MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 (edited) Pax Iesus. [color=red] [Edited by Ice Princess: negative criticism of the current Pope/Magisterium][/color] Pax Iesus Paul. Edited May 31, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS
MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 (edited) Pax Iesus. Some statements on Schismatics and Salvation: Pope Hadrian II (A. D. 867-872) "The [b]first thing[/b] required for salvation is to keep the norm of correct faith and to [b]deviate in no way[/b] from what the Fathers have established, because it is not possible to lay aside the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, `You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.' These words are proved true by their effects because, in the Apostolic See, the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate." (Council Constantinople IV) Saint Leo IX, (A. D. 1049-1054) "If you live [b]not[/b] in the body which is Christ, you are [b]none of His[/b] . Whose, then, are you? [b]You have been cut off and will wither, and like the branch pruned from the vine,[/b] you will burn in the fire - an end which may God's goodness keep far from you." "So little does the Roman Church stand alone, as you think, that in the whole world any nation that in its pride dissents from her is in no way a church, but a council of heretics, a conventicle of [b]schismatics[/b] , and a synagogue of Satan." "As far as the pillars of the empire are concerned and its wise and honoured citizens, the city is most Christian and orthodox. But we, not enduring the unheard-of offense and injury done to the Holy Apostolic and First See, wishing to defend in every way the Catholic Faith, by the authority of the Holy and Undivided Trinity and of the Apostolic See, whose legates we are, declare that Michael, patriarch by abuse; [...] Leo called bishop of Achrida; [...] and all their followers in the aforesaid errors and presumption shall be: anathema, maranatha [...] with all the heretics and with the devil and his angels, unless they repent. Amen." (Sancta Romana Prima) [b]Also notice the seperation of Christian from Orthodox[/b] Pope Boniface VIII (A. D. 1294-1303) "If, then, the [b]Greeks[/b] or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only." (Unam Sanctam) Holy and Ecumenical Council of Florence (A. D. 1438-1445) "We have come to you our head. You are the foundation of the Church. Every member that has left you is sick, and wild beasts have devoured the flock that has separated itself from you. [...] You who have the power of the heavenly keys, open to us the gates of eternal life." [color=red][Edited by Ice Princess: negative criticism of current Magisterium. See the following link: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=11192&hl=new%20rule&st=0"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...new%20rule&st=0[/url]][/color] Pax Iesus Paul. Edited May 31, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS
IcePrincessKRS Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 (edited) Dust says: [color=red]"Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo or John Paul II."[/color] I will edit any comments I see that fall under this category, or [color=red]"Lack of Respect to the Religious- a post or comment by a Catholic that criticizes or shows lack of obedience to priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope, etc."[/color] There have been a couple statements in this thread that crossed the line. Edited May 31, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS
musturde Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 Okay, I asked my religion teacher (yes the one with the Theologian parents) and she said that it's just an agreement with the leaders of both Churches not to allow members of other Churches to recieve Eucharist as a sign of division between the Orthodox and Catholics. (since we're very similar). Btw Some of the priests in the Anglican Church can be valid if they are ordained by a person ordained before King Henry did what he did (from what I hear). The problem is, how do you find those people? Eucharist from Catholic and Orthodoz Churches are valid but you cant recieve from Orthodox Church.
Crusader_4 Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 Musturde...from what ihave heard you can recieve from an Orthodox Church when a Catholic Church is not present in the area. Regarding baptism if an unbaptised person is on their death bed or a grave emergency and an ordained person is not present a lay person can perform the baptism (intention and trinitarian formula) must still be used. Second, in an emergency a lay person can hear a confession although no absolution will be given. A lay person cannot do communion under any circumstances although they may be Eucharstic Ministers. I hope this helps.
MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 [color=red][Edited by dUSt: any discussion regarding the way I run the board should be handled in private][/color]
MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 [color=red][Edited by dUSt: any discussion regarding the way I run the board should be handled in private][/color]
BeenaBobba Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 Hi Morph, The point is that the Orthodox are still connected to the Body of Christ -- the Catholic Church -- but not in a perfect way. Take care, Jen P.S. Who's to interpret the teachings of the Church but the Church? And the Church has said that the Orthodox are our brothers and sisters in Christ and that they have valid Sacraments. All of those passages you posted have been [b]correctly[/b] interpreted by the Catholic Church in documents such as [i]Lumen Gentium[/i], [i]Dominus Iesus[/i], and [i]Orientale Lumen[/i]. If you insist upon an opinion contrary to the Church's teaching on this matter, are you really any better than Protestants who interpret the Bible in ways contrary to Catholic teaching?
Livin_the_MASS Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 [quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='May 30 2004, 11:20 PM'] Dust says: [color=red]"Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo or John Paul II."[/color] I will edit any comments I see that fall under this category, or [color=red]"Lack of Respect to the Religious- a post or comment by a Catholic that criticizes or shows lack of obedience to priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope, etc."[/color] There have been a couple statements in this thread that crossed the line. [/quote] IceP, Been keepin ya busy huh?
MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 [quote name='BeenaBobba' date='May 31 2004, 05:59 PM'] Hi Morph, The point is that the Orthodox are still connected to the body of Christ -- but not in a perfect way. Take care, Jen P.S. Who's to interpret the teachings of the Church but the Church? And the Church has said that the Orthodox are our brothers and sisters in Christ and that they have valid Sacraments. All of those passages you posted have been [b]correctly[/b] interpreted by the Catholic Church in documents such as [i]Lumen Gentium[/i], [i]Dominus Iesus[/i], and [i]Orientale Lumen[/i]. If you insist upon an opinion contrary to the Church's teaching on this matter, are you really any better than Protestants who interpret the Bible in ways contrary to Catholic teaching? [/quote] Pax Iesus Who said anything about interpretating? The statement doesnt need any interpretation, and please dont play the "it was designed for that time" line, "so its not important now". The statement is plain and simple. Also. Now Orthodox are apart of the body, but in a imperfect way? How does that work exactly, it that like going to Uni, but not being involved in classes, but still getting the grades and degree? P.I. Paul.
BeenaBobba Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='May 31 2004, 04:33 AM'] Who said anything about interpretating? The statement doesnt need any interpretation, and please dont play the "it was designed for that time" line, "so its not important now". The statement is plain and simple. [/quote] How do [b]you[/b] know that the statements don't need to be interpreted by the Church? If the Church says they needs to be interpreted, then they need to be interpreted. And guess what? The Church interpreted them a way that is contrary to what you seem to believe. Who am I to trust in this issue: you or the Church? Yeah, I'll trust the Catholic Church over you [b]any day[/b]. That statement is plain and simple -- just how Protestants believe that certain "plain and simple" lines in the Bible justify their beliefs on salvation, eh? [quote]Also. Now Orthodox are apart of the body, but in a imperfect way? How does that work exactly, it that like going to Uni, but not being involved in classes, but still getting the grades and degree? [/quote] You should read the documents I listed in my last post. Take care, Jennifer
MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 [quote name='BeenaBobba' date='May 31 2004, 06:08 PM'] How do [b]you[/b] know that the statements don't need to be interpreted by the Church? If the Church says they needs to be interpreted, then they need to be interpreted. And guess what? The Church interpreted them a way that is contrary to what you seem to believe. Who am I to trust in this issue: you or the Church? Yeah, I'll trust the Catholic Church over you [b]any day[/b]. That statement is plain and simple -- just how Protestants believe that certain "plain and simple" lines in the Bible justify their beliefs on salvation, eh? You should read the documents I listed in my last post. Take care, Jennifer [/quote] Pax Iesus. Ok so the Church back then already stated this and interpretated this, but now the New Church with its stuff, interpretates it again, and you would rather have a Re-interpretation than the interpretation of the time? Okkkkkkk. [color=red][Edited by dUSt: negative criticism of the current magisterium][/color] Pax Iesus Paul.
Livin_the_MASS Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 MorphRC, Whats up? You don't believe in the devolpment of doctrine or what? I would suggest being obedient to the Church always now and forever! Holy Mother Church will never fail, Christ promised Himself, it's His Church Pax Jason
BeenaBobba Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 Exactly, Jason! It's all about the development of doctrine! The statements made by previous Popes are just as true as the statements made by the present Pope; however, the current Church has come into a fuller understanding of what those previous statements mean. Take care, Jen
MorphRC Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 [color=red][edited by dUSt: negative criticism of the current magisterium][/color]
p0lar_bear Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 (edited) A now for something completely different... Musturde, Could you provide a citation for this? [quote]in an emergency a lay person can hear a confession although no absolution will be given[/quote] Edit: An what would be the point anyway? I mean, I could tell anyone what my sins are if I were so inclined, emergency or not. The point of confession isn't just telling the sins, but receiving absolution... So really, nothing would be gained, sacramentally speaking, by confession to a lay person. Why would the Church provide for this, when their is no real benefit? Edited May 31, 2004 by p0lar_bear
PedroX Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 Polar, As soon as you said "laicized Priest" I realized that was what I had been thinking of. Thanks! peace...
Aloysius Posted May 31, 2004 Posted May 31, 2004 my previous thing: yes if the person confessing found out it wasn't a priest they confessed to they'd be obliged to confess to a priest. but if they never found out, it'd be valid Ecclesia Supplet. MorphRC, i agree with the quotes you provided. however, they do not contradict the current teaching of the Church. your interpretation of them is in error. The Church has never taught against salvation for the invincibly ignorant and all such things. The Current Magisterium is not in contradiction to previous magisteriums. "New Church" just expanded more on the doctrines of invincible ignorance and culpability of rejection of the One True Church. Because those who are not responsible for the schism are just born into the schism, they do not hold the same culpability for schism as those who broke away did, and thus are imperfectly connected to the Body of Christ through those true doctrines of the Church which they agree with, namely Peter's first Ex Cathedra Dogma which 'was not revealed to him by flesh and blood but by the Father in Heaven' : "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" Believe that Dogma, and you're becoming subject to the Roman Pontiff in some way whether you like it or not. So long as you're not the one splitting from the Church, your not held responsible for that sin of schism. do not reject the Second Vatican Council, it is just as valid as any other council. simply because it doesn't have as many infallible proclamations does not mean it is anytheless binding. Pax Amorque Christi
voiciblanche Posted May 31, 2004 Author Posted May 31, 2004 A note about trusting the Catholic Church - 1. The Church is INFALLIBLE. There isn't much chance that she will mislead her people. 2. We are called to listen to the Church AT ALL TIMES. If something wrong was taught, which is very unlikely, God has mercy on the members of the Church because they usually don't know any better, and are only trusting the Church that Christ gave to them.
MorphRC Posted June 1, 2004 Posted June 1, 2004 [color=red][edited by dUSt: negative criticism of the current magisterium][/color]
Recommended Posts