Ortho-Anglo stumpers
1: Can someone explain the Eastern view of Sin to me? The Orthodox seem to take the non-inheritance of Sin to a level that renders Baptism irrelevant. One suspects that in their haste to toss the filioque bathwater out, all sorts of Augustinian babies went with it.
(Not that the filioque should be viewed as bathwater by right-thinking people. As a red herring, perhaps, but certainly not bathwater.)
However, I'm rather confused on the issue, and some assistance is needed here.
2: Regarding the recent Anglo-Catholic conference, The Pontificator wrote a piece on the possibility of a Western sui iuris Church being set up for returning Anglicans. Discussion here centers on how self-governing churches don't exist in the Western Church, save Rome, and that those areas "watered" by a certain strain of Catholicism are forever locked into that flavor.
This is said to be the ecclesiological formula accepted in the Ivory Tower. However, one must note that both Southern Italy and Poland, to name a few, changed from East to West or West to East. Thus from patriarch to pope or vice versa. It's happened multiple times in history.
Perhaps it is true that self-governing churches don't exist in the West. So what? Outside of priests, deacons, bishops, and the pope, no ecclesial jobs were instituted by God directly. Patriarchs, cardinals, mitred archpriests, monsignors, archimandrites, etcetera, owe their existence to human innovation, if perhaps guided by the Holy Spirit.
And indeed large swaths of Europe have in the past labored in various levels of de facto sui iuris status. The Gallican Rite comes to mind. This sort of situation in policy is in keeping with what could be the "legitimate diversity" that the smart set can't stop bandying about. The same set that will give away the store to Protestants.
Can someone convince me that this is anything other than power politics?
3: Related to both points one and two, why does the Church care about "Uniatism?" This is nonsense. So what if the remaining Orthodox, or perhaps the remaining Anglicans, flip out? Nip a church here, nip a region there, then they're all ours eventually. Renouncing "Uniatism" gives scandal by tacitly saying that people have full access to Truth in schismatic congregations.
I have much more respect for the Orthodox and Anglican traditions than I do for any others non-Catholic outfits. But wrong is wrong.
And Union works. This flip concept of "dialogue" fails. Just more politics. It's the Vatican making peace with The World.
Want to solve the divisions of Christianity? Let them all come back at sui iuris status. Take any parish that will come. Sign the "hands-off" agreement in blood, if need be. Only make them renounce whatever is obviously wrong. It can't get more generous than that.
Any straggling groups that won't take the bargain will be marginalized and irrelevant after a few generations of absorption.
(Not that the filioque should be viewed as bathwater by right-thinking people. As a red herring, perhaps, but certainly not bathwater.)
However, I'm rather confused on the issue, and some assistance is needed here.
2: Regarding the recent Anglo-Catholic conference, The Pontificator wrote a piece on the possibility of a Western sui iuris Church being set up for returning Anglicans. Discussion here centers on how self-governing churches don't exist in the Western Church, save Rome, and that those areas "watered" by a certain strain of Catholicism are forever locked into that flavor.
This is said to be the ecclesiological formula accepted in the Ivory Tower. However, one must note that both Southern Italy and Poland, to name a few, changed from East to West or West to East. Thus from patriarch to pope or vice versa. It's happened multiple times in history.
Perhaps it is true that self-governing churches don't exist in the West. So what? Outside of priests, deacons, bishops, and the pope, no ecclesial jobs were instituted by God directly. Patriarchs, cardinals, mitred archpriests, monsignors, archimandrites, etcetera, owe their existence to human innovation, if perhaps guided by the Holy Spirit.
And indeed large swaths of Europe have in the past labored in various levels of de facto sui iuris status. The Gallican Rite comes to mind. This sort of situation in policy is in keeping with what could be the "legitimate diversity" that the smart set can't stop bandying about. The same set that will give away the store to Protestants.
Can someone convince me that this is anything other than power politics?
3: Related to both points one and two, why does the Church care about "Uniatism?" This is nonsense. So what if the remaining Orthodox, or perhaps the remaining Anglicans, flip out? Nip a church here, nip a region there, then they're all ours eventually. Renouncing "Uniatism" gives scandal by tacitly saying that people have full access to Truth in schismatic congregations.
I have much more respect for the Orthodox and Anglican traditions than I do for any others non-Catholic outfits. But wrong is wrong.
And Union works. This flip concept of "dialogue" fails. Just more politics. It's the Vatican making peace with The World.
Want to solve the divisions of Christianity? Let them all come back at sui iuris status. Take any parish that will come. Sign the "hands-off" agreement in blood, if need be. Only make them renounce whatever is obviously wrong. It can't get more generous than that.
Any straggling groups that won't take the bargain will be marginalized and irrelevant after a few generations of absorption.