Author Topic: Question on the Pope  (Read 43841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Question on the Pope
« on: July 27, 2011, 12:22:17 PM »
I have a question for my Catholic friends, and please understand, as my previous posts, I am simply curious and in no way trying to stir up trouble.

Papal infallibility is something Catholics hold to (in theological matters, if I am not mistaken). Now, my questions are as follows:

Have Catholics always believed this?
If not, when this policy was accepted, were previous popes "grandfathered" in?
If so, what about popes declared to be heretics? Were they also not theologically infallible? If their rulings were recinded later, does that not mean the pope is indeed, NOT infallible on theological matters?

thanks!

primuspilus
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2011, 12:35:09 PM »
I have a question for my Catholic friends, and please understand, as my previous posts, I am simply curious and in no way trying to stir up trouble.

Papal infallibility is something Catholics hold to (in theological matters, if I am not mistaken). Now, my questions are as follows:

Have Catholics always believed this?
If not, when this policy was accepted, were previous popes "grandfathered" in?
If so, what about popes declared to be heretics? Were they also not theologically infallible? If their rulings were recinded later, does that not mean the pope is indeed, NOT infallible on theological matters?

thanks!

primuspilus

The idea that every utterance of the pope in matters of faith and morals is infallible is false.

There is NO teaching that the pope is infallible in matters of theology.

The teaching is very explict: faith and morals.

And the teaching is as ancient as the papal office itself, in the same way the Incarnation existed as it was said to exist in Council long before the Council itself.

Teaching does not make truth:  Truth makes for orthodox teaching.

Offline TristanCross

  • Chief Of Sinners
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 357
  • Faith, Hope, LOVE
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian Inquirer
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2011, 12:38:19 PM »
In Catholicism, the Bishop of Rome is infallible only as far as he speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair). Though, no one knows when the Roman Bishop is and is not speaking "ex cathedra". What I've been told during my Catholic days was that the Bishop of Rome declaring something infallibly is a rare occurrence (the most recent thing being the Assumption of Mary, I believe). Also, when a Catholic tells you that it has always been believed that the Bishop of Rome, they are giving false information based on quote-mined Scriptures and quotes of the Church Fathers that are often out of context (go to the Fathers Know Best section of Catholic Answers and then look up the actual quotes in context. You will be surprised at how they manipulate things and twist them to fit their beliefs).

Check this out:

Quote
Council of Chalcedon - Canon 28

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

The bishops of [Old] Rome and Constantinople (New Rome) were both given the same amount of authority.

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal and that the Bishop of Constantinople is "first among equals" (though, the Bishop of Rome would be if he were in communion with the Church).
"Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor. "
— St. John Chrysostom

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,087
  • don't even go there!
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2011, 12:41:29 PM »
If so, what about popes declared to be heretics? Were they also not theologically infallible?

AFAIK, no popes have been "declared to be heretics" by the Catholic Church itself.   :)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2011, 12:43:29 PM »
Quote
AFAIK, no popes have been "declared to be heretics" by the Catholic Church itself.
I thought Honorius was declared a heretic.

Quote
There is NO teaching that the pope is infallible in matters of theology.

I thoiught that the teaching of infallibility extends to even the fact that the pope is incapable of the possibility of error. Then again, the Catholic Encyclopedia is kind of confusing sometimes....

primuspilus
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 12:45:09 PM by primuspilus »
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2011, 12:44:36 PM »
The Sixteenth Session of the Council of Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,087
  • don't even go there!
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2011, 12:48:18 PM »
Quote
AFAIK, no popes have been "declared to be heretics" by the Catholic Church itself.
I thought Honorius was declared a heretic.

I said "by the Catholic Church itself".  What others say about him is irrelevant.

After all, to the Orthodox, every pope since 1054 has been a heretic.  ;)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,087
  • don't even go there!
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2011, 12:48:53 PM »
The Sixteenth Session of the Council of Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”


Maybe "anathema" was just their way of saying, "Hey Honorius, how ya doin'?"  ;D
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2011, 12:49:38 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2011, 12:50:12 PM »
Quote
After all, to the Orthodox, every pope since 1054 has been a heretic
Well, yeah but I was referring to the Roman Catholics thought of this.

Quote
Maybe "anathema" was just their way of saying, "Hey Honorius, how ya doin'?"
Thats like going to hug your mom and instead throwing a frozen apple at her (and yes, they hurt WAY worse than baseballs)

primuspilus
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,087
  • don't even go there!
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2011, 12:52:29 PM »
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I)

"This anathema was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because (1) Honorius was not considered to be speaking ex cathedra, by the supporters of infallibility, in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra) [2], and (2) he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots."

Mind you, I am not defending him or saying he wasn't a heretic.  Just pointing out that it is possible to do so, from the RC point of view, and still argue in favor of papal infallibility.

It all centers on how you define "infallibility" - ah, there's the kicker! :D
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,087
  • don't even go there!
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2011, 12:53:50 PM »
Well, yeah but I was referring to the Roman Catholics thought of this.

See my post above for what I found about this.

Thats like going to hug your mom and instead throwing a frozen apple at her (and yes, they hurt WAY worse than baseballs)

primuspilus

My mom's a pretty good catcher - if I threw a frozen apple or a baseball at her, she'd fling it right back and I'd be in the hospital for a while.  8)  ;D
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 12:54:04 PM by theistgal »
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2011, 01:00:32 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Your ecclesial community teaches no such thing.  Read your canons on your supreme pontiff and ecumenical councils.  Read the "Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches" in Latin.  Read Lumen Gentium, in particular the appended comments at the end.  Read Pastor Aeternus on the immediate and universal jurisdiction of your "Supreme Pontiff"

For your education, and for those who are educatible, "sacramentally equall" means that the lowliests auxiliary bishop can perform any function the Ecumenical Patriarch (or Rome, when it had an Orthodox Patriarch) can do, demonstrated by the fact that the EP can take no action without the approval of the Holy and Sacred Synod.  Unlike your Supreme Pontiff, who, as the above mentioned documents reiterate, can do anything without reference to anyone else.  In fact, said documents go out of their way to emphasis that his power does not depend on the episcopate.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2011, 01:00:51 PM »
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I)

"This anathema was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because (1) Honorius was not considered to be speaking ex cathedra, by the supporters of infallibility, in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra) [2], and (2) he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots."

Mind you, I am not defending him or saying he wasn't a heretic.  Just pointing out that it is possible to do so, from the RC point of view, and still argue in favor of papal infallibility.

It all centers on how you define "infallibility" - ah, there's the kicker! :D
I have also read, (I can't remember where) that the term "heretic" had a broader meaning in the past and could include some one who, while not explicitly teaching error, allows error to grow by his actions.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2011, 01:08:19 PM »
btw, nice to see you back.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I)

"This anathema was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because (1) Honorius was not considered to be speaking ex cathedra, by the supporters of infallibility, in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra) [2], and (2) he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots."

Mind you, I am not defending him or saying he wasn't a heretic.  Just pointing out that it is possible to do so, from the RC point of view, and still argue in favor of papal infallibility.

It all centers on how you define "infallibility" - ah, there's the kicker! :D
It always is.  Raises the question of what good "infaliblity" is if you can't tell what is supposed "infallible."

On Honorius
Quote
...It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned....The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century.....Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecumenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox (true enough; but, in a definition of faith, surely the words are of primary importance); the council judged Honorius by his words, and condemned him simply as a Monothelite; Leo II accepted and confirmed the condemnation by the council, but, in doing so, he carefully defined in what sense the condemnation was to be understood. These views of Hefele's, which he put forth with edifying modesty and submission as the best explanation he could give of what had previously seemed to him a formidable difficulty, have had a surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Vatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment (so Jungmann and many controversialists)....
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
of course, we can never get that offiicial list of ex cathedra statements, nor the official criteria making a statement ex cathedra.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 01:09:53 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2011, 01:10:11 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Your ecclesial community teaches no such thing.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I was talking about the Vatican Religious Organization, so you are dead wrong in your blow back.

Read their texts.  That is PRECISELY what they teach and THAT teaching is what contains the papal teachings but you would have no way of knowing that...

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2011, 01:11:17 PM »

nor the official criteria making a statement ex cathedra.

Search the Vatican site.  It's all there in various documents.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 01:11:43 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2011, 01:16:03 PM »
So would papal bulls be considered such?

primuspilus
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2011, 01:16:19 PM »
"This anathema was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because (1) Honorius was not considered to be speaking ex cathedra, by the supporters of infallibility, in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra) [2], and (2) he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots."

Yes. I think we've all heard the "absence of ex-cathedra" and "the teaching vs gross negligence" arguments when it comes to Honorius.

Unconvincing.  ::)

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,087
  • don't even go there!
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2011, 01:41:03 PM »
Mickey, agreed it's unconvincing (to some) but my point was simply that there is an argument for that p.o.v. :)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2011, 01:45:52 PM »

nor the official criteria making a statement ex cathedra.

Search the Vatican site.  It's all there in various documents.
No, it's not.  Hence our point.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2011, 01:47:08 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Your ecclesial community teaches no such thing.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I was talking about the Vatican Religious Organization, so you are dead wrong in your blow back.

Read their texts.  That is PRECISELY what they teach and THAT teaching is what contains the papal teachings but you would have no way of knowing that...

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I was refering to the ecclesial community of your baptism, not the magisterium of your musings.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2011, 02:00:26 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Your ecclesial community teaches no such thing.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I was talking about the Vatican Religious Organization, so you are dead wrong in your blow back.

Read their texts.  That is PRECISELY what they teach and THAT teaching is what contains the papal teachings but you would have no way of knowing that...

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I was refering to the ecclesial community of your baptism, not the magisterium of your musings.

So am I.  The formal teaching.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2011, 02:02:38 PM »
So would papal bulls be considered such?

primuspilus

No papal document is automatically an exercise of papal infallibility.

That does not mean that we don't need to pay attention to the teachings of any bishop, including the pope.  We simply pay attention knowing that these teachings are not an exercise of papal infallibility.  Such an exercise is rarely necessary to ascertain the truth in Scripture and Tradition, but when it is necessary it is a charism available to the Church.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 02:02:58 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2011, 02:03:48 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Your ecclesial community teaches no such thing.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I was talking about the Vatican Religious Organization, so you are dead wrong in your blow back.

Read their texts.  That is PRECISELY what they teach and THAT teaching is what contains the papal teachings but you would have no way of knowing that...

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I was refering to the ecclesial community of your baptism, not the magisterium of your musings.

So am I.  The formal teaching.
Sort of like Pope Honorius being a formal heretic, or do you claim he was a material heretic?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2011, 02:04:59 PM »
So would papal bulls be considered such?

primuspilus

No papal document is automatically an exercise of papal infallibility.

That does not mean that we don't need to pay attention to the teachings of any bishop, including the pope.  We simply pay attention knowing that these teachings are not an exercise of papal infallibility.  Such an exercise is rarely necessary to ascertain the truth in Scripture and Tradition, but when it is necessary it is a charism available to the Church.
but the identificiation of such exercises is evidently not necessary. :P
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2011, 02:05:29 PM »
Quote
AFAIK, no popes have been "declared to be heretics" by the Catholic Church itself.
I thought Honorius was declared a heretic.

I said "by the Catholic Church itself".  What others say about him is irrelevant.

After all, to the Orthodox, every pope since 1054 has been a heretic.  ;)

At least to most of the posters here...I will settle for all of them being schismatic across the board, with the honor of being declared a 'heretic' being reserved only for a few.  ;D

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2011, 02:09:13 PM »
So would papal bulls be considered such?

primuspilus

No papal document is automatically an exercise of papal infallibility.

That does not mean that we don't need to pay attention to the teachings of any bishop, including the pope.  We simply pay attention knowing that these teachings are not an exercise of papal infallibility.  Such an exercise is rarely necessary to ascertain the truth in Scripture and Tradition, but when it is necessary it is a charism available to the Church.
but the identificiation of such exercises is evidently not necessary. :P

You complain when the Vatican is too general and you complain when they are too specific...

Po'boy!!   :)

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2011, 02:30:54 PM »
Mickey, agreed it's unconvincing (to some) but my point was simply that there is an argument for that p.o.v. :)

I suppose you could say there is an argument for any point of view.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2011, 02:32:49 PM »
So would papal bulls be considered such?

primuspilus

No papal document is automatically an exercise of papal infallibility.

That does not mean that we don't need to pay attention to the teachings of any bishop, including the pope.  We simply pay attention knowing that these teachings are not an exercise of papal infallibility.  Such an exercise is rarely necessary to ascertain the truth in Scripture and Tradition, but when it is necessary it is a charism available to the Church.
but the identificiation of such exercises is evidently not necessary. :P

You complain when the Vatican is too general and you complain when they are too specific...

Po'boy!!   :)
Only because it is general when it makes claims on being specific (i.e. ex cathedra definitions of the faith, the need of the magisterium to resolve issues of faith, etc.) and specifies things for which there is no need (IC, dogmatizing the Assumption, etc.).

Don't cry for me MarieElijah, the Vatican hasn't kept the truth as promised, so I keep my distance.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2011, 02:34:45 PM »
Well although it is impossible to re-seal this can i've opened, I do appreciate the comments. Although it dosent make it really that much clear, I am understanding a bit more the points of view vs. what I think. Thanks!

primuspilus
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2011, 03:32:55 PM »
Well although it is impossible to re-seal this can i've opened, I do appreciate the comments. Although it dosent make it really that much clear, I am understanding a bit more the points of view vs. what I think. Thanks!

primuspilus

Primuspilus, here are my two cents.

Latins claim that the dogma proclaimed in the 19th century had always been believed. Now, they don't go as far as to say that it was believed with those very words. According to the concept of "development of dogma", the belief was implicit and gradually better understood and finally explicitily defined.

The concept of clarification of dogma is not wrong in itself. The Trinitiy, the cossubstantiality were not first believed with these words.

One must assess then, if any claim of clarification is really that, or if it is just a "interpretation" of text and history. Remember that "heresy" means choosing and that is because heretics pick and choose verses, facts, dogmas as it fits their pre-chosen belief. This discernement will tell if a novel word or concept is a clarification or a rupture.

Latin defense of papal claims holds onto these:

1 - The current Roman exegesis of Mat 16:18 and John 21:15;

2 - Certain excerpts of the Fathers, including Greek ones, that say that one must be united to Rome to be Orthodox, or
2.1 exalting Rome or the Pope;

3 - Certain excerpts of the Fathers mentioning the role of Peter;

4 - The not much discussed but vital concept of transference of personal charismas;
4.1 - and if this were true, how it would happen;

5 - The praxis of the 1st millenium church in solving certain issues appealing to the Pope;

6 - The subsidiary issue if a "strong man" is necessary to keep the unity of the Church. In all fairness, the better educated don't use this as an argument, but it *does* come up very often explicitily or implicitily that a material church must also have a material leader to keep unity;

Each of these principles (except 6) must stand to hold the building.

« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 03:39:04 PM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2011, 04:12:24 PM »
Thanks Fabio.

I appreciate it.

pp
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2011, 04:30:44 PM »

I said "by the Catholic Church itself".  What others say about him is irrelevant.

Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,087
  • don't even go there!
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2011, 05:55:34 PM »

I said "by the Catholic Church itself".  What others say about him is irrelevant.

Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.

Right, but then they qualify it with the statements I posted above.

Which I won't repeat because, as the proud new owner of a Droid 2, I know makes these posts that much longer and more difficult for a reader to scroll through!!  ;D
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline James2

  • Mr.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2011, 05:57:41 PM »
The concept of clarification of dogma is not wrong in itself. The Trinity, the consubstantiality were not first believed with these words.

Another example is the dogma of Christ having two wills as defined by Constantinople III, the council which condemned Pope Honorius I and several other deceased Eastern patriarchs as monothelete heretics.  The thing I don't get is, how could their beliefs on this matter be condemned as heretical when the Church hadn't yet decided what was orthodox at the time that they lived?  Their contributions to the debate were part of the decision process that culminated in the definition of Constantinople III.  Who knows, they might have come to agree with the consensus of Constantinople III had they lived to take part in it.

Of course, if Honorius's letter to Sergius could be considered "ex cathedra" by 7th century standards, that would still pose a serious problem for papal infallibility, since it clearly wasn't the final word on the matter.  That's why Catholic apologists generally claim that Honorius was not attempting to define dogma.  I've also heard it claimed that Honorius wasn't a true monothelete, but that he was just trying to avoid the idea that Christ's human will could be in conflict with His divine will.  Even so, there is no question that Constantinople III considered him heretical.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2011, 06:05:59 PM »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2011, 06:34:33 PM »

4 - The not much discussed but vital concept of transference of personal charismas;
4.1 - and if this were true, how it would happen;
I've started a couple threads on this very issue.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2011, 06:54:41 PM »
Which I won't repeat because, as the proud new owner of a Droid 2, I know makes these posts that much longer and more difficult for a reader to scroll through!!  ;D
Sweet, I recently got a Droid phone as well. I limit how long I am on the forum on it though because it really seems to zap the battery fast when you do very much surfing.

Offline TristanCross

  • Chief Of Sinners
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 357
  • Faith, Hope, LOVE
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian Inquirer
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2011, 08:32:42 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Your ecclesial community teaches no such thing.  Read your canons on your supreme pontiff and ecumenical councils.  Read the "Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches" in Latin.  Read Lumen Gentium, in particular the appended comments at the end.  Read Pastor Aeternus on the immediate and universal jurisdiction of your "Supreme Pontiff"

For your education, and for those who are educatible, "sacramentally equall" means that the lowliests auxiliary bishop can perform any function the Ecumenical Patriarch (or Rome, when it had an Orthodox Patriarch) can do, demonstrated by the fact that the EP can take no action without the approval of the Holy and Sacred Synod.  Unlike your Supreme Pontiff, who, as the above mentioned documents reiterate, can do anything without reference to anyone else.  In fact, said documents go out of their way to emphasis that his power does not depend on the episcopate.

Great post. One priest I listened to on Ancient Faith Radio said that in the Orthodox Church, each jurisdiction has the fullness of the Orthodox faith and truth. However, in Roman Catholicism, if the Vatican were bombed with the Pope in it (God forbid), the whole Roman Catholic Church would be in question.
"Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor. "
— St. John Chrysostom

Offline TristanCross

  • Chief Of Sinners
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 357
  • Faith, Hope, LOVE
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian Inquirer
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2011, 08:32:43 PM »
So would papal bulls be considered such?

primuspilus

No papal document is automatically an exercise of papal infallibility.

That does not mean that we don't need to pay attention to the teachings of any bishop, including the pope.  We simply pay attention knowing that these teachings are not an exercise of papal infallibility.  Such an exercise is rarely necessary to ascertain the truth in Scripture and Tradition, but when it is necessary it is a charism available to the Church.

Challenge: Please tell me precisely the definition of an ex-cathedra statement (how do we know when one is made, basically) and give me a list of all ex-cathedra statements of the Popes from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI.

So far, no Catholic has ever done it  :laugh:
"Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor. "
— St. John Chrysostom

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2011, 09:34:37 PM »
I have a question for my Catholic friends, and please understand, as my previous posts, I am simply curious and in no way trying to stir up trouble.

Papal infallibility is something Catholics hold to (in theological matters, if I am not mistaken). Now, my questions are as follows:

Have Catholics always believed this?
If not, when this policy was accepted, were previous popes "grandfathered" in?
If so, what about popes declared to be heretics? Were they also not theologically infallible? If their rulings were recinded later, does that not mean the pope is indeed, NOT infallible on theological matters?

thanks!

primuspilus

Hi primuspilus. I think theistgal has covered this pretty well already, but I just want to emphasize that just because the Pope makes a statement about faith or morals, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's an ex cathedra statement.
- Peter Jericho

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2011, 09:36:29 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Your ecclesial community teaches no such thing.  Read your canons on your supreme pontiff and ecumenical councils.  Read the "Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches" in Latin.  Read Lumen Gentium, in particular the appended comments at the end.  Read Pastor Aeternus on the immediate and universal jurisdiction of your "Supreme Pontiff"

For your education, and for those who are educatible, "sacramentally equall" means that the lowliests auxiliary bishop can perform any function the Ecumenical Patriarch (or Rome, when it had an Orthodox Patriarch) can do, demonstrated by the fact that the EP can take no action without the approval of the Holy and Sacred Synod.  Unlike your Supreme Pontiff, who, as the above mentioned documents reiterate, can do anything without reference to anyone else.  In fact, said documents go out of their way to emphasis that his power does not depend on the episcopate.

Great post. One priest I listened to on Ancient Faith Radio said that in the Orthodox Church, each jurisdiction has the fullness of the Orthodox faith and truth. However, in Roman Catholicism, if the Vatican were bombed with the Pope in it (God forbid), the whole Roman Catholic Church would be in question.

That doesn't really make any sense. Perhaps you mean, if the Pope and all the Cardinals died at the same time.
- Peter Jericho

Offline ody30

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2011, 12:08:57 PM »
Still not clear to me on a couple of items,
So if infallibility has always been dogmatically part of the RCC? Just not formally defined until Vatican I?
And if this is the case, and if my memory serves, would Pope Leo III engraving of the creed on silver plates without the filoque be a de-facto ex-cathedra statement?   ???

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,385
Re: Question on the Pope
« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2011, 12:25:05 PM »

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Your ecclesial community teaches no such thing.  Read your canons on your supreme pontiff and ecumenical councils.  Read the "Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches" in Latin.  Read Lumen Gentium, in particular the appended comments at the end.  Read Pastor Aeternus on the immediate and universal jurisdiction of your "Supreme Pontiff"

For your education, and for those who are educatible, "sacramentally equall" means that the lowliests auxiliary bishop can perform any function the Ecumenical Patriarch (or Rome, when it had an Orthodox Patriarch) can do, demonstrated by the fact that the EP can take no action without the approval of the Holy and Sacred Synod.  Unlike your Supreme Pontiff, who, as the above mentioned documents reiterate, can do anything without reference to anyone else.  In fact, said documents go out of their way to emphasis that his power does not depend on the episcopate.

Great post. One priest I listened to on Ancient Faith Radio said that in the Orthodox Church, each jurisdiction has the fullness of the Orthodox faith and truth. However, in Roman Catholicism, if the Vatican were bombed with the Pope in it (God forbid), the whole Roman Catholic Church would be in question.

That doesn't really make any sense. Perhaps you mean, if the Pope and all the Cardinals died at the same time.
Depends.  Somewhere here we have a thread on the pope who abolished the old rules of election for pope and then died before promulgating the new ones.  How then could the cardinals elect his successor?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth