I am a Catholic man and I plan on marring a Greek Orthodox. We plan on haveing children in the future, but we can't decide on the religion for our children. Is it possible to raise the children as both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox?

Thanks For Any Help.

-- Frank (frankjonny_2@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003

Answers

Response to Children In Inter-relgion Marriage

Check out the Byzantine Catholic Rite. The Byzantine Rite is recognized by Rome, but follows many of the same traditions as the Greek Orthodox Rite. I love the Byzantine Liturgy.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 05, 2003.

Response to Children In Inter-relgion Marriage

The Byzantine Catholic Church in Europe is very similar to the Russian Orthodox Church; similarly, the Greek Catholic Church in Europe is very similar to the Greek Orthodox Church. Both are true Catholic Churches, in communion with Rome. (They were created when various Orthodox countries were conquered by neighboring Catholic rulers.)

However, the Vatican wasn't too pleased when these rites started spreading to the new world, so the Byzantine Catholic Rite and the Greek Catholic Rite in the United States have been subjected to a fair amount of Latinization. For example, the priesthood in the United States must be celibate. (This requiement alone drove a good number of Eastern Rite Catholics back into schism again, resulting in the Orthodox Church in America.)

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 05, 2003.

Response to Children In Inter-relgion Marriage

Haha.. celibacy, old tradition, implanted for good reasons, however it is *just* tradition... Not a fan of the celibate priesthood, in the least.

"However, the Vatican wasn't too pleased when these rites started spreading to the new world"

I've read many times of the Pope saying things exactly the opposite of this.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 05, 2003.

Response to Children In Inter-relgion Marriage

Dear Frank, You can raise your children however you and their mother decide but really, if your Catholicism means anything to you you should insist that they are raised within the Catholic tradition. But it certainly would be good for them to be fluent in the Greek orthodox traditions as well but not as a member. The Byzantine Rite is a close relative to the Greek Orthodox tradition and is in union with the Holy See.

By no means should the Greek Orthodox tradition be slighted it has apostolic succession and is a loved "brother" in Christ.

Pray about it. Best Wishes.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

Response to Children In Inter-relgion Marriage

>> I've read many times of the Pope saying things exactly the opposite of this.

If you're referring to Pope John Paul II, you are correct. The current Pope has come out very much against the previous trend of Latinization of the Eastern Rites. This can be seen very clearly in his Apostolic Letter ORIENTALE LUMEN (1995). However, the effects of several centuries of Latinization can't be reversed overnight, and a lot of work remains to be done.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 05, 2003.

Response to Children In Inter-relgion Marriage

I was refering to Pope JP II. :D

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 05, 2003.

Response to Children In Inter-relgion Marriage

Jmj
Hello, Mark.

You wrote: "The Byzantine Catholic Church in Europe is very similar to the Russian Orthodox Church; similarly, the Greek Catholic Church in Europe is very similar to the Greek Orthodox Church."

You have a misunderstanding ...
(1) The Byzantine Catholic Church and the "Greek" Catholic Church are one and the same. The latter is a sort of colloquial term for the former. The Byzantine Catholic Church is subdivided into about 15 local segments, according to nation/region (e.g., Albanian Byzantine, Ukrainian Byzantine, Ruthenian Byzantine, Hungarian Byzantine, etc.). For example, in my grandparents' homeland, the "Slovak Byzantine Catholic Church" is familiarly called the "Greek Catholic Church."
(2) The Russian Orthodox church and the Greek Orthodox church are closely related, but autonomous entities, and they celebrate the same Divine Liturgy. (I'm not sure if either or both use the vernacular.)

You wrote: "[The Byzantine is a] true Catholic [church], ... created when various Orthodox countries were conquered by neighboring Catholic rulers."

I have never read that conquest was involved. Rather, I have read that the Byzantine Catholic Church is one of the several parts of the ancient Eastern churches [Melkite Catholic being another] that voluntarily reunited themselves under the jurisdiction of the pope during the second millennium.

You wrote: "However, the Vatican wasn't too pleased when these rites started spreading to the new world ..."
I doubt this, though I am open to your documentation of the claim that "the Vatican wasn't too pleased." [I agree that "latinization" occurred, but I have read that now, 38 years after the end of the Council, it has mostly been extirpated.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

>> (1) The Byzantine Catholic Church and the "Greek" Catholic Church are one and the same. The latter is a sort of colloquial term for the former.

I didn't know that. Thanks! I went searching, and found the following Catholic Information Network website on the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. I'm trying to go though it now; it's very interesting.

>> (2) The Russian Orthodox church and the Greek Orthodox church are closely related, but autonomous entities, and they celebrate the same Divine Liturgy. (I'm not sure if either or both use the vernacular.)

The Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other, and considered parts of the (overall) Orthodox Church. This website is a good source of information about the Orthodox Church:

The Orthodox church is a fellowship of administratively independent, or autocephalous (self-governing) local churches, united in faith, sacraments, and canonical discipline, each enjoying the right to elect its own head and its bishops. Traditionally, the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul) is recognized as the "first among equal" Orthodox bishops. He possesses privileges of chairmanship and initiative but no direct doctrinal or administrative authority.

The Russian Orthodox church used "Old Church Slavonic", which is intelligable enough to speakers of Russian to be considered vernacular.

>> I have never read that conquest was involved.

Unfortunately, I'm finding that a lot of Catholic sources are heavily biased towards presenting the Catholic Church in the best light possible, rather than accurately presenting both positive and negative facts. For example, the online Catholic Encyclopedia says the following in its article about the Union of Brest: After the annexation of Red Ruthenia, or the Ukraine, to Poland, in 1569, the Ruthenians, who had become politically subject to Poland, began to compare the lamentable condition of their Church with the development and vitality of Catholicism and to turn their eyes towards Rome.

Compare that to the introductory sentence from the following much franker treatment that acknowledges the new ruling nation's role in the conversion: A king as decidedly Catholic as Sigismund III was of course deeply interested in the problem of religious unity within the limits of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

>> You wrote: "However, the Vatican wasn't too pleased when these rites started spreading to the new world ..."

The following Greak Catholic Union website provides a very readable chronicle of the conflict between the Vatican and the Eastern Rite Church in America. Also, look at this and this.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 06, 2003.

Oops, my missing Orthodox Church website is http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/orthodox.htm

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 06, 2003.

Jmj

Mark, thanks for your message with responses to my comments. I have a few responses in return.

You stated: "The Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches are in full communion with each other, and considered parts of the (overall) Orthodox Church."

Although it is not forbidden to use the term, "Orthodox Church," our Catholic documents almost always refer to the "Eastern churches" or the "(Eastern) Orthodox churches." I believe that this is done to show their autocephalous character -- the fact that they have no "pontiff." This, by the way, hurts them a lot, because they have never had an ecumenical council -- with no one to call one and no one to ratify decrees, no way to agree to development of doctrine, no formal way to resolve disputes, etc..

Previously, you wrote: "[The Byzantine is a] true Catholic [church], ... created when various Orthodox countries were conquered by neighboring Catholic rulers."
To this, I responded, "I have never read that conquest was involved. Rather, I have read that the Byzantine Catholic Church is one of the several parts of the ancient Eastern churches [Melkite Catholic being another] that voluntarily reunited themselves under the jurisdiction of the pope during the second millennium."

This time, you replied:
"Unfortunately, I'm finding that a lot of Catholic sources are heavily biased towards presenting the Catholic Church in the best light possible, rather than accurately presenting both positive and negative facts. For example, the online Catholic Encyclopedia says the following in its article about the Union of Brest: [etc.] ... Compare that to the introductory sentence from the following much franker treatment that acknowledges the new ruling nation's role in the conversion: ..."

You seem to have a very anti-Vatican or anti-Western tendency, Mark. That is not a very pleasant thing to notice. Actually, I would trust, in a heartbeat, the Catholic Encyclopedia over the more recent (possibly "revisionist history") work that you linked.

Last time, I stated: "You [Mark] wrote: 'However, the Vatican wasn't too pleased when these rites started spreading to the new world ...' I doubt this, though I am open to your documentation of the claim that 'the Vatican wasn't too pleased.'"

I'm afraid that I am still waiting for documentation of this claim. You provided three links, but I don't believe that they contain anything at all to show that "the Vatican wasn't too pleased." You had specifically mentioned "the Vatican" -- not the North American bishops. By the way, I would suggest that, in situations like this (where you need to substantiate a claim), you quote brief passages from a work (and provide the URL or a link) rather than just providing a link. It's not kosher for you to expect me to read three long articles searching for a proof of your claim, especially when it isn't even present.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

>> You seem to have a very anti-Vatican or anti-Western tendency, Mark. That is not a very pleasant thing to notice.

I'm sorry that it appears that way. One of the things that attracted me to the Catholic Church is that it encourages people to use their intellect as well as their faith, and that it does not see a conflict between science and faith, or history and faith. Thus, I'm going to seek the truth, without trying to cover things up in order to make the Church appear in the best light possible. And it is an historical fact that the Western Church has a long history of using force against the Eastern Church, e.g., the Fourth Crusade. It doesn't make me less of a Catholic to acknowledge this.

>> This, by the way, hurts them a lot, because they have never had an ecumenical council -- with no one to call one and no one to ratify decrees, no way to agree to development of doctrine, no formal way to resolve disputes, etc..

At the very least, this is a misleading statement. Pope John Paul II writes in ORIENTALIS LUMEN that "the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ's Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each," so in that spirit I'm going to point out that the Eastern Orthodox Church(es) have had several "Pan-Orthodox" councils between what you consider to be separate churches, but which have in fact retained the same organization that they have had since the days of Christ. These councils have settled disputes and ratified decrees. The main difference is that the Orthodox do not consider these councils to be ecumenical because of the lack of participation of the Catholic Church, and thus do not see them having the charism of infallibility. Development of doctrine is another issue altogether that I'm not going to go into here.

>> Actually, I would trust, in a heartbeat, the Catholic Encyclopedia over the more recent (possibly "revisionist history") work that you linked.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia article acknowledged the conquest of the Orthodox nation by Catholic rulers. If you want to believe their subsequence conversion back to Rome had nothing to do with their conquest, then I'm not going to stop you. Similarly, if you want to believe that the early twentieth century Vatican fully supported the Eastern Rites in the U.S. and did their best to see them grow and prosper, you are welcome to believe that as well.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 07, 2003.

Jmj

Thank you, Mark, for mentioning the "Pan-Orthodox Councils" to me, as I was not aware of them. Curious to know when they have been held, I did a little searching and found the following statements (written by Eastern Orthodox people). These have shown me that you are mistaken about this matter [there haven't yet been any such "councils"], and thus I must stand firm on what I told you previously:

(1) "[T]he gatherings that have come together thus far under the title 'Pan-Orthodox' have had no such purpose [i.e., the purpose of first-millennium Ecumenical Councils], nor, in fact, have they come to any decisions whatsoever. Strictly speaking, they have not even been 'Pan-Orthodox' gatherings but only 'Pro-Synods,' that is, purely preparatory gatherings which are still trying to agree on what should or should not be discussed at the proposed 'Pan-Orthodox' synod, when and if it ever takes place."

(2) "Orthodoxy is now in the process of convening a Pan-Orthodox Council and hopefully this will be held within the next two years. This will be the first since Nicea in 787 A.D. (now named Iznik in Turkey). The preparatory conferences have taken about 15 years and require at least two more to complete the agenda."

Mark, I want you to know that I desire to be fair to both sides, including an admission that very bad things have been done to Eastern Christians by Western Christians (even by some popes).
But the resistance that you noticed in my earlier messages was my way of cautioning people not to fall into the trap of ALWAYS taking the side of the East against the West. I have noticed that some people, once they become aware of some historical impropriety by the West, begin to go berserk attacking the Vatican and/or the Latin church, while conveniently overlooking the historical improprieties of the East. This results in their adopting a most unpleasant way of speaking -- usually a superciliousness/haughtiness, often a vocabulary of "persecution complex," sometimes a criticism of Vatican-imposed disciplines, sometimes even a doubting of Catholic doctrines. I hope that you won't fall into these traps.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

John,

Thanks for the comments on East vs. West. I will try to avoid falling into the trap you mention.

As to the Pan-Orthodox councils, this website contains this statement: Occasion to rule on the calendar arose again in 1593, at the great Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople. At this great council, the four eastern Patriarchs, the legate of the Russian patriarchate and senior hierarchs delegated by the other Orthodox Churches, canonically established and decreed: He who does not follow the traditions of the Church which have been decreed by the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils which have ordained well that we observe the Holy Pascha and the festal calendar [menologion], and who wishes to follow the new Paschalion and festal calendar...let him be anathema and outside the Church of Christ and the assembly of the faithful....

As you've requested, I've extracted the relevant quote and placed it directly in my post. (I'm still going through Dave Armstrong's website; I'll get back to you on that as soon as I can.)

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 07, 2003.

Jmj

Very interesting, Mark, that some Orthodox people seem not to recognize the "Council" of 1593 -- since they say that a coming Council will be the first since the first millennium.
I failed to provide this URL for my second quotation last time: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/sermons/michael_gre atest_need.htm
My first quotation was, I believe, from a "dead page" on the Internet (for which Google still had an old "cached" copy), so I cannot supply a URL.

No need to rush to read the Armstrong material for my benefit, Mark. I realize you are interested in it, but I wasn't sharing it for the purposes of generating a debate!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

John,

>> Very interesting, Mark, that some Orthodox people seem not to recognize the "Council" of 1593

I'm afraid you are reading way too much into a few sentences taken out of context. The webpage for your second quotation is not a historical essay or a scholarly thesis; it is the transcript of a sermon trying to address the (very severe) problem of nationalism in the Orthodox Church. And it appears that Archbishop Michael makes liberal use of hyperbole in his sermons. You can see that yourself if you notice that Nicean council of 787 A.D. he mentions is in fact Nicea II, the Second Holy Ecumenical Council of Nicea, attended by both East and West. No Pan-Orthodox council can compare to that, as it will never have the charism of infallibility, according to the Eastern Orthodox.

The real kicker in Archbishop Michael's sermon is that the modern council that he is referring to wouldn't even be a true Pan-Orthodox council, as it excluded the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (also known as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia or the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile) that split off from the rest of Orthodoxy when Russia fell to the communists.

Without the URL to your first quotation, I can't explain it with certainty, but it appears to be about some of the problems associated with the same modern "Pan-Orthodox" council that Archbishop Michael refers to.

A good source of information about the Orthodox Church is the book _The Orthodox Church_ by Timothy Ware. I have the one of the earlier editions, and it mentiones the following councils in the index: Constantinople (1156), Constantinople (1341), Constantinople (1351), Jassy (1642), Moscow (1666), Jerusalem (1672), Constantinople (1819), Moscow (1917), Karlovtzy (1921, 1922), Cleveland (1946), Moscow (1948). The some of entries after 1917 were Synods instead of Councils; I don't think that belies my main point. And by no means does Ware's index contain a complete list; it is merely those Councils that he talks about in his book.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 07, 2003.

Jmj

Thanks for the reply, Mark.
Even before you mentioned him, I was familiar with the name of the (ex-Anglican) Orthodox Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware. If I recall correctly, he has a good reputation among Catholics who work with the Orthodox.

I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but extended excerpts of Bp. Ware's book are on the Internet. (I have not read them fully, but gleaned some key facts for this reply to you.) Check this page and this page for the excerpts.

In an earlier message, I presented two quotations (from Orthodox sources) indicating that there has not yet ever been a Pan-Orthodox Council (a term you had previously used). The gist of your subsequent opinion was that my quotations were not reliable or not well worded.

In replying and citing Bp. Ware, you wrote [with my emphasis added]: "A good source of information about the Orthodox Church is the book _The Orthodox Church_ by Timothy Ware. I have the one of the earlier editions, and it mentiones the following councils in the index: Constantinople (1156), Constantinople (1341), Constantinople (1351), Jassy (1642), Moscow (1666), Jerusalem (1672), Constantinople (1819), Moscow (1917), Karlovtzy (1921, 1922), Cleveland (1946), Moscow (1948). Some of the entries after 1917 were Synods instead of Councils; I don't think that belies my main point. And by no means does Ware's index contain a complete list; it is merely those Councils that he talks about in his book."

The first thing that I note, Mark, is your use of the simple word "councils" -- not "Pan-Orthodox Councils," which is what you had claimed to have taken place in the second millennium A.D.. My "skimming" of the Ware excerpts seems to confirm that the councils and synods he mentions, both before and after 1917, were not "Pan-Orthodox," but "local" (his word in at least one place). Therefore, until I see uncontrovertible evidence that there have been Pan-Orthodox Councils [i.e., what we would have called Ecumenical Councils, if "the West" (including the pope or papal legates) had also been present], I have to stand by the comments of Archbishop Michael and of my other source [which I have determined to have been the monk Ephraim of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston in 1968].

Tangential issue: Searching the Ware excerpts for the cities in which you mentioned councils had occurred caused me to stumble onto something that I found very troubling. Here it is:
"The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’ (3 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; Letter of Jeremias. In the west these books are often called the ‘Apocrypha’). These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture;’ most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament."

As a fellow Catholic, Mark, I'm sure that you can see that these "Council" "declar[ations]" were faulty. They attempt to "canonize" three books that Catholicism has infallibly rejected as not divinely inspired (3 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and the Letter of Jeremias). My understanding is that, even as far back as the fourth century, a papally issued O.T. canon did not include these three books. Also troubling is the (non-conciliar) opinion that the deuterocanonicals "stand on a lower footing than the rest of the" O.T. -- an idea that is rejected by Catholicism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.

John,

Thanks for the pointers to Ware's book online; it makes searching much easier. As for the councils, I think we differ more on terminology than anything else, but I don't know what else to say.

I found an interesting statement in Ware: But now that the second Vatican Council has issued a dogmatic statement on the powers of the episcopate, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papal claims has begun to appear to the Orthodox world in a somewhat different light.

I've seen elsewhere on the net statements that Vatican II was "only" (if you can even use that term of an Ecumenical Council) a pastoral council. Which is correct?

>> As a fellow Catholic, Mark, I'm sure that you can see that these "Council" "declar[ations]" were faulty. They attempt to "canonize" three books that Catholicism has infallibly rejected as not divinely inspired (3 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and the Letter of Jeremias).

I have no problem believing those councils faulty. I know that the books you mentioned aren't in our canon. Has there been some other declaration that those books are not divinely inspired, or are you just assuming that they aren't because they are not in the canon?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 08, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Mark.

You wrote: "Ware [states]: But now that the second Vatican Council has issued a dogmatic statement on the powers of the episcopate, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papal claims has begun to appear to the Orthodox world in a somewhat different light. I've seen ... on the net statements that Vatican II was 'only' (if you can even use that term of an Ecumenical Council) a pastoral council. Which is correct?"

Yes, I have seen that comment many a time. (My memory is fading, but I think that the concept of "pastoral council" came from something Pope John XXIII said or wrote.) My answer has always been this:
"Look at the titles of the Council Fathers' 16 documents. They include: the 'Dogmatic Constitution on the Church' and the 'Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation." Besides the obvious fact that these two documents contain "dogmas" -- the most formal kinds of "defining" teachings -- I don't doubt that other dogmas appear in some of the other documents.

In the documents of past Councils, the proclamation of dogmas has been done in a very "formulaic" way, ending with warnings of excommunications ("anathema sit"). No such formulas or warnings appear in the Vatican II documents. The Council Fathers and the popes (John XXIII and Paul VI) chose to relate the content of doctrines and dogmas in a less formal way.

I believe that the reference to "pastoral Council" is a way of saying that the central purpose of the Fathers was to restate, in up-to-date language, many of the Church's teachings, so that they can be used by "pastors of souls" most effectively.

One of the 16 Council documents was the "Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops In the Church." In addition to this, a major section of the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" described the role of the college of Catholic bishops. I don't exactly feel qualified to say whether or not Bp. Ware exagerrated in referring to a "dogmatic statement on the powers of the episcopate." [I also don't know what he was trying to say about the pope and bishops.] If the Council did not actually proclaim a "dogma" on the episcopate, it most certainly did a lot of "teaching" -- statements of doctrine -- on the topic. I believe that what the Council said about the episcopate is not subject to "reform," though perhaps subject to "development."

About my mentioning that an Orthodox (local?) council had "canonized" 3 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and the Letter of Jeremias, you stated:
"I know that the books you mentioned aren't in our canon. Has there been some other declaration that those books are not divinely inspired, or are you just assuming that they aren't because they are not in the canon?"

I know that these three books (and, I've heard, at least hundreds of other books of the pre-Christian and Christian eras) were considered by the 4th-century councils and the pope that first established the Church's scriptural canons ... and all books other than our current 73 (46 + 27) were rejected as not divinely inspired. The OT and NT canons were repeatedly listed throughout the centuries, until they were most formally proclaimed in the 16th century (in response to the Protestants' short lists).

I do not know if, at any time the canons were listed, the Church specifically named the writings it had bypassed. But I think that such an action would have been completely unnecessary. If the three books in question had been divinely inspired, my faith tells me that God would have made that known to the Church, and the books would be in our OT canon right now. In other words, I believe that canonization was an infallible action (nothing phony allowed in, nothing genuine left out).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.

John,

Many thanks for your answer on the pastoral nature of Vatican II. With so many people trying to resist its teachings, it's hard to know what statements about it are valid and which are schismatic.

As for the canon issue, my dim memory is that it is more complicated than that. I took a class in "Aspects of Catholic Tradition" in college several decades ago (as well as a class in "Aspects of Orthodoxy"), and my recollection was that the council considering the canon took several factors into account. For the New Testament, some direct connection to the original apostles was required, thus the letters of Pope Clement I were not placed in the canon. I don't have any reason to think that those letters were not considered divinely inspired.

It got really complicated trying to reconcile the council's charism of infallibility with regard to the promulgation of the canon with their apparent errors in authorship of the books of the New Testament. For example, the book of Hebrews was included because the council believed it was written by St. Paul; but now modern scholars think that very unlikely. My best guess is that the canon is exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted it to be, despite the discrepancy between the list of canonical books vs. the stated criteria used to generate that list.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 08, 2003.

Here's a URL from Dave Armstrong that addresses the "pastoral nature" of Vatican II argument: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ382.HTM

It starts off the argument against Vatican II by the following speech of Pope Paul VI: There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it AVOIDED ISSUING SOLEMN DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it AVOIDED PROCLAIMING IN AN EXTRAORDINARY MANNER ANY DOGMATA CARRYING THE MARK OF INFALLIBILITY.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003.

Jmj

Mark, out of fairness to Dave Armstrong, I think that it should be said that the passage you quoted is being proposed (in blue type on the linked page) by a "traditionalist dissenter," an opponent of Armstrong. Dave almost immediately responds:

"Whether [the Council] is infallible or not (we shall get into that at great length below) you are required as a Catholic to submit to its teachings, and even to give the obedience of interior (as well as exterior/public) assent. The denial of this leads to Luther's arbitrary pick-and-choose position against the Church."

It goes on from there [and I haven't read the rest yet].

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.

Frank,

I see no problem with this. One book you may be interested in reading is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Both you and your fiancee practice what are known as "high church" religions. What matters is that you both agree on Christ as Lord and savior. I was raised by a Roman Catholic mother and a Church of Christ(VERY fundamentalist, or "low church")father. Though they disagreed on many liturgical and theological points, they always found common ground. I was raised in the Catholic Church, received my sacraments there, but I also attended Church of Christ vacation Bible school during the summers. I grew up with a very healthy outlook on the idea of sects, and am now able to see past the petty hair-splitting most hard-liners dwell upon. I am married now to a Lutheran, and we have agreed to raise our son ecumenically. You may also be interested in a book titled "Ecumenism 101". I forget the author's name, but it was an easy yet informative read.

-- J Biscuits (clavooxadado@aol.com), May 16, 2003.