Head of CDF declares Catholic bishop isn't
#51
(10-06-2012, 12:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 11:54 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 05:08 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: He's equating him with a Greek schismatic. Hans Küng or Richard McBrien certainly don't subject themselves to Benedict XVI, but I won't hold my breathe to hear Müller call them out.

Well, if the shoe fits.  The Greek schismatics have more respect for the Papal office, honestly.  Eye-roll

And yet, in Pope Benedict XVI's mind, they wouldn't necessarily have to accept Vatican I (which occurred long after the schism of 1054) in order to place themselves in full communion with Rome: "In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.  When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium.  Rome need not ask for more" (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 198f.).

What does "unity of faith" mean to Pope Benedict, if not all of us -- if the Eastern Orthodox returned to full communion -- are required to believe all of the Church's dogmas?

Can anyone tell me if he has since abandoned or retracted this opinion?

I expect a gold medal performance in mental gymnastics to get out of this one!
Reply
#52
(10-06-2012, 12:59 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 12:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 11:54 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 05:08 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: He's equating him with a Greek schismatic. Hans Küng or Richard McBrien certainly don't subject themselves to Benedict XVI, but I won't hold my breathe to hear Müller call them out.

Well, if the shoe fits.  The Greek schismatics have more respect for the Papal office, honestly.  Eye-roll

And yet, in Pope Benedict XVI's mind, they wouldn't necessarily have to accept Vatican I (which occurred long after the schism of 1054) in order to place themselves in full communion with Rome: "In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.  When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium.  Rome need not ask for more" (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 198f.).

What does "unity of faith" mean to Pope Benedict, if not all of us -- if the Eastern Orthodox returned to full communion -- are required to believe all of the Church's dogmas?

Can anyone tell me if he has since abandoned or retracted this opinion?

I expect a gold medal performance in mental gymnastics to get out of this one!

No gymnastics required.  Vatican I did not invent new dogma; if it did, it ought to be rejected.  It developed what was already present in the first millennium.  The challenge when dealing with the Orthodox is working it out so that they can see it that way, and no longer view Vatican I as they do now: how Trads view Vatican II.  In other words, Vatican I needs a hermeneutic of continuity.  Simple and straight-forward as that.
Reply
#53
(10-06-2012, 01:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 12:59 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 12:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 11:54 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 05:08 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: He's equating him with a Greek schismatic. Hans Küng or Richard McBrien certainly don't subject themselves to Benedict XVI, but I won't hold my breathe to hear Müller call them out.

Well, if the shoe fits.  The Greek schismatics have more respect for the Papal office, honestly.  Eye-roll

And yet, in Pope Benedict XVI's mind, they wouldn't necessarily have to accept Vatican I (which occurred long after the schism of 1054) in order to place themselves in full communion with Rome: "In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.  When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium.  Rome need not ask for more" (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 198f.).

What does "unity of faith" mean to Pope Benedict, if not all of us -- if the Eastern Orthodox returned to full communion -- are required to believe all of the Church's dogmas?

Can anyone tell me if he has since abandoned or retracted this opinion?

I expect a gold medal performance in mental gymnastics to get out of this one!

No gymnastics required.  Vatican I did not invent new dogma; if it did, it ought to be rejected.  It developed what was already present in the first millennium.  The challenge when dealing with the Orthodox is working it out so that they can see it that way, and no longer view Vatican I as they do now: how Trads view Vatican II.  In other words, Vatican I needs a hermeneutic of continuity.  Simple and straight-forward as that.

There's not straightforward about asking whether someone needs to believe in all the Church's dogmas to be a Catholic.
Reply
#54
(10-06-2012, 01:15 PM)Walty Wrote: There's not straightforward about asking whether someone needs to believe in all the Church's dogmas to be a Catholic.

Walty,
I do not fully understand your post.  Were you stating that Parmandur's reply wasn't straightforward, that "there's not[hing] straightforward about asking" what I asked, or were you stating something else?
Reply
#55
(10-06-2012, 12:45 PM)Guardian Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 11:28 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: My motivation in posting this thread was to show the hypocrisy of talk about +Williamson and +Mueller and I ended up being proved right. 

There was far more outcry over Mith calling +Mueller Modernist scum than there was about the head of the CDF saying a Catholic bishop in fact was not a Catholic bishop - something which is in far more error and has a much wider range.

Heck, we even saw an apologist for WHY +Mueller talks sh** about +Williamson when he has a microphone nearby (of course, that poster popping his head in this discussion with that was about as surprising as a liberal NO priest).

LOL

You can draw that conclusion if you'd like.  I haven't seen many people defend the Archbishop and I'm certainly not.  Old Salt even proved why ++Mueller was wrong.  But after reading your post I don't really expect anyone to actually listen to sense. 

As laymen we have no control over what the Princes of the Church call each other.  In the chain of command they're 2 Generals talking, and we're at the Private or Lieutenant level.  But as Catholic gentlemen we do have control over our own words and actions, and we have a duty to conduct ourselves better than this.   That was my pont. 

I'm begining to think people just want to be angry.

Good post.
Reply
#56
(10-06-2012, 01:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 01:15 PM)Walty Wrote: There's not straightforward about asking whether someone needs to believe in all the Church's dogmas to be a Catholic.

Walty,
I do not fully understand your post.  Were you stating that Parmandur's reply wasn't straightforward, that "there's not[hing] straightforward about asking" what I asked, or were you stating something else?


Well, I didn't write my post correctly and I also didn't entirely understand what was being said between you and Parmandur.

You rightly pointed out the ridiculousness in the idea that any group did not have to accept all of the Church's teaching to come back to Her.  Unfortunately, Parmandur compares trads to Orthodox, stating that we simply don't get the age old teaching of VII so steeped in orthodoxy, just like the Orthodox don't recognize the fundamental teaching of the primacy of Peter.
Reply
#57
Thank you for the clarification!  Parmandur seems to be saying that the Orthodox need to be shown how the definitions concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome are true and that these teachings are indeed taken from the sources of Revelation (Vatican I, by the way, did a spectacular job in proving that case).  I agree with him on this point.  But what he failed to address is that former-Cardinal Ratzinger has written that the Eastern Orthodox need not accept Vatican I as a condition for their return to being in full communion with the Apostolic See.  And ironically, now Pope Benedict XVI demands that the SSPX accept Vatican II as a condition for their being given the status of canonical regularity.  LOL

Ridiculous indeed!
Reply
#58
(10-06-2012, 02:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Thank you for the clarification!  Parmandur seems to be saying that the Orthodox need to be shown how the definitions concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome are true and that these teachings are indeed taken from the sources of Revelation (Vatican I, by the way, did a spectacular job in proving this very point).  I agree with him on this point.  But what he failed to address is that former-Cardinal Ratzinger has written that the Eastern Orthodox need not accept Vatican I as a condition for their return to being in full communion with the Apostolic See.  And ironically, now Pope Benedict XVI demands that the SSPX accept Vatican II as a condition for their being given the status of canonical regularity.  LOL

Exactly.
Reply
#59
Obviously, the idea that the Orthodox would not have to accept anything that did not exist in the first millenium of the Church is unacceptable to trads, who believe that Christianity was just a barbarous, quasi-pagan cult until true Catholicism was invented out of whole cloth by Pius IX, but those who believe that there is continuity between the past and the present should find it inoffensive. Anyway, I think comparing the Orthodox to the SSPX is unhelpful. The two situations are quite different.

Reply
#60
(10-06-2012, 02:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Thank you for the clarification!  Parmandur seems to be saying that the Orthodox need to be shown how the definitions concerning the primacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome are true and that these teachings are indeed taken from the sources of Revelation (Vatican I, by the way, did a spectacular job in proving that case).  I agree with him on this point.  But what he failed to address is that former-Cardinal Ratzinger has written that the Eastern Orthodox need not accept Vatican I as a condition for their return to being in full communion with the Apostolic See.  And ironically, now Pope Benedict XVI demands that the SSPX accept Vatican II as a condition for their being given the status of canonical regularity.  LOL

Ridiculous indeed!

He didn't say they didn't have to accept the teachings of Vatican I; but in order to accept the teachings of Vatican I, they do not have to accept a novelty, what was believed in the first millennium of the Church.  The whole idea of a hermeneutic of continuity is what all Councils and Papal declarations need to be subjected to; the Church is bound by Tradition, so no novelties can be accepted.  If the Old Catholics, say, are right about Vatican I, it is because it is precisely not what was believed in the first millennium.  Though I don't think the Pope was talking about dogma in regards to Vatican I, so much as canon law jurisdiction.  No burdens would be laid on the Patriarch of Antioch which do not date back to the Early Church (the Orthodox fear Roman autocracy, and he is allaying that fear).

As CP points out, the situations are different, and comparisons are problematic.  But the Orthodox got where they are due to refusing to accept rightful authority; a dangerous path indeed.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)