local Church is in communion not only with neighbouring Churches, but with the totality of the local Churches, with those now present in the world, those which have been since the beginning, and those which will be in the future, and with the Church already in glory. According to the will of Christ, the Church is one and indivisible, the same always and in every place. Both sides confess, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, that the Church is one and catholic. Its catholicity embraces not only the diversity of human communities but also their fundamental unity.If both Churches, which are separated from each other, affirm the unity of the one Church, does it not follow that each Church views the other as somehow separated from the one Church? Chris
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Acceptance that both would probably continue on as they are. I agree, Andrew. I think that we can continue mostly as we are, divided and institutionally jealous and constantly frictious, or we can continue mostly as we are but with the bonds of communion and fraternal charity. Fortunately, we have largely the same or similar theology, sacraments etc. Mostly we have differing corporate cultures and a few doctrinal divergences which separate us. I believe these differences can and should be overcome. The Holy Spirit is willing, the egos are weak.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
With all due respect, Deacon Richard, I am not aware that the Catholic Church has ever authoritatively issued anything that says that a division does, or could, exist within the Church. The Ravenna Document seems to reinforce this notion of the inherent unicity of the Church: 32. Each local Church is in communion not only with neighbouring Churches, but with the totality of the local Churches, with those now present in the world, those which have been since the beginning, and those which will be in the future, and with the Church already in glory. According to the will of Christ, the Church is one and indivisible, the same always and in every place. Both sides confess, in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, that the Church is one and catholic. Its catholicity embraces not only the diversity of human communities but also their fundamental unity.If both Churches, which are separated from each other, affirm the unity of the one Church, does it not follow that each Church views the other as somehow separated from the one Church? Chris Chris, That is correct. The Catholic Church sees itself as the one Church and separated from that Church, hence "wounded," though elements of the Church exist within Orthodoxy (sacraments). The Orthodox Church believes that it is the true Church and that Rome has separated from her. Though there is no official statement saying that Rome and the Churches in union with her have elements of grace and sanctification, I see no reason why an Orthodox theologian cannot hold this view. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
The Orthodox Church believes that it is the true Church and that Rome has separated from her. Though there is no official statement saying that Rome and the Churches in union with her have elements of grace and sanctification, I see no reason why an Orthodox theologian cannot hold this view. Other than maintaining that it is the one true church, does Orthodoxy have any teaching on other churches? Does Orthodoxy have communion with other churches (other than the Western Rite OC)?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 Likes: 1 |
Other than maintaining that it is the one true church, does Orthodoxy have any teaching on other churches? There is no defined ecclesiological principle that addresses the latter point. You might find this useful. http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htmDoes Orthodoxy have communion with other churches (other than the Western Rite OC)? No.
Last edited by AMM; 10/30/07 10:54 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Andrew, Thanks for the link. I am a bit surprised by it. It reads Augustine in a positive light with regard to sacraments saying: The sacramental theology of St Augustine was not received by the Eastern Church in antiquity nor by Byzantine theology, but not because they saw in it something alien or superfluous. Augustine was simply not very well known in the East. In modern times the doctrine of the sacraments has not infrequently been expounded in the Orthodox East, and in Russia, on a Roman model, but there has not yet been a creative appropriation of Augustine's conception. That Eastern theology can take Augusting seriously on this point and object to Augustine on original sin surprises me. What am I missing? Is there an Eastern interpretive principle operative here?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
With all due respect, Deacon Richard, I am not aware that the Catholic Church has ever authoritatively issued anything that says that a division does, or could, exist within the Church. Robster, I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. LG speaks of the fullness of the Christian Church as "subsisting" in the RC Church, while admitting that other Churches are united "imperfectly" to the One Church. This was the first time the RCC ever formally admitted such a thing. My take on this is that if any Church that is outside the RCC and yet is recognized to be united with her in some "imperfect" way, then they must be considered partially in and partially out. I don't see how that fails to constitute a division "within the Church." Furthermore, the whole paradigm of ecumenism is based on the concept of reuniting divisions among Christians. The old paradigm--consistent with the notion of 'there is one true Church, and we alone are it--was for each Church to look for the others to come crawling back in repentance. Paradoxically (or perhaps not), this attitude led historically to a great deal of un-Christian behavior among Christians! Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179 |
Deacon Richard,
I don't know that I would agree with the interpretation you present here. Protestants, we are told in Second Vatican Council, have a real communion via baptism. Would that mean they are partially in and partially out as well?
I don't believe the Church can ever lack unity.
There have been numerous statements in the past 40+ years that have said that Second Vatican Council has changed nothing of substance, but has only deepened it. I take that as the bedrock from which I approach the matter, and I believe it is a sound way to approach the matter. So, I consider the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII fully in force with regard to their substance, while their tone and language is to be modified, and their substance is to be augmented by what has been deepened since.
Regards to all,
Robster
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
deleted
Last edited by johnzonaras; 10/30/07 12:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
Deacon Richard,
I don't know that I would agree with the interpretation you present here. Protestants, we are told in Second Vatican Council, have a real communion via baptism. Would that mean they are partially in and partially out as well?
I don't believe the Church can ever lack unity.
There have been numerous statements in the past 40+ years that have said that Second Vatican Council has changed nothing of substance, but has only deepened it. I take that as the bedrock from which I approach the matter, and I believe it is a sound way to approach the matter. So, I consider the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII fully in force with regard to their substance, while their tone and language is to be modified, and their substance is to be augmented by what has been deepened since.
Regards to all,
Robster Not surprisingly, as a Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly with these statements. Two other points: (1) The document Communionis notio (1992), after saying that the notion of "communion/koinonia" is analogical, not univocal, states very clearly that when one is baptized, he is baptized into the Universal Church, and in Catholic teaching that would include all who are validly baptized, Catholics, Orthodox or Protestant. (2) The Church is in a mysterious way a living being ("Mystical Body", "Bride of Christ", etc., all Scriptural references). No living being can lack unity, which is one of the "signs of life". And philosophically, the unum is convertible with the bonum and the verum. So, whatever "defect" or "wound" refers to, and in my understanding it consists in the "visible lack of unity", it is clearly not fatal (yet?). But, that also implies that we are in need of "first aid" at the risk of being judged irresponsible by the Lord. I interpret that first aid as meaning prayer, penance and charity, then reflection and meditation, and only then words. Best, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
If both Churches, which are separated from each other, affirm the unity of the one Church, does it not follow that each Church views the other as somehow separated from the one Church? Chris, Yes, it does. That is why, historically, both Churches have justified all sorts of sins against each other--"they," after all, are not brethren in Christ. This is why, as several posters have pointed out (thanks!), reunion needs to begin with mutual respect and cooperation. It is only when we establish this "spirit" that we can get down to the really serious discussions. That said, I am very much looking forward to the next Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, which is supposed to address specifically the role and prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. My hope is that every pertinent document from the first millenium is brought out and examined carefully and as objectively as possible. All the rhetoric will have to take a back seat to the evidence presented. The goal will not be to further either side's agenda, but to search for the truth in sincerity and humility.It seems unlikely that any meaningful joint statement on this subject can be produced in only one session, although even a statement showing that each side understands the various facets of the other's position and the reasons behind them would be of some good. But if the participants leave with the issues having been discussed and "areas for further research" defined, it will have been fruitful indeed. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
I'll make a few comments. Although I was born Catholic, I am Orthodox and I have no problem with Catholic / Orthodox disunity. The concept of church unity is an artificial construct of the Emperor Constantine to to have one unified, state religion to replace paganism. In fact, disunion and dislike between various Christian sects was the norm during antiquity. In fact, Julian II, Constantine's nephew, encouraged disunity. The great fourth century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus notes, "Utque dsipositorum robaret effectum, dissidentes Christianorum antistites cum plebe discissa in palatium intromissis, menebat civilius, ut discordiis consopitis, quisque nullo vetante, religioni suae serviret intrepidus. Quod agebat ideo obstinate, ut dissensiones augente licentia, non timeret unianimantem postea plebem, nullas infestas hominibus bestias, ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christianorum expertus." (22.5.3-4) "[Julian]...summoned to the palace the bishop of the Christians, who were of conflicting opinions, and the people, who also were at variance, and politely advised them to lay aside their differences, and each fearlessly and without opposition to observe his own beliefs. On this he took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one. another." Ammianus could be speaking of today's Church including all sects. Nothing has changed in my judgment. I apologize if some find the citation bothersome, but you can not teach an old dog new tricks! The last sentence in Ammianus says it all. You're quoting an episode from the life of Julian the Apostate? Are you serious?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
Sure I am serious. Ammianus is considered the best and most objective historian of the period. Whether you like Julian or not is immaterial. The comments are Ammianus' comments on what he thought went through Julian's mind. Ammianius is considered to be one of the few pagan historians to treat Christians fairly in his narrative. The comment about the manner in which Christian treat each other is accurate. Look at the way Orthodox Christians and Ari ans treated each other in the period leading up to the council of Nicaea. Athanasius of Alexandria treated his foes like he was an ecclesiastical gangster. I suggest you get your hands on a copy of Bell's text of London Papyrus 21 (my numbering may be off). Ammianus' narrative is considered by most modern Roman historians to be balanced and an accurate mirror of the times and not subject to the hyperbole that one encounters in Christian accounts of the era.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
The concept of church unity is an artificial construct of the Emperor Constantine to to have one unified, state religion to replace paganism. Even if Constantine's plan was a united Christianity for a united Empire, it is irrelevant to your assertion that "the concept of church unity is an artificial construct." You point has been disproven by scripture. Unity as a Christian aspiration comes from Christ himself, and not any Emperor.
Last edited by Fr J Steele CSC; 10/31/07 12:29 AM. Reason: for tone, not content
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
In a word,Whether Julian was a pagan or not is immaterial to Ammianus' comments on the Christians in the fourth century and the manner in which they treated each other.
|
|
|
|
|
