Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren
Quote: These people do good works in the name of Jesus, however filled with confusion and error they may be. The fact that we cannot find in ourselves to "come down" and take joy in that shows that we lack charity for our neighbor.

Your straw man is quite impressive.  There is no crisis, not even a minor issue, about Catholics, whether Trad or Neo, of people upset with a Baptist hospital providing medical care to the poor. NONE.  It is not being "complained about" in this thread.  You know that, and I know that, and more importantly everyone reading this thread know it.  Which makes your argument a straw man argument.

The issue is the words Pope Benedict used.  "Profound Communion" is very improper.  I will never do or feel anything with a Baptist "eccleisal group" in a spirit of "profound communion".  Because I am Catholic.

Quote: Good savior statement + bad Luther statement = bad Pope
Good point.  This is true.
Reply
SouthpawLink,

On 1, the fact is Christians are divided. These theologians are attempting to understand the Church as united and holy while still being divided and unholy. Also there is a desire to go away from a juridical view of the Church, and emphasize rather it as a communion of love between members, and between members and Christ. The juridical view of in/out, like I said in other cases, provides little of the "middle story" for these people. We have sacraments outside the visible bounds of the Church. The theological development isn't settled, so there is much to explore, and even the proponents of communion ecclesiology disagree in aspects. The biggest trend, though, was away from a juridical view of the Church.

On 2, ecumenism has changed because the Church has loosened conditions to foster more openness. Catholics participated before, but it was "unofficial". Ecumenism is distinct because it is preparation of the field, a distinct action before planting and harvesting. It is making conditions more favorable to accepting the fullness of the Faith. Not all endeavors to other Christians involves this step. The later process of educating them and reconciling them is a planting and harvesting, which is still just as valid. I think the added step of dialog was to make the field a peaceful one, that men could operate in the field of evangelization without resorting to violence, polemic, calumny, and other unfortunate traits of division.
Reply
DustinsDad, your non sequiturs add nothing to the conversation.
Reply
(10-23-2012, 12:52 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: These people do good works in the name of Jesus, however filled with confusion and error they may be. The fact that we cannot find in ourselves to "come down" and take joy in that shows that we lack charity for our neighbor.

Your straw man is quite impressive.  There is no crisis, not even a minor issue, about Catholics, whether Trad or Neo, of people upset with a Baptist hospital providing medical care to the poor. NONE.  It is not being "complained about" in this thread.  You know that, and I know that, and more importantly everyone reading this thread know it.  Which makes your argument a straw man argument.

The issue is the words Pope Benedict used.  "Profound Communion" is very improper.  I will never do or feel anything with a Baptist "eccleisal group" in a spirit of "profound communion".  Because I am Catholic.

You statements doesn't follow. You're reading into Benedict things he isn't saying. How does seeing good in other people ignore a crisis, or ignore the true divisions amongst Christians? Explain how ecumenism makes any sense if the Pope thinks that the divisions aren't real? Everybody knows about the divisions, it's just maybe they want to take a positive approach, or not bog themselves down with petty issues, or simply see that many of these issues are solved if they are successful, i.e., picking your battles.
Reply
The juridical view of the Church is settled Catholic doctrine.  Read encyclicals, theology manuals (all of them) and catechisms which predate Vatican II.  Any contradiction with settled doctrine is, in the very least, theologically erroneous.

Non-Catholics' use of the sacraments is illicit and work only in spite of their separation.

"Priests who are separated from the Church, although they validly sacrifice in the name of Christ, nevertheless do not offer the sacrifice as ministers of the Church and in the person of the Church itself.  For the priest is commissioned by the Church to pray to intercede, and to offer in its name, and in regard to this, the Church can take away from a separated priest the ability to sacrifice in its name" (Fr. Felix Cappello, Tractatus Canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, I, p. 462, 1962 ed.).

See St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, Pope St. Leo the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius IX for similar statements concerning the celebration of the sacraments, particularly of the Holy Eucharist, outside the Catholic Church (e.g., "he who eats the lamb outside of [communion with Rome] has no part with God;" "they act wrongly and sin, and do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice").  Furthermore, the Council of Florence, Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XII all teach that the sacraments ("means of salvation") can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.

I'll have to find and quote Romano Amerio on dialogue, as it's quite poignant.
Reply
(10-23-2012, 01:18 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The juridical view of the Church is settled Catholic doctrine.  Read encyclicals, theology manuals (all of them) and catechisms which predate Vatican II.  Any contradiction with settled doctrine is, in the very least, theologically erroneous.

...

The Church teaches that there is a hierarchical structure, and a structure of authority, but that is not what I mean by juridical. Juridical means that what the Church is about is laws and conformity, instead of love. That's where communion ecclesiology comes from. What binds us is not conformity to law, but conformity to Christ, a living Person, which is a two way relationship. The new covenant itself was all about this shift from legalism to an economy of charity.
Reply
(10-23-2012, 12:52 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: SouthpawLink,

On 1, the fact is Christians are divided. These theologians are attempting to understand the Church as united and holy while still being divided and unholy.

I think this is a key point. More people today are recognizing that the divisions amongst Christians are scandalous and that we need to work toward union. Of course, this is where an element of pride comes in. We naturally want to say that we are completely in the right and that "the Photian schismatics" or whoever else are all evil morons. If some of them ever see the truth and convert, fine, but we aren't going to go out of our way to end the schism. Charity and humility are difficult virtues to cultivate for all of us, I suppose.
Reply
(10-23-2012, 07:10 AM)Whitey Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 06:41 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...Further, yes, one should always assume the Pope's intentions are good. If there is real evidence to show otherwise, then that's another story, but the assumption should be that his intentions are good. That's how you're supposed to deal with everyone, not just His Holiness. But for some folks here, the assumption is just the opposite, and perfectly kosher text is twisted and jumped on. That's what's scandalous.

I agree. It's an acquired bad habit. Every homily or address the pope makes is subject to ridicule by some trads. And most always followed by back pats from the same. It's become so common here, that it fouls most every discussion.

Both quotes are absolutely correct. On top of it being a terrible scandal, which of course is sin and injurious to souls, it's also rather tiresome.
Reply
Regarding love, Pope Pius IX instructs: "God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love.  On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation.  First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold.  Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation" (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 9).

And regarding conformity, Sacred Scripture teaches that there is, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5).

Was Pope Leo XIII prideful when he wrote, "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" (Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, par. 15)?

Were the Fathers of Vatican I prideful when they defined the juridical primacy and infallibility of the successors of St. Peter?  The truth is that the Photians are wrong (doctrinally speaking); they've been given chances in the past to reunite with Rome.  Let us pray that they one day hear the Lord's call to return to His fold.

It simply baffles me that Catholic theology can so radically change in such a short period of time (several decades), that our hierarchs contradict themselves in explaining the changes (e.g., "subsistit in"), do not seriously attempt to reconcile the new teachings with the old ones, and that we're expected to go along with everything out of a sense of obedience, especially because we don't quite know what we're being obedient to (truth or error).  It's not like with the dogma of the Holy Trinity, which can never be fully comprehended; instead, what we're concerned with is the nature and constitution of the Church, on which there already exists a clear body of teaching (but Ratzinger insisted that it had to be "corrected").  The Church's prelates have done nothing if not obscured it.
Reply
(10-23-2012, 12:17 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 09:40 AM)TrentCath Wrote:   guess ultimately the problem is that there are two groups here, or rather at last two groups:

i) Group A sees the pope as basically orthodox but he sometimes makes statements that are ambigous
ii)Group B sees the pope as basically unorthodox and thus all of what he says is likely suspect 

You just gave yourself away. The thread is about a few paragraphs of text, not about how various groups see the Pope's orthodoxy. That right there is the problem I am talking about.

:shrug:

Come again?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)