Boniface on Pope on Nostra Aetate
#21
Has the Church ever considered any form of Protestantism as true Chrsitianty?
Reply
#22
(10-20-2012, 06:54 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Criticism of the documents of the Second Vatican Council is valid only when it is offered by the Holy Father.

See also: Genetic fallacy.

Boom.  :LOL:
Reply
#23
(10-21-2012, 08:58 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Has the Church ever considered any form of Protestantism as true Chrsitianty?

That's a good question, although I'm sure you already know the answer to it.

"As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism . . .  While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness . . .  As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity" (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 197f.).

Edited to remove snarkiness.
Reply
#24
(10-21-2012, 08:58 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Has the Church ever considered any form of Protestantism as true Chrsitianty?

No, but they are true Christians.
Reply
#25
One can be a true Christian while adhering to false opinions (as opposed to the Faith), worshipping God in a way otherwise than which He desires, and subscribing to false moral doctrines?  If this be true, then what of Pope Gregory's condemnation of the opinion that:

"it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained" (Mirari Vos, n. 13)?

How can such "true [non-Catholic] Christians" go to Hell?
Reply
#26
(10-21-2012, 03:51 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Then why being up that remark? As my grandfather would say, "Cállase la boca, compadre."

I think it is worrying that some people seem to think that an idolatrous fixation on political power is in any way related to orthodoxy or tradition. I mean, do you really think that people who consider Torquemada to be a Catholic hero are actually interested in charity as the perfection of the Christian life?
Reply
#27
(10-21-2012, 03:51 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Cállase la boca, compadre."

It's "cállese" (usted) or "cállate" (tú). In this case it's better to use "cállese" as the formality balances out the falta de respeto inherent in telling someone to shut up.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.  :Hmm:


(10-21-2012, 03:11 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: do you really think that people who consider Torquemada to be a Catholic hero are actually interested in charity as the perfection of the Christian life? 

I don't see why not -- but what does Torquemada have to do with fascism? He died long before fascism existed.
Reply
#28
Scriptorium Wrote:Any conversion of man will start right with those who call themselves "Christian". That is why he said internal and external. Examples include the the Muslims extremists who burn buildings, etc. Or the groups like the disgusting and unChristian Westboro church that carry signs that say "Fags go to Hell", or that special one outside the funeral "Pray for more dead soldiers", "God hates you". These methods drive people away from Christ. I actually doubt they wish people to come to Christ when using these methods.

I'm sure you're right about that, but the Westboro outfit is not disgusting and unChristian merely because it is illiberal; and liberals aren't interested in making distinctions between the vile stuff the Phelpses come out with and what the Catholic Church teaches.  To them it's all just "Christian bigotry".  If anything, they despise the Catholics more because they "hide their homophobic hatred behind weasel words of love and compassion etc". 

The postconciliar strategy seems to be to buy into liberalism as a kind of insurance policy:  "If we support universal freedom of religion then surely the impartial secular state will give us some protection too."  But somehow it never seems to work out that way in practice.  Dunk a Jewish Torah scroll in a jar of urine and you've committed a hate crime; do it to a Crucifix and it's art.  If an atheist professor stuck a nail through a Koran and posted the pictures on his blog, his career would probably suffer a setback; when he does it to a consecrated Host, he continues to enjoy tenure.  It never is a level playing field.
Reply
#29
(10-21-2012, 04:45 PM)m.PR Wrote:
(10-21-2012, 03:51 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Cállase la boca, compadre."

It's "cállese" (usted) or "cállate" (tú). In this case it's better to use "cállese" as the formality balances out the falta de respeto inherent in telling someone to shut up.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.  :Hmm:

Though consistency should outweigh balance. If you normally address someone as "tú," then use "cállate."

Of course it could also be "callate" (vos).
Reply
#30
(10-20-2012, 04:41 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: It's devastating precisely because it's heretical, seeing as how it denies EENS (cf. Council of Florence: Denz. 714), although I'm guessing you're already aware of this.  :mrwinky:

I'll finish reading the blog's take on Pope Benedict's comments regarding Nostra Aetate later.


P.S. - My coming across the 1993 Balamand declaration (and the absence of any statement of retraction from the Holy See), almost two years ago, was what initially drove me to the stance which I hold today.

I don't know if that can be considered evidence of the Pope or other's actual beliefs (maybe those on the commission if they were asserting their obstinate refusal of the infallible teaching authority rather than just publishing it as a current state of discussions, etc.).  Regarding texts like this (and, say, the Joint statement on justification with the Lutherans), they are considered part of the work in progress, not the final position of the Church or the personal position of the Holy Father, etc.

See here:
Pope Benedict XVI Wrote:Today, moreover, one of the fundamental questions is the problem of the methods adopted in the various ecumenical dialogues. These too must reflect the priority of faith. Knowing the truth is a right of the conversation partner in every true dialogue. It is a requirement of love for one’s brother or sister. In this sense, it is necessary to face controversial issues courageously, always in a spirit of brotherhood and in reciprocal respect. It is also important to offer a correct interpretation of that order or “hierarchy” which exists in Catholic doctrine, observed in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio (n. 11), which in no way means reducing the deposit of the faith but rather bringing out its internal structure, the organic nature of this unique structure. The study documents produced by the various ecumenical dialogues are very important. These texts cannot be ignored because they are an important, if temporary, fruit of our common reflection developed over the years. Nevertheless their proper significance should be recognized as a contribution offered to the competent Authority of the Church, which alone is called to judge them definitively. To ascribe to these texts a binding or as it were definitive solution to the thorny questions of the dialogues without the proper evaluation of the ecclesial Authority, would ultimately hinder the journey toward full unity in faith.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...de_en.html

The Balamand statement says the same:
Balamand Wrote:As with all the results of the joint dialogue commissions, this common document belongs to the responsibility of the Commission itself, until the competent organs of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches express their judgement in regard to it.

So, for example, the official response of the Church on the Joint Declaration on Justification is here (this may not be considered a definitive judgment, but it is an example of my point):
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif...ic_en.html
Note, it points out where the joint statement is wrong or problematic and where the Lutheran doctrine is still touched by the anathemas of Trent.

I am unaware if the Balamand Statement was ever given such a response from the Church, but it was certainly contradicted by later interventions from the CDF, such as the note on certain doctrinal elements of evangelization, the note on the use of the term "Sister Churches," as well as Dominus Iesus, and the note on certain doctrine about the Church, all issued subsequently by the CDF. Likewise, John Paul II's May 31, 1995 audience explicitly affirming the formulation of St. Cyprian and explicitly referring to the definitions of Lateran IV, Florence, and Boniface VIII concerning this dogma also came after it.

Furthermore, The Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops all wrote a letter to the Pope rejecting Balamand, and there was no negative response to that.  Neither has anything in the Balamand statement been enforced at all.  You can find plenty of Orthodox complaints by priests, etc. on the internet saying Rome and Catholics are ignoring the Balamand statement, and evangelizing, opening new churches, etc. in Orthodox territories without their permission, etc.  This action, rather than being condemned and forbidden, seems to be instead supported by the subsequent interventions.

Sure, allowing an open reading of these documents or promoting them as evidence of good progress on the road to reunion might be scandalous for those who may take their contents as the position of the Church (despite the explicit disclaimers), but I don't think that can therefore be used to accuse, say, the Pope of openly resisting the infallible teaching authority.

 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)