Catholic Ecclesiology vs. Vatican II Ecclesiology
#71
(08-11-2011, 01:58 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: This is devastating if true:

"Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead, it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church...’ because, it wished to ‘affirm that the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church’." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Frankfurter Allgemine, English translation taken from newsletter of Father Jean Violette, SSPX, Toronto, October, 2000).

I've read that too. I believe he said it soon after the Council when he was a priest. Hopefully he has changed his mind since then, as I can't see how this statement can be squared with Catholic truth.
Reply
#72
(12-01-2012, 04:16 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(12-01-2012, 03:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Did Bartholomew I lose his status as a bishop? He's the Patriarch of Constantinople, an extremely ancient See of the Church, and one of the principle Sees at that. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI abolished the Latin Patriarchs, thus leaving the See open for Bartholomew I to be fully reconciled with no quibbling over who has rights to it. It's his See. He is the head of an ancient church, which needs to be reconciled. Since the sacraments of orders (apostolic succession) and the Eucharist are valid in his church, they merit being called particular churches and are in their church which is properly in the universal Church of Christ (the Catholic Church). They have a wounded existence, and therefore are in imperfect communion. In their reception of the Eucharist they enter into a communion, which of its nature must enter into the universal communion of the Church in some way, but because of the juridical problems, and other problems well known, there is an imperfect situation.

Bartholomew I is simply the leader of a heretical, schismatic sect. He is not a Pastor and the Orthodox, although they claim to, do not comprise a church. The See of Constantinople, like the See of Alexandria, and the See of Canterbury, is vacant. Bartholomew cannot possess it, since heretics and schismatics lose their office.

The sentiment you express is praiseworthy, because the Church needs more loyal sons and daughters.  In any system based on laws, however, their are gradations of offense.  The treatment of Eastern Orthodoxy is a function of the laws of the Church, and at least in part governed by the canons of the first four councils.  By virtue of those canons, The Eastern Orthodox exist as part of the Catholic Church, and their adherence to orthodox dogma laid down between the first seven councils ensures her non-heresy.  That is why, for instance, the popes permitted Orthodox refugees from the Peloppenese to settle and maintain their own liturgies and disciplines in Sardinia in the 1500s.

What you are claiming about Orthodoxy, His Excellency Card. Mueller is implying about the SSPX.  Have faith in the canons, the first seven councils, and tradition! 

 

 
Reply
#73
(08-11-2011, 12:38 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: In this post I intend to prove that the ecclesiology promulgated at and developed after the Second Vatican Council contradicts the Church’s ecclesiology before the Council, such that it cannot be considered as a true development of doctrine.  I contend that the Church’s traditional doctrine states that:

1. The Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ
2. Membership in the Catholic Church requires the Profession of the True Faith
3. Membership in the Catholic Church requires Submission to the Roman Pontiff

Please note that you hve said that membership in hte Catholic Church requires submission to the Roman Pontiff.

What’s more, I shall be focusing on magisterial acts, although both Scripture and Tradition (the Fathers and Doctors) could be brought forth to prove the traditional doctrine, as many Pontiffs have quoted them when discussing the orthodox teaching on the Church.  Here, then, is the Catholic teaching:


“And what is this unity unless one person is placed in charge of the whole Church who protects it and joins all its members in the one profession of faith and unites them in the one bond of love and communion? … In the words of St. Leo, who continues speaking about the Holy See of Peter: ‘It is necessary that the Church throughout the world be united and cleave to the center of Catholic unity and ecclesiastical communion, so that whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery.’  St. Jerome adds: ‘Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is unholy.  Those who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the flood.’  Just as he who does not gather with Christ, so he who does not gather with Christ's Vicar on earth, clearly scatters.  How can someone who destroys the holy authority of the Vicar of Christ and who infringes on his rights gather with him?” (Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus, 17 May 1835).


-- Contrary to the idea that the means of salvation, which are said to exist in the other sects, “impel towards Catholic unity” (LG, n. 8 ), Pope Gregory states that such sects scatter.


“There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church.  There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation.  He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, n. 4; 17 March 1856).


-- Those not united to the See of Peter are not in the Catholic Church.


“We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life.  Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching” (Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 10 August 1863: Denz. 1677).

“The true Church of Jesus Christ was established by divine authority, and is known by a fourfold mark, which we assert in the Creed must be believed; and each one of these marks so clings to the others that it cannot be separated from them; hence it happens that that Church which truly is, and is called Catholic should at the same time shine with the prerogatives of unity, sanctity, and apostolic succession.  Therefore, the Catholic Church alone is conspicuous and perfect in the unity of the whole world and of all nations, particularly in that unity whose beginning, root, and unfailing origin are that supreme authority and ‘higher principality’ of blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and of his successors in the Roman Chair.  No other Church is Catholic except the one which, founded on the one Peter, grows into one ‘body compacted and fitly joined together’ [Eph. 4:16] in the unity of faith and charity” (Holy Office, 16 September 1864: Denz. 1686).

“Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity” (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, 13 September 1868).


-- Both the Holy Office and Pope Pius IX reject any notion of there being a partial communion between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic sects.  Remember, Dominus Iesus will call the Eastern schismatic churches "true particular Churches" of the Church of Christ.


“The Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd.  This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation” (First Vatican Council, Sess. IV, ch. 3: Denz. 1827).

“It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. … But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’ … The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. … The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. … For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino. … Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock. … Let all those, therefore, who detest the wide-spread irreligion of our times, and acknowledge and confess Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the human race, but who have wandered away from the Spouse, listen to Our voice.  Let them not refuse to obey Our paternal charity. Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, nn. 4, 9, 10, 14, 16; 29 June 1896).

“And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends.  For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: ‘That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,’ with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment.  For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist.  They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal.  They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. … So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. … Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, nn. 7, 10-11; 6 January 1928).

“If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. … If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity… But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses… Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely ‘pneumatological’ as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.  … Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. … As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.  And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican.  It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. … They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, nn. 13-14, 22, 41; 29 June 1943).

“Therefore the ‘whole’ and ‘entire’ Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ” (Holy Office, 20 December 1949).

“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.  Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.  Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 27; 12 August 1950).


-- Confirmation that the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ can be found in the 1941 Revised Baltimore Catechism: “The one true Church established by Christ is the Catholic Church.  We know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ because it alone has the marks of the true Church.  We know that no other church but the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ because no other church has these four marks” (qq. 152-53, 160).

Is it not clear from the above magisterial documents that the Catholic Church and she alone is the Church of Christ?  Is it not clear that those who do not profess the Catholic Faith or who do not submit to the divinely constituted government are in no way members of the Church of Christ?  If it is true that they individually are not members of the Church, then it follows that they as societies do not belong to that same Church.  In fact, Pope Pius IX explicitly rejected the idea that non-Catholic sects make up or are part of the true Church of Christ (as did the Holy Office under him and Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII).  The Pontiffs continually assert that the Church is one because of unity of faith and unity of government but this does not exist between the Catholic Church and the schismatic and heretical sects.

The Second Vatican Council, and the post-Conciliar magisterial documents thereafter, taught that baptism alone makes non-Catholics “members of the body of Christ” (without any reference to profession of the true faith and unity of government) and the Magisterium later taught that the Church of Christ was something more than the Catholic Church by calling Eastern schismatic churches “true particular Churches” of the Church of Christ.  What makes the post-Conciliar teaching even more confusing is the idea that there are elements of the Church of Christ outside of the Catholic Church.

“For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. … But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)” (Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 3; 21 November 1964).This doesn't make those people more Catholic. It just addresses the question from a differrent angle.

Mysterium Ecclesiae tells us that the schismatic “Churches and ecclesial communities… are joined to the Catholic Church by an imperfect communion,” and later that, “The followers of Christ are therefore not permitted to imagine that Christ's Church is nothing more than a collection (divided, but still possessing a certain unity) of Churches and ecclesial communities” (n. 1; 24 June 1973).


-- How can we not imagine the Church to be a collection of divided Churches/communities when it clearly states that there’s an imperfect communion between these Churches?  There is neither unity of faith nor of government (and communion denotes unity), so where is the communion between them?  Let’s continue:


“Among these manifold particular expressions of the saving presence of the one Church of Christ, there are to be found, from the times of the Apostles on, those entities which are in themselves Churches(32), because, although they are particular, the universal Church becomes present in them with all its essential elements(33). … The universal Church is therefore the Body of the Churches(36). Hence it is possible to apply the concept of communion in analogous fashion to the union existing among particular Churches, and to see the universal Church as a Communion of Churches.

“Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).  This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).  Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded.” (CDF, Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, nn. 7-8, 17; 28 May 1992).


-- A clear teaching that the Eastern schismatics are "true particular Churches" of the Church of Christ.  How is this not a "collection of divided Churches," because it's explicitly stated that the Catholic Church is "separated" from the Eastern schismatic church.


“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

“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 … In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 (CDF, Dominus Iesus, nn. 16-17; 6 August 2000).


-- The Church of Christ "fully" exists in the Catholic Church but partially exists also in the Eastern schismatic sects.

Mysterium Ecclesiae states that there is not a “certain unity” between the Catholic Church and the schismatic Churches and yet Dominus Iesus states that there is some unity (“united… by the closest bonds”) and that those schismatic Churches are particular Churches of the Church of Christ and so the Church of Christ exists in them.  It appears that we have a contradiction here.  As I said earlier, there is no governmental unity between the Catholic Church and the Eastern schismatics, and Dominus Iesus admits that the schismatics deny the doctrine of the primacy, so there is also a lack of unity of faith between the two Churches.  How then can there be an “imperfect communion” between them?  What does “separation” truly mean if the two Churches are in fact in some kind of communion?  Is it merely a partial separation?

Looked at in another way, if Christ’s Church is necessarily visible (as stated by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI), then how can it pop in and out of existence during the (valid but illicit) Eucharistic celebrations of the schismatics?

Another question I have -- well, actually, I'm repeating it -- is that if there is “one Church of Christ” and schismatic churches are “true particular Churches,” (of which there is an “imperfect communion” and “the closest bonds” between the Catholic and schismatic churches) then how is the Church of Christ not a collection of Churches?

Lastly, what does it mean for there to be elements of the Church of Christ in non-Catholic churches and communities?  I’ve tried to limit the scope of this discussion, but clearly there are related issues which have bearing on this matter (particularly, the means of salvation and EENS).

My own conclusion is that the new teaching is a modified form of the already-condemned Branch Theory; the original theory stated that the Church of Christ was partially the Catholic Church, partially the Greek Schismatics, and partially the Anglican heretics.  The modified version, however, teaches that the Church of Christ is "fully" the Catholic Church but also "partially" the Greek Schismatics.

So, my question to those who are interested is, "Can this rather apparent contradiction be resolved, and if so, how?"


Sources:

1. http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php (QCM, HO)
2. http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma19.php (FVC)
3. http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-cat...son12.html
4. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16commi.htm
5. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm
6. http://radicalpapist.blogspot.com/2010/0...omnes.html
7. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xi...um_en.html
8. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM
9. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x...os_en.html
10. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x...ti_en.html
11. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x...is_en.html
12. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...io_en.html
13. http://www.saint-mike.org/library/curia/...esiae.html
14. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...io_en.html
15. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...us_en.html

For further reading:

1. http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...iology.pdf
2. http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...munArt.pdf
3. http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=35&catname=15
Reply
#74
(12-01-2012, 03:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Did Bartholomew I lose his status as a bishop? He's the Patriarch of Constantinople, an extremely ancient See of the Church, and one of the principle Sees at that. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI abolished the Latin Patriarchs, thus leaving the See open for Bartholomew I to be fully reconciled with no quibbling over who has rights to it. It's his See. He is the head of an ancient church, which needs to be reconciled. Since the sacraments of orders (apostolic succession) and the Eucharist are valid in his church, they merit being called particular churches and are in their church which is properly in the universal Church of Christ (the Catholic Church). They have a wounded existence, and therefore are in imperfect communion. In their reception of the Eucharist they enter into a communion, which of its nature must enter into the universal communion of the Church in some way, but because of the juridical problems, and other problems well known, there is an imperfect situation.

The Eastern Orthodox is a schismatic sect, and comprise a different religion (see "Religions, False" in the Church Documents sub-forum*).  They do not profess the entirety of God's revelation (original sin, papal supremacy), nor do they submit to the authority of the Apostolic See, and by extension, to the monarchical constitution of the Church established by Christ Himself.  They are therefore not to be counted as members of Christ's Church (in the external forum), nor is the sect itself part of the Church (cf. Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes).  Subjectively, however, some of them may be members of Christ's Church in voto.

"First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. ...  Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government" (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, 20 June 1894).



* http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...957.0.html

"Furthermore, every Christian sect which is not Catholic is also false, since it does not accept and practice the whole content of Revelation.  On the other hand, considered in its single elements, every non-Christian religion and every non-Catholic sect may contain truth mingled with error" (Dictionary of Moral Theology, Religion, False, p. 1031).

One final quote:
"Ecclesia R. catholica sola est vera Christi Ecclesia.  De fide.
"Ecclesiæ separatæ non sunt vera Christi Ecclesia.  De fide." (Very Rev. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, t. I, sec. 761, 763, p. 511f., 24th Ed.).
Reply
#75
(12-02-2012, 11:13 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(12-01-2012, 03:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Did Bartholomew I lose his status as a bishop? He's the Patriarch of Constantinople, an extremely ancient See of the Church, and one of the principle Sees at that. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI abolished the Latin Patriarchs, thus leaving the See open for Bartholomew I to be fully reconciled with no quibbling over who has rights to it. It's his See. He is the head of an ancient church, which needs to be reconciled. Since the sacraments of orders (apostolic succession) and the Eucharist are valid in his church, they merit being called particular churches and are in their church which is properly in the universal Church of Christ (the Catholic Church). They have a wounded existence, and therefore are in imperfect communion. In their reception of the Eucharist they enter into a communion, which of its nature must enter into the universal communion of the Church in some way, but because of the juridical problems, and other problems well known, there is an imperfect situation.

The Eastern Orthodox is a schismatic sect, and comprise a different religion (see "Religions, False" in the Church Documents sub-forum*).  They do not profess the entirety of God's revelation (original sin, papal supremacy), nor do they submit to the authority of the Apostolic See, and by extension, to the monarchical constitution of the Church established by Christ Himself.  They are therefore not to be counted as members of Christ's Church (in the external forum), nor is the sect itself part of the Church (cf. Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes).  Subjectively, however, some of them may be members of Christ's Church in voto.

"First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. ...  Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government" (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, 20 June 1894).



* http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...957.0.html

"Furthermore, every Christian sect which is not Catholic is also false, since it does not accept and practice the whole content of Revelation.  On the other hand, considered in its single elements, every non-Christian religion and every non-Catholic sect may contain truth mingled with error" (Dictionary of Moral Theology, Religion, False, p. 1031).

One final quote:
"Ecclesia R. catholica sola est vera Christi Ecclesia.  De fide.
"Ecclesiæ separatæ non sunt vera Christi Ecclesia.  De fide." (Very Rev. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, t. I, sec. 761, 763, p. 511f., 24th Ed.).

The official acknowledgment of more than one Church within the Catholic Church was a problem.

From a legal standpoint, the Catholic Church has another problem with the Orthodox:  how to respond to the Orthodox objections to the Vatican 2 expressions on universal salvation, and how to respond whtn the Orthodox object that the form of the Novus Ordo falls outside the traditions handed down from the Fathers? 

Logically, every breach of law must have a remedy. If the tribunal cannot render justice, can it nevertheless indict the crime? 
Reply
#76
Quote:The official acknowledgment of more than one Church within the Catholic Church was a problem.

From a legal standpoint, the Catholic Church has another problem with the Orthodox:  how to respond to the Orthodox objections to the Vatican 2 expressions on universal salvation, and how to respond whtn the Orthodox object that the form of the Novus Ordo falls outside the traditions handed down from the Fathers? 

Logically, every breach of law must have a remedy. If the tribunal cannot render justice, can it nevertheless indict the crime?   

Interesting, I have never seen that the Eastern Orthodox had a stake in the Novus Ordo.  Could you elaborate or point to some resources? 

Reply
#77
(12-03-2012, 03:14 PM)Tenmaru Wrote:
Quote:The official acknowledgment of more than one Church within the Catholic Church was a problem.

From a legal standpoint, the Catholic Church has another problem with the Orthodox:  how to respond to the Orthodox objections to the Vatican 2 expressions on universal salvation, and how to respond whtn the Orthodox object that the form of the Novus Ordo falls outside the traditions handed down from the Fathers? 

Logically, every breach of law must have a remedy. If the tribunal cannot render justice, can it nevertheless indict the crime?   

Interesting, I have never seen that the Eastern Orthodox had a stake in the Novus Ordo.  Could you elaborate or point to some resources? 

The Orthodox are aware that the Roman rite is the oldest of the large rites in continuous use.  The Greek rite is old, but it sources to a period that postdates Imperial influence on the ritual.  The severity, or simplicity if you prefer, of the Roman rite predates that.  By the time Gregory the Great regularized the mass into the basic form we now know, 1500 years ago, there was no Imperial court resident at Rome to please, so the simplicity could be retained.  It is that ancient simplicity and dignity -retraint-that the Cistercians and Carthusians "restored" in the 11th century reforms. 

So yes, the Orthodox have a stake in the Latin mass, although they do not celebrate that rite.

Many Orthodox have commented on the Novus Ordo.  None of whom I am aware deem the changes positive from the standpoint of tradition.  Here is a source to get you started.  It's simple, but you can travel the web from there:  http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/397/
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)