Replies

Thanks for the link, BAC. It is, shall we say, "enlightening".

"Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth." D, did you try to sell me a "bill of goods"? I readily know and believe The Church to have been divinely established by Christ and willingly submit to The Church, but I withhold my "obedience" from the Roman Pontiff, while recognizing that there is a sort of ontological, real, exercisable primacy in that See when it teaches the orthodox Faith. Trust is a hard thing to build, D and an easy thing to loose. Here's a guarantee; if the Orthodox laity cannot trust especially informed and educated Latins, there will never be a union whether our hierarchs from the EP on down want it more than anything else. Now, perhaps the decree condemning Feeneyism has likewise been refined?

"D, did you try to sell me a "bill of goods"? .... Trust is a hard thing to build, D and an easy thing to loose. Here's a guarantee; if the Orthodox laity cannot trust especially informed and educated Latins, there will never be a union whether our hierarchs from the EP on down want it more than anything else."

That's a good point, Kolo, and one that we need to make repeatedly in these conversations. Charitable discussion, good will, and good intentions alone cannot form the substance of the conversations between Eastern and the Western Catholics. We must also have rigor, honesty, and thoroughness, so that in a desire to be in fellowship with each other, we do not overlook real differences. Respectfully, however, it sounds a little bit harsh to single out Dion. Dion is defending a specific opinion:

"But I do dispute your claim that the only way Catholics can interpret "deny that they are confided to Peter" is to say that it targets Eastern Orthodox. I don't really think that that's what Boniface VIII himself meant by it, but even if he did, that interpretation of it has been rejected since Boniface. "

"I am not glossing over this line. I think it's a valid question as to whether it means rejection of jurisdiction or means rejection of all honor and respect for the bishop of Rome.

"You see, dear Kolokotronis, not only Latin Catholics have had some variation in how they view these matters over the centuries,.."

Dion began by noting that it was an open question as to the interpretation. He pointed to two different interpretations, and then made the case for what he believes to be the better of the two. Dion has specifically noted that others will disagree with him, and he has repeatedly prefaced several of his statements with "I think," or "I believe."

"To me it is utterly clear that what Boniface is saying here is that anyone who says that they were not committed by Christ to the care of Peter, thereby denies being the sheep of Christ and cannot be saved."

Hermann disagrees with him, and the conversations between those two have been lively and enlightening. You can see a good example from earlier this week Here. Hopefully this conversation will remain amicable, but we may see a first class pyrotechnic display between two very knowledgeable and intelligent Catholics who don't always see eye to eye. I've seen them marshal separate documents to support their positions before, and many of us lay Catholics are left to ponder the evidence.

I'm hoping we don't see the fireworks though.....

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.