Statement of Pope Benedict XVI and Ecuminism of Return

[clem456]

Originally Posted by JReducation

The Church has its own language. I don't mean Latin. I mean language in the sense of shared meanings. Words that mean something in the secular world don't always mean the same thing in the Church, because language in the secular world is always in a state of evolution. Language in the Church is static.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think the word "subsists" causes problems for many people, myself included. I think people confuse "subsists" with "consists of".
Would you be able to shed some light on the correct understanding of this term in the context we are discussing? Thanks

[hawkeye125646]

Originally Posted by TimothyH

I have this fantasy that all the Jehovah's Witnesses convert, and instead of handing out Watchtower booklets as they go door-to-door, they hand out those little plastic ziplock bags with a rosary and instructions on how to pray it.


-Tim-

HA HA HA HA! Oh man oh man oh man! That would be a very Funny show! HA HA HA!

[hawkeye125646]

Originally Posted by JReducation

"This is a concrete example of what the Pope is trying to tell Protestants. The fullness of the Christian Church subsists in the Catholic Church. Through Baptism, they are incorporated into that Church. However, they have to reach the fullness of faith, which will only happen in Catholicism. At the same time, he reminds then that they are not returning and turning their back. They are in fact moving forward, not regressing. They bring with them a faith tradition that is very much a part of their journey and which they must appreciate. That faith tradition inspired them to love and seek out the Fullness of Truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

That is beautifully articulated...there are also many other examples, of former Protestants, who become Catholic, that follow this example of ecunism... Bishop Fulton j Sheen once said "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church."

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by clem456

I think the word "subsists" causes problems for many people, myself included. I think people confuse "subsists" with "consists of".
Would you be able to shed some light on the correct understanding of this term in the context we are discussing? Thanks

I'll try, but I'm not sure if it will make a lot of sense. I find it easier to explain in Latin and Spanish than in English, because "subsists" is not a very common word.

In essence what it is saying is that the Church that Christ founded has never ceased to exist. This statement is very important, because it speaks the the argument that the Catholic Church came out Constintine's reign or the argument that the Catholic Church abandoned the Christian faith and that it was not rediscovered until Luther came around.

Basically it's saying that today's Catholic Church did not pop out of the air. It is an outgrowth of the Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ rooted in the faith of the Apostles. While she may look different, speak differently and her rituals have evolved, it's all growth, not someone inventing a new Church.

The early Church that Christ entrusted to the Apostles was like a seed in fertile soil. Today's Catholic Church grows out of that. Saying it the other way around, the seed and the soil given to the Apostles are intact under the tree. There is no disconnect. Just because one can't see the seed and the soil, does not mean that the tree is disconnected. Without that seed and soil, the tree would not exist. Hence the term subsists, that which gives existence to what comes out of it.

Just because we can't see the early Church when we look at today's Catholic Church, does not mean that we're disconnected from it. Without it, today's Catholic Church would not exist.

Think in biological terms. Substrate is the natural environment in which an organism lives or the medium on which an organism grows and is attached. We say that this environment subsists in the organism.

The Church founded on the faith of the Apostles constitutes the natural environment in which today's Catholic Church has grown and remains attached to it. Therefore, the early Church or Christian Church is not lost in ancient history nor is she dead. She subsists in the Catholic Church. What you see in Catholicism is what has grown from that early Church. No other faith can claim to grow out of the see that Christ planted in the Apostles.

Even Protestantism, which can trace itself back to Christ, has to do so through Catholicism. The first Protestants were Catholics. It is through Catholicism that Protestantism finds its way back to the substrate, which is the Early Church founded by Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Even Protestantism, which can trace itself back to Christ, has to do so through Catholicism. The first Protestants were Catholics. It is through Catholicism that Protestantism finds its way back to the substrate, which is the Early Church founded by Christ.

Explain that a little.

[choliks]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

Explain that a little.

As I understand what Bro. JR was trying to tell... Protestants cannot claim to trace back to Christ without the Catholic Church. Reconciled? Full communion?

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by clem456

I think the word "subsists" causes problems for many people, myself included. I think people confuse "subsists" with "consists of".
Would you be able to shed some light on the correct understanding of this term in the context we are discussing? Thanks

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

Explain that a little.

In other words, had there been no Catholic Church, there would be no Protestantism, because Protestantism did not begin in the Early Church. It begins about 1500 years of Christ and the apostles. Once Protestantism finds its way back to its roots, it dead end in Catholicism, not at the Apostles. To get to the Apostles, it has to work its way back through Catholicism.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[clem456]

Thank you Br Jr.

A few years back Pope Benedict was raked over the coals by the press and some religious leaders for saying that salvation subsists in the Catholic Church. The secular press, mistakenly in my opinion, misunderstood this to mean that in an exclusionary sense, a person must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. I believe many people understood the Pope to mean that salvation -consists of- one or another particular observance.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by clem456

Thank you Br Jr.

A few years back Pope Benedict was raked over the coals by the press and some religious leaders for saying that salvation subsists in the Catholic Church. The secular press, mistakenly in my opinion, misunderstood this to mean that in an exclusionary sense, a person must be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. I believe many people understood the Pope to mean that salvation -consists of- one or another particular observance.

I don't remember that. I must have been out of school that day.

That being said, I would not take that statement to mean as you said the press took it. Having been a former student of Cardinal Ratizinger, I would have said, "That's not what he means, because I know that he does not believe this. He must mean something else."

This goes back a very long time and you must factor in that I was a student, not a scholar. My frustration with Cardinal Ratzinger and many of our other professors in Rome was that they never made sense. Later, when I came back to America to continue my studies, I ran into more theologians who made no sense.

I finally decided to stop focusing on the fact that they did not make sense. In began to sit back and analyze these professors. I made what I believed to be a significant discovery. It was significant to me, because it helped me.

I discovered that these people are so bright that they can't screw in a light bulb without studying the essence of the bulb and the origin of light. In other words, to understand them, you have to think like them. They don't answer one question at a time. Every statement they make is a response to a set of questions, usually the kind that has a question within a question within another question. Like the light bulb example. You have the light bulb that needs to be screwed in. You have the matter out of which the bulb is made. And you have the light emanated by the bulb.

The question would go something like this. How is it possible that light can be contained in this glass apparatus and radiate enough watts to light up a room, yet not cause a fire? What is it about the structure of this thing that makes it safe and how do I use it?

Ans: Screw the stupid thing in and you'll see how it works.

For the theologian that answer is too simplistic, because it doesn't answer his other questions.

Many people believe that a theologian only teaches that which is already known about the faith. That's partially correct. The theologian also has to ask what truth lies behind the truth that we know. In this sense, the work of the theologian never comes to an end and he is not reduced to a catechist or an apologist who simply teaches the faith. He is the analyst. Often, he is thinking aloud as he speaks. Like the man thinking about the light bulb.

Pope Benedict is very much the theologian. Sometimes he'll say part of what's going through his mind. but there is more to it. One has to learn to trust him that he has the whole picture in his head, even if he's saying something that is incomprehensible to us. When he is asked a question, he breaks it down into three or four more questions that must be answered in order to answer your question. The answer that you get is a summary statement. The whole of it is very clear to him. This is what happened with that whole issue about condoms, AIDS and prostitutes. At face value, it sounded very strange. When the question behind the question, which was behind the other question in his head were put on the table, the answer made sense. The problem is that the receiver does not know the other questions in the man's head. He only knows the question is he asked.

Once I figured out this way of thinking, I learned to love theologians like Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II, and several others who are absolutely brilliant. The challenge is that they leave us with a lot of work to do. Because we have to figure out the a priori questions that led to the statement he made.

But the exercise can be fun, if we trust that the person is not mistaken and accept that we're not as intelligent as he is. Then we sit down to learn their language. That's where the fun is.

This was never done in the past. First, we didn't have the means of communication to hear the pope speak daily, if we want to do so. Second, popes has to concise and concrete in their statements, because people did not have the resources that we have today to go back and review what has been said and where it fits in the big picture.

Today, we can go online and visit thousands of libraries and millions of books and articles without spending a penny. All we knee is the time, the interest and a guide.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[Thomas Casey]

Unrelated to Catholic tradition

CLOSED