www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Graceless Heretics?

This is the kind of confusion that's created when people like Cardinal Kasper misrepresent Catholic teaching.

LatinTrad

Dear Diak,

Thank you for your kind words about my previous posting. I appreciate them.

Steve

Dear Seraphim,

Thank you for your response to my comments. I appreciate them.

I must suggest that some of the terminology that you choose to use when speaking of our Liturgical and Sacramental Rites might be a bit off-putting. But, your ideas are of interest and still seem to me to point to an approach which might be useful to the Churches as they continue Ecumenical Dialogue.

I found this aspect of your posting to be relevant:

"These two "seemingly" contradictory sets of data are not unreconcilable - for when a convert is received without "re" baptism, the understanding is that the Church is bestowing spiritual content to a previous, historical act."

Of course, Catholics understand the historical act to be a Sacramental Rite which bestows "spiritual content" at the time of the act. As far as I know, it has been consistant teaching among us that the Rites of the Orthodox Churches also bestow "spiritual content" at the time of the act.

If I understand correctly, other Orthodox posters have said that the Orthodox Church officially is sure of what happens in Orthodox Rites. They said that the Orthodox Church officially is not sure of what happens in Rites celebrated in other Churches with which it is not in communion.

So it seems quite logical for Catholic believers to know what they know from the teaching of the Churches in our communion. It is also quite logical for Orthodox believers to assert that they do not know what they do not know because the Churches of your Comunion have not taught otherwise.

Given that, am I correct in assuming that the positions that you have presented when you said this:

"This is not (as some now teach) a retroactive validation of the past; nor is it an acknowledgement of some previous grace filled mystery (as others wrongly teach). Rather, it is the completion (which only the Church can give) to a form - the filling of an empty (if proper) vessel."

are opinions that you are denying in still another opinion?

I am asking because I want to be sure that I have understood correctly.

I wonder if what you have said about the historical act and bestowing spiritual content on it raises the possibility that there are other dimensions to the Orthodox teachings that have not been presented in this discussion. Perhaps there are teachings that could contribute insight about the ontological and historical effects of sacraments that are performed in the historical acts that you talk about above?

If so, they are not now part of the discussion in this thread. Would it be fair to think that they would enrich the discussion by adding many dimensions besides the one which you are presenting in the discussion?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Posted by Latin Trad:

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Seraphim Reeves:


It's no secret that Rome still regards itself as the visible head of the Church - or that they speak in terms of preserving the "fullness" of the faith. But such affirmations (once again, from an Orthodox p.o.v.) become meaningless, if they have no real consequences in the order of salvation. Simply put, Orthodox Christians are doing fine as they are.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the kind of confusion that's created when people like Cardinal Kasper misrepresent Catholic teaching."


Dear Latin Trad,

I read your last posting with interest. It stirred up some thoughts and some questions. I hope that you will not find them inappropriate.

It occurred to me that confusion is not always a bad thing. It can be a sign of a mind working to assimilate something new, especially something which causes a reordering of the knowledge that the mind has already organized. We humans seem to dislike that process and some do almost anything to resist that kind of challenge. After all, it requires effort that will result in change in the order of things as we know them.

Perhaps the confusion that you are talking about here is not in the sending of Catholic teaching on the part of an official Catholic Teacher. Could it not be possible that the person receiving the teaching is resisting the challenge or has not yet fit that teaching into old knowledge that will be changed by it is the source of the confusion?

To assert that either Catholics or Orthodox are o.k. without being the one Church that we both know that Christ wants us to be seems to me, at best, an example of invincible ignorance. To believe that Jesus has prayed that we all be one and to fail to act on it surely has consequences on the level of salvation.

Aren't the extensive ecumenical efforts of members of the Orthodox and Catholic Communions of Churches a sign that they have heard His prayer. They seem to believe that there are serious consequences to not working to achieve it.

For example, our leaders have repeatedly pointed to the scandal that is caused among unbelievers by our divisions and mistreatment of eachother. Are there not cases where persons find it more difficult to believe in Christianity, and even Christ, because of our divisions? Mahatma Ghandi said that this was so, if memory serves me correctly.

Surely that is a real consequence in the order of salvation for both Catholics and Orthodox. There is a need on the order of salvation for us to work to understand the truth that the Churches teach us. It is a real need!

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve