Posted on 12/08/2009 11:41:52 AM PST by Gamecock
“Speaking the truth plainly is more than sufficient for this. No reason to act all wounded by mere words, lies, and misrepresentations.”
I’m not the one calling people Pope when they disagree with them. Sounds like someone started acting wounded by mere words.
Freegards
I appreciate seeing discussions like yours with Mad Dawg. Nobody gets anywhere with insults and degredation. I wish some of the people on these threads would see that.
Thanks to both of you.
Well, it’s “brother” in Christ but I quite enjoyed the discussion!
God bless you!
Not exactly.
A schism is a separation from communion with the Church. As it stands, I, as a Latin Rite Catholic, have no problems worshiping with my local Ruthenian or Maronite parish and they have no problems worshiping with my Latin Rite parish.
;-)
;-)
“A schism is a separation from communion with the Church.”
The word “schism” is any division; it isn’t a Catholic-only term.
I'm not surprised.
Basing an attitude toward the development of doctrine that founded it on doubt that God would protect the Catholic Church from error is what I would never want to answer for.
I think you have the wrong church in mind. The catholic church has been protected and preserved throughout the ages, including the Dark Ages which was the zenith of your church's power. Even at the height of Romes power it could not exterminate those Christians that attempted to hold to Scripture as the rule of faith. A remnant always survived.
A great example of how bad it is to have doctrine "develop" over time is the misplaced over emphasis on Mary. As Mary's role "developed" you see her perpetual virginity being promoted as fact. Mary goes from being referred to as "woman" by Jesus to a "suitable vessel" by Ignatius to "Mother of God" by Origen. All this in about a 200 yr period of "development". Now it is a dogma that RC's must believe that Mary was born without sin and was assumed into heaven. Also, she is supposed to be able to hear millions of prayers simultaneously and discern which are worthy of special attention.
I'll stick to what doesn't change, Scripture.
Ijohn 1:3-4 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. (emphasis mine)
Well, let's check on that:
| Schism: | A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church. Although St. Paul used the term to condemn the factions at Corinth, these were not properly schismatical, but petty cliques that favored one or another Apostle. A generation later Clement I reprobated the first authentic schism of which there is record. Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians also gives an accurate description of the concept. "Why do we wrench and tear apart the members of Christ," he asks, "and revolt against our own bodyk and reach such folly as to forget that we are members of one another?" While the early Church was often plagued with heresy and schism, the exact relation between the two divisive elements was not clarified until later in the patristic age. "By false doctrines concerning God," declared St. Augustine, "heretics wound the faith; by sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe." Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. (Etym. Latin schisma; from Greek skhisma, a split, division, from skhizein, to tear, rend.) From the Modern Catholic Dictionary |
| Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of the New Testament. By this name St. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): "I beseech you, brethren", he writes, ". . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (ibid., i, 10). The union of the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered "that there might be no schism in the body" (1 Corinthians 12:25). Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (On Faith and the Creed 9). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy. Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy. Formerly a man was rightly considered a schismatic when he disregarded the authority of his own bishop; hence the words of St. Jerome quoted above. Before him St. Cyprian had said: "It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop" (Epist., lxvi, 8). Long before, St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: "Where the bishop is there is the community, even as where Christ is there is the Catholic Church" (Smyrnæans 8.2). Now through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes the preponderant rôle of the sovereign pontiff in the constitution of ecclesiastical unity, the mere fact of rebelling against the bishop of the diocese is often a step toward schism; it is not a schism in him who remains, or claims to remain, subject to the Holy See. In the material sense of the word there is schism, that is rupture of the social body, if there exist two or more claimants of the papacy, each of whom has on his side certain appearances of right and consequently more or less numerous partisans. But under these circumstances good faith may, at least for a time, prevent a formal schism; this begins when the legitimacy of one of the pontiffs becomes so evident as to render adhesion to a rival inexcusable. Schism is regarded by the Church as a most serious fault, and is punished with the penalties inflicted on heresy, because heresy usually accompanies it. These are: excommunication incurred ipso facto and reserved to the sovereign pontiff (cf. "Apostolicæ Sedis", I, 3); this is followed by the loss of all ordinary jurisdiction and incapacity to receive any ecclesiastical benefices or dignities whatsoever. To communicate in sacris with schismatics, e.g., to receive the sacraments at the hands of their ministers, to assist at Divine Offices in their temples, is strictly forbidden to the faithful. Some theologians distinguish "active" from "passive" schism. By the former they understand detaching oneself deliberately from the body of the Church, freely renouncing the right to form a part of it. They call passive schism the condition of those whom the Church herself rejects from her bosom by excommunication, inasmuch as they undergo this separation whether they will or no, having deserved it. Hence, this article will deal directly only with active schism, which is schism properly so-called. It is nevertheless clear that so-called passive schism not only does not exclude the other, but often supposes it in fact and theory. From this point of view it is impossible to understand the attitude of Protestants who claim to hold the Church they abandoned responsible for their separation. It is proved by all the historical monuments and especially by the writings of Luther and Calvin that, prior to the anathema pronounced against them at the Council of Trent, the leaders of the Reformation had proclaimed and repeated that the Roman Church was "the Babylon of the Apocalypse, the synagogue of Satan, the society of Antichrist"; that they must therefore depart from it and that they did so in order to re-enter the way of salvation. And in this they suited the action to the word. Thus the schism was well consummated by them before it was solemnly established by the authority which they rejected and transformed by that authority into a just penal sanction. From the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia |
|
| SCHISM: A term generally applied to the division that, either wholly or partly, suspends the outward unity of the Church; also, in Roman Catholic canon law, the offense of producing or attempting to produce such a division, and further, the deliberate withdrawal from the bond of the Church by a refusal of obedience to its authorities Nature on the ground that their powers are and not legitimate. But mere insubordinaClassifica- tion to particular rulings or commands tion. of the authorities and simple resistance do not constitute schism. Where secession ensues from denying individual confessional doctrines of the Church, that is, where the offense of schism is concurrent with heresy, it is termed "heretical schism." On the other hand, in the case of separation, when, for instance, the papacy is acknowledged per se but the actual pope is declared not legally elected, the schism is named "pure schism." A further distinction is drawn between "particular" and "universal" schism, according as unity with the whole Church is ruptured directly, as by secession from the pope; or only indirectly, by separation from another ecclesiastical superior, particularly from the bishop. According to Roman Catholic canon law, schism constitutes an ecclesiastical offense chargeable before the spiritual tribunal, and is threatened with summary excommunication, forfeiture of office, suspension from holy orders, disqualification for church positions, infamy, and confiscation of property. From the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (a thoroughly Protestant source) |
So, in other words, if a particular congregation decided to have a friendly division into multiple parts (say because it was getting too big), that would not be considered (in a theological sense) a schism. Likewise, if a particular Church was granted autocephality, that would not be considered a schism (at least in a theological sense). A schism, while it might be polite, involves a break in communion, whatever the scope.
Whoops!
As a matter of fact, as I dropped off to sleep last night I did ask myself why I thought you were a sister and realized I had no evidence.
Tra la.
No worries - I mean, you were being nice and you had a 50-50 chance on that one. ;-)
Paul used the term and knew exactly what he was talking about...
It took your religion 5 paragraphs here, and probably hundreds of pages elsewhere to show that you don't believe Paul the Apostle understood what he was talking about and to put in your own definition...
And then you try to pass THAT off as truth...And what's crazier is that some people believe you...
The scriptures say:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (St. John 3.5) and “Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” (Romans 6.3-5)
The first statement of Christ is absolute and admits of no exceptions. The second of St. Paul is similarly universal and describes the effects of Baptism.
That Baptism infuses grace and virtues follows from “he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting.” (Titus 3.5-7) Also: “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2.38)
Little children do not need to repent before baptism, because they have no personal sins to repent of, only original sin, and Christ has not limited his Gospel only to adults, but emphatically extends it even to babes in arms: “Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” (St. Matthew 19.13-14)
This actually has moral consequences: if the child in Mary's womb is not fully what He was at His birth, then a fetus might not be fully what it is at birth. And so we find ourselves right next door to a pro-abortion position.
Also, she is supposed to be able to hear millions of prayers simultaneously and discern which are worthy of special attention. That to me is unremarkable.
And the interesting aspect, to me, of the disagreement over that ability is its reflection of a difference over what God is and what Heaven is like, specifically as regards time.
And that turns out to be about the role and nature of reason and especially the degree to which reason is corrupted by the Fall.
If reason is utterly unreliable, then we are in a position similar to that held by "orthodox" Muslims with respect both to God and to the Koran.
(This is not a disparaging comment, but a taxonomic one. If I am wrong in my attempt to characterize your view, puhLEEZE don't hesitate to tell me. I spend a lot of time being wrong -- ask my wife.)
That is, we cannot hope to have even the least understanding of God's will and it's goodness, so that (a)He could command us to hate him, and (b) if He did, it would be right to do so.
Similarly, we can never hope to understand the Bible. Our role is to say, "Yessir!" without comprehension.
We think that just as sexual intercourse can be sanctified in a Christian Marriage but can be fertile even if illicit, so reason can HELP us to the truth when it is informed by grace, and even not so informed can lead us to SOME partial (even dangerously partial) truth when it is used in the arguments of the unregenerate.
ANYWAY, Whitehead to the contrary notwithstanding, we find that God, when contemplated by reason alone, is found to be outside of time or timeless, while comprehending time.
Therefore, to be glib, Mary (and all the blessed) have "all the time in the world" to hear, sort, and process petitions. I'm pinging Beleg Strongbow because he is NOT in communion with the Holy See (I think) but still is aware of the scholastic way of thinking. Beleg: this ain't a fight, it's a conversation, a "frank exchange of views," and for that reason quite enjoyable and useful
Petronski solemnly assured me regarding my posts, which were nothing more than citations from approved sources like the Popes and Councils, St. Thomas Aquinas, and various catechisms used in the US under episcopal approbation that:
Your posts do not reflect Catholic teaching.
Sounds like someone started acting wounded by mere words.
Or perhaps that someone else doesn't understand the concept of sarcasm.
...can be used to "prove" things that are NOT Catholic teaching, as you have demonstrated.
GESUNDHEIT!
I do appreciate your comments, they are well-written and informative as to your beliefs.
I wasn’t really trying to get into a discussion of whether this particular declaration was a “game-changer” in terms of the church, but it was still interesting to read your historical persepective.
It seems at a shallow glance that the bloodline can be asserted because the decisions are made by the head of the church. The head of the church is always presumed to have the keys, and therefore what he binds or looses defines the church’s position, and if it WAS a change from previous practice or dogma (not saying it ever was, just a hypothetical), since the power is granted to him to do so, the “true church” is the one that follows the changes as specified by the leader, not those who disagree with the leader and break off.
And so long as there is a belief that the leader of the church is devinely chosen, and therefore not subject to question as to the possession of the keys, you cannot have a true “schism” where two people claim leadership and each form their own church declaring themselves the rightful heirs to the bloodline.
From outside looking in, without that belief in the inerrancy of leadership choice, one can imagine a leader who would stray from God’s path, and imagine adherants to the faith who see the true way rebelling against the leadership, and thus establishing the “true church” again outside that leadership, maybe with the hopes of one day reconciling and bringing the apostate church under the “chosen” leadership back to the fold.
It is jarring to a non-Catholic to see early believers labelled “Catholic”. I suppose this is essential if claims to the bloodline are to be asserted, but the denotion of membership prior to the establishment of the entity seems self-serving. On the other hand, from within the Church, the claim I presume is that the Church as not established when the name was first claimed, but by God himself, with the “originating” councils merely confirming and codifying an existance that was already in practice.
Again, looking from the outside, such a claim seems self-serving, but I’m not up for a discussion of whether the claim is defensible or not — I imagine there are such discussions of course, it’s just something that would require far more work on my part than I feel would be worthwhile relative to the level of concern on my part for a definitive answer.
Again, thank you for your posts.
I'd like you to explain how the Magisterium or the Summa teach things that are not Catholic teaching. I'm under the impression that they ARE Catholic teaching.
I am aware of this, whether It was a group of theologians paid to meet by the emperor, or a group of theologians meeting in a church really doesn't matter. The point being when doctrine "develops" over time it changes and is influenced by the political and social pressures of the day. Mary is only one example within your church. In the Anglican church it is homosexual bishops and same sex marriage. In both cases it is outside Scripture. Why would yours be correct and not theirs?
As to the term Theotokos vs Christokos the latter is probably more apt, but Nestorius had alienated so many the former was adopted. The term Theotokos is less appropriate because it implies that Mary was the Mother of the preincarnate God. She wasn't. The preincarnate God was begotten from the Father and preexisted creation. IOW, the Son of God preexisted Mary not vice versa.
If reason is utterly unreliable, then we are in a position similar to that held by "orthodox" Muslims with respect both to God and to the Koran.
This would be projection. Christians that hold to Scripture as the rule of faith are not supposed to check their brains at the door. What we do though is look at any doctrine through the lens of Scripture. If you can't find it, as is the case with the majority of your church's Marian beliefs, we ignore it.
I would submit to you that your church's Marian doctrines/dogmas have caused your church to miss some fundamental truths. For example, Jesus was born in a stable and laid down in a manger. Because of "developing" doctrine the RCC says Mary was born without sin. The reasoning is along the lines that God can't come into the world through a sin filled vessel. However, you don't see where He was born. A stable is filthy. It's where animals go to the bathroom, it smells and all kinds of vermin live there. A stable is not all that different then our hearts that God indwells when we become Christians. Your "developing" doctrine loses sight of this simple truth in it's attempt to counter greco-roman paganism.
“Petronski solemnly assured me regarding my posts, which were nothing more than citations from approved sources like the Popes and Councils, St. Thomas Aquinas, and various catechisms used in the US under episcopal approbation that:...”
And you called him Pope. No reason to act all wounded by mere words, lies, and misrepresentations, right?
Freegards
I didn't say they did. I'm referring to the way you are using them to contradict the Catechism.
I'll say again, if you want to know Catholic teaching on a given topic, consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
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.