Question about the RCC teaching of Outside the Church...

steve_bakr · Nov 3, 2012

Albion said:
Stick to trying to be the peacemaker, steve.

Then how do you explain the fact that you are not permitted--by your own church--to visit the other half of your 'one church' and commune there this Sunday?

I've never visited an Eastern Orthodox Church, although I was invited to one. I was told that this church I was invited to would serve me the "bread" that is given to non-Orthodox Christians. Hmm.

I don't think that the Eastern Orthodox Christians reciprocate our affection with equal enthusiasm, but we can't help that.

We have assimilated some Eastern Orthodox spirituality, such as the Jesus Prayer. We love, The Way of the Pilgrim, and the Eastern monastic tradition. And some of us use Jesus Beads.

We're appreciative of the tradition of the other "lung" or branch, and we share a common history. We feel there's an affinity and are sorry if the feeling is not mutually enthusiastic.

Albion · Nov 3, 2012

steve_bakr said:
I've never visited an Eastern Orthodox Church, although I was invited to one. I was told that this church I was invited to would serve me the "bread" that is given to non-Orthodox Christians. Hmm.

I don't think that the Eastern Orthodox Christians reciprocate our affection with equal enthusiasm, but we can't help that.

Affection may be in the eye of the beholder in this case, but you are not allowed by either church to commune during an EO liturgy, so there's obviously something important missing from any claim of unity.

We're appreciative of the tradition of the other "lung" or branch, and we share a common history. We feel there's an affinity and are sorry if the feeling is not mutually enthusiastic.

That's probably true enough, but it isn't what we were discussing, is it?

steve_bakr · Nov 3, 2012

Albion said:
Affection may be in the eye of the beholder in this case, but you are not allowed by either church to commune during an EO liturgy, so there's obviously something important missing from any claim of unity.

That's probably true enough, but it isn't what we were discussing, is it?

I don't think of it as a claim of unity as such, more of an affinity.

Albion · Nov 3, 2012

steve_bakr said:
I don't think of it as a claim of unity as such, more of an affinity.

There is indeed some degree of closeness there, at least on the part of the RCC, no denying that. But it's clearly not something that amounts to the two "lungs" being, together, a "ONE true church." That was the contention.

Standing Up · Nov 3, 2012

Albion said:
There is indeed some degree of closeness there, at least on the part of the RCC, no denying that. But it's clearly not something that amounts to the two "lungs" being, together, a "ONE true church." That was the contention.

Tough to breath when one inhales while the other exhales

Rick Otto · Nov 3, 2012

Albion said:
There is indeed some degree of closeness there, at least on the part of the RCC, no denying that. But it's clearly not something that amounts to the two "lungs" being, together, a "ONE true church." That was the contention.

It's an assimilation stand-off. "Resistance is futile."

Rick Otto · Nov 3, 2012

Standing Up said:
Tough to breath when one inhales while the other exhales

They refuse to share air.

Rick Otto · Nov 3, 2012

Lysimachus said:
The expression, "Dark Ages" reveals that there was a great lack in knowledge of the scriptures, and many Christians throughout Europe were prevented from reading God's Word. It should not be expected of me, I would hope, to produce such material, as the old libraries are filled with the evidences--that families were burned to death at the stake for possessing copies of the Bible.

Let's look at Paul's admonition here:

"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10)

"If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!" (1 Cor 16:22)

"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all." (2 Thess. 3:14-16)

It is interesting to note here Paul's method of dealing with unbelievers. Notice that in Titus 3:10, we are to "reject" heretics. That's it! Nothing more! We are not to place violent hands upon them. God will deal with them. It is not our duty to hurt them. This is why God says "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19)

In 1 Cor 16:22, notice that Paul says that those who do NOT love God, let them be accursed. Once again, nothing is given concerning any violent action to be taken against them.

In 2 Thess 3:14-16, Paul is very clear---we are not to have company with the one that does not obey the Word. Yet we are not to count him as an "enemy", but admonish him as a "brother". How different the Papacy looked at things during the Middle Ages! It is also too bad that many of the Protestants that separated from Rome continued to carry this trend with them for a while, but eventually they did completely quit killing people for disagreeing.

The question should be asked: Did the Papacy eventually quit persecuting other professed Christians for disagreeing with them because they grew in knowledge of the Bible, and later saw the truth on this matter?

Or did they quit because they lost their Temporal Power over the kings of Europe in the mid 18th century, and now had no choice but to "behave"?

Had the Papacy continued to hold its Temporal Power throughout Europe, would it have continued its persecutions?

I welcome any thoughts on the matter.

When you lose force of arms, you still have force of finance.
Did Jesus institute an Apostolic Bank?
Do you know which of the three "one true" churches has its own bank?

steve_bakr · Nov 4, 2012

Rick Otto said:
When you lose force of arms, you still have force of finance.
Did Jesus institute an Apostolic Bank?
Do you know which of the three "one true" churches has its own bank?

Imposing one's will using force of arms or financial influence is a human tendency, but I think it's a tendency here to cast blame on the Catholic Church particularly.

Albion · Nov 4, 2012

steve_bakr said:
Imposing one's will using force of arms or financial influence is a human tendency, but I think it's a tendency here to cast blame on the Catholic Church particularly.

Yeh. I think that's something you need to work to overcome.

You've striven to see something good and reasonable on both sides and to stand against exaggerated claims from whomever. But this "victim" problem is stubbornly holding on and it seems a shame considering all the rest.

steve_bakr · Nov 4, 2012

Albion said:
Yeh. I think that's something you need to work to overcome.

You've striven to see something good and reasonable on both sides and to stand against exaggerated claims from whomever. But this "victim" problem is stubbornly holding on and it seems a shame considering all the rest.

Thanks for the advice, and I'll take a look at that. I just got out from Mass and a celebration on behalf of our departed ones, so I want to maintain that peace and sense of proportion. But I would also like to stand for my Church when I can.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm obviously looking at things from the Catholic perspective. But I see where both sides take shots at the other, and each claims the other side is the instigator. And there are also gratuitous criticisms that take place.

Yet it is my hope that a middle ground can be found and that Christian Charity will prevail.

steve_bakr · Nov 4, 2012

tz620q said:
Here are a few pertinent clips from the Catholic Catechism:

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

And:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

So in summary, the Orthodox and Protestants are not automatically excluded. As far as ex-Catholics, I would have to say I don't know God's will; but if they were properly catechized and there are no extenuating circumstances, then they have placed themselves outside the Ark of Salvation.

If you review the above quotations, I think you will read that the Church despairs of the salvation of those who "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it."

I do not think that this includes people of good will who somehow do not believe the above.

Albion · Nov 4, 2012

steve_bakr said:
Thanks for the advice, and I'll take a look at that. I just got out from Mass and a celebration on behalf of our departed ones, so I want to maintain that peace and sense of proportion. But I would also like to stand for my Church when I can.

Speaking of that, you might be interested in the most recent newcomer to CF. He's posted a lengthy harrangue -- in response to nothing -- against the Reformation. See "The Protestant Reformation was a Catastrophe" on Church History.

Rick Otto · Nov 4, 2012

steve_bakr said:
If you review the above quotations, I think you will read that the Church despairs of the salvation of those who "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it."

I do not think that this includes people of good will who somehow do not believe the above.

Right, because I grew up in it & never knew it as necessary or founded by God. I tried realy hard to believe it by acting like I did, but that would just descemd into narcisstic arrogant self righteousness,... yeah, I know it's hard to imagine me being anything like that now.

...But it would've been a whole lot easier if the Magesterium would've expunged at least the very last line of the Papal Bull, "Unam Sanctum":
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

Rick Otto · Nov 4, 2012

steve_bakr said:
Imposing one's will using force of arms or financial influence is a human tendency, but I think it's a tendency here to cast blame on the Catholic Church particularly.

And deservedly so. This isn't a Human Tendancy Forum. Being first & supremecist makes one a target for contenders. Which other in this forum Church can match its acheivements there?

steve_bakr · Nov 5, 2012

Albion said:
Speaking of that, you might be interested in the most recent newcomer to CF. He's posted a lengthy harrangue -- in response to nothing -- against the Reformation. See "The Protestant Reformation was a Catastrophe" on Church History.

Sounds like I might take issue with the OP's approach. The CCC acknowledges that individuals on both sides were to blame. Hans Kung--whose Catholic teaching license was revoked in 1978, BTW--actually blames the Church. My Deacon--who is now seriously ill in the hospital--said that both sides were not listening well to each other.

Ultimately, the Reformation stimulated some reforms in the Catholic Church, somewhat belatedly. And it has brought back an emphasis on Holy Scripture.

I know Protestants--especially my wife--for whom I have a tremendous respect regarding piety, Christian Charity, and devotion to the Scriptures; and, of course, love for our Lord.

I have some navigation difficulties on my phone--I'm using ForumRunner on my Android--and did not find that particular thread.

steve_bakr · Nov 5, 2012

Rick Otto said:
And deservedly so. This isn't a Human Tendancy Forum. Being first & supremecist makes one a target for contenders. Which other in this forum Church can match its acheivements there?

If I'm not mistaken, Rick, Catholic Triumphalism ended with Vatican II.

steve_bakr · Nov 5, 2012

Rick Otto said:
Right, because I grew up in it & never knew it as necessary or founded by God. I tried realy hard to believe it by acting like I did, but that would just descemd into narcisstic arrogant self righteousness,... yeah, I know it's hard to imagine me being anything like that now.

...But it would've been a whole lot easier if the Magesterium would've expunged at least the very last line of the Papal Bull, "Unam Sanctum":
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

Yes, that line--if not officially in terms of the record--seems to have been de facto altered by some of the Vatican II documents. Although I am sure the argument might be made by some Catholics that even Protestants are somehow "subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Catholic interpretation can be very nuanced, as we must try to maintain consistency with some of these earlier documents as the Church moves forward.

BTW, The Church presently seems to be going through somewhat of a reactionary period and a redefinition or reinterpretation of Vatican II. But, ultimately, I believe in the Development of Doctrine, as described by Cardinal Newman.

Albion · Nov 5, 2012

steve_bakr said:
If I'm not mistaken, Rick, Catholic Triumphalism ended with Vatican II.

Perhaps, but if so, somebody hasn't gotten the word to the ordinary church member.

MoreCoffee · Nov 5, 2012

steve_bakr said:
If I'm not mistaken, Rick, Catholic Triumphalism ended with Vatican II.

Some Catholics may be triumphalist. I wonder if any non-Catholics are?

Question about the RCC teaching of Outside the Church...

Christian

Facilitator

Christian

Facilitator

On and on

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Christian

Facilitator

Christian

Christian

Facilitator

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Christian

Christian

Christian

Facilitator

Repentance works.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency