www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Pope Benedict says Orthodox are defective

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/221/story_22159_1.html

Pope: Some Christian Denominations Not True Churches
Document reaffirms 2000's Dominus Iesus, says Christ 'established here on earth only one church.'
Associated Press
Top of Form 1

Bottom of Form 1

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document - formulated as five questions and answers - the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy's Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession - the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.

The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.

"I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics."

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope - a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.

"This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," the commentary said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said.

The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul - a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

Saint Augustine was not under the Pope but rather under the jurisdiction of Carthage. Was Saint Augustine also �defective�?

John,

No offense intended, but is there a particular new development here, or new focus that you are seeking to bring to or explore on the subject? I'm only asking because the Vatican's declaration is now nearly 3 months old and it has been discussed extensively.

As to your point on St. Augustine, while I don't know exactly what jurisdiction he fell under, I'm sure that it was one that was in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, making Augustine subject to the universal jurisdictional authority of the Roman pontiff. The Eastern Orthodox of today are not in communion with Rome.

I think that the Vatican document released this summer is in full keeping with normative, traditional Catholic teaching, a few ambiguities of Vatican II decrees and post-Vatican II pronouncements aside. In fact, I think a case can be made that the wording and content of this CDF document is, historically, rather mild in comparison to Pius XII's Humani Generis (1950) and Pius XI's Moralium Animos (1928), not to mention the pronouncements directed toward non-Catholics by the ecumenical councils of Lyons II, Florence, and Trent.

Regards to all,
Robster

I am new to this board but would like to make a couple of comments.

First of all Benedict's comments regarding the "defective" condition of the Catholic and Orthodox East is sort of like a third world country calling the United States an impoverished nation.

The innovations and departure of the Latin West from it's once Orthodox roots finds itself in an endless sea of novelty. Even the most ardent Roman apologist would have to admit that Roman Catholicism bears little resemblance liturgically and even theologically to it's predecessors of a hundred years ago let alone any semblance to the ancient Church.

Recent papal pronouncements regarding worship of The Holy Trinity being on par with the worship of Allah, a fictitious god invented by a mad Bedouin being but one recent and glaring example of it's theological digression.

Robster made a comment on Augustine being "subject" to the Roman Pontiff during his own episcopacy in North Africa. The historical facts do not back up that statement in light of their resistance to Zosimus and his departure from genuine Catholic Tradition.

Pope Zosimus 417-418 rebuked Augustine and the other Bishops in that region for their declaring, (rightfully so)the teachings of Pelagius as being heretical. These North African Bishops in direct defiance of the obviously fallible Roman Pontiff convened their own regional council without the consent of Zosimus in 418 and once again condemned the teachings of Pelagius who was teaching that perfection apart from the grace of God was obtainable by mans own effort or will.

They also pointed out to Zosimus that he was also failing to uphold the the Orthodox view of his predecessor Innocent on this very matter. I guess Zosimus hadn't yet heard of a Roman Bishop's unique charism of infallibility when it comes to a matter of the faith. He didn't recognize it in a predecessor and certainly failed to appropiate it during his own short pontificate.

Was Augustine in union with Rome? He was, but they were not and would not subject themselves to papal authority or direction when the Roman Bishop wandered from the Faith. This was neither the first or last time such "defects" would be found in Rome.

7968,

Regardless of what one thinks of the Catholic faith, I think it's perfectly fair to say that the CDF pronouncement this summer is in keeping with that faith, and that no meaningful departure from it could or should have been expected.

While I'm not famiilar with the details of Pope Zosimus, I think it's fair to say that if Augustine were with us here, he would acknowledge that he falls under the authority of the Pope of Rome. The various levels and nature of that authority, I think, have been extensively hammered out over time, and I think are covered in such material such as Ad Tuenedam Fidem of 1998.

If the effort here is on behalf of Eastern Orthodox, I would simply refer you to the works of people like James Likoudis and Dave Armstrong. I believe they have extensively covered these issues, and I believe they are far more cogent and persuasive than anything that has come from Peter Gilquist, Frank Schaeffer, Clark Clifford, or Michael Whelton.

Best to all,
Robster

all those names are polemical converts to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism-none are what people would call great theologians of either Church

I agree with my brother Brian. Mr. Likoudis has at best a flawed view of the Orthodox Church and Byzantine theology.

All of the polemic works cited by robster, whether Catholic or Orthoxdox are exactly that - coming from a polemic perspective and will not (1) honestly depict either faith being discussed and (2) ultimately will be fuel to persist in the sin of disunity.

I add my voice of agreement to those of Brian and Diak. Look in the books section under Petrine Primacy for some recommendations. There are real scholars out there writing real Church history. Unfortunately for apologists (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or otherwise), history is much messier than they would like to believe.

Joe

Would you care to elaborate why you think Mr. Likoudis view of Orthodoxy is flawed? That is quite a sweeping dismissal of an historian by profession who is an author of a trilogy on the subject (reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism focusing on the see of Peter and the divine primacy to end the schism) with very credible endorsements as mentioned in the reviews of his works on his website.

There are but a handful, if that many, of Orthodox apologists who truly understand Catholicism and don't misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church. Inevitably the Catholic views of papacy, filioque, infallibility and other topics are misrepresented and misunderstood.

Yes, it is messy and Likoudis sorts out the rubble and presents historical facts and explains the theology.

Likoudis may not be a famous theologian but he is an historian and gets his facts right. He does explain the theology involved in the Divine primacy and shows the history of the papacy through the liturgy, fathers, popes and theologians and shows that there was a belief in the papacy and divine primacy even in the East.

(I figured that this news was old enough that this forum already covered this somewhere, but I could not find it so I just brought it up as a new topic.)

I don�t see that the situation today is much different than the days of St. Augustine. St Augustine was never subject to Rome, but rather to Carthage. As far as, being in communion goes, it is Constantinople, not Rome that has always kept the list of canonical churches, Rome is today listed in it! So, Constantinople is in communion with Rome, and all who are in communion with Constantinople are indirectly in communion with Rome.

If the Pope wishes to be consistent, then if Constantinople is �defective� because they are not subject to Rome, then St. Augustine is defective for the same reason.

Quoting facts is one thing - theology is an entirely different matter such as his tendentious (at best) defense of the filioque. It's interesting that after he made that defense, Pope JP II saw it fit to celebrate several times and omit it publically.

I see nothing compelling from either a historical or theological perspective in any of Likoudous' works. They simply do not either foster unity nor even foster greater historical understanding. I've heard him speak, and remain unconvinced.

That phrase was intended for a very definite reason in the West, which time has come and past, and it is time to return to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as promulgated by the Councils. As an Eastern Catholic I am insulted by his contention that the entire Greek basis for disputing it arises from a "defective" understanding of primacy. He has continually dismissed any notion of actually being faithful to the Councils that promulgated the Creed as being a credible response to removing the Filioque. He does neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox churches service by this polemic and contentious witness, which angers many Eastern Catholics.

As a Greek Catholic who accepts the Petrine Ministry and who also accepts the Creed as defined by the First and Second Councils that sort of oversimplistic, rote polemic is highly insulting.

PJII didn't recite the filioque when he was with Greeks! It is not needed in the Greek. It would be wrong in the Greek since adding "and the son" to the Greek would indicate that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from a source declaring two spirations and also two sources.
I have no problem with that.
What convinces you, convinces you
Wat doesn't convince you, doesn't convince you.
Sad but it is your right.
It is not passed. It has a part of western tradition and to remove it now would say it was wrong. It isn't wrong. I personally would like all to say "from the father through the son."
I am not sure where he says that but I'll take your word for it that he does.
I think this is what really bugs the East about the whole filioque. But the West had its reason which developed separately from the East. It did not change the creed to a "hetera pistis" different faith. It clarified it for the Latins against three heresies. The West was faithful to the councils.
Maybe so maybe not.
I'm am sorry to hear tht you are so easily insulted. I am sure no insult was intended.

I think Augustine would be surprised to hear that. Isn't he the one who said something along the line "Rome has spoken the case is closed" Can you back that up? That would be news if true. I don't follow your logic here. I see you think Augustine was in union with Rome. Augustine was not in union with Rome and deferred to Rome. The claim of defect is the lack of unity with Rome.