Ecumenism is Not Compromise, Pope Says

Pope Benedict XVI underlined the importance of ecumenical work, yet cautioned that ecumenism cannot be seen as a political effort, in a November 18 address to members of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.

The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, founded by Pope John XXIII in 1960, is marking its 50th anniversary. Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, and Orthodox Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, a top ecumenical representative for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, were in Rome this week to join in the anniversary celebrations.

The establishment of this Pontifical Council—originally known as the Secretariat for Christian Unity—was “a milestone on the ecumenical journey of the Catholic Church,” Pope Benedict said, and the group’s work has been vital to “overcoming the sediments of historical prejudice.”

Reflecting on the state of ecumenism today, the Holy Father said that there is a widespread belief that progress has stalled, and thus an “urgent need to revive ecumenical interest and give a fresh incisiveness to dialogue.’

For the Catholic Church, the Pontiff continued, the top priority in ecumenical work is dialogue with the “Orthodox churches and the ancient Eastern churches, with which bonds of the closest intimacy exist.” He reminded his audience that in talks with the Orthodox world, “we have reached a crucial point of confrontation and reflection: the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church.”

Speaking more generally about the ecumenical process, the Holy Father warned that it is not “a commitment that falls into what could be called political categories, in which negotiating ability or greater capacity to reach compromise come into play.” Ecumenical talks should seek for the truth, he said, and cannot be satisfied with mediated solutions to controversial problems.

At the same time, the Pope continued, unity in prayer is always appropriate, and prayer will be an indispensable part of every successful ecumenical endeavor. He reminded the members of the Pontifical Council that “we do not know the time that the unity of all Christ's disciples will be achieved, and we cannot know it, because we do not 'make' unity, God 'makes' it.” Therefore all Christians should join in asking God for that precious gift, the Pope conclude

It’s hard to get them to say directly that unless we submit to their “baptism” we are hell-bound with the pedel down, but that’s what they believe.

We are, admittedly, pretty thoroughly trained these days to not definitively say that one is going to hell (that's sort of God's job, not ours), but intentional rejection of baptism is a pretty cut and dried situation.

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

If somebody doesn't agree with the above, then, well, he or she will find out if he/she was right come the day of his/her particular judgment.

It’s hard to get them to say directly that unless we submit to their “baptism” we are hell-bound with the pedel down, but that’s what they believe.

Oh, and by the way, just for the record:

Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.
§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.

And from the Catechism:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

So if you're going to say what we believe, you might as well have it from the horse's mouth, as it were.

“Then, according to Papal Bull (Unam Sanctam), you will not attain salvation.”

Ah, no. That’s not what the Bull says, at least not insofar as the Orthodox are concerned. In fact, in 1302 no one, at least to my knowledge, had any reason to believe that the Bull had anything to do with anyone other than the French monarch and his government, as mom has noted. This is why neither I nor any other Orthodox Christian for the past 700+ years have lost one wink of sleep worrying about being damned to eternal hell fires because we do not “submit” to the Bishop of Rome...nor for that matter do we worry that any member of the flocks of the bishops who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome are for that reason condemned to the same eternal torture.

“Welcome to the Protestant Club!”

Oh, I’m afraid you’d find that our beliefs are likely, in general, just a objectionable, if not more so, to Protestantism than those of the Latins. But I’ll tell you what, ad, when you folks are ready to accept the ecclesiology of the One Church, at least 7 sacraments, Palamite theology on the uncreated energies of God, venerate icons, pray for the dead and be ready to chant with us “Most Holy Theotokos Save Us!”, maybe we can prepare you for membership in The Church! :)

“My knowledge of ‘Feeneyism’ must be limited to Google, but it seems that he was sanctioned for disobedience, ie. not complying with a demand to stop his interpretation of ‘outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation’ and not for the statement itself. Could you elaborate for me please what Fenneyism is and how it was in conflict with what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the matter? Thanks.”

There is a split of opinion among Catholics as to just what “Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur” really means. The Roman Catholics say that it means no salvation outside the bounds of the Catholic Church. Melkite Catholics, at least some of them and some Maronites and some Byzantine Rite types, say, like most of us Orthodox Catholics, that we know salvation is found within the bounds of the Catholic Church but cannot say whether it is found outside those bonds because we don’t know where the Spirit chooses to go.

Here on FR there is the unfortunate limitation of the word “Catholic” to the particular Church of Rome, as in Roman Catholic. But there are all sorts of particular churches within the Catholic Church, among which are the Orthodox Churches. Feeney denied, and some here on FR, today, deny that. The pope doesn’t.

The last line of Unam Sanctam:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

This is the problem with so many fundamentalist Protestants, they take things out of context.

If you'd have read the first line of that paragraph that states, For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior, you'd recognize, therefore, that there was no issue with any Greek Orthodox from that statement.

Unfortunately, like Protestants, you cannot attain salvation as long as you are not subject to the Pope.

Kolo can explain this far better than I, but Greek Orthodox ecclesiology is radically different than Protestant ecclesiology on that subject. While you utterly reject any authority for the Bishop of Rome, there are any number of Ecumenical Councils, accepted by both east and west, that affirm that authority. The difference between East and West is the use of subsidiarity in the application of ecclesiastical authority, not whether those lines exist.

Canon 6 of the first Council of Nicea:

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

Constantinople 1, Canon 3:

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

Nicea 2, Canon 17:

The first, holy and universal synod of Nicaea orders that the ancient custom should be preserved throughout Egypt and the provinces subject to her, so that the bishop of Alexandria has them all under his authority; it declares, "Because such a custom has prevailed in the city of Rome". Therefore this great and holy synod decrees that in old and new Rome and the sees of Antioch and Jerusalem the ancient custom must be preserved in all things, so that their prelates should have authority over all the metropolitans whom they promote or confirm in the episcopal dignity, either through the imposition of hands or the bestowal of the pallium; that is to say, the authority to summon them, in case of necessity, to a meeting in synod or even to reprimand and correct them, when a report about some wrongdoing leads to an accusation.

So the question of primacy is not in question. The ability of the Bishop of Rome to direct actions within another patriarchate is the question. But the Orthodox dispute with the Latin Church is utterly different than the Protestant dispute with the Catholic Church.

Kolo, did I capture the above accurately from your POV?

These statements about baptisms performed by other than Catholic priests, namely

Can. 849; 861 §1,§2; Catechism 1256

. . . are simply meant to be the broad lasso, intended to rope everything under the dictatorial authority of the Vatican (being the ultimate intention). I take all of these to be quite disingenuous.

Not meaning to be personally offensive to you as an individual, but (as per our understanding of the Book of Revelation), these notions would come out of the beasts mouth, rather than a horse's mouth.

We do not believe that any form of water baptism is requisite to the salvation of the soul today.

Further, we are already saved and KNOW that we are children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (1 John 3:1, 2), and are NOT waiting to see whether any form of water baptism, authorized or carried out by ANY earthly church or its ministers has any consequence whatsoever upon our eternal enjoyment of the Savior.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate your posting those citations, totally inconsistent with the Scriptures of Truth. I am printing them for our insititute students, and will use them to illustrate Rome's continuing efforts at using the "broad lasso" in ecumenism.

These statements about baptisms performed by other than Catholic priests, namely

Can. 849; 861 §1,§2; Catechism 1256

We do not believe that any form of water baptism is requisite to the salvation of the soul today.

Not meaning to be personally offensive to you as an individual, but (as per our understanding of the Book of Revelation), these notions would come out of the beasts mouth, rather than a horse's mouth.

Wow. Darn it. You've got our nefarious scheme figured out.

I guess since you've got our plot figured out so far, you should know this one too:

Can. 877 §1. The pastor of the place where the baptism is celebrated must carefully and without any delay record in the baptismal register the names of the baptized, with mention made of the minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses, if any, the place and date of the conferral of the baptism, and the date and place of birth.
§2. If it concerns a child born to an unmarried mother, the name of the mother must be inserted, if her maternity is established publicly or if she seeks it willingly in writing or before two witnesses. Moreover, the name of the father must be inscribed if a public document or his own declaration before the pastor and two witnesses proves his paternity; in other cases, the name of the baptized is inscribed with no mention of the name of the father or the parents.
§3. If it concerns an adopted child, the names of those adopting are to be inscribed and, at least if it is done in the civil records of the region, also the names of the natural parents according to the norm of §§1 and 2, with due regard for the prescripts of the conference of bishops.
Can. 878 If the baptism was not administered by the pastor or in his presence, the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which it was administered of the conferral of the baptism, so that he records the baptism according to the norm of ⇒ can. 877, §1.

That, of course, is the Canon where the supercomputer in the basement of St Peter's maintains a list of all Protestants and other Heretics (obviously if you aren't on a proper Catholic list, you must be a Protestant or Other Heretic...)

Just wow.

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.