Posted on 04/21/2008 2:16:12 AM PDT by markomalley
So you've abandoned the non-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura? That's encouraging!
I must have missed that one. No, I go strictly by scripture alone. The church fathers are a swell bunch of guys (at least some of them) but when it comes to verifying what God has to say, I don't need to refer back to a church father's writings.
The false doctrine sola scriptura is not Scriptural.
Wasn't it Martin Luther (or was it Zwingli, I forget which) who first noted that 2 Thes 2:15 was a forgery. And, of course, 2 Peter (particularly chapter 3 verses 15 and 16) should not even be IN the Bible (it should have been excised with a knife, just like was done with those books in the Old Testament).
It's just like those other inconvenient verses: 1 Cor 3:13, pretty much all of Hebrews 9, pretty much all of Romans 6, and , of course, John 6. They are all FORGERIES. They are inconvenient verses that those evil papists put in the scriptures to try to provide false justification to help maintain the power of that horrible pagan Roman edifice.
You ought to know that by now...I am well and truly HORRIFIED that you don't recognize this after all of the time these good people have spent with you.
I’m interested in the nuts and bolts. Does unity mean everyone under one great ecclesiastical hierarchy? Does unity mean that Catholics and Anglicans fully accept each other’s orders? Does unity mean Benedict XVI and not Bartholomew II presiding at Patriarchal gatherings?
One ecclesiastical hierarchy? There is simply one body of Christ. Period. Christ set up the hierarchy for His Church during His ministry. He reaffirmed it after His resurrection. It continued after His ascension. The Holy Spirit confirmed it on the day of Pentacost. There IS a hierarchy. But I would ask how tight a hierarchy does it need to be?
In answer to that question, I would suggest that it needs to be conciliar and collegial. Just as it was for the first 1,000 years of Christendom. During that time, doctrinal disputes that impacted the entire Church were dealt with through ecumenical councils. That's not to say that ALL doctrine was developed through those councils, but, where there were disputes, the issues were settled in that fashion. (Of course, the most famous one was dealing with the heresy of Arius in the First Council of Nicea...from where the creed that most of us recite originated)
Now, I can't see any actual unification with the communities in the West happening until the major schism with the Churches of the East is healed. Hopefully +Benedict and +Bartholomew will continue the progress they've made along those lines. When that happens, there will need to be some changes in how some of the doctrines taught in the Western Church are expressed (the doctrines would not need to change, rather the way that they are expressed would need to change).
One example where we can see some rather significant changes is the example of indulgences.
Scripture points to the need for a purification of the heart of man, even after he has been saved through the waters of baptism. If you look at pretty much all of the letters of the apostles that are in the Canon, they call on baptized Christians to continue to purify themselves throughout their lives. In fact, in 1 Cor 3:13, Paul talks about a purifying fire that all will have to go through.The Eastern Churches and the Latin Church have a different understanding of how, exactly, this purification happens. The Eastern Churches see it as a series of way stations through which the individual must pass. The Latin Church sees it as a purifying fire. Neither one of those versions is a mandatory doctrine that must be believed with True and Catholic Faith (as we simply have no Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition stating exactly what the purification is -- surprised to hear that??). What IS known for a certainty is that there will be a purification for those whose souls are in friendship with God but who still have the "old man" in them.
The bishops (successors to the apostles) have the Christ-given authority to bind and loose. (Matt 18:18) The bishops of the Latin Church exercise this ability, in regards to the purification spoken of above, through the use of indulgences. Please keep reading.......... I do not know if the Eastern Churches have something that is analogue to this or not. (But this is not seen as a major stumbling block to reunification...by either side...) If you were to look at what the indulgenced activities are, you would find that those indulgenced activities are all prayer, scripture reading, pilgrimages to holy sites, fasting, etc. In other words, in general, all things that are highly commended for the good of the soul, anyway. Here's the trick: in order to receive what's called a plenary indulgence (an indulgence that states that you are free of impurities...at least at the time it was granted), the individual receiving the indulgence must have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin. If you are completely detached from sin, even venial sin, guess what: your soul has been purified! Therefore, there is no need to experience a purification at the point of death.
The Latin Church has, for at least a thousand years, expressed this in juridic terms. "Temporal Punishment due to sins that have already been forgiven" is the usual phrase. Pope Paul VI, in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarium Doctrina, starts along this path. If you look through it, it is still coached in some juridic terms, but it starts looking at the theology behind it and hints at the reality of what is going on underneath the legalism. For example, he states,
- The salutary institution of indulgences therefore contributes in its own way to bringing it about that the Church appear before Christ without blemish or defect, but holy and immaculate,(45) admirably united with Christ in the supernatural bond of charity. Since in fact by means of indulgences members of the Church who are undergoing purification are united more speedily to those of the Church in heaven, the kingdom of Christ is through these same indulgences established more extensively and more speedily "until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the deep knowledge of the Son of God, to perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ."(46)
- For indulgences cannot be acquired without a sincere conversion of mentality ("metanoia") and unity with God.
- He talks about the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed, indicating the ongoing damage to the soul that remains even after the sin has been forgiven.
- and so on...
Now I, for one, (speaking for me, personally, not for my Church or for any other Catholic) see that this path, talking in terms of cleansing, needs to be further developed in Magesterial documents. I also think that a unification with the Eastern Churches will help that along the way.
But the point is that as the Church moves along in her understanding of this concept, a lot of the Protestant communities' objections to the concept of "purgatory" and indulgences (which are intimately connected to this) will disappear. And, the abuse of those indulgences (which was anathematized by the Council of Trent) was the original cause of the schism, to begin with.
On the other hand, from my understanding the Eastern Churches reject the concept of Original Sin (coaching it in terms of a lack of grace, rather than the presence of sin). I think they need to re-examine that, as (IMHO) scripture pretty clearly points toward that concept within the Pauline letters.
Once the Eastern and Western Churches are again in communion, I can see that there would be a concerted effort to bring the communities in the West back into the fold. I think, doctrinally, for that to happen is that a lot of of the so-called objectionable doctrines will need to be prayerfully re-communicated, sort of like with purgatory/indulgences, as I attempted to do above. But I honestly can't see the Church abandoning dogma to achieve unification. Communicating it better -- yes. Packaging it differently -- yes. Abandoning -- no.
As to the matter of "accepting one anothers orders," a legitimate apostolic succession was lost in pretty much all of the groups that were formed in the wake of the western schism. (This lack of apostolic succession is the sole reason why the groups in the west are called "ecclesial communities" instead of "churches" in official documentation). As St. Ignatius said, Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.(to the Smyrnaens, 8).
In the case where there is a legitimate apostolic succession, I can see that it would simply be a matter of re-establishing communion. Where there isn't, it would simply be a matter of administering valid Holy Orders from a bishop who had valid succession. Not really all that big a deal (in my mind).
Ultimately, as has been said, I don't ever see a re-incorporation of the protestant groups into the "Latin Rite," per se, but I could envision one or two different "rites" that are mostly independent, but in communion with each other.
Hope my rather long-winded post helped answer your question.
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.