CWR: Most
Catholics probably envision future unity between the Orthodox Churches and the
Catholic Church as a re-installment of one world Church organization with the
pope of Rome at the top of the governing pyramid. A look at history shows that
such a model never existed, so what could Orthodox-Catholic communion actually
look like if it were achieved? A renewal of Eucharistic communion? The possibility
of an eighth ecumenical council? A resolution for the dating of Pascha/Easter?
[Considering that Peter was the
earthly head of the church with the Keys to loose and bind the heavens and the
Earth and acted on this commission throughout scripture and the sacred history
of the Church, yeah I do expect that there is a singular head, a visible sign
of unity which Peter is. To say that
such a model never existed where the Bishop of Rome didn’t in fact hold primacy
over all the other Bishops is to blatantly disregard history, one need only read
Clement, Leo and the Early councils and Popes and see that Popes where not
merely first among equals, but the rock of the faith. The difference rests in the application of
the office not in the actual understanding of the office, that is solemly defined
by Vatican One under infallible decree, to deny that Peter is the visable head
of the church is not merely to be sismatic, but to be heretical because as
Catholics we must profess all the decrees handed down. The Orthodox might claim it wasn’t solemnly
proclaimed when they split so they might say they are only systematic, but
denying truth is to be in error, thus hertetical. Heaven knows what we don’t need now is
another ecumenical council when the vaugness, and yes Mr. Mira the Vatican II
documents are vague if they weren’t they wouldn’t require a strict hermanutic
of continuity (see trent and Vatican I documents then compare). The dating of the Pascal feast is another
issue, see the link below for information on this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm]
Taft: What it would look like is not a
“reunion” with them “returning to Rome,” to which they never belonged anyway [considering that there is One Church with Peter as its head,
and this is clearly seen in scripture and in the History of the Church from the
beginning this is a false statement] ; nor us being incorporated by
them, since we are all ancient apostolic “Sister Churches” with a valid episcopate and
priesthood and the full panoply of sacraments needed to minister salvation to
our respective faithful [Hmmm so having valid
episcopates and sacraments is the only thing needed to be in the church; wow I
guess we should tell the Polish National Church and the Old Catholic Church
they really never left since they have valid sacraments], as is
proclaimed in the renewed Catholic ecclesiology since Vatican II [where does Vatican II call for a new ecclesiology? And where does Vatican II state that it is to
be held by the faithful as de fide? This
is more spirit of Vatican II garbage where the power play is to create a
situation where the pontiff is merely a symbol, but not different then anyother
Bishop in substance, thereby denying Vatican I.
Pope Paul VI is said to have been made aware of this collegial power
grab and quashed it, feeling deeply saddened by the actions of the other
Bishops] and enshrined in numerous papal documents from Paul VI on [so disregard anything before Paul VI, even if it is
infallible teaching. I mean really!
First things what are you? CWR what are
you? Modernists giving lip service to a
hermanutic of continuity, but practicing the hermanutic of rupture], as
well as in the wonderful Catechism of the Catholic Church.
[But not the
Catechism of Trent, because that’s not friendly enough] So we just need to restore our [our, wait we broke communion with them? I don’t seem to remember this, we have Peter
they don’t. They continue to fall into
error allowing divorce, contraception and other innovations from the top of
their episcapates, but we need to be in communion with those perpetuating
error? Please] broken communion and the rest of the problems you mention
can be addressed one by one and resolved by common accord.
. . .
CWR: How could the papal claims of Rome be
modified in a way that would be both acceptable to the Orthodox Churches and
faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church? Do you think the jurisdiction
issue really is a hang-up for the Orthodox since they also practice
cross-jurisdiction throughout Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, and East
Asia?
Taft: The new Catholic “Sister Churches”
ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox
Churches. It also represents a startling revolution [Yippie
a novelty, spirit of Vatican II! Lord
please when will the modernists be exiled from the Holy Church. He is admitting a Heremantic of Rupture
here! Wake up people and see shes under
attack by those within!] in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are
no longer the only kid on the block [so we are not the
one true faith in which the gates of Hell would not prevail? Again these “sister churches” as he likes to
call them are all ok with error. We are
literally the only kid on the block that has upheld truth in the face of
mounting evil. Playing semantic games
like the whole church or the only kid on the block is creating a new novelty against
the faith and denies the no salvation outside the Church dogma, and yes I know
the nuance but still they will only be saved by the one church not being a
sister church which is confusing the structure of the early Christians before
the great schism], the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church
among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one
and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated
for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held,
simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other
Christians returning to Rome’s maternal bosom [And
where in Vatican II does it deny this fact?
I will admit that Bishops have become cowardly especially with the
Russian Orthodox playing semantic games that they would protestalatize, but how
is this actually church teaching?
Writing a treaty is not a teaching, but an indult, to not act on truth,
but not to deny it either].
Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve
Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this
historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of
reality [This is such a stink bomb its incomprehensible
that CWR and First things are making these statements public when they will
cause confusion and scandle. Again where
is this idea in Vatican II? Saying that
the fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church necessarily means that
all other bodies are lacking to some degree or another and must come into
communion with the fullness]. In doing so they had a strong assist from
the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete
experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and
defenders of that reality [Where? Where is this novelty introduced and does it
even carry with it a de fide statement?
Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council and where it restates Catholic
truth it is indeed infallible, but where novelties are introduced without a
statement defining it to be held by all the faithful as can be seen in previous
councils then it is a matter of being ambiguous and not actual de fide teaching.
Such statements require a heremanutic of continuity to be in line with the
whole tradition of the Church].
In this context I would recommend the excellent new book by Robert Louis
Wilken, The First Thousand Years: A Global History of
Christianity (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press 2012).
Professor Wilken, a convert to Catholicism who is a recognized expert on Early
Christianity and its history and literature, shows that Early Christianity
developed not out of some Roman cradle but as a federation of local Churches,
Western and Eastern, each one under the authority of a chief hierarch who would
come to be called Archbishop, Pope, Patriarch, or Catholicos, each with its own
independent governing synod and polity, all of them initially in communion with
one another until the vicissitudes of history led to lasting divisions. [The Clement letter itself denies this possibility, just
because a professor writes a book doesn’t make it correct].
+JMJ+
No comments:
Post a Comment