|
1 members (Protopappas76),
256
guests, and
21
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother asianpilgrim, In my mind, the Orthodox are not totally in the right, the Roman Catholics are not totally in the right, and the Eastern Catholics are not totally in the right. I'm not even totally in the right--though I think I'm a lot closer than most people. In which case the gates of Hell have indeed triumphed since all the Churches are in some form of error as proclaimed by Mr. Stuart K. I note that brother StuartK did not say that the Orthodox Church is not totally in the right, or that the Roman Catholic Church is not totally in the right, etc. Perhaps his nuance was intentional? In any case, I also think that there are certain beliefs and practices held by certain Latin Catholics that are in error, there are certain beliefs and practices held by certain Eastern Orthodox that are in error, and certain beliefs and practices held by certain Oriental Orthodox that are in error. But the erroneous beliefs and practices of individuals in any of these Churches cannot possibly be understood to mean that the Gates of Hades have prevailed against the Church (or even these individual Churches). Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
But the erroneous beliefs and practices of individuals in any of these Churches cannot possibly be understood to mean that the Gates of Hades have prevailed against the Church (or even these individual Churches). The notion that the one Church has ceased to visibly exist, however, can.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
The notion that the one Church has ceased to visibly exist, however, can. This is somewhat cyclic, but Dominus Iesus says clearly it can not (By visibly I'm understanding actually and discernibly.): The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
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
“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”64. [ vatican.va]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
It seems to me that Dominus Iesus still argues that the Church is visibly one- this oneness can be discerned only in the Catholic Church. The other, defective Churches in "imperfect communion" can only be considered true Churches insofar as they have "bonds" to the Catholic Church- they depend on the Catholic Church for their validity. The reverse is not true- the Catholic Church is not at all dependent for its validity on these other Churches, but rather is the fountainhead of such validity. It seems clear that Dominus Iesus definitively rules out the notion that, for instance, the Eastern Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of the truth and is equal with the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
It seems to me that Dominus Iesus still argues that the Church is visibly one- this oneness can be discerned only in the Catholic Church. I think it can be discerned in others but it "subsists" in the Catholic Church. "Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, ... The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds,... are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches," The other, defective Churches We had an interesting and spirited discussion about this some time ago in another thread. Ironically, the Catholics insisted it did not say separated churches (Orthodox) were defective, the Orthodox insisted that's what it said. As I recall, the Latin term has a more nuanced meaning, for instance, one who separates -- like the word defector. But the wording is not "defective" but "suffer from defects", and there's a difference. I might have a car with rust, a cracked window, and bald tires, but it gets me to work. It suffers from defects but is not defective. ... in "imperfect communion" can only be considered true Churches insofar as they have "bonds" to the Catholic Church- A close and careful reading does not support this. A distinction is made: The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches It's nuanced, but the word "imperfect" is not used here. However: 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. ... they depend on the Catholic Church for their validity. Regarding true particular churches not in the Catholic communion, I don't think anything is implied about validity: they are true particular churches. What is said is " But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”" Here it is just quoting the Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3. I think this distinction must be made since there is only one source, only one Christ. The reverse is not true- the Catholic Church is not at all dependent for its validity on these other Churches, but rather is the fountainhead of such validity. Again, I don't see "validity" as the issue so this makes a point that is not in Dominus Iesus (DI). It seems clear that Dominus Iesus definitively rules out the notion that, for instance, the Eastern Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of the truth and is equal with the Catholic Church. I'd say a qualified yes. DI speaks of particular churches and not "the Eastern Orthodox Church." Is there unanimity on what constitutes "the Eastern Orthodox Church"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
It seems to me that Dominus Iesus still argues that the Church is visibly one- this oneness can be discerned only in the Catholic Church. I think it can be discerned in others but it "subsists" in the Catholic Church. Point taken. But presumably the Church does not "subsist" in the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, etc. So the Catholic Church is still the primary reference point of where, and what, the Church is. ... in "imperfect communion" can only be considered true Churches insofar as they have "bonds" to the Catholic Church- A close and careful reading does not support this. A distinction is made: The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches It's nuanced, but the word "imperfect" is not used here. What does "imperfect" mean if it doesn't mean "not perfect"? Yes, we Orthodox have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, but whence does this succession and valid Eucharist ultimately stem? The undivided ancient Catholic Church, and the 12 Apostles with Peter as their chief. So, although today we maintain our succession and Eucharist in separation from the Catholic Church, our status as "true Churches" is still utterly dependent on our (historical) bond to the Catholic Church. ... they depend on the Catholic Church for their validity. Regarding true particular churches not in the Catholic communion, I don't think anything is implied about validity: they are true particular churches. What is said is " But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”" Here it is just quoting the Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3. I think this distinction must be made since there is only one source, only one Christ. Okay, "validity" was the wrong term. But this "efficacy" is basically what I was trying to say. The "efficacy" of these churches is not theirs independently but from the single Church that Christ founded, which today (so Rome believes) subsists solely in the Catholic Church. The reverse is not true- the Catholic Church is not at all dependent for its validity on these other Churches, but rather is the fountainhead of such validity. Again, I don't see "validity" as the issue so this makes a point that is not in Dominus Iesus (DI). Right- again, replace "validity" with "efficacy." Is there unanimity on what constitutes "the Eastern Orthodox Church"? I thought there was, outside the bounds of certain "True Orthodox" or "Genuine Orthodox" schismatic sects.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14 |
Point taken. But presumably the Church does not "subsist" in the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, etc. So the Catholic Church is still the primary reference point of where, and what, the Church is. Yes, the Church would subsist in the Orthodox and other Churches. Yes, the Catholic Church would be the primary reference point of complete membership in the Church is. The Church would subsist within Orthodoxy but not perfectly for she is not in full communion with Rome. What does "imperfect" mean if it doesn't mean "not perfect"? Apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist are where the Church subsists in Orthodoxy. The imperfection - from Rome's POV - is in Orthodoxy's membership. Because she is not in perfect communion with Rome her membership is imperfect. That does not mean that her Eucharist is not a perfect Eucharist. It is. Yes, we Orthodox have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, but whence does this succession and valid Eucharist ultimately stem? The undivided ancient Catholic Church, and the 12 Apostles with Peter as their chief. So, although today we maintain our succession and Eucharist in separation from the Catholic Church, our status as "true Churches" is still utterly dependent on our (historical) bond to the Catholic Church. Apostolic succession and valid Eucharist ultimately stem from Christ Himself through the apostles. The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Churches of the East have all kept this perfectly. But the divisions that separate cause their membership in the Church to be imperfect. [One would expect Orthodoxy to hold a similar viewpoint about Rome.] The "efficacy" of these churches is not theirs independently but from the single Church that Christ founded, which today (so Rome believes) subsists solely in the Catholic Church. Not quite. Rome believes that the Church exists most perfectly in the Catholic Church alone. Rome also believes that the Church subsists within Orthodoxy and those Churches which also preserve apostolic succession and valid Eucharist. In those Churches the apostolic succession and Eucharist are perfect but the lack of full communion with Rome means an imperfect membership in the Church that Christ founded. [From 15] [T]hrough the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these [Eastern] churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature) and through concelebration, their communion with one another is made manifest.
...
These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. There are plenty of such references in Catholic theology showing this intimacy. The fact that Orthodox theology might be either similar or different does not change Catholic theology.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
It seems to me that Dominus Iesus still argues that the Church is visibly one- this oneness can be discerned only in the Catholic Church. I think it can be discerned in others but it "subsists" in the Catholic Church. Point taken. But presumably the Church does not "subsist" in the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, etc. So the Catholic Church is still the primary reference point of where, and what, the Church is. A lot of fuss is made about VC II's use of subsists. My understanding or interpretation is that it is intended to convey the unique, sine qua non, status of the Catholic Church without making it exclusive by using the word is. But even though non-exclusive, I think it intends to say even more than "the Catholic Church is still the primary reference point of where, and what, the Church is."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
... in "imperfect communion" can only be considered true Churches insofar as they have "bonds" to the Catholic Church- A close and careful reading does not support this. A distinction is made: The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches It's nuanced, but the word "imperfect" is not used here. All I can say (again) is I think the nuanced difference, at least in the English (need to check the Latin), is proper. "The undivided ancient Catholic Church, and the 12 Apostles with Peter as their chief" is the inherent patrimony of all Christians. Augmenting your remark: "Yes, we Orthodox [and Catholics] have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, but whence does this succession and valid Eucharist ultimately stem?" The same answer: "The undivided ancient Catholic Church..." Let me offer here, hopefully to clarify what I'm saying, my perspective on the proper meaning of the word church and specifically catholic church. In terms of ecclesiology there are three and only three meanings. 1) The church gathered around the bishop, the church fundamentally as ekklesia. This is a catholic church. 2.) There is the manifestation, the gathering epi to auto, the epiphany of church in the celebration of the Eucharist (which is always dependent on the bishop and the ekklesia) as the synaxis. 3.) There is the communion of catholic churches, those ekklesia, in the Catholic Church, the church as communion, koinonia, the One Church. The Orthodox churches are seen as possessing 1 and 2 but for 3 they "suffer from a defect", the de facto absence of the full and perfect realization of that communion. I presume this goes considerably farther than what Orthodox ecclesiology would accord the Catholic (i.e. those in communion with Rome) Church.
|
|
|
|
|
