|
3 members (AlethosAnesti, RusFrog, 1 invisible),
443
guests, and
126
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,642
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1 |
Stuart
You seem to forget that, other than in the UK and America, [ maybe Australia and New Zealand too - though I'm not sure of that ] the term Roman Catholic used as a descriptor for Churches in towns and villages is not used - these churches are just Catholic .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
It's all academic, because Unam Sanctam was not accepted by the vast majority of the Roman Church even at the time it was written. It is not, and has never been, a magisterial document. It was rejected by almost all the bishops, by the universities in Paris and Oxford, and by just about every king and prince in Europe. I didn't know that Rome argued that acceptance was required to make an ex cathedra pronouncement dogma? Unam Sanctam "we declare, define, etc." sounds ex cathedra to me. Unless you can only make ex cathedra statements after Vatican I. Anyway, here we go again in this usual post-hoc Latin game of clutching at straws (Unam Sanctam isn't ex cathedra, or isn't dogma, or it was understood as dogma at the time but isn't now, etc etc) to try and justify later statements that were made without reference to prior ones.Otsheylnik, I think what Stuart is pointing out here is that reality works an awful lot like the Orthodox teaching in this case. Boniface VIII wanted to be recognized as the universal civil ruler as well as the universal spiritual leader, and tried to make it a matter of dogma. (Just one problem here: how do you make something inherently secular a matter of dogma?) It wasn't going to matter, though, since the people just quietly ignored Pope Boniface's claims. This isn't "clutching at straws" at all. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Similarly, in the Decretae Papae, Gregory VII Hildebrand declared the temporal supremacy of the Popes over all secular rulers, up to and including emperors. This remained Catholic doctrine for centuries, which allowed Popes to excommunicate rulers, place whole countries under interdiction, and release subjects from their allegiance to the monarch.
Supposedly, this could only be done for "religious" reasons, but as the Pope was a temporal ruler himself, inevitably he began wielding it as a weapon against his political opponents. Gradually, through misuse, the weapon lost its efficacy, so that when Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth I of England, (a) everybody yawned; and (b) her Catholic subjects affirmed their loyalty to the Queen as being something separate from their fidelity to the Catholic Church. That was the last time any Pope tried to claim temporal supremacy.
In 1958, Pope Pius XII quietly repudiated the doctrine, noting that it was not part of the eternal deposit of faith, but something that was temporally and culturally conditioned, "inevitable, perhaps, given the political culture of medieval Europe". That this had been taught as an "infallible" doctrine for centuries, for denial of which scores of people were executed, shows both the misuse of the term "dogma", and the extent to which the Catholic Church can, when confronted with facts, walk away from that which it had once taught "infallibly".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8 |
Just as a matter of interest - in China the word for Catholic is "Christianity", for Protestant "new religion", for Orthodox "eastern orthodox religion". Chinese terms for God and Christianity
Main article: Chinese terms for God
Terms used to refer to God in Chinese differ even among Christians.
Arriving in China during the Tang dynasty, the earliest Christian missionaries from the Church of the East referred to their religion as Jǐng jiào (景教, literally, "bright teaching"). Originally, some Catholic missionaries and scholars advanced the use of Shàngdì (上帝, literally, "The Emperor from Above"), as being more native to the Chinese language, but ultimately the Catholic hierarchy decided that the more Confucian term, Tiānzhǔ (天主, literally, "Lord of Heaven"), was to be used, at least in official worship and texts. Within the Catholic Church, the term 'gōng jiào (公教, literally "universal teaching") is not uncommon, this being also the original meaning of the word "catholic".
When Protestants finally arrived in China in the 19th c., they favored Shangdi over Tianzhu. Many Protestants also use Yēhéhuá (耶和华, a transliteration of Jehovah）or Shēn (神), which generically means "god" or "spirit", although Catholic priests are called shénfù (神父, literally "spiritual father"). Meanwhile, the Mandarin Chinese transliteration of "Christ," used by all Christians, is Jīdū (基督).
Catholics and Protestants
The modern Chinese language generally divides Christians into two groups: adherents of Catholicism, Tiānzhǔ jiào (天主教), and adherents of Jīdū jiào (基督教)—literally, "Christianity"— or Jīdū Xīnjiào (基督新教), "New Religion"- Protestantism. Chinese speakers see Catholicism and Protestantism as distinct religions, even though the degree of distinction is not made in the Western world. Thus, in Western languages, the term "Christianity" can subsume both Protestants and Catholics (i.e. Christians as opposed to, for example, Hindus or Jews). Yet in Chinese, there is not a commonly used term that can subsume the two (today, in Chinese Catholic literature, the term "jīdū zōngjiào" （基督宗教) is used to signify all Christian sects, as the term in Chinese means "religion of Christ"). Eastern Orthodoxy is called Dōngzhèng jiào (東正教), which is simply a literal translation of "Eastern Orthodox Religion" into Chinese.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167 |
Outstanding post Otsheylnik. Will read more into the information.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 17 |
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."
Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167 |
My point, though, is that if the Church can rectify a pervasive wrong that was ongoing for nearly 2000 years, she is certainly capable of rectifying other such wrongs--such as the Schism.
Peace,
Deacon Richard Thank you for making that post about Vatican II's "repeal", so to speak, of the doctrine of supersessionism. DId previous councils rule that the nature of the covenant between God and Israel was fully "null and void?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848 |
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."
Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware I don't have any bones with that. All that that is saying is that Church is not a jurisdiction, visible or otherwise. If we are going to admit that, however, then we cannot at the same time support the proposition that being under the jurisdiction of Rome equates to being in the Church. That leads to the question of the original poster: if the Church exists beyond the bounds of those who have submitted to the Pontiff, then what does it actually avail to do so?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 17 |
"I don't have any bones with that. All that that is saying is that Church is not a jurisdiction, visible or otherwise. If we are going to admit that, however, then we cannot at the same time support the proposition that being under the jurisdiction of Rome equates to being in the Church. That leads to the question of the original poster: if the Church exists beyond the bounds of those who have submitted to the Pontiff, then what does it actually avail to do so?"
To be "visible" member in Orthodox Church means, actually, the same as in Catholic Church - to be "under somebody", in Eastern Orthodox Church to be under bishop, (as well as in Catholic Church), bishop who with other bishops ia a part of "greater picture", which ends with patriarchs with the primacy of bishop of Constantinopol in honor.
Or to say in fulness: Eastern Orthodox Church recognize bishop of Rome (Pope) as first in honor ...
Only in Protestant˙s religious communities (not churches), everyone is "bishop and Pope" for him/herself.
In conclusion: only Catholic and Orthodox Church can be called Church, and to be visible member means primarily to be under bishop who is/are successor of Apostoles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 264 |
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ... If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say." - Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware I don't have any bones with that. All that that is saying is that Church is not a jurisdiction, visible or otherwise. If we are going to admit that, however, then we cannot at the same time support the proposition that being under the jurisdiction of Rome equates to being in the Church. That leads to the question of the original poster: if the Church exists beyond the bounds of those who have submitted to the Pontiff, then what does it actually avail to do so? I'm not an expert on this topic, but am sure that the person's knowledge and will play into it. To take extreme examples, one presumes that an educated adult that is fully conscious of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic communion, but rejects it for some selfish motive - he almost certainly has a problem. On the other hand, a newly baptized babe, although his parents be Protestant, could not possibly choose schism and heresy for himself - one imagines that this child is in the bosom of the Church. The status of everyone else in the middle is above my pay grade; actually, all of this is really, thus the verbal qualifiers in my examples. The allegorical sense of the Old Testament's relationship between Old Israel (the old Church) and the Gentiles is probably also illuminating. There are indeed Gentiles (post-Abraham) with either a close-but-not-quite relationship to Israel, such as Urias; and others who appear to fear God, as did Hiram of Tyre. Then of course the peculiar case Nabuchodonosor, an explication of which is beyond my power. And clearly there were many others not mentioned in Scripture. However, regardless of whether 99% or 1% of the Gentiles living concurrently with the Old Law were saved, their scant presence in the Old Testament must be a hint that theirs is not the normative way to salvation.
The point is, though, that trusting in God's infinite mercy doesn't equate to a presumption that jurisdiction does not matter, especially if one knows better.
Last edited by Booth; 10/05/12 08:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
To take extreme examples, one presumes that an educated adult that is fully conscious of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic communion Just how would a person become "conscious" of this "necessity"? Can it be proven logically? Can it be demonstrated historically? Or is it merely a polemical device? At best, one can speak of the desirability of being in communion with the Church of Rome, for a host of empirical reason relating to the need for unity, for primacy as a counterbalance to conciliarity and form many other reasons. But necessity? One could just as easily say it is necessary for salvation to be in communion with the Church of Constantinople, or of Moscow, or of Antioch or Alexandria. Given that the Church of Rome itself has acknowledged that these Apostolic Churches are fully sufficient to ensure the salvation of their adherents, and has foresworn proselytization of their members, it would seem that Rome itself does not believe that communion with itself is a "necessity", merely a desired end state. The necessity would seem to be adherence to the Apostolic Tradition, which is embodied in all true Churches, whether or not these are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Hence Rome's behavior to them is quite different than her behavior towards the (non-Apostolic) Protestant "ecclesial communities".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 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.58 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.59 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."
"Dominus Iesus"
http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
dr. Scott Hahn (frormer Evangelical)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
To take extreme examples, one presumes that an educated adult that is fully conscious of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic communion Just how would a person become "conscious" of this "necessity"? Can it be proven logically? Can it be demonstrated historically? Or is it merely a polemical device? Stuart, In fairness to our brother, Booth, many concepts from Western Scholasticism are so pervasive in our Catholic thinking that we often use them without thinking. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 264 |
To take extreme examples, one presumes that an educated adult that is fully conscious of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic communion Just how would a person become "conscious" of this "necessity"? Can it be proven logically? Can it be demonstrated historically? Or is it merely a polemical device? I don't claim to know souls. God does, though, which is really what matters to the person, at the time of death. One could just as easily say it is necessary for salvation to be in communion with the Church of Constantinople, or of Moscow, or of Antioch or Alexandria. One could say that, but if one did, one would be wrong. I'm not an expert on it, and this ground has been tread quite well over the years, and everyone is likely familiar enough with the competing ecclesiological visions that I believe I can refrain from doing a poor job of laying mine out for everyone. ... it would seem that Rome itself does not believe that communion with itself is a "necessity", merely a desired end state. The necessity would seem to be adherence to the Apostolic Tradition, which is embodied in all true Churches, whether or not these are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I don't think it's that simple - and the reality is much more personalist - as my original post lays out. Would "normative necessity" make it more digestible? Petrine supremacy is an Apostolic Tradition. As for what ecclesiological decisions Rome does and doesn't make, especially within living memory, I don't pretend to understand. In fairness to our brother, Booth, many concepts from Western Scholasticism are so pervasive in our Catholic thinking that we often use them without thinking. Father Deacon, this could mean a few different things, and I'm not sure which one you intended, but am pretty sure that whichever it is that you are being charitable towards me, and so thank you. Western Scholasticism, although not something I study much or am particularly inspired by, does contain much practical wisdom, and I am therefore comfortable having it in the back of my dialectical toolbox.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848 |
To take extreme examples, one presumes that an educated adult that is fully conscious of the necessity of belonging to the Catholic communion [\i]Just how would a person become "conscious" of this "necessity"? Can it be proven logically? Can it be demonstrated historically? Or is it merely a polemical device?[/i] At best, one can speak of the desirability of being in communion with the Church of Rome, for a host of empirical reason relating to the need for unity, for primacy as a counterbalance to conciliarity and form many other reasons. But necessity? One could just as easily say it is necessary for salvation to be in communion with the Church of Constantinople, or of Moscow, or of Antioch or Alexandria. Given that the Church of Rome itself has acknowledged that these Apostolic Churches are fully sufficient to ensure the salvation of their adherents, and has foresworn proselytization of their members, it would seem that Rome itself does not believe that communion with itself is a "necessity", merely a desired end state. The necessity would seem to be adherence to the Apostolic Tradition, which is embodied in all true Churches, whether or not these are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Hence Rome's behavior to them is quite different than her behavior towards the (non-Apostolic) Protestant "ecclesial communities". Outstanding post.
|
|
|
|
|
