www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Vatican Claims Monopoly on Church Salvation

Maybe it's just the headline, but...
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16049-2000Sep5.html

[This message has been edited by rick neimiller (edited 09-06-2000).]

There is nothing new here.

The Catholic Church has always taught that she alone possesses the fullness of the Gospel with other Churches possessing less than the fullness of the Gospel. The Catholic Church alone has the four marks of "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". The particular Catholic and Orthodox Churches (Rome, Constantinople, etc.) are Sister Churches within the universal (Catholic) Church. This is possible because the Orthodox Churches "have almost everything in common with us" (JPII).

The Anglicans and other Protestants have much in common with us, but not almost everything as do the Orthodox. Jews and Moslems recognize the same one God but do not know him intimately nor do they correctly understand his Divine Revelation, as do Catholic Christians. Other non-Christians, such as Hindus and Buddhists, are farthest from the truth.

The Washington Post (as usual) seems to have blown the whole thing far out of proportion. The best thing is to read the document directly from the Vatican Website: <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html">Declaration "Dominus Ieus" of the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church</a>

Some Orthodox hold a similar view with the Orthodox Churches alone possessing the fullness of the Gospel, the Catholic (meaning Roman Catholic) Churches having much in common and the Protestant less so. Other Orthodox believe there is no grace in those who are not in full communion with them. Unfortunately, there is no vehicle within Orthodoxy to speak definitively on this issue.

Moose,
I don't know if you are aware of this, but apparantly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a letter to all the bishops of the world telling them to no longer use the term "sister churches" when refering to other Christian denominations, even when refering to the Orthodox Churches.
I have read this off several news articles(ie, Associated Press article on www.orthodoxnews.com [orthodoxnews.com] ) on the Internet. I'll be looking into it further.
Have you read or heard about this as well?



[This message has been edited by Byzantino (edited 09-07-2000).]

The term "Sister Churches" applies to Particular Churches. The Catholic Church alone is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". But the Catholic Church includes the local Catholic Churches at Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and etc. even though these Churches are not in full communion.

The whole thing is a rat's nest of terminology. In one sense "where the bishop is, there is the Church" (the Church being the local diocese). In another sense the Church is the larger grouping of dioceses of a particular tradition (like the Roman Catholic Church, the Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church, the Antiochian Orthodox Church). These "Particular Churches" are termed "Sister Churches" and together make up the Catholic Church. The current RC understanding is that the Orthodox Churches are indeed members of the Catholic Church (the fullest sense of being Church), although imperfectly because of lack of communion with Peter.

I guess a good analogy would be to equate the term "Catholic Church" (as used in "Dominus Ieus") with one's family name ("Smithski") and "Particular" or "Sister Church" with members of the family ("Sophie" and "Mary"). Neither Sophie or Mary alone constitutes the fullness of the Smithski family but they are definitely sisters within that family. Only all those who are Smithski's together make up the Smithski family.

Confusing, isn't it? Can't you wait until the family reunion?

I couldn't find the article you referenced, but the AP (as does most of the mainstream press) usually doesn't report religious news accurately. Only Christians would understand this stuff.

Thanks for the orthodoxnews Byzantino. I read what the associated press said. It quoted Cardinal Ratzinger saying that Rome is the "mother" of the other Christian churches. Oh really?! Well I don't think so. It sounds like a another round of condescending talks. It is amazing how Rome forgets her origins and has the audacity to claim motherhood! Keep talking "sister" or "mother" or "whatever you think you are"! Who is Rome to speak like this? I guess to an Orthodox like myself the reply is who cares because she has lost her mind.

I don't particularly like the analogy of Rome being the "mother" of the other Christian Churches, but I do not think such an analogy is unacceptable. More clearly, I think, is that Rome is the eldest brother. Even if one chooses to use this description, one must understand that the reference is to Peter and not to the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. There is a difference.

Is it another round of condescending talks? Possibly, but I don't think so. There is nothing new in this statement except that the whole issue has been delineated more clearly than it has since Vatican II. It is the Catholic Church (consisting of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) to which is entrusted salvation. All peoples who journey toward belief in God are members of the Church. Those who are Catholic and Orthodox are the most perfect members. Those who are Protestants, less so. And those who are non-Christians very less so. The whole point of "Dominus Ieus" is to note clearly that while there are many good people in these non-Christian religions and that while we trust in the Lord for the salvation of those who follow them, nevertheless, these religions can only provide a glimpse of what has been given to us through Jesus Christ. These other religions are not equal to us because they do not profess the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Who is Rome to speak like this? Rome is the eldest brother and the first. It is her position to speak like this. In a fully united Church (East and West) she should speak in this manner only after consultation with all the bishops. The Roman Catholic model of unity without independence doesn't work. But the Orthodox model of independence without a vehicle to maintain unity doesn't work, either.

>>I guess to an Orthodox like myself the reply is who cares because she has lost her mind.<<

That is both unkind and uncharitable.

Moose,
I don't mean to be unkind and uncharitable. Rome never consulted with the Orthodox Patriarchs on this matter. Rome does things unilaterally. How can I or any Orthodox take these statements seriously since Rome does not belong to the Orthodox fold? Do you recall what I have been saying about unity in the faith, not organizational unity?
The distance keeps getting further and further and further....

The Holy See does not need to consult with the Orthodox patriarchs on this matter, on any matter concerning the Catholic Church.

Robert,

I respect your positions and your right to hold them. Some are identical to what we hold as Byzantine Catholics, some are in-line with the standard Orthodox positions and others are off-the-wall. What I do not respect is when you are unkind and uncharitable. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone else. It is unkind and charitable to accuse someone else of having "lost her mind". Why can't you see the difference?

Regarding unity, I believe that we already have unity in faith. The problem is that our sinful pride keeps us from seeing this. I trust that Orthodoxy will never compromise the Orthodox faith. Neither will Rome. But someday we will all repent of our sins and trust the Holy Spirit in leading us to become one as Christ has commanded.


Michael,

>>The Holy See does not need to consult with the Orthodox patriarchs on this matter, on any matter concerning the Catholic Church.<<

This is not entirely accurate, especially since Rome is working towards restoring full communion. The current model of the papacy clearly indicates that it is to work in conjunction with all of the bishops of the Catholic Church. In this and other documents Rome has made clear that Orthodoxy is part of the Catholic Church. If we were in full communion, Rome should be working together with all the bishops before making these proclamations. It is only because we are not in full communion (from Rome's position Orthodoxy lacks full membership in the Catholic Church because of the lack of communion) that the bishops of Orthodoxy are not consulted. The papal claims to immediate and universal jurisdiction, along with all the rest, are supposed to occur within the context of the collegiality of bishops. Too often, however, Rome acts unilaterally without consultation of the rest of the Catholic Churches.

My understanding of the recent documents is that it would be acceptable to speak of Orthodox Churches as being "Sister Churches." Constantinople is, for example, a Sister Church. But, there cannot be a Sister Church to *the Catholic Church,* for there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. One cannot say that the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church are "Sister Churches." That would deny the Creed.

Dave Ignatius

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 09-21-2000).]

Moose wrote:

>The whole thing is a rat's nest of terminology. In one sense "where the bishop is, there is the Church" (the Church being the local diocese). In another sense the Church is the larger grouping of dioceses of a particular tradition (like the Roman Catholic Church, the Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church, the Antiochian Orthodox Church). These "Particular Churches" are termed "Sister Churches"

And DT Brown wrote:

>My understanding of the recent documents is that it would be acceptable to speak of Orthodox Churches as being "Sister Churches." Constantinople is, for example, a Sister Church. But, there cannot be a Sister Church to *the Catholic Church,* for there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. One cannot say that the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church are "Sister Churches." That would deny the Creed.

Exactly. That�s what I�ve been saying elsewhere online.

Moose also wrote that the Catholic and Orthodox Particular Churches...

>together make up the Catholic Church. The current RC understanding is that the Orthodox Churches are indeed members of the Catholic Church (the fullest sense of being Church), although imperfectly because of lack of communion with Peter.

I�m not sure Catholicism actually holds that Churches out of communion with Rome are in the Catholic Church (though the caveat �imperfectly... � may cover this), though it does hold that the Orthodox are indeed Churches like the Roman. (Anglicans and other Protestants are not.)

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 09-21-2000).]

To reply to Rusnak...

Yes, the Catholic Church holds that the Orthodox Churches are part of the Church of Christ. Section 17 of _Dominus Iesus_:

"17. 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. 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. 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."

Dave, Rusnak --

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I read D.I. differently, to the effect that:

1. There is one Church of Christ;
2. That one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and in her only (see fn. 56);
3. That the Orthodox Churches, due to maintaining a valid episcopate and eucharist (which are "ecclesial elements" that come from the Church of Christ, fn. 56): (A) remain united to the Catholic Church (in whom the Church of Christ subsists) in closest bonds and (B) have the Church of Christ present and operative within them (thanks to the "eclesial elements") BUT that the Church of Christ does not subsist in them, that is, it is not fully in them, because they are not in communion with Rome and do not accept the doctrine of the Primacy.

In other words: ONE Church of Christ, ONE Catholic Church in whom the Church of Christ subsists and other Churches in whom the Church of Christ is operative but yet in which it does not subsist. Therefore the latter are less fully the Church of Christ than the Catholic Church is because it is only in the former that the Church of Christ subsists. That's really what D.I. says, particularly taking into account footnote 56, and it's quite interesting ecclesiology because it draws a distinction for the first time between (A) "full" Churches like the Catholic Church and (B) "less than full" Churches like the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, but which are yet still "Churches", just not as "fully" so as the Catholic Church.

It's a hornets-nest of terminology, I agree, but when you read that passage together with fn. 56 I really think that's what this document says.

Brendan

Brendan

Brendan,

Some general agreement...although I think one can still say that Constantinople and Antioch (and Alexandria, etc.) are Sister Churches to the Church of Rome. Churches that are not in union with Rome are not conisered to be "fully catholic." Yet, they are part of the Church of Christ.

I do not know of any official Orthodox statements that are as optimistic about Catholics. Anyone else?

Dave Ignatius

Glory to Jesus Christ.

I think Brendan�s reading of DI is accurate.

Dave asked.

>I do not know of any official Orthodox statements that are as optimistic about Catholics. Anyone else?

No. Only opinions like Bishop Vsevolod�s in Chicago. Then again, the �only we of the true faith have grace-filled mysteries and you are bogus� position is also only an opinion.


<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>