Why/how are post-schism councils valid? I thought all the sees had to be represented in order for councils to make infallible statements. Since the Orthodox still have valid orders, there are apostolic sees that have not participated in councils with the West for nearly a millennium. What am I missing?
Recently, the proprietor of this blogspace, Mr. Funky Dung, commented
about the "nice things" I say here from time to time. Though I am reasonably
certain that Mr. Dung intended it as a compliment, perhaps in the vein of "nice
arse kicking" or "nice proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem," part
of me was quite taken aback [I meant it in the sense of "nice reasoning"
or "well thought out response" or "good points". – Funky]
You see, "nice" has been registered as a complaint leveled against
Evangelicaldom in recent years. And as one of the token Evangelicals in these blogparts,
I must confess that I take the criticism to be all too often valid. I am therefore
probably more sensitive to occurrences of this word that most folks, not having
been accused of the sin of nice, use in a completely innocent, even complimentary,
way. Let me ‘splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…
The
seventh Catholic Carnival is up at Dunmoose the Ageless. The theme is Advent.
The
47th Christian Carnival is up at GodBlog. Go check them out!
Every Holy Thursday, one or more of the Pittsburgh Oratorians takes
people on a tour of seven churches for adoration of the Blessed
Sacrament. Occasionally listed among those seven churches has been St.
Nicholas on the North Side (not to be confused with its sister church,
St. Nicholas in Millvale). As I recall (It’s been a while since my last
visit), it’s a
beautiful church. It has the classy look of artisitic sacred
architecture, something woefully lacking in most modern churches.
Today, I was saddened to read that the
Diocese of Pittsburgh has decided to close it down. If you’ve ever
seen the beauty of St. Nicholas and wish to see it preserved, I strongly
urge you to contact the diocese.
[A small addition has been made to this post to clarify a point. – Funky]
I have a question for my fellow Catholics on this the Feast of the Immaculate Conception
Why did the Church find it necessary to define the Marian dogmas as such? Shouldn’t dogma be limited to those articles of faith which are absolutely required for salvation? As far as I know, no authentic orthodox Christian church requires belief in the Marian dogmas for salvation. Though Tradition can supplement and even interpret Scripture, it cannot contradict Scripture. Scripture states quite clearly that faith in Jesus Christ is what’s needed for salvation. One could also argue that participation in the sacraments is needed, too, but that’s another post. Put succinctly, if it’s not in the accepted creeds, it’s not, strictly speaking, necessary, though it may be appropriate or even laudable.
My faith is not affected, for good or ill, by whether or not Mary was conceived without sin. Nor is it affected by her bodily assumption into Heaven. I accept these dogmas as a faithful and obedient Catholic, but I do not understand why they are important.
Could someone please explain why they were defined? In particular, why couldn’t they remain at the level of doctrine rather than be promoted to dogma? I’ve heard that the Orthodox agree that Mary was conceived without sin, but were uncomfortable about declaring as dogma. Since the Orthodox Church is the only other Church we recognize as maintaining the Deposit of Faith, their discomfort gives me pause.
On a related note, where does the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity come from? I know the words for "brother" and "sister" in Scripture can mean "cousin" or other relatives, but what evidential support do we have for this interpretation?