Ratzinger: Orthodox defective, but still better than Protestants

[FFH]

Don't both the LDS and Catholic churches believe they are the only "true" churches? How can that be good for uniting?

Uniting churches will never happen, but we can be united in doing good, like feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and giving relief to those who are otherwise afflicted..

There will always be divisions among religions...

 

[lilithu]

Making the lines clear to continue ecumencial chats.

Drawing lines in the sand.

That's why the recent liturgical document was released. It's going to bring quite a few nuns, priests, and movements back into the Church. Some radical Traditionalists might consider coming back.

And at the same time drive away other, more liberal Catholics.

(Altho some Catholics seem like they are gleeful about that.)

I'm sure this is going to upset many people, but I really believe this will have better outcome in the long haul.

So was John Paul II hindering ecumenical chats by giving people of other faiths the impression that he actually respected them?

You think this will move you closer to reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church?


You guys can continue to say that John Paul II agreed with Ratzinger about all of this. I guess he just had all the rest of us fooled.

 

[James the Persian]

Well, some may be surprised but this 'news' (not that it's new to anyone really) has gone down well in Orthodox circles, particularly amongst those of us of a slightly more traditionalist bent. Finally we seem to be seeing a Pope honestly standing up and saying what he means rather than pretending that we are closer to each other than we are (and yes the overwhelming impression up to now has been that RC heirarchs have been trying to hoodwink ours into believeing that a reconcilliation is close). Now that we know that the Pope will not compromise on those positions which he absolutely must compromise on for a reconcilliation to take place, now that we know that all previous talk of compromise refers to us and not Rome, maybe the Ecumenical Patriarch will wake up and stop scandalising the Orthodox faithful with his ecumenical excesses (I'd suggest he pay close attention to the words of St. Mark of Ephesus on why we cannot compromise our faith for communion with Rome). And maybe we and the RCs can finally sit down and have honest talks about just how far away a reconcilliation really is (at present if it happens in the next several centuries I'd be surprised) and perhaps work out how best to support each other practically and morally in all the spheres on which we do agree, which is many, without some push for either side to accept the other into communion. That, to be honest, would be best for all concerned.

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Of course all this works equally well in both Directions.
Anglicans Think the Catholics have got it equally wrong.
as do, I think, most if not all of the Churches.

It is only stating the obvious...
If we did not believe as we do, individual churches would not exist.

I think he is laying a marker on the ground for his Catholic flock, as his statement is of no concern to other faiths.
I think he is saying you can only go so far in cooperating with other churches, over step the mark at your souls peril.

 

[James the Persian]

I think he is laying a marker on the ground for his Catholic flock, as his statement is of no concern to other faiths.

I'm sure the first part of your point is true - I'd say he's trying to bring the traditionalists on board - but the second part less so. What he says is of concern to my Church at least. Not because it directly affects us but because now we have a clear position from Rome and perhaps our discussions with them can be conducted in a more realistic way and one which serves to reduce the chances of ultra-Traditionalist schisms in our own ranks. One thing I can say - the monks on Athos will be saying 'I told you so' to the EP and the other more ecumenist heirarchs now.

I think he is saying you can only go so far in cooperating with other churches, over step the mark at your souls peril.

On this we agree. In fact it's my major gripe with some of those on our side that they have gone too far. I'm sure those that did (including our Patriarch, His Holiness Teoctist) did so with the best of intentions but they were, frankly, being mislead by the reconcilliatory sounds coming out of the Vatican prior to this - sounds that some believed signalled that Rome was approaching a compromise with us. Many of us were always highly skeptical that this was the case, though, and there are people that I can now turn round and say 'I told you so' to as well. I will resist the temptation, however, as it would be nothing more than pride on my part.

James

 

[jonny]

It takes no courage at all to dish out criticism...just hate, jealously, greed and a little ego added into the mix...

No offense FFH, but your church believes the same thing. We just use different words to describe it. Don't be a hypocrite.

I've never understood the problem that some Mormons have with Catholics. It disgusts me.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm sure the first part of your point is true - I'd say he's trying to bring the traditionalists on board - but the second part less so. What he says is of concern to my Church at least. Not because it directly affects us but because now we have a clear position from Rome and perhaps our discussions with them can be conducted in a more realistic way and one which serves to reduce the chances of ultra-Traditionalist schisms in our own ranks. One thing I can say - the monks on Athos will be saying 'I told you so' to the EP and the other more ecumenist heirarchs now.


James

The arch bishop of Canterbury's envoy has been in talks with Rome for years. Noting has come of it and nothing is expected too. Like for you, this shows that their true intention is to adsorb our faith into theirs on their terms. No give all Take.
Though it kicks some of their own Bishops in the teeth, who have been drawing closer to us.

I would far rather we worked on our commonalities with the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[lilithu]

I hear a lot of people in this thread saying, "Well he's only saying what we also believe about ourselves - that we're the 'right' church."

THAT is not the issue.

Most religions believe that they are ultimately "right" or superior in some way to all other religions. Not just amongst the Christian denominations but ultimately also other religions that are known for being tolerant. Buddhism, for example. The bottom line is that you wouldn't be whatever particular religion you are if you didn't feel that it was in some way better, more right, more true.

The thing that actually makes religions different from each other in terms of whether they are known for their tolerance of others is:

1. What they believe the consequences of being "less than right" is. ie - do you believe that everyone else is going to Hell or do you believe that in the end we all end up in the same "place" or do you believe something in between?

2. How often they talk about it. ie - when speaking with others, do you focus on what's different or what's held in common? Do you see others as sisters and brothers who are maybe slightly mislead but ultimately still your family, or do you see "the other"?

I think 1 and 2 are linked.

Did JPII believe ultimately that the Catholic Church is the right Church? Of course he did. That went without saying...literally. The question still is, as lunamoth asked, why is Ratzinger making a point of talking about it now?

 

[James the Persian]

The arch bishop of Canterbury's envoy has been in talks with Rome for years. Noting has come of it and nothing is expected too. Like for you, this shows that their true intention is to adsorb our faith into theirs on their terms. No give all Take.
Though it kicks some of their own Bishops in the teeth, who have been drawing closer to us.

I would far rather we worked on our commonalities with the Eastern Orthodox.

I would far rather we all stopped trying to reunite and started trying to work together (so I'd be jumping for joy wif we all left the WCC, for instance). Nothing short of a miracle of God is going to reunite us with Rome, or with pretty much anyone else for that matter. The only exception to this that I can see is with the Oriental Orthodox. There we have seen progress and we have really come to an understanding, accepted by the majority, that what really divides us isn't theology as such but theological language. Only there, if we can iron out the practicalities and work out some way for both sides to save face, do I see a reasonable prospect for reconcilliation, and even that is far from certain.

With the Anglicans, if you were still the church you were 80 years ago, I'd most certainly agree. If your high church and low church ends were to separate (which actually might happen in future judging by current trends) then I could see talks resuming with the high church end. But as things stand, with the various issues that exist regarding certain modernisations in the Anglican communion, I can't see anything more positive than an agreement to work together where we have common cause for us and you either. Having said that, that is a good thing in itself - just look at how our parish and the Community of the Resurrection work together in Mirfield.

The thing is, people need to state up front what their boundaries are so that others don't get mislead. That's why I welcome this statement from the Pope of Rome. Hopefully those of our heirarchs who allowed themselves to be mislead in their enthusiasm for reunion will now be able to take a step back and react a little more sensibly, thereby hopefully reducing the worries of ordinary lay folk whilst simultaneously helping to heal some of the rifts that have developed in the Orthodox world since the arch-ecumenist Meletios Metaxakis was Ecumenical Patriarch back in the '20s.

James

 

[James the Persian]

The thing that actually makes religions different from each other in terms of whether they are known for their tolerance of others is:

1. What they believe the consequences of being "less than right" is. ie - do you believe that everyone else is going to Hell or do you believe that in the end we all end up in the same "place" or do you believe something in between?

Well it's quite possible to say that you are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that other churches are not in the Church as such without holding that their members are damned or that they aren't Christians. That's the position we hold and, i believe, is the position held by RCs as well. Sometimes, I think, Protestants have difficulty understanding this precisely because for them the Church is invisible and consists of all believers - so it sort of is synonymous, in Protestant terms, with salvation. That's absolutely not the case for those of us who do believe we are members of the one visible Church. Ironically, I tend to find that those who hold to the post-Reformation invisible Church idea tend to be less tolerant than we who do not, despite their protestations when we state our beliefs.

2. How often they talk about it. ie - when speaking with others, do you focus on what's different or what's held in common? Do you see others as sisters and brothers who are maybe slightly mislead but ultimately still your family, or do you see "the other"?

I know what you mean, but genuine dialogue requires honesty even when, at times, that honesty is unwelcome, hence the fact that, despite the criticism of the Church by this Pope, I welcome this statement. If he were to 'rub it in' in some triumphalist manner, that would be different, but I get no hint that this is anything more than the Pope of Rome's attempt to be honest in setting boundaries.

Did JPII believe ultimately that the Catholic Church is the right Church? Of course he did. That went without saying...literally. The question still is, as lunamoth asked, why is Ratzinger making a point of talking about it now?

Well, personally, I think that this is about, along with the recent announcement on the Tridentine Mass, an atempt to heal divisions within his church. The fact that it has welcome consequences for us or unwelcome ones for others is not, I don't think, the Pope's point in making it. Either way, I just welcome the clarity and hope that our heirarchs respond in kind and make it equally clear where the line we shall not cross is - then maybe some of the more 'pie in the sky' Orthodox and RCs who are ready to ring the bells (or beat the toacas) to usher in the news of reconcilliation might get real.

James

 

[lilithu]

Ironically, I tend to find that those who hold to the post-Reformation invisible Church idea tend to be less tolerant than we who do not, despite their protestations when we state our beliefs.

In general I agree, which is why I am so saddened. With the suggestion by the current Pope that Mohammed taught nothing new except evil, plus all this, I am not so sure about the RC in its current state.

Well, personally, I think that this is about, along with the recent announcement on the Tridentine Mass, an atempt to heal divisions within his church.

You mean heal some divisions while making others worse. You and Victor both seem to be ignoring that there are more progressive elements of the Catholic Church, as well as more "Traditionalist." At least Athanasius recognizes the affect this has on more liberal Catholics, even tho he seems to be jumping with glee over it.

As a liberal religionist and a Georgetown alum, I come into contact with liberal Catholics all the time, and they are leaving the Faith. I'd estimate that somewhere between 25 to 30% of my own church is comprised of ex-Catholics. Even tho we will surely gain in numbers by this shift back, I am saddened, because these people come through our doors as religious refugees, hurting, driven out of the faith in which they grew up. (I know the Episcopal Church is receiving other Catholic refugees.)

But whatever... if the Pope feels he needs to "separate the wheat from the chaff," we'll be here to nurture those he considers to be chaff.

 

[James the Persian]

You mean heal some divisions while making others worse. You and Victor both seem to be ignoring that there are more progressive elements of the Catholic Church, as well as more "Traditionalist."

I'm not ignoring it at all. I simply was trying to give you my view as to what I think this Pope is trying to achieve. I made no attempt to classify this intent as good or bad and, to be honest, I'd be guessing at best if I were to give my opinion as to its likely consequences withing the RCC, so I prefer to concentrate only on the aspect of it that has an efect on my Church.

At least Athanasius recognizes the affect this has on more liberal Catholics, even tho he seems to be jumping with glee over it.

I recognise it as well. I'm sure that Victor must, too, as you'd have to be naive not to. However, it simply has no effect on us save the dampener it must put on those RCs who are unrealistically preparing for imminent reconcilliation (and I know some). This is the same dampener as will be put on certain ecumenist Orthodox but it's a good thing - it's most certainly needed and I welcome it as somewhat of a return to sanity.

I will not comment on the effects of such an announcement on those within the RCC, however, because, a.) I lack sufficient familiarity with the internals of that church for my words to be considered well informed and, b.) I simply do not believe it is my place. I will confine my comments to those aspects that affect Orthodox/RC relations, and from my point of view there is nothing negative in this statement as far as they are concerned - quite the opposite.

James

 

[doppelganger]

I think Jesus would be proud of this. Remember his sermon about the importance of "pure" doctrine and criticizing other people claiming to be "Christian" by being as divisive as possible about who the real human authorities are who speak on his behalf?

 

[Smoke]

Now that we know that the Pope will not compromise on those positions which he absolutely must compromise on for a reconcilliation to take place, now that we know that all previous talk of compromise refers to us and not Rome, maybe the Ecumenical Patriarch will wake up and stop scandalising the Orthodox faithful with his ecumenical excesses

I think the hope on the Catholic side has been that they could essentially bring all the Orthodox Churches into the RCC as Uniates. You would still have to accept papal infallibility and all that goes with it, and it was never realistic to expect that. I see it as an attempted power grab that was doomed to fail, but I guess you can't blame them for trying.

 

[Smoke]

As a liberal religionist and a Georgetown alum, I come into contact with liberal Catholics all the time, and they are leaving the Faith. I'd estimate that somewhere between 25 to 30% of my own church is comprised of ex-Catholics.

Most of the Catholics I know are liberal, and frankly, I have trouble understanding why they've stayed this long. I think it had a lot to do with the personality of John Paul II. People liked him, even if they didn't always like what he said or did. He was sort of the Ronald Reagan of popes. Benedict XVI is more like the Dick Cheney of popes. His positions aren't really any different from John Paul's, but he rubs people the wrong way.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I don't exactly know who the protestant leader was who said, " . . . (we) were wounded . . ." because quite frankly good Protestants stopped listening to the Pope about 400 years ago.

 

[Quiddity]

And at the same time drive away other, more liberal Catholics.

Lilithu, I think what you are failing to see is that I object to both liberal and conservative catholics who would separate themselves because of this. Both the post-Vatican Mass and the Tridentine Mass are legit forms of expression. One could argue that the post-Vatican Mass was a good change at the time but it slipped south for various reasons. Pope John Paul II I’m sure was getting an ear full of this. The point being that as long as a legit form of expression is in tact, there is no reason for Catholics to separate themselves except for their own selfish attachments. This goes for both liberals and conservatives. The liberals might complain because there is no electric guitars, while the conservatives will complain about bringing the celtic-like choir back. Personally, I don’t even like getting involved in such bickering. As long as the Mass is legit, I’ll find a way to be happy.

So was John Paul II hindering ecumenical chats by giving people of other faiths the impression that he actually respected them?

I think that was a great move on the part of JPII. But as you can see, Ratzinger’s approach is different and I can see advantages and disadvantages in both approaches.

You think this will move you closer to reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Just read James’s responses. His reaction is pretty much what I’ve gotten from other EO’s as well. They respect that he is making things clearer to make real dialogues between us possible. I was expecting this reaction from James. I would have actually been surprised if would have gotten upset.

You guys can continue to say that John Paul II agreed with Ratzinger about all of this. I guess he just had all the rest of us fooled.

I’m not saying they didn’t disagree, I’m saying that they definitely agreed with those parts of the Mass that matter in regards to official teaching.

You and Victor both seem to be ignoring that there are more progressive elements of the Catholic Church, as well as more "Traditionalist."

C’mon Lil, we are having a nice discussion here. I hope this post shows you otherwise.

~Victor

 

[lilithu]

C’mon Lil, we are having a nice discussion here. I hope this post shows you otherwise.

~Victor

Victor, all this shows me is that you are a nice person, which I already knew. I still haven't seen you acknowledge the effect this will have on liberal Catholics.

 

[logician]

Wow, the pope must be getting senile.

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, all this shows me is that you are a nice person, which I already knew. I still haven't seen you acknowledge the effect this will have on liberal Catholics.

That's all you had to say to all that I mentioned?

See post#14 for the acknowledgement. I didn't say liberals, but I certainly was thinking of them. But not them alone.