Replies

"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.

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?

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.

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.

"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."

Kolo,

Dion isn't being dishonest. I know of no blanket condemnation of the Greeks today, and the question has been whether or not their was a blanket condemnation in 1302 in Unam Sanctam. Dion began by stating that he was not certain what Pope Boniface's intention was, but he has asserted that it is reasonable to interpret Unam Sanctam as not being a blanket condemnation. If he is correct (and I believe Hermann supports him on this,) There was no blanket condemnation in 1302, and there is none now.

Dion has said that there are individuals who would disagree with him, but he states that he feels those individuals are mistaken in their interpretation.

You've cited the interpretation of the axiom "no salvation outside the Church," put forth in the letter from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in reference to the Feenyite matter, from 1949. Now this letter makes no reference to Holy Orthodoxy, and is aimed very specifically at the Feenyites. The document states:

"...the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities."

After identifying the problem as one of misinterpretation and disobedience on the part of a specific group, the Congregation asserts that axiom of no salvation outside the Church, which we consider infallible dogma, "... must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."

Then comes the rub:

"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."

Now I can certainly see your concern upon reading this. I'd like to call your attention to the wording "submit to the Church, or Witholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff.

Presumably we have little difficulty agreeing about submission to the Church, in the sense it is described here. The problem rests on the second condition What does it mean to withhold obedience from the Roman Pontiff? Now the letter notes that there can be restrictions upon this principle, and on this matter, I think Dion's assessment is a good one:

"The Feeneyite condemnation only applies 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."

I think Dion's point is supported by the letter itself, which speaks of people who are not Roman Catholic fulfilling these conditions. It also notes that the Feenyites are particularly culpable because "...they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine...".

Your point about honesty and trust is an excellent one, and it is well taken. However, I think Dion's posts were completely above board. As you've noted, however, Dion seems to have entered into a special category in terms of the standards which apply to his posts. Whereas, as you've noted, a lot of posts are simply considered hot air or uninformed opinions, Dion seems to have quickly achieved a status that few Freepers achieve in terms of credibility and interest. I've also noticed a lot less proof texting of St. Augustine around here since he started posting. ;-)

The minefield is treacherous. When you said,

...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.

To be better informed, you ought to know what led up to the so-called excommunication of Fr. Feeney, what the nature of the process was, of what it consisted and how it was eventually "lifted." By the way, the Church does not condemn a group of people, but only a false doctrine or proposition that anyone can hold. The Church cannot condemn a person, either. Excommunication is the extent of her power, which has temporal and supernatural implications, but is not a "condemnation" of the person. In any event, excommunication must be based on some specific denial of dogma. Disobedience, per se, is insufficient, because it presumes the order disobeyed was an absolutely just order.

To be better informed, you should also pay attention to the response the Feeneyites made to a "liberal" (Fr. P.J. Donnelly, S.J.), who published a theological paper at the time, in their next issue of From the Housetops, which includes this:

...in the modern liberal presentation of the Church’s doctrine concerning salvation outside the Church, there are contained THE FOLLOWING ERRORS:

1. One can be saved outside the Church.

2. One can be saved without having the Catholic Faith.

3. Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

4. To confess the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation.

5. One can be saved without submitting personally to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

6. Ignorance of Christ and His Church excuses one from all fault and confers justification and salvation.

7. One can be saved who dies ignorant of Christ and His Church.

8. One can be saved who dies hating Christ and His Church.

9. God, of His Supreme Goodness and Mercy, would not permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.

10. A man is sure of his salvation once he is justified.

11. One can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism.

12. There are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible.

13. There are two kinds of membership in the Church.

14. Membership in the Church can be invisible or even unconscious.

15. To know and love the Blessed Virgin is not necessary for salvation.

Ever since that reply, there has been a mysterious silence from Rome, except to refer back to the so-called condemnation. These 15 false propositions have not been dealt with, as challenged there in that little old magazine, long ago. So, why the silence? They've had plenty of time. It's been 57 years, now. Are they waiting for the entire generation of people who were alive then to die off or something? Let's keep it in perspective: when Abp. Lefebvre consecrated 4 new bishops, the new Vatican cranked out her response in a couple of days!

You have to recall the climate and history of the time. Post WWII, nuclear warfare, Red China rising, Israel setting up shop, Communist USSR rattling sabers. IOW, lots of problems. It's fairly well known now that he was considering an ecumenical council, but to address the dangers to the faith, which would have had to include Communism. It could be that Pope Pius XII was looking toward the definition of the Assumption, the preparatory texts of which must have been already in the works, even early 1949. Did he expect that would cure all his ills? And remember, it was he who appointed Annibale Bugnini to high office. Not to excuse his reticence, but he was certainly kept busy those last years by ecclesiastics with an undercurrent of common purpose: delay the council until a more liberal pope can be its head.

Any way you look at it, the 15 points above, at odds with Catholic Tradition, have yet to be answered by the Vatican. In fact, each one of them has become conspicuously larger over the years, as successive popes have added to the appearance that the Church officially approves them.