www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Graceless Heretics?

Dear ZT:

Well, if the analysis is a subjective vs. objective one, then it would seem to be the position of the Church of Rome that one who is trained in Christian theology should, of course, come to the conclusion that the only path to salvation is through communion with Rome.

I will leave with this. I, personally, cannot buy that the kind and merciful God we all purport to preach and believe in gives a rat's kiester whether we are in communion with Rome or not.

I find that the teachings of the Church of Rome as articulated above are left-overs from the days when the Church used scare tactics of eternal damnation to keep the peasantry in line.

Well, guess what, we ain't ignorant dirt farmers anymore. The clergy is no longer among the few educated people around.

This is the 21st Century - a time where people are TURNED OFF by such statements as "if you're not one of us, you're going to hell." Heck, this stuff was way past its usefulness years ago. This has nothing to do with faith or dogma, eiether. It is politics, pure and simple.

It is politics that turned faithful apostolic Christians to come up with accusations of doing "violence" to the Sacraments by celebrating them without being in full communion with Rome. PUHLEEZE!

It is politics that led the Crusaders to sack Constantinople in the name of the Pope.

It is politics that allows the word "schismatic" to remain in the lexicon of our everyday ecclesiastical vocabulary.

I have said it above, and will say it again. If the "traditional Catholics" are questioning why Rome would even consider discussing unity with the Orthodox where they are not apparently willing to succumb to Rome's will, then ecumenism is truly dead.

Patriarch Lubomyr has said on many occasions that unity will happen when the people want it to happen. From what I see here, people want it only on their terms - and that's as good as not wanting it.

My soapbox is probably in splinters by now, so I just now shut up and brace myself.

Yours,

halychanyn

Halychanyn, I respectfully submit that this post is a mixture of ungrounded, a priori assumptions (like the first paragraph quoted above) and historical chauvenism.

If you think modern man is oh-so-enlightened compared to his predecessors, I would advise you to look at the world around you. In what area are we richer than the "dirt farmers" you mention? In material goods and pleasures. In what area were they richer than we? In the spirit. Take your pick. At least our ancestors had the HUMILITY to submit their wills to Christ (unlike we moderns). We are so good at rationalizing nonsense these days.

The comment about the sack of Constantinople is not appreciated. I respectfully remind you that the Pope of Rome EXCOMMUNICATED every single one of those Venetians, who fouled the name of "Crusader" by attacking a Christian city, committing sacriledge upon sacriledge in the process. Don't try to pin that one on the Pope or on the Faith.


LatinTrad

Gosh, who said "if you're not one of us, you're going to hell"?

Even Seraphim Reeves hasn't gone quite that far.

If you knowingly and obdurately reject Christ's Body, the Church, then you put your salvation in jeopardy. But if you reject Christ's True Church in ignorance--non-culpably--that's an entirely different matter. This has been the constant teaching of the Church from her earliest days. In both East and West.

"He has not God for his Father who has not the Church for his Mother." That's the patristic view--which, if anything, was rather more severe than ours.

I still don't get it. Why blast us Latins for holding a view far less severe than that of the Orthodox? At least be consistent and blast the Orthodox, too!

Blessings,

ZT

Dear All,

I've been reflecting on what is happening in this thread.

The discussion above seems to exclude a major player. God. Is faith a free gift from God or something that we can achieve by act of our intellect or act of our will? One can achieve an intellectual decision about where religious truth exists. That does not mean that one is gifted with the faith to accept it. Only God can know if He has granted that gift or not.

I sincerely hope that Ecumenicism is not dead, certainly not based on what is puported to be the whole teaching of the Catholic Church in this thread. It seem to me that the positions that are ascribed to the Catholic Church here are one dimensional. There are many nuances of theological explanation and reflections on the the meaning of what are simple doctrinal statements without their doctrinal context that are not being presented. I cannot speak about the postions that are ascribed to the Orthodox church.

It seems to me that making judgements about the viability of ecumenical efforts based on the explanation of doctrine by individual posters is not a sensible action. The positions taken by posters, myself included, on a forum such as this, are just that, postitions taken by posters on a welcoming and open forum.

It seems to me that we will know that ecumenical work is dead when the Churches as a whole decide that it is dead. Our Churches' teachers along with the rest of the members of our Churches have yet to make that judgement.

Given the prayer of Jesus that His followers be one in Him, I pray that that never happens.

The Spirit moves as He wills. He is not bound by our understandings or our explanations or our anticipations about how He should act.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

I would still be interested in hearing more about the nature of the violence that is done to the Sacraments by celebrating them when not in communion with Rome.

Dearest Inawe:

What do you mean by "one dimensional"? We are merely citing Lumen Gentium and the Decree on Ecumenism. This is not some "purported" teaching of the Catholic Church. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you don't believe me, please read the documents in question. They are readily available on the internet.

Of course we recognize that the Spirit blows where He wills. That is why we don't take a hard-line position like Seraphim Reeves'.

I am genuinely baffled. As Latin Trad has pointed out, it is Seraphim (snd his ROCOR cohorts) who take the very hard-line view re "extra ecclesiam [Orthodoxam in his case] nulla salus." Yet our fellow Catholics justify, rationalize, and explain away Seraphim's much more severe stance while lambasting Latin Trad's and my much less severe stance. What is wrong with this picture?



ZT

Dear Zoe,

Thanks for your response.

I have read both documents. The teaching contained in them is not limited to the pieces of it that are presented here. What has been cited here are snipets of Catholic teaching taken out of context, a context that is quite nuanced. They are presented without the theological and doctrinal background that make them more comprehensible. That is what I mean by one dimensional.

I am puzzled as to how one can conclude that the documents that have been cited claim that the Orthodox are not part of the Mystical Body of Christ that is the Church. In the context of the doctrine of the Mystical Body and the importance of sacramental actions in the life of the Body of Christ, I find it difficult to understand how is it possible to have Eucharist and not be part of Christ's Body which offers the renewal of the Sacrifice to the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit. It makes no sense to me to not present the docrinal context within which the meanings of the statements cited should, it seems to me, be examined. It is within this context that the subtle theological shades which enrich the meaning of the statement are highlighted.

The Orthodox lack little says Cardinal Ratzinger. Does the little that they lack mean that up to the point of the little that they lack, the Church of Christ does not subsist in them? Could it not be argued that it does subsist there up to the point where there is that little lack? Is that not at least a plausible context within which to understand the teaching?

Simply to present the quotes cited earlier ignores the much that the Orthodox do have. It seems to me that a distorted image of the riches of Catholic teaching about the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is shared with Orthodox and lurkers who are not memebers of Apostolic Churches.

Through discussion, is it not possible that we will at some future time find that we are one in what we know to be real, that we together no longer see that little lack? Can that not be inferred from in the words of Dominus Jesus? Is it not suggested in the Pope's request that the Orthodox join us in finding a way that will enable the Pope to exercise his ministry among the Churches without negating the authentic teaching of the Churches?

Something similar happened recently in the agreements between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Church of Rome. For a long time it was taught that the Churches believed different things. In the agreement it was recognized that the Chruches believed the same thing. The problem was semantic and not doctrinal.

Zoe, I am not justifying or rationalizing or explaining away any one's stance. I believe that there is a much richer teaching about the relationship of various Churches in the Body of Christ than is suggested by the snippets. I am concerned that the wider Tradition of theCatholic Church is lost when snippets of our teaching are presented as the whole teaching of the Church.

I believe that this picture is distorted. It does not represent Catholic teaching within the context of all of its riches. The snippet teaching as cited in this thread is like a piece of a stained glass window. Is it real? Yes. Does it stand by itself? No. Can it be understood without examining it in its relationship to other pieces of the window or the window as a whole? I don't think so.

The work of ecumenicism, it seems to me, is at least to honestly look at and try to interpret what we hold to be true as a beginning step to reunion. This requires on our part that we look at the pieces of the window; but it also requires that we look at the piece in the context of the other pieces in window and how they reflect on each other and thus amplify the color we see. It is even more important that we look at the piece in the context of the window as a whole.

I mean no offense to you or Trad Lat or Seraphim or anyone else. The beauty of the Truth and its riches are present in the teaching of the Churches. I think that it is important that we look at the whole as well as its parts and study the interplay of the different lights that help us to see what is sometimes hidden by concentrating only on one part.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

If I may make a humble observation. It seems that the same old arguments continue to go round and round with no one giving any ground. And it's only right that this be so if all that matters are theological opinions.

I love a good argument as well as the next person, but I am left wondering that when the representatives from the Catholic and Orthodox churches come together do they really seek the Spirit to change hearts to follow truth no matter where it leads or do they take the Spirit for granted relying upon their honored positions instead.

Maybe if all, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, theologians and laity spent as much time in prayer for true change of heart we would see true communion truly restored once again. Am I being overly optimistic.

Terry

Dear ZT:

Lest you forget, when I blast Vatican teachings on a certain subject, I am blasting, in effect, my own Church that goes along with it. If that's wrong, then I'm not sure I want to be right.

One could blast the big-O Orthodox as well as you are absolutely correct that they are, in some ways, "worse" than the big-C Catholics. Nor do I try and explain away the views expressed by Mr. Seraphim. For the record, I strongly disagree with what he has said and wish that our brothers the Orthodox could find it in their heart to soften their stance vis a vis us big-c Catholics.

Still, the topic of this thread was put in Catholic terms by refering to Orthodox schismatics.

As for the "if you're not one of us, you're going to hell" bit, how else can one interpret a teaching that says that anyone who subjectively rejects communion with Rome cannot be saved?

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear Latin Trad:

You asked:

How 'bout the fact that we can read, write and analyze for ourselves? True the secular world around us has become materialistic and has lost much of its soul. It is also true that people like you and I are able to achieve higher learning and intelligently question (not reject, but question) what both the Church and, for that matter the State puts before us. With the good came the bad and we, as a species, are still on The Way.


You also said:

I disagree. They submitted their wills to the Church and all its well-documented corrpution and excesses during the Middle Ages. I submit that's not the same thing - whatever time one lives in. History (viewed through our 21st Century lens, I will remind you) shows that the will of the Church is not always the will of Christ. I will not recount them for fear of insulting anyone, but you know what I mean.

Yours,

halychanyn

Excellent post, Inawe. And I would also point to what another decree from the Council, Unitatis Redingtegratio states about the "separated" Orthodox Churches (verbatum as per an official Vatican English translation):
I wish Roman Catholics would better study the entirety of their Church's teachings, not just a few things here or there that prop up their own personal vision of what they think the Church should be.

I think what Cardinal Ratizinger refers to as "little" is joint communio in sacris. Everything else seems to be in place, including the mutual removal of the excommunications of 1054 by Paul VI and Athenogoras in 1965.

Speaking for myself, I've been studying the customs of my Eastern brethern for over a year now and find the spirituality very illuminating and meaningful. I have added many eastern prayers to my daily use of the Liturgy of the Hours and can say I have been recharged.

Of course I need to acknowledge my Ukrainian Bro Alex for some direction .

Pokoj,
james

But when did I say that? Or Latin Trad either, for that matter?

I haven't read every post in detail but I don't remember having seen anyone say that if you "subjectively reject communion with Rome," you're doomed. We-uns are not Feeneyites!

Personally, I'm just saying what Lumen Gentium says: that baptized Christians outside the Church's visible bounds belong to her in a partial, imperfect way; that those now living in "heretical and/or schismatic" communions cannot be charged with the sins of heresy and/or schism committed by their communions' founders; that Grace exists outside the Church's visible bounds; that non-Catholics can be saved; BUT that anyone who knows the Catholic Church is the True Church and yet obdurately refuses to enter her cannot be saved.

We're talking here about a very hardened heart. That's not the same as someone rejecting the Church out of ignorance, semi-ignorance, misconception, etc.

Personally, I believe a lot of Jewish people will not be held personally accountable for rejecting Christ and the Church...to the extent that they've suffered persecution at the hands of so-called "Christians." Anti-semitism puts a huge roadblock in the way of a Jew considering Christianity. It's hard to get over that hurt, to be healed of those scars. And it's really hard not to associate "Christian" anti-semitism with Christ.

Jesus understands this. We are judged according to our lights. The more advantages we have in hearing and accepting the Gospel, the more severely we'll be judged for blocking our ears and rejecting it. But conversely, the fewer advantages we have -- the less "light" we have -- the more leniently we'll be judged, IMHO. "To whom much is given, of him much will be expected." And the converse is also true.

Only Jesus knows how culpable any particular person is in his/her rejection of the Church. Only Jesus knows about mitigating factors such as: past bad experiences with Catholics; invincible ignorance; deep, blinding prejudice passed down by one's family; whatever.

Only Jesus knows. And He ain't tellin'!

I'll leave it in His hands. But I also won't take any chances with the souls of those I hold dear. I'll pray, at least, that all men and women will come to know Christ Jesus in His fullness, in the One Church He founded--the Catholic Church.

Does that make any sense?

Blessings,

ZT

Inawe,

At best, what can be said is that heterodox rites which have maintained the proper outward "form", happen. That is to say, if someone goes to say, an RC priest, and is baptized by him, that is a historical, real event in time.

I'm unaware of any knowledge the Church possesses, regarding what may happen "invisibly" during such a rite. What is known, is that the Church believes Baptism to be an act of the Church - as such, it cannot exist outside of Her. Only the Body of Christ (the Church) can graft others into Herself.

What is also a fact, is that the Church of Christ has in times past (in fact, such appears to have been normative throughout the Christian west) received converts from schisms and heretical bodies (which maintained the proper outward form of baptism) without "re" baptizing them.

These two "seemingly" contradictory sets of data are not unreconcilable - for when a convert is received without "re" baptism, the understanding is that the Church is bestowing spiritual content to a previous, historical act. This is not (as some now teach) a retroactive validation of the past; nor is it an acknowledgement of some previous grace filled mystery (as others wrongly teach). Rather, it is the completion (which only the Church can give) to a form - the filling of an empty (if proper) vessel.

Seraphim

Zoe,

I think the problem is that you and I are speaking from different paradigms.

I agree, that the official RC teaching is not really (from it's own understanding) "Catholicism, Orthodoxy...same thing."

However, from where I'm looking at this, there is nothing to be gained in the order of salvation by union with the RCC. That is why I'm insisting that the current RC view is modified branch-theory; the basic recognition that the Body of Christ does not equal the RCC - simply that the Papacy is a God appointed organ for unity which we ought to be friendly with, and agree with. However, given the affirmation of life giving mysteries in Orthodoxy by the RCC, and a repudiation of attempts to convert Orthodox Christians to Catholicism, I don't see what value this "bestest" status for those who are "in communion with Rome" really amounts to. This is quite beside the fact that I believe the RCC to officially endorse heresy, and to itself be a schism.

From an Orthodox p.o.v. this makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "partial Gospel" which engenders a "partial church" or something along those lines. If one genuinely has the apostolic succession (which is more than the simple laying on of hands), and the true faith, then they are part of the Church - and it becomes a duty of charity to recognize such local Churches, and have fraternal relations/communion with them. While these relations can be temporarily interuppted for various reasons (personal sins, geographical/political factors, etc.), such temporary problems do not destroy the essential unity of the Church.

Thus, if the Orthodox are materially heretics and schismatics (though that may not be said anymore, from what I'm gathering from the RCC's more conservative elements this seems to be the case), it makes no sense to an Orthodox Christian that they are still recognized as part of the Body of Christ.

This is what I meant by "equality" - for there can be no "half grace" or "semi-Churchness"; there is the life of the Holy Spirit, the means of salvation, and standing as Christ's Body... or there is simply a human institution with only exoteric "Church" qualities...the form, but not the content.

It's no secret that Rome still regards itself as the visible head of the Church - or that they speak in terms of preserving the "fullness" of the faith. But such affirmations (once again, from an Orthodox p.o.v.) become meaningless, if they have no real consequences in the order of salvation. Simply put, Orthodox Christians are doing fine as they are.

Seraphim