The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (2 invisible), 307 guests, and 28 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 347
N
尼古拉前执事
Member
OP Offline
尼古拉前执事
Member
N
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 347
Glory to Jesus Christ!

I snagged this from one of Mor Ephram's posts (with permission) at http://www.OrthodoxChristianity.net :

Quote
October 31, 2002

Second Vatican Council reaffirmed papal rule
By Larry Witham
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A Catholic cardinal said yesterday that the reformist Second Vatican Council upheld the authority of the papacy, hierarchy and Rome as the "true church," rather than liberalizing those beliefs, as commonly believed. Top Stories

"Movements of reform and liberalization have commonly appealed to Vatican II as their justification, but many of their proposals have rested on misinterpretations," Cardinal Avery Dulles said in a speech to a full auditorium at Georgetown University last night to mark the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, which opened in 1962.

Cardinal Dulles was called "the dean of Catholic theologians" in an introduction by John J. DeGioia, president of Georgetown, and last year became the first American theologian who is not a bishop to be made a cardinal.

The cardinal called Vatican II's documents are an "artful blending" of the ideas of a liberal majority and conservative minority who met in Rome, but firmly support the traditional teachings of Pope John Paul II and the Holy See today.

"The struggle between different schools of interpretation brought about a certain polarization in the church, in some cases leading to the brink, if not over the brink, of schism," Cardinal Dulles told his Georgetown audience.

While conservatives idealized the old Latin church as "a lost paradise," he said, liberals used Vatican II to argue for an optimistic humanism that accepted secular "signs of the times."

Cardinal Dulles said that in the 1960s both agendas, especially the liberal one, were politically organized and masterfully executed. Still, he said, the more conservative interpreters have won on the Vatican II legacy.

"To some extent this [liberalizing] rhetoric still exists, but it seems to be dying down," said the Jesuit scholar who, as son of a former secretary of state, converted to Catholicism while a Harvard student.

Cardinal Dulles said the greatest post-Vatican II misunderstanding is that the church gave up its claim to be the only way to salvation and that popes are not the final authority.

"The primacy of the pope, as it had been defined by Vatican I [in 1870], remains intact," he said.

Non-Catholic groups are respected as churches with ministries, "but there is no reason to reckon them as constituent parts of the one true church, which is Roman and Catholic," he said.

He also noted that the council said people of other religions who try to do good but are ignorant of the Roman church "may attain salvation" by God's grace in the end.

Two years ago, a Vatican declaration that was widely interpreted as saying that salvation exists only in the Roman Church stirred anger among many non-Catholic traditions.

The Second Vatican Council, which met periodically from 1962 to 1965, produced four major "constitutions" of the church and many smaller documents.

Ever since, Cardinal Dulles said, activists have picked the phrase they liked best to promote a liberal or conservative agenda. The world bishops met again in 1985 to set rules for using Vatican II documents for public advocacy.

Last night, Cardinal Dulles also said that while Vatican II increased the role of the laity, it did not turn over the power of "pastoral government."

He said, however, that since lay Catholics pay the bills, they should have more say in financial matters.

"There is, I suspect, a real need for more accountability to the [lay] people of God in matters such as funds donated by the laity," he said.

In the wake of the sexual-abuse crisis this year, lay groups and some bishops said financial accountability is needed after reports of the hierarchy using hush money and facing multimillion-dollar lawsuits.

"But," Cardinal Dulles said, "I do not wish to go beyond the topic of my lecture."
The council also promoted the sacred calling of marriage, he said. But in the years since, opponents of celibacy downplayed the council declaration on "the greater excellence of virginity in consecration to Christ" as a priest or nun.

"If this passage had been better understood and more warmly accepted, the present crisis of vocations to the priestly and religious life might be less severe," the cardinal said.

The average age of priests today is 63, according to church studies.
Thoughts on what this Cardinal said? God Bless!

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear Nik:

Just to set the record straight, the news item you re-posted here is not Mor Ephrem's. Mor Ephrem just commented on it.

If I may suggest, can you please post the ACTUAL lecture/speech of Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., in its entirety to enable us to decipher and dissect what he really said?

I prefer to read the real thing!

AmdG

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Dear Nikolai,

I don't know whether this is considered "cross-posting" and what the policy would be for that here, but I thank you for bringing it to our attention.

This could be the Cardinal's own conservative view - it would seem to be an "about-face" given his previous theological track-record.

It would also seem to contradict RC thinking about the Orthodox Churches to date.

In any event, my own view on this is that union or communion with Rome is an important complement to the life of any Apostolic Church.

The Orthodox Church is fully the Church of Christ in every which way.

And the unity of the Churches will be achieved in God's way, not ours.

Fortunately, the man is a Cardinal and not a Pope.

I can therefore openly disagree with him . . .

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Quote
Posted in bold by Nik:
Non-Catholic groups are respected as churches with ministries, "but there is no reason to reckon them as constituent parts of the one true church, which is Roman and Catholic," he said.
I read this article this morning before coming to work.

There is really nothing new here. Cardinal Dulles� is clearly not referring to a general superiority of Latin doctrine and theology over that of the East (except, perhaps, as it specifically applies to Peter). The Cardinal is speaking to the internal struggle within Catholicism between the liberal and the conservative elements and noting that the more conservative interpreters have won the Vatican II legacy. Keep in mind that the term �constituent� when used in the religious sense indicates an essential part of the whole. As much as the Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ (and in that sense are already part of the Catholic Church) the existence of the Protestant churches is not essential for the fullness of Catholicism.

Since Nik seems to be suggesting that there is some slight against the Christian East in Cardinal Dulles� quotes I will point out that Cardinal Dulles (who is fairly liberal) generally includes the Orthodox as part of the Catholic Church (although incompletely). This is readily apparent to anyone who looks at some of his comments on the Christian East. I refer Nik to the teachings of Pope John Paul II and those of the Vatican II Council for specific theology regarding the Eastern Churches that clearly state that there is little that separates us.

[Regarding Alex�s comments on cross-posting, Forum rules frown upon it but do not specifically forbid it. In this case it is not a problem since the article is not the property of the website Nik references. It is actually the copyrighted property of The Washington Times (original url of the article is: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021031-87130207.htm ). Christian charity demands that Nik seek Mor Ephrem�s permission to post the same story here and credit him for it (since it was apparently first posted on the clone board) but is strange that Nik would feel the need to post the url of that website rather than that of The Washington Times). Also, fair usage without violation of copyright generally means quoting a few paragraphs and providing a link to the entire text of the article.]

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Dear Administrator,

You are right - there was no need for me to have raised the issue of cross-posting since what was quoted was an article and not the commentary.

Alex

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
[Regarding Alex�s comments on cross-posting, Forum rules frown upon it but do not specifically forbid it. In this case it is not a problem since the article is not the property of the website Nik references but it is the copyrighted property of The Washington Times. Politeness demands that Nik seek Mor Ephrem�s permission to post the same story here (which I guess was first posted by Mor Ephrem the clone board) but it is strange that Nik would feel a need to post the url of that board rather than that of the original article. For completeness sake the actual url of the article is: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021031-87130207.htm ). Also, fair usage without violation of copyright generally means quoting a few paragraphs and providing a link to the entire text of the article.[/QB][/QUOTE]

1. Nik did seek out my permission, although he did not need it since it was not my post. I just commented upon it, as someone else mentioned earlier.

2. The original URL was never cited in the thread from which Nikolai got this article. Hence, unless he reads the Washington Times or something else with the proper URL, he wouldn't have known.

3. Clone board? If you are calling me a clone board (as the poor grammar of your post would indicate), that's simply nuts. But if you mean what I think you mean, I ask that you take it back immediately, as it is an unwarranted and unprovoked crack.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,696
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,696
Dear Nikolai,

I must agree with Amado and Alex. Given the cardinal's theological track record, the words quoted here certainly seem to be out of wack. Perhaps they make more sense in context.

I would like to read the full text before coming to any conclusion about what he said and before trying to analyze it. On the surface, what has been reported here might have been part of a nuanced discussion of Catholic ecclesiology that is taken out of context. When that happens, of course, the nuances are lost and so is the true meaning of what was quoted.

It is hard to tell; we have not even been told what topic the cardinal did not want to drift too far from. All we are told here is that the speech was to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Vatican II.

The words spoken by Cardinal Dulles coming before the words actually quoted are not given. We are not told what Non-Catholic groups consist of.

In my opinion, much more information is greatly needed before anyone works up an ecumenical sweat over this one speech. It needs to be read in its entirety and to be placed in the context of what the Council taught. It also needs to be understood in light of the teachings of the Popes and bishops since.

As Alex notes, the words of any one cardinal, whenever he opens his mouth, do not fall within the safety net of the infallibility of Church teaching guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. Taken out of context, we cannot even be sure what he said!

It will be interesting to see what this red flag is all about!

Steve.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Quote
Mor Ephrem wrote:
Clone board? If you are calling me a clone board (as the poor grammar of your post would indicate), that's simply nuts. But if you mean what I think you mean, I ask that you take it back immediately, as it is an unwarranted and unprovoked crack.
Mor,

It is clear to pretty much everyone that your board is indeed a clone of this one. Even so, we have wished you well in your endeavors and continue to do so.

Admin

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
(Vaporized by DeathStar crewmember).

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
It is clear to pretty much everyone that your board is indeed a clone of this one.

Dear Administrator,

I asked you to take back your words because they were unprovoked and unwarranted, given the circumstances. You will not hear me or any administrator of our site come out and condemn this site. But insofar as you are administrator here and have said this yourself, it gives the impression, at least to me, that this is an official position of this site. If it is, please let me know, but if it's not, please take it back, or make it known that it is your personal opinion, rather than pontificating that "everyone" feels this way.

Furthermore, I note with some annoyance and sadness all the "bad blood" and ill will that has been exchanged in the past between members of this site and members of ours. I am trying my best not to promote that, but rather to stop it. Remarks such as yours, and their follow up defence, do not help the matter.

So again, I ask you to please take back your remark and the defence of it you made most recently.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Dear Qathuliqa,

But did not one of your administrators make the comment at one point that this board was for "Eastern Catholics only" or words to that effect and that your board was for Orthodox, thereby giving the impression that your board was a "clone" where Orthodox Christians may feel comfortable posting - implying that they could not here?

I found that confusing, especially since the majority of Administrators there were, in all honesty, Eastern Catholics threatening to become Orthodox.

Orthodox Christians have said as much before, I'm not saying anything new here.

So your Board did, in fact, provoke the Administrator by making the above comparison between the two Forums i.e. one is for Orthodox, the other for Catholics.

Does your Board prevent Catholics from posting on your Board? Does this Board ban Orthodox from posting?

As I see it, unless your Board issues a public statement qualifying its own view of this Board, i.e. that it is not some exclusive "Eastern Catholic Board implying it isn't for Orthodox, "clone" is really an appropriate term for it.

"Clone" is a pejorative phrase, to be sure and suggests a lack of creativity, the idea of copying etc.

Unfortunately, the position taken by Anastasios with respect to the above, leaves your board open to the charge.

Don't take it personally, please. You didn't say that. Anastasius did.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680
Likes: 14
Mor Ephrem,

Thank you for your post. Since this website and board are unofficial we do not have �official positions� and the disclaimer on the bottom of every page clearly states this. Having said that I stand by my comments but am surprised that you would be offended that I consider your board to be a clone of The Byzantine Forum. Such a comment is not a condemnation but rather a simple statement of fact. Clearly your board is a clone of this Forum. I have yet to see anyone seriously state otherwise. Even so, I am not offended. If anything, I am a bit flattered. I have already wished you every success and will continue to do so. If you help introduce people to Christ it is worth your effort!

Admin

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 50
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 50
I like both boards! Keep up the good work!

Fr Serafim


Russian Ascetics of 20th Century
http://www.fatherserafim.info
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315
Likes: 21
Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father,

But isn't this Board way better? smile smile

If you are Orthodox, what are you doing here? smile smile

Really asking for your forgiveness,

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 347
N
尼古拉前执事
Member
OP Offline
尼古拉前执事
Member
N
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 347
Quote
Originally posted by Alex:
But did not one of your administrators make the comment at one point that this board was for "Eastern Catholics only" or words to that effect and that your board was for Orthodox, thereby giving the impression that your board was a "clone" where Orthodox Christians may feel comfortable posting - implying that they could not here?
No, I believe one of the admins said that http://ByzCath.org is an American Byzantine Catholic Site (by definition) with a forum, that mostly focuses on the Byzantine Rite Churches of Catholicism. And that http://OrthodoxChristianity.net is an (Eastern and Oriental) Orthodox site that has a forum too, but its focus is Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism.

To me, that would be like calling a pomegranate a clone of an tomato. Both are fruits that have seeds and are red, but quite different in taste and consistency. God Bless!

In Christ,
-Nik!

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5