Posted on 02/04/2006 4:55:13 AM PST by bornacatholic
"There is no reason to twist it around another way."
Well, HC, there might be plenty of reasons to twist it another way, but there's little doubt about what it says without any twisting, that's for sure.
All of the differences such as Azymes and the filioque and such ultimately come back to whether the Pope has the power to do something (say, add a filioque to the Latin Creed) and enforce it upon the whole Church. So really primacy is the root of all the disagreements.
"All of the differences such as Azymes and the filioque and such ultimately come back to whether the Pope has the power to do something (say, add a filioque to the Latin Creed) and enforce it upon the whole Church. So really primacy is the root of all the disagreements."
I personally know two Orthodox hierarchs who have said exactly that, though it really comes down to the "something" and "enforce". One of them is quite close to a curial cardinal, who, during a talk on this matter by a Latin theologian of a particularly medieval mindset, muttered to the Orthodox hierarch this from +John Chrysostomos:
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies."
I have no doubt that He is doing the same for you. Whether or not you might be missing out on some joy He could provide you if you weren't Catholic (as I suspect), it is certain that we both shall serve and enjoy Him eternally.
Therefore, my wish for you is that you will experience all the abundance of His temporal blessings.
So every deceased past U.S. President including Ronald Reagen and George Washington, except John Kennedy, is burning in Hell and even Billy Graham will shortly join them.
And yet you claim any criticism of such a disgusting Doctrine is "Catholic bashing".
Now you say that scripture does not mention the pope or the catholic (or Catholic) church. You are quite right, those words are not used.
In that other pair of threads, it's pointed out that the word "Trinity" doesn't exist in the Bible either, but that doesn't mean the Bible does not teach the existence of the Trinity. Well, the Bible not specifically mentioning the Catholic Church or the Pope falls into a similar category, although not of the same order because theology and ecclesiology are not the same thing. But the analogy is still there. The Bible gives the foundation upon which we can perceive the other things, but with caution: because without proper guidance, one can easily misinterpret the Bible, as St. Peter warns us regarding how people even in his own time misinterpreted the writings of St. Paul. So we should not be alarmed to see confusion still present.
Also, the Ethiopian eunuch asked how he could possibly understand the Scriptures without someone to help him. By the way, he received Baptism from the apostle who was miraculously transported to him.
I must confess, Kolokotronis, that I do not understand your rather inflammatory, "sell a bill of goods."
I gave what I do believe is the prima facie meaning of "si . . . fateantur." I explained why, grammatically, it could scarcely be read as asserting that all "Greeks" automatically deny any primacy to Peter (deny any "commissos Petro eiusque successoribus"), and therefore as permitting a distinction between Greeks who deny that Mt. 16 or Jn 21 involved some kind of general authority of Peter and his successors over the whole Church.
This I think is the most reasonable reading of those Latin words. It would deny salvation only to those who read Mt. 16 and Jn 21 as not involving an entrusting of the Church to Peter and his successors.
But, correct me if I am wrong, you, Kolokotronis, do not deny that Mt. 16 and Jn 21 represent Christ committing the shepherding of his sheep to Peter and his successors? Or do you? That would seem to me to be the crux of the issue. I thought you would accept some form of Petrine primacy, though you dispute the form of Petrine primacy that we Latin Catholics hold and that that is what currently divides our churches??
In any casek, I do not see Unam Sanctam's ipsissima verba as incompatible with the Vatican II declarations or with the condemnation of the Feeneyite narrow reading of Extra ecclesiam. The grammatical meaning of the Latin permits harmonization fairly readily. When one adds to that the historic context of Unam sanctam as explained in the original article, the compatibility seems more clear.
That Hermann reads Unam Sanctam in a very rigorist Roman manner, does not mean that I sold you a bill of goods unless you privilege Hermann's reading over mine a priori.
If you do not automatically privilege Hermann's reading, then you need to show why the Latin I quoted cannot sustain a distinction between Greeks and others who deny all authority and honor to Peter and Greeks and others who admit some form of primacy but dispute the exact nature of that honor and primacy with the Latins.
For those posters on this thread who insisted that Unam Sanctam has nothing to do with Protestant denials of Petrine authority, I would caution that although the Protestant Reformation was 2 centuries into the future, some of the sects of the Middle Ages also denied virtually all Petrine authority on biblical grounds, and, as pointed out in the article, incipient nationalism was building toward the eventual denial of it on nationalistic grounds as happened in England in the 1530s.
I must confess that I do not even quite understand your allegation--exactly how did you think I sold you a bill of goods?
It never ceases to amaze, and sadden me how so many Christian ecclesial assemblies and Protestant preachers and lay people disdain any interpretive authority when it comes to scripture above themselves. I have met very few Protestants, at least educated ones, who reject the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, yet:
"Sacred tradition is the very Church; without the Sacred Tradition the Church does not exist. Those who deny the Sacred Tradition deny the Church and the preaching of the Apostles.
Before the writing of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the sacred texts of the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles, and before they were spread to the churches of the world, the Church was based on Sacred Tradition…. The holy texts are in relation to Sacred Tradition what the part is to the whole.
The Church Fathers regard Sacred Tradition as the safe guide in the interpretation of Holy Scripture and absolutely necessary for understanding the truths contained in the Holy Scripture. The Church received many traditions from the Apostles…. The constitution of the church services, especially of the Divine Liturgy, the holy Mysteria themselves and the manner of performing them, certain prayers and other institutions of the Church go back to the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.
In their conferences, the Holy Synods draw not only from Holy Scriptures, but also from Sacred Tradition as from a pure fount. Thus, the Seventh Ecumenical Synod says in the 8th Decree: “If one violates any part of the Church Tradition, either written or unwritten, let him be anathema.”" +Nektarios of Aegina
Thus:
"Also, always ask the Church, and she, with her great experience and her victory over falsehood, will tell you what is the truth. For you are of yesterday, but the Church is from time immemorial. Your understanding is less than that of the Church" St. Nicolai Velimirovic
The link that Bornacatholic provided is to EWTN on the Feeneyites. In that context, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ but refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff would seem to be intended to apply to Latin Catholics who have been reprimanded by the Church yet obstinately refuse to admit their error.
There's no hint here that this applies to those who are the offspring of centuries of schism and who for whatever reason, simply cannot entertain the possiblity that Roman Catholic claims about the exact nature of Petrine primacy/jurisdiction might be true. The Feeneyites asserted that the Roman Catholic claims are true, indeed, interpreted those claims in the narrowest, most rigorous manner, and, when reprimanded for their incorrect position by Latin Roman Catholic standards view of "extra ecclesiam," refused to submit to the pope's judgment.
Why do you say that this means that I sold you a bill of goods when I explained Unam Sanctam in a non-Feeneyite way?
I don't get it. The body of the Feeneyite decree restates clearly the standard 19thc "invincible ignorance" exception clause for those are out of fellowship with the Bishop of Rome but through no fault of their own do not "know" the truth of the Catholic claims.
Now, of course, some of us on these threads are trying to set forth the truth of these claims. It is possible that the providence of God has brought you into contact with those who assert them in order to give you a new understanding of them. But to do that you would have to have an open mind to entertain their possible truth. Only you and God can tell whether you or I or anyone else has sought honestly and openly after the truth or whether his understanding has been clouded by misinformation or misunderstandings, that is, by the faults of others, including 1st grade teachers, in such a way that you or I are not responsible for not "knowing."
But as in all matters of justice, one cannot be condemned for that which he does not know. The Feeneyites knew--had been put on notice--and they claimed to be loyal, faithful Latin Catholics. That made it much harder for them than those born and raised Protestant or Orthodox to claim "invincible ignorance." They had grown up in the bosom of the Latin Church and were being held to a higher standard.
But in these days, where interaction between the divided groups of Christians, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, is perhaps more frequent and more open than in the past where each group interacted primarily with its own members, invincible ignorance might be a much more complex matter.
All I know is that I will have to face God some day and answer for what I was given and how openly, honestly, humbly I responded as I reflected on the truth of the various claims I encountered. I am accountable for how I have listened to or not listened to what Eastern Orthodox say about themselves and about Latin Catholics. I am accountable for how I have listened to or not listened to what Protestants say about themselves and about Catholics. In the end I have to decide which claims are truest, whether and how some apparently contradictory claims might in fact be reconciliable and how some others are not.
It's a bit chastening to realize the seriousness of my obligation to seek truth honestly. We are all scarred by having been lied to, misled, manipulated in the past. We cannot let that make us proudly defensive, only more indefatigable in our desire to consider all claims humbly and honestly.
Does this mean Pope Benedict is automatically excommunicated because he is friend with a Feenyite monk?
"That Hermann reads Unam Sanctam in a very rigorist Roman manner, does not mean that I sold you a bill of goods unless you privilege Hermann's reading over mine a priori."
Hermann is a far scarier guy than you are, D! :)
"If you do not automatically privilege Hermann's reading, then you need to show why the Latin I quoted cannot sustain a distinction between Greeks and others who deny all authority and honor to Peter and Greeks and others who admit some form of primacy but dispute the exact nature of that honor and primacy with the Latins."
You know, D, thrity-three years ago I graduated with an AB degree in Classics; wrote my graduation thesis on two works in medieval latin as a matter of fact. I can still read it and know the subjunctive from the indicative, the active from the passive. Your translation is quite correct and supports your interpretation of the relevant clause. The decree on the Feeneyites is quite specific, however, at least in English and would seem to be authoritative. Now I have said time and again here that Orthodoxy recognizes some sort of petrine primacy and that primacy is beyond mere primacy of honor but carries with it real, exercisable authority. But as I said before, I am one who, along with about 350,000,000 other Orthodox Christians, "withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth." I do this because he is in schism with my Orthodox bishops and he is in schism with them because he and they, traditionally, have not taught the exact same Faith, at least that has been the operative thesis.
"I must confess that I do not even quite understand your allegation--exactly how did you think I sold you a bill of goods?"
IQ saw it immediately. It is absolutely crucial that we Latins and Orthodox be rigorously clear about what our particular churches profess because there's no point in fooling ourselves into thinking there aren't particular problems when there are. Your precise and excellent translation supports the idea that Unam Sanctam and by extension the Latin Church does not hold a blanket condemnation of Holy Orthodoxy or the Orthodox. The condemnation of the Feeneyites, which I assume is authoritative as I said, pretty clearly does. I am assuming you knew about that condemnation before you posted to me.
HC, I meant to ping you to #70. Sorry.
I think we're right, you and me.
You omitted one word from your summary of the Feeneyite statement that you claim condemns you: knowingly. By your adherence to the Orthodox you do not "know," that is, acknowledge, the Roman claims that the Feeneyites did. They knowingly withhold the obedience their "knowledge," their adherence, requires. If you "knew" that the Catholic claims (the Catholic claims you reject) were indeed true, you could not withhold the obedience to the pope required by such knowledge.
It's the invincible ignorance principle. I've been up front about that from the beginning. Please stop accusing me of disingenuity.
When you (1) acknowledge that we Catholics are right in what we claim about the Petrine office's jurisidiction and you (2) then withhold obedience to the Bishop of Rome, then you come under the Feeneyite condemnation.
I don't know how to make it plainer.
On the other hand, if you insist that you wish to be condemned to hell, then who am I to try to persuade you otherwise? Why must you unremittingly insist on finding cause to condemn us, even when we tell you that we do not?
It seems that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, in your eyes. That kind of double-standard just might merit condemnation, but then, who am I to judge?
Someone who claims such precision of language and interpretation darn well ought to employ context as he interprets the Feeneyite condemnation. It was directed at recalcitrant Latin Catholics. For the life of me I cannot understand your venom towards me. You accuse me in this post of knowing falsification of the Catholic tradition, of lying, to be blunt about it.
The Feeneyite condemnation only apply to you if you already were an adherent of the Latin communion and had professed obedience to the Bishop of Rome and accepted the claims of the Catholic, rather than Orthodox, side of the schism.
Tone it down, will you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.