This is a continuation of some of the thoughts expressed in the thread that Fr. Anthony closed in which most of the posters argued with Lida.

It seems that there is a double-standard that is applied to traditional(ist) Catholics when it comes to sourcing papal and conciliar documents, bulls, and encyclicals.

The general response is: "Oh that's pre-Vatican II mumbo-jumbo, why don't you take a look at Ut Unum Sint or Orientale Lumen?"

Why only source these post-Vatican II documents? The statements of before Vatican II hold true to the Church as well, and are just as valid as those that have been issued after Vatican II. Why doesn't somebody address these - why doesn't somebody tell Lida to read some of those documents? Why, because perhaps they actually don't agree with these recent encyclicals? If they do not, then one must make up his mind as to which he believes to be true. If they do, then what's the big deal in sourcing them?

Let's talk about those sixty-four points Lida made. Let's take some and read through the context. Let's be HONEST with ourselves - on both sides - before we distort Church Teaching into personal and subjective opinions.

Logos Teen

Teen-

I haven't read the post you described (I suppose I shoud now go and find it). However, based only on your post, I will tread with trepidation into the realm of ecclesiology and say:

There is no "pre-vatican II" and "post-vatican II" line or anything like that. Each encyclical - or any other, more authoritative source of the Faith like the Bible, the whole Liturgy, the Church fathers, doctors and lives of saints, the councils, etc. - are NOT islands by themselves. When one reads them, one must keep in mind remainder of the Catholic faith, the time and circumstances of the encylical, and the teachings of the local Bishop (unless you can prove to Rome that the local Bishop is a heretic).

Thus, the teaching of the Church is the teaching of the Church, and it resides above all in the Roman See. Private interpretation of things that are already settled, not matter how good of a logical construct you think you make, is not a way to find the Catholic faith.

More plainly (and directly) put, if your interpretation of an encyclical is at odds with what the Church - especially the Roman See - teaches, you're interpreting the encylcical wrong. Thus, an interpretations of Unam Sanctam is incorrect if it's at odds with Vatican II, the CCC, and (note I didn't say or) the public speeches and the like of the three last Popes.

If that's the true response someone gives, it's not adequate. Again, it's not "pre- or post- Vatican II". The faith is the faith, Vatican II and pre-Vatican II documents included.

Teen,

which thread are you talking about? I want to refresh my memory on what was written.

John

John,

I'm talking about the thread entitled "On Rome and Her 3 Major Errors."

Logos Teen

I don't actually understand why what Lida was saying was wrong. Although I only skimmed the last couple of pages.



But, the Church has come to a fuller understanding of the Truth over time. There are no contradictions, but the understanding of dogma develops.



Rob

RobJamesFrancis,

No, I don't think what Lida was saying was wrong, either.

The difference is, I'm open to discussion about the whole thing. Certainly none of my beliefs are ever set in stone, and if they are it's not out of ignorance. I might not agree with others' takes on the matter, but I do think polite discussion always helps.

I also think some people may vastly underestimate just how many Catholics actually do believe our Lord's True Church to be synonomous with/"subsisting" in our Communion of Sui Iuris Churches.

Logos Teen

I completely agree, Marc.

Agreed.

I don't think I agree with this on all counts. Of course one's wrong if their personal opinion differs from some infallibly taught Teaching...but isn't that somewhat vague in this circumstance? What have any of the past three popes infallibly taught about the Catholic Church not being the True Church? But look and see what other popes from time immeorial have said about it. Starkly different*.

I didn't know Vatican II, the CCC, or any of the last three popes have spoken specifically about Unam Sanctam (using your example) - and certainly don't know of any infallible pronouncements regarding it. Please, if you have any proof of this, provide it and explain it.

Logos Teen

*If you disagree, please use some convincing sources to back up your opinion.

Dear Teen, Marc, and everyone,

As you can tell, I am carefully monitoring this thread so that it doesn't get out of hand as the previous one. With that said, let us go on.

It is my spin as an outsider, that papal pronouncements and encyclicals build upon each other, not contradict. From time to time, I do read these. What seemed to be the problem earlier is not the 64 points laid out, but two other problems. One is they were pulled out of context and not carefully examined, even though the admin had asked that they be. Second was a complete refusal to use any documentation from any pope from John the XXIII to present. In fact there was an open disdain for any documents or pronouncements from that period forward.

Like anything in the church, teachings are in evolution (forgive the term). Later pronouncements may be a clarification for today's Christians. Other may be be addressing a situation that has not been dealt with in a long while.

Like any theological student, debate on these points are healthy. It is when we assume to condemn posters to the dark reaches of hades, that I or any of the moderators will NOT tolerate. Debate away, any maybe some clarification will come and enlighten someone who has been prejudiced or ignorant. Be open, and debate cleanly. That is my only injunction to all.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

As a moderator, I am in total agreement with Father Anthony. Ofcourse, there can be honest and charitable debate and disagreement, but this forum's purpose is not only to learn about the East, but to foster understanding that will lead to Christ's will that we all, members of His estranged Body, become one in spirit and heart again.

Posts that attack the other as not being part of the true Church, whether it comes from one of my more fundamentalist Orthodox compatriots OR a fundamentalist Roman (or other) Catholic are not part of the ethos of this forum, an ethos which classifies us as being one of the most charitable, friendly and truly Christian forums around.

In the end, let's remember one of my favorite saying, which I first heard from another of our Moderators, Anthony Dragani: "There is no schism in Heaven!"

Ofcourse, 'Teen' who started here as a teen ( ) and is probably close to not being one anymore, knows this, and I trust that he will keep this thread on track for us...

Despite his years, Teen's spiritual and intellectual maturity coupled with Christian humility have always been a source of pleasure for us older posters on the forum.

Although he hasn't been here for a while, I trust that hasn't changed!

In Christ,
Alice

Wow. I didn't know this thread would veer into such troubled waters. I should have been more careful in my last post.

I say this here: I DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ANATHEMIZE/EXCOMMUNICATE ANYONE NOR AM I A THEOLOGIAN. ALL STATEMENTS ARE MY OPINION AT THE TIME OF WRITING AND MAY OR MAY NOT REFLECT REALITY.

Now, with that out of the way ...........

Glad to see you have such excellent intellectual taste.

First, let's seperate my first half of that paragraph from Unam Sanctam . Let's also note that I have no formal backing in ecclesiology or anything like that.


Bottom line of what I was saying is that the Faith resides with the Church and if you take an opinion derived from an encylical (or any other part of the Faith) and interpret it in a way contrary to the teachings of the Church, your interpretation's wrong. Not the Church, not the original document, not the later document, but your interpretation of the documents.

Which is not to say that you can't hold a wrong opinion, or that you can't debate it. You just can't say it's the position of the Catholic Church.

I had misgivings about using Unam Sanctam as an example. The crux of the "controversy" for some is that it appears to say that anyone who isn't Catholic is damned to hell (or something like that) and Vatican II, recent Popes and the CCC have been doing things contrary to this interpretation.

I'm really not competent to explain the document. However, I will leave the subject with this [catholic.com] link. This is a kind of question Catholic Answers is very solid on.

Logos Teen,
In my experience in dealing with radical Traditionalists is that they, in most cases, refuse to look at Vatican II at all. They seem to put forward only things from before Vatican II.

I look at it as has been stated by others here. there is no pre-vatican II or post-vatican II.

Dear Friends,

One could also ask, in discussing with Latin Traditionalists, "Why do you only quote post-1054 Latin texts?"

Alex

Father Anthony and Dear Alice,

Thank you for allowing us to debate this topic. Father, just to set the record straight, I did agree with your decision to close the other thread because it wasn't fruitful or particularly tasteful.

My hope for this ongoing thread is that it opposing opinions can be expressed in a charitable way without being "slammed," so to speak, by the other side.

Alice, your compliments are truly unwarranted, but thank you nonetheless. I must say that I don't think that positing the opinion that either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches are not part of the True Church necessarily has to include any attacking or ill-will; it often does, but doesn't have to.

This is precisely what I wish to discuss in this thread - the "hashing out" of these opposing ideas - and perhaps reconciling them (or not, but to discuss them anyway).

And I still have another year and a half as a full-fledged "teen!"

Marc,

I'm not trained in ecclesiology, either. But my major right now for when I start college in a couple weeks is religion! A far cry from anything substantive, I admit.

I agree with this. I think the Unam Sanctam issue and "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus" are separate than the issue I'm trying to get at right now, which is basically defining what is "True Church." After we've nailed that down, I'd love to discuss the possibility of salvation outside of that Church.

DavidB,

Yes, it is very clear that most traditional(ists) steer clear of any and all post-Vatican II references. But we must think about this logically - - - there is some underlying reason, some justification, however twisted and incorrect it may be, that is the genesis of this type of thought and worldview. There must be an instigating circumstance.

And this seems to be that Vatican II and the last few popes have taught something far different and even in opposition to what was previously thought. I'm not necessarily saying this has happened (although I do think it has to a certain extent), but am saying that this is the reasoning behind the traditional(ist) mindset. Now, not all of those who subscribe to this belief believe that what most of us view as "the Catholic Church" isn't the Catholic Church - those people are called Sedevacantists, pretty much. But members of the SSPX and other such groups believe that Vatican II and the last few popes have been legitimate, but have taught heresy in a fallible manner (duh) in some ways.

Alex,

LOL! This is probably because they weren't dealing with Modernism in the same form it's manifested itself in this century and the last.

To All,

Anyway it seems quite clear to me from Church Teaching that the Catholic Church = the True Church, and by Catholic Church I mean all those who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

This isn't a discussion on the personal opinions of various Catholic and Orthodox readers of this thread; I'm trying to base this off Church Teaching.

I would truly like to learn about any infallible pronouncements/Church Teachings that contradict or deny this.

Logos Teen

I think that Popes are products of their times, just as we all are, and often reflect their times in their writings. I remember Vatican II, and for many, since it happened in their lifetimes, it was THE big event in Catholicism. I believe you have to look at Vatican II and the writings of recent Popes in the context of tradition, not separtely from it. As I have said to other Catholic musicians who babble on about "music for the new church," there is no new church - it's the same church it's always been. There are no new dogmas, no new creeds, and we are not enlightened people who have any superior knowledge or understanding our ancestors were not privileged to have. If anything, our modern world is too self-absorbed and self-centered. As I indicated before, encylicals, councils, and personal opinions need to be examined in the light of tradition. It seems to me our current Pope is saying the same thing.

I think this piece is a good example.

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself that are easily misunderstood, especially in the modern atmosphere of pluralism and ecumenism. Among these claims, the most fundamental is the doctrine of the Church's necessity for salvation. Not unlike other dogmas of the faith, this one has seen some remarkable development, and the dogmatic progress has been especially marked since the definition of papal infallibility. It seems that as the Church further clarified her own identity as regards the papacy and collegiality, she also deepened (without changing) her self-understanding as the mediator of salvation to mankind....

....The New Testament makes it plain that Christ founded the Church to be a society for the salvation of all men. The ancient Fathers held the unanimous conviction that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church....

....But they also had the biblical narrative of the "pagan" Cornelius who, the Acts tell us, was "an upright and God-fearing man" even before baptism. Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were "God-fearing" people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation....

At the Second Council of the Vatican, both streams of doctrine were delicately welded into a composite whole.....

Whole article - http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM


I think this shows the dangers of personal interpretation of Church documents, Bible, Councils, papal pronuncements etc, outside the mind of the Church, I think this is an example of C.S. Lewis's 'devil sends errors in pairs', on the one hand EENS extremists damning anyone but card carrying Catholics and on the other syncretism - all religions are equals in truth.

This is also a good example where Vatican II clarified an issue.

But Catholics are confused here, as on many other issues, I here you cry.

Poor or non-existant cathecisis or exercsing private interpretation is the problem I'm afraid... not Church teaching itself.

Thanks for that excellent link! +Father Hardon+ certainly had a gift for clearing things up. Wish he were still around - it'd be fun to have him on the Forum!

There is no doubt in my mind that these rad-Trads believe, as you say, that the last few popes are teaching something different but the fact is they are not.

Many of the rad-Trads deny the very Church and what it teaches when they question the validity of the Mass, some go as far as saying that the Church is teaching error with the new Mass. They also seem to think that a past pope can bind all who follow him, including the popes that follow. That is also an error.

You seem to be pushing the idea here, forgive me if I am mistaken, that they seem to be correct in their actions.

Just to add my 2 cents to this thread, there
seem to be at least 4 groups here:

1) Ultra-traditionalists who reject Vatican II
completely and all post-conciliar teachings and
documents.

2) Ultra-modernists who believe that the Church
BEGAN with Vatican II and reject all pre-conciliar
teachings and documents.

3) Those who see no contradiction between pre-
and post-conciliar teachings and documents.

4) Those who see contradictions between SOME
documents and teachings of Vatican II and pre-
conciliar teachings of the Church.

Naturally, each group is going to quote from
whatever set of documents seem to agree with
their point of view.........................


antonius
(disclaimer-speaking only for myself)

JGC,

Unfortunately, your link didn't go through for me. Do you mind linking it again?

Thanks for the link. Right now I'd really like to discuss what the Church is (i.e., the Sui Iuris Catholic Churches Communion or the EO Churches) - not who can be saved.

David,

Even though it's beside the point, I can't say that I really empathize with the Sedevacantists at all. I really don't have much of a problem with the SSPX, personally; or at the very least I might disagree but empathize. I don't believe the Novus Ordo is invalid, and neither does the SSPX as a matter of fact.

It still seems no one will provide me with any authoritative Catholic sources which claim that our Communion of Sui Iuris Churches is not the True Church of Christ.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen,

Could you provide me with sources from various other Churches where they affirm that they are themselves not the "true Church of Christ?"

Is there such a Christian Church?

Alex

Dear Alex,

It seems some would have us believe that the Catholic Church teaches (or implies) this about Herself!

Logos Teen

I don't want to get into this here all that much, I have done so else where but the SSPX is well known for saying one thing and then saying another (either with words or actions)

They say they are in communion with Rome, yet they refuse the listen or follow.

They say at one point that the Mass is not invalid yet at another place on their website they say it teaches error and it is a danger to one's immortal soul to go to it.

I do not have any sympathy nor can I empathize with anyone who raises themselves above the Church in authority.

Who says we are not? The Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ.

DavidB,

I do agree with you that oftentimes the SSPX says one thing and yet does another.

Who? I'll let you know the next time I see a post by a Catholic on this Forum that says or implies exactly this.

Logos Teen

The same could be said of MANY
of the American RC bishops who
essentially "thumb their noses"
at each Vatican directive as soon
as it is promulgated.............


antonius
(speaking only for myself)

Dear Friends,

I obey Rome in all things save those matters that are dictated by political expediency via its "ostpolitik" and especially with respect to the UGCC.

My philosophy was - when the EC Church was being persecuted by the Soviets, the EC's were there and Rome wasn't.

Alex

Not to bring up a dead topic, but today at liturgy I did hear someone say:

"We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit. We have found the true faith , worshiping the undivided Trinity who has saved us".

As far as I'm concerned, that suffices for what you're looking for, Teen. Protestantism, for instance, does not share exactly the same faith with us, to say nothing about Buddhism and Islam. That little prayer should leave no one confused that any other faith is the true faith.

This is a little off topic, but I had to say it:

I think some of us tend to use - and I am one who does it frequently - pre- and post-Vatican II as a HISTORICAL reference to a point on the timeline when certain Liturgical reforms became more noticable to regular Catholics. It really isn't a reference to the Council or its documents and as such it is probably quite incorrect. At least, I realize that certainly isn't the best way to describe it. So, dear friends, mea culpa...