Posted on 02/04/2006 4:55:13 AM PST by bornacatholic
Excellent post!
"But at other times, and in the present general viewpoing of most Orthodox, a distinction between primacy of honor and of jurisdiction is widespread. So if Orthodox are permitted to disown the strictest, most anti-Latin claims of the past and give more benign interpretations to them, then surely we Latin Catholics should not be accused of disingenuity if we interpret Unam Sanctam in such a way as to exclude Orthodox who accept Petrine primacy of honor but not primacy of jurisdiction and to suggest that perhaps even Boniface meant that."
We Orthodox disown what some of our hierarchs say or do fairly regularly. It is our obligation when they err. We even disown what local councils have declared. For example, we all are perfectly happy to ride on public conveyances with Jews and go to Jewish doctors! :) In any event, my point was precisely that you should be allowed to interpret Unam Sanctam in such a way as to avoid other unfortunate interpretations. I do think it is unfortunate that the Latin Church is in a position that in order to support a particular view of Petrine primacy in the here and now, it is forced by its ecclesiology to say something other than "that was then, this is now." It is precisely this acceptance of an eternal papal infallibility which cause the rub to this day and the necessity of a rather tortured working around such proclamations as Unam Sanctam. That does concern Orthodoxy.
You know, D, taken in a purely historical context, its easy to see why Boniface wrote Unam Sanctam (just as it is easy to see what the revolutions of 1848 did to Pius IX). I suppose the lingering problems from the Great Schism might be the genesis of the otherwise apparently gratuitous swipe at the Greeks, but as the article points out, the real fight was with the king of France.
"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."
Well I think its safe to say that now, as it has been at times in the past, for canonical Orthodoxy, its the former and not the latter as the salutations of both the EP and the MP (or their emissaries) to the Pope demonstrate.
You know, I had forgotten completely about Feeneyism. Its likely that the nun in question was a follower of Fr. Feeney and it is equally likely that the much beloved old Irish monsignor was not at all. 50 years after the fact I think I understand what happened. Thank-you! Funny how something like that can stick with one.
"You have completely dodged my point. My point wasn't the validity of the Catholic church, it was merely that Christianity isn't exclusive to Catholicism."
I agree wholeheartedly.
"I myself am not one of those who believe that Catholicism is leading people to hell, but I do personally disagree with some of the teachings of Catholicism, and I do not believe that they hold exclusive rights to Christ."
Being Orthodox myself and not a Roman Catholic, I agree with this too.
My point is that neither the NT nor the OT are the end all of theological inquiry when you seek to determine what The Church is. You need to see what The Church was that established what the canon of scripture would be (leave aside later Protestant amendments). By the time of the establishment of the canon of the NT at the end of the fourth century, the ecclesisastical structure which we see clearly in Orthodox ecclesiology today (assume some sort of real, exercisable papal primacy)had been in existence since the middle to late 2nd century (the idea of The Church being fully present in a single diocese composed of a bishop surrounded by his clergy and laity centered on the Eucharist, of course, is from the first decade of the 2nd century, around 105). As I said earlier, it was the hierarchs of this liturgical and hierarchial Church which were inspired by the Holy Spirit to discern the proper canon of the NT. Consequently, unless one knows and understands what the Church of those times believed, one is in no position to properly understand why any given book was included in the canon of the NT because the measuring stick which the hierarchs used to determine canonicity was "what the Church always and everywhere believed".
Now one could, I suppose, make arguments based in that knowledge and understanding of early Church beliefs and praxis, that The Church in the West or The East departed from those beliefs, but the reference point would have to be "what the Church always and everywhere believed", which is comprehensive in this regard, and not the scriptures which are not comprehensive in that manner or at least not so specifically comprehensive. Let me give you an example. The Eucharistic theology of The Church is firmly rooted in scripture, even, for us Orthodox and Latins, quite specifically so. We believe in the "Real Presence". Most Protestants don't, asserting that scripture isn't clear. But Holy Tradition, what the Church always and everywhere believed, at the time of the establishment of the canon of the NT was quite clear about the truth of the dogma of the Real Presence.
"You have completely dodged my point."
Oh, I don't think so. Your point is well taken, but its basis in scripture on the theory that it can't be right because it isn't there simply doesn;t hold up. Its also the problem with your statement that you have served in several different ecclesial communities but have yet to find one that lines up 100% with "the word of God".
Bishop Sheen said "There aren't even one hundred people that hate the Catholic church, but there are thousands who hate what they mistakenly believe the Catholic Church to be."
God Bless you for putting this contentious Document into context and explaining it.
"... it is impossible to obtain salvation except in union with the sucessor of Peter." (Raccolta, 1928 edition, Prayer for Reunion, no. 306)
In the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council:
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom He has given new birth into one body, and whom He has quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one body of Christ into which all those must be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God ... (Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, 3, November 21, 1964)
By the great Fathers:
Our forefathers gave the name "Chair" to this feast so that we might remember that the Prince of the Apostles was entrusted with the "Chair" of the episcopate ... Blessed be God, who deigned to exalt the apostle Peter over the whole Church. It is most fitting that this foundation be honored since it is the means by which we may ascend to Heaven. (St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 15 on the Saints, on the Feast of the Chair of Peter)
It is easy to multiply these sort of authorities, but it serves little purpose if three such basic ones will not suffice to convince.
Do words not mean what they literally say? Perhaps the Arians could have been accomodated after all, had the Fathers not been so insistent on a literal reading of "consubstantial".
Your personal opinions, while interesting, are not definitive. Holy Mother Church is both interesting and definitive.
Of course, last I checked, the resistance of the Greeks was not over St. Peter and his sucessors being entrusted with the whole Church, but rather what that entrustment gave them liberty to do. Otherwise, Holy Father's such as St. John Chrysostom would have to be cast into the outer darkness with the wicked Latins.
And if any should say, "How then did James receive the chair in Jerusalem?" I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of that See, but of the whole world. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John 83.1)For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church incapable of overthrow in assailing waves, and to exhibit a fisherman that is more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as "a brazen pillar and a wall" (Jeremiah 1.18); but him only to one nation, this man in every part of the world. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 64.3)
During the time of controversy during which Unam Sanctum was written, the objection of the Easterners was that they would be more than happy to obey if only Rome would prove its faithfulness to Christ by casting out the filioque and other controverted items.
"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?
The Feeneyites got themselves in trouble over Baptism of Desire. That is what the Protocol Letter from the Holy Office addresses.
Boniface VIII's Bull is referring specifically to the Greeks of the Empire, who at that time were quite resistant to the whole notion of the Venetians coming in and lording it over them and forcing their heirarchy to become Latin. The denial put forth by the Greeks at that time was a novel claim arising from this agressiveness that St. Peter had somehow not been entrusted with the Church in the East, because they certainly wanted no part of what St. Peter's sucessor was attempting to impose on them through armed force.
The correct question of course, is not whether or not St. Peter was entrusted with the whole Church, but what that entrustment allows St. Peter to do. That is the true difference between East and West up until now.
Did I say something was fictional? If your point is that Orthodoxy, throughout most of the past 2100 years was quite content with Petrine primacy exercised by a Pope who taught the orthodox Faith of The Church, well you are absolutely right. That would be true today, especially so with +BXVI on the throne of +Peter. That's why the discussions going on between our theologians with the support and backing of the Pope and Patriarchs is focused on defining the appropriate exercise of that primacy which is clearly something more than a mere primacy of honor. How much more is the issue. So far as I have been informed, they are looking to agree on what that exercise looked like, in a practical way, say before the Photian Schism. There are disagreements, I'm told, on that though not truly profound ones. One bright light here is that the world of the 21st century is a different place from that of +Photius and +Nicholas I and the involvement of hierarchs in government and vice versa much diminished.
Our brother K. quotes the letter from the Holy Office concerning the Feeney matter. It explicitly upholds the rigorous reading of Unam Sanctum.
I quoted the Second Vatican Council on this matter. It says the same thing.
There is no reason to twist it around another way.
"The correct question of course, is not whether or not St. Peter was entrusted with the whole Church, but what that entrustment allows St. Peter to do. That is the true difference between East and West up until now."
Well, there are and have been theological differences, some actually quite important at various levels. Most of those, however, have been looked at and not been determined to be insurmountable obstacles for one reason or another. Some, like the filioque, have had their explanations expressed anew to avoid problems while others, like the differences between Latin and Palamite theology on grace and the Holy Spirit are so arcane that perhaps 1 in 10,000 lay people even know what either of them are, let alone why they are important (and they are important).
Otherwise, your comment is pretty much spot on.
Sorry; I forgot to close the formatting on post 53. Clumsy of me!
You know, you're off base on your citations of scripture, your knowledge of the Catholic Church - and your grammar is awful.
Work on some of these things...then come back for discussion. Audacity? Perhaps your ignorant statements take the prize in that category...
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.