Am I Right That This Is Fishy?

[Byzantine]

This: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/61580.htm

 

 

Especially this:

 

The new Catholic “Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held, simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other Christians returning to Rome’s maternal bosom.

 

It seems to me that this doesn't take into account the totality of Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I don't know, but my mum bought me a supposedly catholic history book with a section on the saints and it out right lied. It says st christopher is no longer a saint, when the truth is his feast day was removed from the calender but he is still a saint. The book had neither the nihil obstat nor the imprimateur. Be careful, it may just be mis information in this book but it's still a lie. I do know the holy catholic church was and is still is the first church and all other factions have seperated from this original body as far as i'm aware, i may be wrong. But ecumenically wise we are not in full agreement with the other factions of christianity, we agree with some things though.  

[Papist]

It is filled with fishiness.

[LouisvilleFan]

This: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/61580.htm

 

 

Especially this:

 

It seems to me that this doesn't take into account the totality of Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus.

 

I'm not real familiar with the specifics in those two encyclicals, but it does strike me as need a bit more precision to avoid someone getting the wrong idea. I primarily take exception to the words "startling revolution" and the implication that everything following "previously" is no longer true. As with most Vatican II stuff, the so-called "startling revolution" is an exaggeration. If Catholics widely believed that the Orthodox would need to join the Latin Rite in order to have full communion with Her, then there was rightly a "startling revolution" in their thinking, but only because their previous belief was wrong.

 

Everything following "previously" may have been understood in a very simplistic and overly literal way before. Now, of course, many Catholics have swung to the other extreme and are willing to consider anyone that claims to worship anything as a "Sister Church." In another fifty years everything will swing to some other extreme... and on it goes.

[arfink]

I like to believe Catholics are better than 50-year swings between poles. That's not something I think we need to resign ourselves to, and isn't something that's historically happened in the Church either.

 

My understanding is that the Orthodox churches are of legitimate apostolic descent, and are out of union with the Church as a whole not by virtue of any errors in their teachings, rites, or sacraments, but because they will no longer cooperate with the other apostolic lines which have remained united. This central point has always been Rome because of Peter, and his role in keeping the apostles united. But even in apostolic times, Peter did not rule or govern the churches started by his fellow apostles, he served them.

 

I do think it's simplistic to expect the Eastern Orthodox churches to return to Rome if that means Rome will govern them in the same way Rome governs the Roman Catholic churches. That this is not the case is obvious in the way the Eastern Catholic churches are treated, being allowed not merely to have their own rites, but their own code of canon law, their own bishops, and their own dioceses.

[Byzantine]

I do think it's simplistic to expect the Eastern Orthodox churches to return to Rome if that means Rome will govern them in the same way Rome governs the Roman Catholic churches. That this is not the case is obvious in the way the Eastern Catholic churches are treated, being allowed not merely to have their own rites, but their own code of canon law, their own bishops, and their own dioceses.

That does not seem to be the point Fr. Robert was making, though. It seemed like he was denying some pretty important points of ecclesiology.

[jim111]

That does not seem to be the point Fr. Robert was making, though. It seemed like he was denying some pretty important points of ecclesiology.

Is this what you feel they are leaving out?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has givenaway in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

[arfink]

That does not seem to be the point Fr. Robert was making, though. It seemed like he was denying some pretty important points of ecclesiology.

 

I didn't read it as a denial of those points when I read it, but rather some things got glossed over for the sake of a short interview. It happens, unfortunately. I'd also like to know more, and I admit the wording of some of the answers he gave seemed a little off, but again, I am inclined to chalk that up to the limitations of a short interview.
 

[Byzantine]

I didn't read it as a denial of those points when I read it, but rather some things got glossed over for the sake of a short interview. It happens, unfortunately. I'd also like to know more, and I admit the wording of some of the answers he gave seemed a little off, but again, I am inclined to chalk that up to the limitations of a short interview.
 

Ah okay gotcha.

[LouisvilleFan]

I like to believe Catholics are better than 50-year swings between poles. That's not something I think we need to resign ourselves to, and isn't something that's historically happened in the Church either.

 

We are, and we also fall short every day. The 50-year cycle is simply a fact, and will likely increase to 30- or 20-year swings in the coming generations. Similar cycles have repeated themselves throughout history. "There is nothing new under the sun."

[Apotheoun]

It is a poorly worded attempt to express the Eucharistic ecclesiology of the Church Fathers.

 

Now according to the patristic tradition the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made fully manifest wherever the Eucharist is truly celebrated, and the orthodox profession of faith is made, under the presidency of a bishop in Apostolic Succession, and so it follows that - again according to the Holy Fathers - the one Church exists in the many local Roman Catholic Churches, the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

 

To put it another way, the one Catholic Church does not exist over and above the many local Churches (any more than God exists over and above the three divine persons); but only in and through the many local Churches, which means that the many local Churches - taken individually - are the one Catholic Church. That being said, the Church Fathers would never have accepted the late medieval Roman Catholic notion - which has even fallen out of favor in the Roman Church (see Communionis Notio) - that the one Catholic Church can be broken into pieces (or that each local Church is only a portion of the Catholic Church) that are only later juridically united with each other through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome.

[GMMF]

Yes, it is fishy as it accuses us of essentially holding to branch theory which says the Church of Christ subsists in various other Churches and communities in addition to the Catholic Church, where as the Catholic Church teaches the one Church of Christ subsists in (ie is permanently and uniquely identified as) the Catholic Church, subject to the Roman Pontiff. See the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's note on the term "sister Churches."  The term refers to only particular Churches (one bishop and his flock) and not the Catholic Church as a whole.

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

As I mentioned earlier, this is also the whole point of the phrase "subsistit in" used by Lumen Gentium.  Despite the fact that other ecclesial elements and even particular Churches are found separated from the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church alone can be identified as the one Church of Christ and this identity is perduring and permanent ("is" refers to a present identity, "subsists in" refers to a permanent, unique, and perduring identity. See also this CDF document:

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

 

Also, from the footnotes of Dominue Iesus:

 

(56) The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

 

 

[Apotheoun]

Just to be clear the patristic teaching that each local Church is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a given area through the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the orthodox faith under the guidance of a bishop in apostolic succession is not the "branch theory." For example, according to the "branch theory" Anglicanism is truly Christian, but that proposition is quite clearly false, because the Anglicans did not maintain a true Eucharist or priesthood, while they also clearly do not profess the orthodox faith of the ancient Church. 

[Byzantine]

Just to be clear the patristic teaching that each local Church is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a given area through the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the orthodox faith under the guidance of a bishop in apostolic succession is not the "branch theory." For example, according to the "branch theory" Anglicanism is truly Christian, but that proposition is quite clearly false, because the Anglicans did not maintain a true Eucharist or priesthood, while they also clearly do not profess the orthodox faith of the ancient Church. 

But did the Fathers have a scenario like this in mind?

 

Wait, two questions:

1. What is the Catholic view of the Orientals? Document, please.

2. What was the Fathers' view of the Orientals?

[Apotheoun]

But did the Fathers have a scenario like this in mind?

 

Wait, two questions:

1. What is the Catholic view of the Orientals? Document, please.

2. What was the Fathers' view of the Orientals?

You can look up the CDF (and Pontifical Council) documents about the Orientals. As far as the Fathers views of them are concerned, they vary, with some Fathers seeing them as heretics, and others seeing the disagreement over Chalcedon as more or less semantical in nature. I hold to the latter view, and I do so because of the seventh canon of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which clarified the teaching of Chalcedon by saying:

 

"If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one Lord Jesus Christ, understood in both His divinity and His humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which He is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind (τὴ θεωρὶα μόνη), a difference which is not compromised by the union (for He is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema."

 

Anyone who tries to concretize the two natures of Christ has fallen into the Nestorian error.