Posted on 07/02/2009 4:38:43 AM PDT by GonzoII
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
That may very well be true, but coming from two Cagtolic priests it is difficult to separate one from the other. Wearing their habits and making public statements, they do represent the Church in the official capacity unless their statemts are expressly identified as private opinions, which they are not.
Your comment, however, still doesn't answer my question: what is the PURPOSE of continuing these posts? In light of your comment above, these posts are not only damaging to the Catholic-Orthodox relations, but also do a disservice to the Catholic Church because they are presented as views of two Church clerics whose answers somehow must be interpreted as not really reflecting the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
So, who or what do these two fathers represent? And wouldn't a little warning box need to distance the Church from their answers as I originally suggested? Instead, we are given promotional biographies of these priests along with the excuse that in the 1930's things were just more 'in your face.'
“And when were they declared heretics? Heresy is a serious charge and should not be spread lightly. See comment above. This is not to say that I do not take issue with some of the more extreme opinions in the Radio Replies.”
Its heresy to deny the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. In particular, they are denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Quite aside from what we Orthodox might think of that, if I recall correctly, Trent had something to say about that...along the lines of “Let them be Anathema”.
“To show Catholic teaching, and where understandings of certain elements therefrom have changed I have attempted to make that clear.”
Interesting excuse, G. I will say that exposing the public, unpunished, heretical teachings of priests in the Latin Church as recently as 70 years ago is something of a service. At a minimum it demonstrates how far Rome had drifted from the Faith by the 1930s.
Nor should the lack of such correction be construed to imply that Rome agreed with them at the time. I doubt very much that anyone in Rome, or even in their home diocese, was aware of this particular fault. Radio Replies is filled with hundreds of answers and I would suspect that this is not the only mistake. Unless this had been brought to the attention of the hierarchy I doubt that they took the time to read it.
The denial of the validity of Orthodox orders was not the accepted view at any time. This is clear by the fact that the Orthodox bishops and priest who came back into union with Rome have never been required to seek reordination, contrary to what is required of the Anglicans.
I would also give GonzoII some slack. He is posting the entire Radio Replies, which does contain some very good information. I seriously doubt that he is doing this to just to get this one response posted.
Are they wearing the cassocks of Orthodox clergy and speaking as representatives of the Orthodox Church? I doubt that any of them identified himself as a priest or bishop of the Orthodox Church.
I would really like you to tell us in more detail what you are referring to. As far as not sharing the Eucharist, this is not because we deny the Catholic Eucharist is True Body and True Blood, but because communion is an expression of unity of faith (rather than a means of achieving unity of faith) which we have yet to achieve, no matter how close it may be.
I would also give GonzoII some slack. He is posting the entire Radio Replies, which does contain some very good information.
Fair enough, but it should be prefaced with a "box" saying that references to Eastern Churches are wrong and that the authors, although ordained Catholic priests, are not necessarily presenting the official Catholic doctrine.
Besides, how can information that is clearly not official Catholic doctrine be "good" when it is shown to be misleading? How can you characterize the fathers as being wrong on the issue of Eastern Churches but right on other issues?
And on whose authority (since they don't necessarily reflect the Catholic doctrine) are these replies good information?
What is left of their credibility?
“For the fathers to be justly described as heretics rather than just erroneous there must be shown that there was an attempt by Church officials to correct them that they then refused to accept.”
Really? So unless a hierarch catches a heretic there’s no heresy? I find that extremely hard to believe, P. But this case would never have gotten that far.
“Nor should the lack of such correction be construed to imply that Rome agreed with them at the time. I doubt very much that anyone in Rome, or even in their home diocese, was aware of this particular fault.”
Well, P, this tripe and the two further heretical works of these characters received the imprimatur of “Joannes Gregorius Murray, Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli”. Did the imprimatur mean something different in the late 30s and early 40s than now?
Unless you can show a pattern of official statements that support the view presented in Radio Replies please refrain from attempting to portray this as the then generally accepted view; the actions of the Catholic Church show that it was otherwise. (The system for approving and imprimatur has never been perfect.) Or should I scourer every book ever written by Orthodox writers and portray the most extreme and bigoted opinions as the norm among the Orthodox?
I don't know where you got that from, but the Fathers clearly admitted that the Greeks have valid orders and the Mass.
"They may retain valid orders and the Mass — things which Protestantism lost ".
Source: 307. How does the Greek Church differ from the Catholic Church?
LOL.
“Is it not possible that Frs. Rumble and Carty just made a mistake and no one corrected them?”
I doubt it. I was told the very same thing as an elementary school student by Sisters of Mercy in 1957. That experience, coupled with the imprimatur, tell me that this was the belief of the Latin Church.
“Or should I scourer every book ever written by Orthodox writers and portray the most extreme and bigoted opinions as the norm among the Orthodox?”
Please feel free. You won’t surprise any Orthodox, at least not any cradle Orthodox. That a cleric, especially I hierarch, might teach heresy isn’t exactly news, P. We Orthodox avoid the hierarch worship apparently endemic in the Latin Church. The difference between you and your heretic clerics and us with ours is we can get rid of them.
Well, given that the Catholic Church did nothing to stop forced mass conversions of Orthodox Serbs in fascist puppet-state of Croatia (1941-1945), one is led to believe that this was indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. I would like to think otherwise, but for the imprimatur to make such an oversight just seems a little too naïve.
By the way, Petrosius, what was the official teaching of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 1930's?
“I don’t know where you got that from, but the Fathers clearly admitted that the Greeks have valid orders and the Mass.”
Gonzo, think about what these clerics are saying. Orthodoxy is not Apostolic. Their “Mass” and Orders are valid. Gonzo, that’s theologically and ecclesiologically impossible. They are not just heretics from an Orthodox pov, they are from a Latin one too...and the crowned head who gave them an imprimatur was a disgrace, though I doubt Rome ever did anything about him.
Once again, why do you post this tripe?
Those ordained by schismatic bishops, who have been otherwise duly ordained, the due form having been observed, receive, indeed, ordination, but not jurisdiction.
--Pope Clement VIII, Instruction concerning the rites of the Italo-Greeks (1595), D1087.
Can. 2372. He who presumes to receive orders from one excommunicated or suspended or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, ipso facto contracts a suspension a divinis, reserved to the Apostolic See; however he who should be ordained in good faith by any of them lacks the exercise of the order so received until he shall be dispensed.
--Code of Canon Law (1917).
[Note: The implication is that such ordinations are valid.]
Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (sent. cert.).
--Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1955), p. 458.
Interesting comments which seem to fly in the face of this from the Second Council of Carthage:
“...therefore, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, and according to the decree of our colleagues, men of most holy memory, that all schismatics and heretics who are converted to the Church must be baptized; and moreover, that those who appeared to have been ordained must be received among lay people.”
Of course 2d. Carthage was a local council....
7th council of Carthage! Sorry!
Thanks for that input, Petrosius.
Of course the Anglicans wouldn't fall into the category having lost valid orders.
Unfortunately this is not true. Anglican orders are invalid not because of heresy or schism but because of defect of form and intention of the Edwardian ordinal. From Pope Leo XIII, Aposolicae Curae:
25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.
28. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop", etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, "Almighty God", since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium .
29. It is not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether, when bestowed, as they say per saltum , on one who is not a priest, it has or has not its effect. But the episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa . So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.
33. With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
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.