OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Papist on August 31, 2010, 02:19:54 PM

Title: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on August 31, 2010, 02:19:54 PM
Fr. Gabriel Bunge OSB, a renowned Benedictine hermit and master of Patristic thought, was received into the Russian Orthodox Church a few days ago.

Praise God!!  Another Lev Gillet.

When will the Holy Father follow suit?
Well, if he were to do so, he would no longer be a member of the Catholic Communion and, thus, would no longer be the Pope.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: mike on August 31, 2010, 02:38:42 PM
But he is infallible, isn't he?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on August 31, 2010, 02:40:56 PM
But he is infallible, isn't he?
That is not what the dogma Papal Infallibility teaches AT ALL.
For the Pope to teach infallibly, he must be intending to teach as the Pope, ex cathedra.

If a pope were defect from the Catholic Church, he would no longer be the Pope and would no longer be protected by the charism of the infallible magisterium.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Punch on August 31, 2010, 02:52:28 PM
But he is infallible, isn't he?
That is not what the dogma Papal Infallibility teaches AT ALL.
For the Pope to teach infallibly, he must be intending to teach as the Pope, ex cathedra.

If a pope were defect from the Catholic Church, he would no longer be the Pope and would no longer be protected by the charism of the infallible magisterium.

Yes, but he would be protected by the Charism of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on August 31, 2010, 02:57:08 PM
But he is infallible, isn't he?
That is not what the dogma Papal Infallibility teaches AT ALL.
For the Pope to teach infallibly, he must be intending to teach as the Pope, ex cathedra.

If a pope were defect from the Catholic Church, he would no longer be the Pope and would no longer be protected by the charism of the infallible magisterium.

Yes, but he would be protected by the Charism of the Holy Spirit.
::) This is getting way off topic. Do you really want to discuss how a hypothetical Pope's hypothetical defection from the Catholic Church would affect Catholics? If so, I would be happy to do so, but start another thread please.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: BoredMeeting on August 31, 2010, 03:58:34 PM
Do you really want to discuss how a hypothetical Pope's hypothetical defection from the Catholic Church would affect Catholics? If so, I would be happy to do so, but start another thread please.
I actually started looking for a screen shot of Woody Allen from the movie Sleeper, where he reads a headline from the future: "Pope's wife has twins!"
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: danman916 on August 31, 2010, 04:32:58 PM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on August 31, 2010, 06:02:11 PM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.
Agreed. I have seen that happen here time and time again.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 31, 2010, 10:29:38 PM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.

In this instance the Latins do not know what they believe.  It is still a matter debated by theologians, whether a Pope who goes into heresy ceases to be Pope and can be removed from the papal office.  
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 01, 2010, 01:13:35 PM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.

In this instance the Latins do not know what they believe.  It is still a matter debated by theologians, whether a Pope who goes into heresy ceases to be Pope and can be removed from the papal office.  
No, for the most part it is settled that if a Pope were to LEAVE the Church and cease to be a Catholic, he would not be the Pope.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: danman916 on September 01, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.

In this instance the Latins do not know what they believe.  It is still a matter debated by theologians, whether a Pope who goes into heresy ceases to be Pope and can be removed from the papal office.  

"a matter still debated" does not equate into "Latins don't know what they believe".
More polemics again.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 01, 2010, 04:39:38 PM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.

In this instance the Latins do not know what they believe.  It is still a matter debated by theologians, whether a Pope who goes into heresy ceases to be Pope and can be removed from the papal office.  

"a matter still debated" does not equate into "Latins don't know what they believe".
More polemics again.


Oh good grief!

That's been resolved many times over many centuries.

A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ.

What may come into question is the condition of formal heresy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1535524/posts
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 01, 2010, 08:24:17 PM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.

In this instance the Latins do not know what they believe.  It is still a matter debated by theologians, whether a Pope who goes into heresy ceases to be Pope and can be removed from the papal office. 

"a matter still debated" does not equate into "Latins don't know what they believe".
More polemics again.


Oh good grief!

That's been resolved many times over many centuries.

A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ.

What may come into question is the condition of formal heresy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1535524/posts

"A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ."

Makes no sense to me at all.  Do you mean that a Pope wakes up one  morning:  "Hey, I am now a heretic in their eyes.  I'd better pack my backpack and remove myself from the Vatican."

How does the Roman Church remove an heretical Pope?

Who is able to judge the man that no earthly power is able to judge?



Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 02, 2010, 01:49:00 AM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.

In this instance the Latins do not know what they believe.  It is still a matter debated by theologians, whether a Pope who goes into heresy ceases to be Pope and can be removed from the papal office. 

"a matter still debated" does not equate into "Latins don't know what they believe".
More polemics again.


Oh good grief!

That's been resolved many times over many centuries.

A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ.

What may come into question is the condition of formal heresy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1535524/posts

"A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ."

Makes no sense to me at all.  Do you mean that a Pope wakes up one  morning:  "Hey, I am now a heretic in their eyes.  I'd better pack my backpack and remove myself from the Vatican."

How does the Roman Church remove an heretical Pope?

Who is able to judge the man that no earthly power is able to judge?


Well then why bother your head about it, if its too difficult to grasp...eh?  It's no your concern in any event and will only lead you into bitter temptation!!

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 02, 2010, 02:11:55 AM
Fr. Gabriel Bunge OSB, a renowned Benedictine hermit and master of Patristic thought, was received into the Russian Orthodox Church a few days ago.

Praise God!!  Another Lev Gillet.

When will the Holy Father follow suit?

And would it really result in an end to the papacy if he did convert? Or would a large amount of Romanists just recognize him as a heretic and schismatic and elevate someone else to his position?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 02, 2010, 02:11:55 AM
But he is infallible, isn't he?

Only when speaking ex cathedra. So he could convert to "Eastern Orthodoxy" without making an infallible proclamation. And even if he did follow the forms, it's entirely possible that he could be regarded as no longer being the Pope because of his conversion in the first place.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: mike on September 02, 2010, 03:34:26 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 02, 2010, 04:30:43 AM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.

In this instance the Latins do not know what they believe.  It is still a matter debated by theologians, whether a Pope who goes into heresy ceases to be Pope and can be removed from the papal office. 

"a matter still debated" does not equate into "Latins don't know what they believe".
More polemics again.


Oh good grief!

That's been resolved many times over many centuries.

A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ.

What may come into question is the condition of formal heresy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1535524/posts

"A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ."

Makes no sense to me at all.  Do you mean that a Pope wakes up one  morning:  "Hey, I am now a heretic in their eyes.  I'd better pack my backpack and remove myself from the Vatican."

How does the Roman Church remove an heretical Pope?

Who is able to judge the man that no earthly power is able to judge?


Well then why bother your head about it, if its too difficult to grasp...eh?  It's no your concern in any event and will only lead you into bitter temptation!!

M.

Mary, please look again at what I wrote.  I did not say that it was too difficult to grasp, I said that what you wrote yourself made no sense.

Anybody, with a simply google.com seacrh, will discover that Catholic theologians are not agreed on whether an heretical Pope can be removed.

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 02, 2010, 11:08:03 AM
Papist,

sometimes you have to realize that it's easier to hold onto these polemical notions, than to actually understand exactly what it is that Latins believe.

In this instance the Latins do not know what they believe.  It is still a matter debated by theologians, whether a Pope who goes into heresy ceases to be Pope and can be removed from the papal office. 

"a matter still debated" does not equate into "Latins don't know what they believe".
More polemics again.


Oh good grief!

That's been resolved many times over many centuries.

A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ.

What may come into question is the condition of formal heresy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1535524/posts

"A pope who falls into FORMAL heresy removes himself from the Body of Christ and so does not remain as the Vicar of Christ."

Makes no sense to me at all.  Do you mean that a Pope wakes up one  morning:  "Hey, I am now a heretic in their eyes.  I'd better pack my backpack and remove myself from the Vatican."

How does the Roman Church remove an heretical Pope?

Who is able to judge the man that no earthly power is able to judge?


Well then why bother your head about it, if its too difficult to grasp...eh?  It's no your concern in any event and will only lead you into bitter temptation!!

M.

Mary, please look again at what I wrote.  I did not say that it was too difficult to grasp, I said that what you wrote yourself made no sense.

Anybody, with a simply google.com seacrh, will discover that Catholic theologians are not agreed on whether an heretical Pope can be removed.

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

 :laugh:  Catholic theologians are also not agreed on whether or not a woman can be ordained.

Good thing Catholic theologians don't write the canons.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Iconodule on September 02, 2010, 11:18:34 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.

Yeah, this is how the dogma was explained to me at the ByzCath forum. And I'm a vegetarian between meals.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 02, 2010, 11:32:42 AM

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Good thing Catholic theologians don't write the canons.

M.

The canon as I have quoted is "Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur"

Will you quote canons which contradict that?  Or is it as canon denied by Ruthenian Catholic theologians?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Marc1152 on September 02, 2010, 11:47:20 AM
But he is infallible, isn't he?
That is not what the dogma Papal Infallibility teaches AT ALL.
For the Pope to teach infallibly, he must be intending to teach as the Pope, ex cathedra.

If a pope were defect from the Catholic Church, he would no longer be the Pope and would no longer be protected by the charism of the infallible magisterium.

Catholics never seem clear about when their Pope is speaking ex catheda. When a past Pope has taught something they are uncomfortable with , it's not him speaking ex catheda. If the present Pope pronounces something they won't like, then it wont be ex cathedra... Very confusing.

If the current Pope vests and goes out on the balcony and reads from a signed statement that he is rejoining his fellow Bishops from the Orthodox Church, it would be pretty darn official from where i sit. No?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 02, 2010, 12:59:52 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
The doctrine of infallibility never states that the Pope is infallible in his actions.
It only says that when he is teaching ex cathedra, that he is protected from error. However, if here were to leave the Catholic Church it would be impossible for him to teach ex cathedra, because he would no longer be on the metaphorical Chair of Peter. Only a Catholic can be the Pope. Not a non-Catholic. I have no idea why this is difficult for you to see. Perhaps you are to wrapped up in polemics to try and understand what we Catholics actually believe?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Marc1152 on September 02, 2010, 02:51:17 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
The doctrine of infallibility never states that the Pope is infallible in his actions.
It only says that when he is teaching ex cathedra, that he is protected from error. However, if here were to leave the Catholic Church it would be impossible for him to teach ex cathedra, because he would no longer be on the metaphorical Chair of Peter. Only a Catholic can be the Pope. Not a non-Catholic. I have no idea why this is difficult for you to see. Perhaps you are to wrapped up in polemics to try and understand what we Catholics actually believe?

It's just that it is nearly impossible to tell when he is speaking ex cathedra. It appears to me that he is when convenient and not when inconvenient.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Marc1152 on September 02, 2010, 04:55:41 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
The doctrine of infallibility never states that the Pope is infallible in his actions.
It only says that when he is teaching ex cathedra, that he is protected from error. However, if here were to leave the Catholic Church it would be impossible for him to teach ex cathedra, because he would no longer be on the metaphorical Chair of Peter. Only a Catholic can be the Pope. Not a non-Catholic. I have no idea why this is difficult for you to see. Perhaps you are to wrapped up in polemics to try and understand what we Catholics actually believe?

We already know that an Orthodox Bishop can be Pope. I hope you dont air brush them out of the pictures like Stalin did to Trotsky.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 02, 2010, 05:38:33 PM
I think its pretty easy to tell. When the Pope says something along the lines of "I solemnly declare, define, etc..." or "All Catholic must believe..." He is speaking ex cathedra.

The argument you are providing sounds alot like when we Catholics accuse EOs about not being clear on dogma.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 02, 2010, 06:19:23 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
The doctrine of infallibility never states that the Pope is infallible in his actions.
It only says that when he is teaching ex cathedra, that he is protected from error. However, if here were to leave the Catholic Church it would be impossible for him to teach ex cathedra, because he would no longer be on the metaphorical Chair of Peter. Only a Catholic can be the Pope. Not a non-Catholic. I have no idea why this is difficult for you to see. Perhaps you are to wrapped up in polemics to try and understand what we Catholics actually believe?

Is it no longer taught that the Pope is infallible in his office and in his person?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 02, 2010, 06:24:48 PM
I think its pretty easy to tell. When the Pope says something along the lines of "I solemnly declare, define, etc..." or "All Catholic must believe..." He is speaking ex cathedra.

Precisely why Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino are infallible although modern Catholics react with horror to the doctrine in them.

Quote
The argument you are providing sounds alot like when we Catholics accuse EOs about not being clear on dogma.

Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino fulfil the criteria for infallible papal teaching but Catholics wish to fudge it.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 02, 2010, 09:26:21 PM
I have no problem with these documents except that they may not be worded in the most prudent way. There is nothing in Catholic dogma that states that the best words possible will always be used when the Church defines doctrine. Also, there is nothing in Catholic dogma that says we should ignore the historical context of dogma when it is defined.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aristobolus on September 03, 2010, 02:37:11 AM
Sincerely, if the Bishop of Rome were to speak ex-cathedra that the "Orthodox church is the true Church", and confess the Creed sans the Filioque; what then could be said?  It is an interesting scenario no matter which way you lean, is it not?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Jetavan on September 03, 2010, 03:02:19 AM
There is nothing in Catholic dogma that states that the best words possible will always be used when the Church defines doctrine.
That's an awfully large loop-hole. (Not that I'm complainin'.)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 03, 2010, 03:22:42 AM

There is nothing in Catholic dogma that states that the best words possible will always be used when the Church defines doctrine.

Phew!  That's a major worry, when the Popes are not very competent with the Latin language!!

And especially because Mary tells us that the only way for the Popes to express Catholic teaching with any exactitude is in the Latin Language!   :(
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 03:23:04 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.

The Pope supposedly (according to Romanist teaching) cannot make a mistake, at least not doctrinally, ex cathedra. In the instances where it is understood that he could make a mistake, it's hard to imagine how this could occur ex cathedra. If he converted to "Eastern Orthodoxy", it would technically be impossible for him to speak ex cathedra anymore, as he would no longer be the Pope.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 03:23:04 AM
Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Is it possible that, in the context of the nature of the Vatican, there is something more to what constitutes "The First See" than merely the Bishop of Rome himself? And thus that the Vatican itself could somehow judge the Bishop of Rome?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 03:23:04 AM
Catholics never seem clear about when their Pope is speaking ex catheda. When a past Pope has taught something they are uncomfortable with , it's not him speaking ex catheda. If the present Pope pronounces something they won't like, then it wont be ex cathedra... Very confusing.

If the current Pope vests and goes out on the balcony and reads from a signed statement that he is rejoining his fellow Bishops from the Orthodox Church, it would be pretty darn official from where i sit. No?

Nonetheless he would have become a schismatic by the very decision to do so before making the proclamation and thus he would not be the Pope when making the proclamation.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 03:23:04 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
The doctrine of infallibility never states that the Pope is infallible in his actions.
It only says that when he is teaching ex cathedra, that he is protected from error. However, if here were to leave the Catholic Church it would be impossible for him to teach ex cathedra, because he would no longer be on the metaphorical Chair of Peter. Only a Catholic can be the Pope. Not a non-Catholic. I have no idea why this is difficult for you to see. Perhaps you are to wrapped up in polemics to try and understand what we Catholics actually believe?

Not necessarily. To be honest, even though it seems I understand what you are trying to say, it has been very difficult trying to understand all the nuances of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Most people don't understand it because, in my opinion, it is such a convoluted doctrine.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 03, 2010, 03:37:06 AM
I think its pretty easy to tell. When the Pope says something along the lines of "I solemnly declare, define, etc..." or "All Catholic must believe..." He is speaking ex cathedra.

Precisely why Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino are infallible although modern Catholics react with horror to the doctrine in them.

Quote
The argument you are providing sounds alot like when we Catholics accuse EOs about not being clear on dogma.

Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino fulfil the criteria for infallible papal teaching but Catholics wish to fudge it.

When the Church says that they do not fully express the mind of the Church then they do not and are not infallible documents.   Again I ask you:  Who are you?

You goal with this kind of post is not to shed light but to shed heat and discord.

Your rages, the ones you claim to have, seem to me to hide the fact that you are terrified that there will be union in your lifetime and rather than ever be angry with you, I simply pray that you get to see it before you close your eyes on this side of the Great Divide.

It gives me great joy, morning and evening to pray for you so that you may live long enough to see the resumption of communion between Catholics and Orthodox.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 03, 2010, 03:37:06 AM
I have no problem with these documents except that they may not be worded in the most prudent way. There is nothing in Catholic dogma that states that the best words possible will always be used when the Church defines doctrine. Also, there is nothing in Catholic dogma that says we should ignore the historical context of dogma when it is defined.

Don't even bother addressing these kinds of things with Father Ambrose.  It is a great waste of time and the fact that he pumps up the same old songs on his Irish Piano should tell you that it is a distraction from real substance in these discussions.  Wherever he sees even the whisper of a chance that some light may be shed, some better understanding emerge, he commences to begin to derail it all.

So with me, simply pray that he sees the day when Orthodoxy resumes communion with the Catholic Church and with her teachings, whole and integral as they are today.

Not changes in doctrine, no long years of penance...bah!!...

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 03, 2010, 04:17:21 AM
Catholics never seem clear about when their Pope is speaking ex catheda. When a past Pope has taught something they are uncomfortable with , it's not him speaking ex catheda. If the present Pope pronounces something they won't like, then it wont be ex cathedra... Very confusing.

If the current Pope vests and goes out on the balcony and reads from a signed statement that he is rejoining his fellow Bishops from the Orthodox Church, it would be pretty darn official from where i sit. No?

Nonetheless he would have become a schismatic by the very decision to do so before making the proclamation and thus he would not be the Pope when making the proclamation.

The teaching is that an heretical Pope cannot be deposed and he remains Pope BUT the Holy Spirit will protect him from making any formal heretical proclamations.

Therefore by definition, if the Pope were to declare Orthodoxy to be the true Church it can only be by the allowance of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 03, 2010, 04:21:56 AM

....simply pray that he sees the day when Orthodoxy resumes communion with the Catholic Church and with her teachings, whole and integral as they are today.


God forbid.  Mary, can you really expect the Church to unite with Rome and accept all of Rome's erroneous teachings?    Are you serious? 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 03, 2010, 04:32:09 AM

Not changes in doctrine, no long years of penance...bah!!...

  Ah, the pride of the Romans!  :)

But Rome has been ill and ailing for the last 1000 years, distorting doctrines, unleashing persecution on the Orthodox Church and our faithful, trying to destroy us and divide us with imitations of Orthodox Churches.  And now you want us to offer obeisance!   God forbid!   Rome will need many long years and even centuries of slow restoration to spiritual and doctrinal health - and even then it is doubtful if it will regain the place it held in the first millennium.  Sic transit gloria papatiae!  Tempora mutantur, ecclesiae et mutantur in illis.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 03, 2010, 04:48:39 AM

Your rages, the ones you claim to have...


The rages I claim to have??

Quote
seem to me to hide the fact that you are terrified that there will be union in your lifetime

I have no terror of this.  It simply will not be happening.  There are very few, if any, sound indicators that the Church of Rome is preparing to jettison its erroneous teachings and extravagant claims and assume a theology and ecclesiology which is fully conformed to that of the Church.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 03, 2010, 05:51:47 AM

seem to me to hide the fact that you are terrified that there will be union in your lifetime
 

I think you have unrealistic hopes for union and perhaps the terror is more on your side where you fear that it will not come about in the quick timeframe you wish.

I think that last Friday's reception of Fr Gabriel (Bunge) into Orthodoxy shows that he, like me, sees little hope of union within our lifetime.  If he did he would have remained with the Roman Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 03, 2010, 06:28:05 AM
Resist the urge...  Resist the urge...  Don't want to have to separate you two again. :police:
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Punch on September 03, 2010, 09:06:34 AM

Your rages, the ones you claim to have...


The rages I claim to have??

Quote
seem to me to hide the fact that you are terrified that there will be union in your lifetime

I have no terror of this.  It simply will not be happening.  There are very few, if any, sound indicators that the Church of Rome is preparing to jettison its erroneous teachings and extravagant claims and assume a theology and ecclesiology which is fully conformed to that of the Church.


More likely the EP will apostatize than the Pope repent.  The Scriptures speak of a great apostasy, not a great revival.  As sad as it is, I don't see any Scriptural prophecy of one billion Latins repenting and rejoining the Church.  If it were to occur, it would be the greatest historical event since the Resurrection of our Lord!
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: BoredMeeting on September 03, 2010, 10:25:42 AM
If he did become Eastern Orthodox, he would most likely have to renounce the false teaching of an infallible human during his chrismation.

Ergo, the answer would be "No", from the Eastern Orthodox perspective.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: LizaSymonenko on September 03, 2010, 11:06:15 AM

Last I heard the man who sits as the RC Pope is a "man", right?

How can a mere man be infallible?  I could never understand that concept.  What pride and self-arrogance to assume that a human can know it all and make no mistakes.

...and as for fearing that some day soon the Orthodox Church will "rejoin" the RC.

Well, the RC split off from Orthodoxy because of their pride and the gall to think they were infallible!

Orthodoxy is complete and has no need to "join" anyone.  However, our doors are open, and if they choose to enter through them, anyone can come and join us!

;)



Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 03, 2010, 11:23:33 AM
Resist the urge...  Resist the urge...  Don't want to have to separate you two again. :police:

For Mary

(http://www.emotihost.com/love1/4.gif)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Iconodule on September 03, 2010, 11:26:30 AM
How can a mere man be infallible?  I could never understand that concept.  What pride and self-arrogance to assume that a human can know it all and make no mistakes.

To be fair, that's not what Papal Infallibility means. The modern RC's have defined it so narrowly that it is basically meaningless now, ie the Pope is infallible except when he's not.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 03, 2010, 01:43:23 PM

Last I heard the man who sits as the RC Pope is a "man", right?

How can a mere man be infallible?  I could never understand that concept.  What pride and self-arrogance to assume that a human can know it all and make no mistakes.

...and as for fearing that some day soon the Orthodox Church will "rejoin" the RC.

Well, the RC split off from Orthodoxy because of their pride and the gall to think they were infallible!

Orthodoxy is complete and has no need to "join" anyone.  However, our doors are open, and if they choose to enter through them, anyone can come and join us!

;)




Was it pride and arrogance that made the authors of scripture infallible when they wrote the scripture? No, it was the Holy Spirit.

What pride and arrogance it must take for non-Catholics to limit the power of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 03, 2010, 01:44:23 PM
How can a mere man be infallible?  I could never understand that concept.  What pride and self-arrogance to assume that a human can know it all and make no mistakes.

To be fair, that's not what Papal Infallibility means.
True
The modern RC's have defined it so narrowly that it is basically meaningless now, ie the Pope is infallible except when he's not.
false
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 03, 2010, 01:45:32 PM
Sincerely, if the Bishop of Rome were to speak ex-cathedra that the "Orthodox church is the true Church", and confess the Creed sans the Filioque; what then could be said?  It is an interesting scenario no matter which way you lean, is it not?
No, because if he became Eastern Orthodox, he would no longer be Catholic, and a non-Catholic cannot be the Pope. Therefore the ex-pope would not be infallible anymore.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 03, 2010, 01:46:14 PM

There is nothing in Catholic dogma that states that the best words possible will always be used when the Church defines doctrine.

Phew!  That's a major worry, when the Popes are not very competent with the Latin language!!

And especially because Mary tells us that the only way for the Popes to express Catholic teaching with any exactitude is in the Latin Language!   :(
What??????????
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: minasoliman on September 03, 2010, 05:42:46 PM
I think its pretty easy to tell. When the Pope says something along the lines of "I solemnly declare, define, etc..." or "All Catholic must believe..." He is speaking ex cathedra.

The argument you are providing sounds alot like when we Catholics accuse EOs about not being clear on dogma.

Dear Papist,

I hope you don't think I'm repeating this question, but as Iconodule said, I'm beginning to feel as if this doctrine of Papal infallibility is no different than believing in episcopal or conciliar infallibility, that they're infallible only when they profess correct doctrine.  Then there's really no need to debate or discuss infallibility anyway.

Nevertheless, you said "All Catholics must believe"...what if, as an official decree, assuming ex cathedra, the Pope declares that "All Catholics must believe" something that goes against true Orthodox beliefs?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on September 03, 2010, 06:16:35 PM
The modern RC's have defined it so narrowly that it is basically meaningless now, ie the Pope is infallible except when he's not.
false

Could you please address the issue and explain why what he says is false?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 03, 2010, 07:03:34 PM

seem to me to hide the fact that you are terrified that there will be union in your lifetime
 

I think you have unrealistic hopes for union and perhaps the terror is more on your side where you fear that it will not come about in the quick timeframe you wish.

I think that last Friday's reception of Fr Gabriel (Bunge) into Orthodoxy shows that he, like me, sees little hope of union within our lifetime.  If he did he would have remained with the Roman Catholic Church.

It's all right, Peter.  I will have this to say and then I'll fold on this thread.

Father Ambrose:

There is no error in the Catholic Church.  There is nothing that needs to be altered in her doctrinal teachings.  She teaches the truth without fail.

There are jurisdictional concerns that she will have to concede and it is my firm belief that she will do so.

She will, in charity and faith,  find a way to resume communion with the least disruption possible to Orthodoxy, regardless of how difficult that might be for other Catholics to accept.  Do not let me fool you or anyone else.  My love for Orthodoxy is not shared among all Catholics.  Any resumption of communion will not be looked upon with favor by those Catholics who already dissent from the truths that Orthodoxy upholds in common with the Catholic Church.  Union may signal more formal schism within the Catholic Church though I pray not, and hope not.

There are many things for which the members of the Catholic Church must do penance, and since many of the truly guilty parties are dead, then it falls to faithful Catholics now living to seek reparations while we are alive and that means prayer, fasting and alms giving.  There are more people than just myself who are aware of these things and who are doing just what I suggest needs to be done.  But the circumstance of that need is not unique among either Catholic or Orthodox, one to the exclusion of the other.

This does not suit you.  I am well aware of that.  And you will do all that you can where you can to make the Catholic Church look as ugly and stupid and faithless as you can make it, but what you do not yet realize is that you struggle in vain.  This is all much bigger than you and your biases.

In Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit

Mary

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 03, 2010, 07:03:34 PM

Last I heard the man who sits as the RC Pope is a "man", right?

How can a mere man be infallible?  I could never understand that concept.  What pride and self-arrogance to assume that a human can know it all and make no mistakes.

...and as for fearing that some day soon the Orthodox Church will "rejoin" the RC.

Well, the RC split off from Orthodoxy because of their pride and the gall to think they were infallible!

Orthodoxy is complete and has no need to "join" anyone.  However, our doors are open, and if they choose to enter through them, anyone can come and join us!

;)


There is no teaching in the Catholic Church that says a mere man is infallible.  There is a teaching that says that the Pope by virtue of the Petrine Office teaches with the infallible voice of the Church, and when he professes to teach with the infallible voice of the Church, his teaching is protected from error by the power of the Holy Spirit.

That is quite a different thing from what you have said here.

Also if there is a resumption of communion, there will be no subsuming of anyone anywhere.  There would be an agreement concerning the issue of primacy in the hierarchy of the Church and jurisdictional issues.  And that would be sufficient IF the hierarchs are mutually agreed and call for resumption of communion based on a common core faith...and each would be free to express things as they deem meet.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 07:03:35 PM
Catholics never seem clear about when their Pope is speaking ex catheda. When a past Pope has taught something they are uncomfortable with , it's not him speaking ex catheda. If the present Pope pronounces something they won't like, then it wont be ex cathedra... Very confusing.

If the current Pope vests and goes out on the balcony and reads from a signed statement that he is rejoining his fellow Bishops from the Orthodox Church, it would be pretty darn official from where i sit. No?

Nonetheless he would have become a schismatic by the very decision to do so before making the proclamation and thus he would not be the Pope when making the proclamation.

The teaching is that an heretical Pope cannot be deposed and he remains Pope BUT the Holy Spirit will protect him from making any formal heretical proclamations.

Therefore by definition, if the Pope were to declare Orthodoxy to be the true Church it can only be by the allowance of the Holy Spirit.

There is a significant difference between the Pope adopting erroneous theological teachings and him changing his view on who is the Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 07:03:35 PM

Last I heard the man who sits as the RC Pope is a "man", right?

How can a mere man be infallible?  I could never understand that concept.  What pride and self-arrogance to assume that a human can know it all and make no mistakes.

It would appear to be within the realm of possibility if it is the work of the Holy Spirit preventing him from erring rather than his own wisdom.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 07:03:35 PM
Was it pride and arrogance that made the authors of scripture infallible when they wrote the scripture?

Were they really infallible? Or was it more so the Church was infallible in its choice of which of these books to recognize?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 07:03:35 PM
Nevertheless, you said "All Catholics must believe"...what if, as an official decree, assuming ex cathedra, the Pope declares that "All Catholics must believe" something that goes against true Orthodox beliefs?

I don't think that they think it would be possible.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 03, 2010, 07:03:35 PM
I think its pretty easy to tell. When the Pope says something along the lines of "I solemnly declare, define, etc..." or "All Catholic must believe..." He is speaking ex cathedra.

The argument you are providing sounds alot like when we Catholics accuse EOs about not being clear on dogma.

Dear Papist,

I hope you don't think I'm repeating this question, but as Iconodule said, I'm beginning to feel as if this doctrine of Papal infallibility is no different than believing in episcopal or conciliar infallibility, that they're infallible only when they profess correct doctrine.  Then there's really no need to debate or discuss infallibility anyway.

Nevertheless, you said "All Catholics must believe"...what if, as an official decree, assuming ex cathedra, the Pope declares that "All Catholics must believe" something that goes against true Orthodox beliefs?

Come on outside the box and try this one:

If two-thirds of the bishops of the Catholic Church came together in a synod and declared that it is time the Church began to ordain women.  Finally after all these centuries the sitting pope gets fed up with the nonsense, calls together his faithful remnant and composes a dogmatic constitution stating essentially that women are not proper matter for the sacrament of orders...period!!  Arguments over.  Dissenting bishops yield or go into schism.

Is the pope wrong because he has no personal infallibility above and beyond one, two, three bishops or a clear majority of bishops?

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 03, 2010, 08:09:46 PM
I think its pretty easy to tell. When the Pope says something along the lines of "I solemnly declare, define, etc..." or "All Catholic must believe..." He is speaking ex cathedra.

The argument you are providing sounds alot like when we Catholics accuse EOs about not being clear on dogma.

Dear Papist,

I hope you don't think I'm repeating this question, but as Iconodule said, I'm beginning to feel as if this doctrine of Papal infallibility is no different than believing in episcopal or conciliar infallibility, that they're infallible only when they profess correct doctrine.  Then there's really no need to debate or discuss infallibility anyway.

Nevertheless, you said "All Catholics must believe"...what if, as an official decree, assuming ex cathedra, the Pope declares that "All Catholics must believe" something that goes against true Orthodox beliefs?
That wouldn't happen because the Pope is infallible when spaking ex cathedra.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: minasoliman on September 03, 2010, 08:40:20 PM
I think its pretty easy to tell. When the Pope says something along the lines of "I solemnly declare, define, etc..." or "All Catholic must believe..." He is speaking ex cathedra.

The argument you are providing sounds alot like when we Catholics accuse EOs about not being clear on dogma.

Dear Papist,

I hope you don't think I'm repeating this question, but as Iconodule said, I'm beginning to feel as if this doctrine of Papal infallibility is no different than believing in episcopal or conciliar infallibility, that they're infallible only when they profess correct doctrine.  Then there's really no need to debate or discuss infallibility anyway.

Nevertheless, you said "All Catholics must believe"...what if, as an official decree, assuming ex cathedra, the Pope declares that "All Catholics must believe" something that goes against true Orthodox beliefs?
That wouldn't happen because the Pope is infallible when spaking ex cathedra.

Okay, I see now where it makes a difference.

Can this be said only for the Pope of Rome?  Or also for councils or a major See?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: sprtslvr1973 on September 03, 2010, 09:07:10 PM
If the Bishop of Rome is Apostolic how come he made changes to the previous 'infallible doctrines'?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 03, 2010, 09:14:04 PM
If the Bishop of Rome is Apostolic how come he made changes to the previous 'infallible doctrines'?
He didn't.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: sprtslvr1973 on September 03, 2010, 09:18:34 PM
He did. Here is a short list of the post-Schism reforms the Papacy made:
1) Immaculate Conception
2) Purgatory
3) Let us not forget Universal Jurisdiction
4) Individual (Papal) Infallibility
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 03, 2010, 09:22:22 PM
He did. Here is a short list of the post-Schism reforms the Papacy made:
1) Immaculate Conception
2) Purgatory
3) Let us not forget Universal Jurisdiction
4) Individual (Papal) Infallibility
Just because they were not dogmatically defined until a certain point doesn't mean that the Church did not hold these beliefs before their dogmatic definition.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 03, 2010, 09:22:34 PM
Sincerely, if the Bishop of Rome were to speak ex-cathedra that the "Orthodox church is the true Church", and confess the Creed sans the Filioque; what then could be said?  It is an interesting scenario no matter which way you lean, is it not?

It's impossible. A person who had become convinced that the "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the Church would logically cease to be the Pope, and therefore could not make said proclamation ex cathedra.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: sprtslvr1973 on September 03, 2010, 09:37:31 PM
He did. Here is a short list of the post-Schism reforms the Papacy made:
1) Immaculate Conception
2) Purgatory
3) Let us not forget Universal Jurisdiction
4) Individual (Papal) Infallibility
Just because they were not dogmatically defined until a certain point doesn't mean that the Church did not hold these beliefs before their dogmatic definition.
If they were known and accepted beforehand they would be part of Other ancient Christian cannons. They aren't part of them so these ideas must be post schism
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Marc1152 on September 03, 2010, 10:22:29 PM
If the Bishop of Rome is Apostolic how come he made changes to the previous 'infallible doctrines'?
He didn't.

But..at the Vatican One council there were great divisions among leading Bishops over these innovations. Several Bishops argued just as we have, that these idea's were not heard of previously.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Ionnis on September 03, 2010, 10:36:04 PM
I highly recommend that the Orthodox read this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39:the-vatican-dogma&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2

It is a long read, but absolutely worth it. 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 04, 2010, 01:16:26 AM
I highly recommend that the Orthodox read this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39:the-vatican-dogma&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2

It is a long read, but absolutely worth it. 

Thank you for this.  I had it and I lost it and now you have found it again!   :)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 04, 2010, 01:56:02 AM
Also if there is a resumption of communion, there will be no subsuming of anyone anywhere.  There would be an agreement concerning the issue of primacy in the hierarchy of the Church...


When the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church eventually return to Orthodox, and we pray that they will since the Lord desires the unity of His worshippers, it will be the end of the peculiar institution which has come to be known as the papacy.   It will simply become defunct.   It will be of interest to historians as a fascinating time in the Church of the West but as the centuries and millennia roll by the papacy will become only a footnote in the history of Christianity.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 04, 2010, 04:36:04 AM
Fr. Gabriel Bunge OSB, a renowned Benedictine hermit and master of Patristic thought, was received into the Russian Orthodox Church a few days ago.

Praise God!!  Another Lev Gillet.

When will the Holy Father follow suit?
Well, if he were to do so, he would no longer be a member of the Catholic Communion and, thus, would no longer be the Pope.
Yes, as things stand now, I would agree with Papist.
However, I can imagine that by making use of the concept of development of doctrine, there might be a way of rewording a couple of RC teachings,  so that they would be acceptable to the E. Orthodox Church and then the Pope could become E. Orthodox and yet remain RC at the same time. Could this happen in the actual real world? Well,  as we know, there have been Greek Popes in the past. So let us suppose that a Catholic Melkite bishop were to become Pope of Rome and he were to subscribe to a Zoghby type initiative which was acceptable to both RC and EO. As you know the original 1995 Zoghby initiative said:
1.   I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2.   I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

If then, both RC and EO were to agree on accepting the authority of the Pope of Rome, as it was before the separation, then, perhaps things could move more quickly in the attempt to reunify the Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 04, 2010, 09:41:32 AM
[size=10py]There would be an agreement concerning the issue of primacy in the hierarchy of the Church and jurisdictional issues.  And that would be sufficient IF the hierarchs are mutually agreed and call for resumption of communion based on a common core faith...[/size]

I am slightly surprised that your circle of Orthodox priest and theologian friends have not pointed out that this is incorrect.  This brings into focus the not insignificant difference in the understanding of the locus of authority in our two Churches.   It will not be a decision for the hierarchs but for the fullness of the entire Church.

If I may refer to the Patriarch of Constantinople....

"The words of Patriarch Bartholomew must not escape our attention, namely that the conscience of the Ecclesia has "greater authority even than that of an Ecumenical Synod" [xxix];

and for this reason he characterised as depredatory and void even Synods that had satisfied all the criteria and had been formed as Ecumenical (cf. Ferrara-Florence):

"Above the authority of the laws and holy canons one finds the moral jurisdiction of the entire fold (pleroma) of the Ecclesia, which is judicial.


"The words of Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios sum up our ecclesiastical tradition:

"The final judgment on the results of the conducted dialogues and on the associated actions that are carried out is placed in the hands of the Churches, as governing and adjudicating instruments of divine inspiration, but also in the hands of the faithful lay people of God.  The latter, using their infallible criterion of their collective faith and at the same time their own conscience, on one hand accept the actions liked by God and on the other reject the ungodly concoctions" [xxxi].

http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/Co-prayers2.pdf




Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Iconodule on September 04, 2010, 12:02:45 PM
The absurd Zoghby initiative to me is a glaring emblem of the chaos that lurks underneath the supposed unity guaranteed by the Pope. To say "I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation" is akin to saying "I am a law-abiding citizen of the United States, according to the Articles of Confederation." This initiative is a fantasy, it is nonsensical, and it is rebellious. The fact that the Melkite Synod could endorse such a statement and not face any discipline for it from Rome indicates that the Catholic communion is very much a choose-your-own-adventure communion as long as you swear loyalty to the Pope. 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 04, 2010, 01:12:43 PM
[size=10py]There would be an agreement concerning the issue of primacy in the hierarchy of the Church and jurisdictional issues.  And that would be sufficient IF the hierarchs are mutually agreed and call for resumption of communion based on a common core faith...[/size]

I am slightly surprised that your circle of Orthodox priest and theologian friends have not pointed out that this is incorrect.  This brings into focus the not insignificant difference in the understanding of the locus of authority in our two Churches.   It will not be a decision for the hierarchs but for the fullness of the entire Church.

From what I am hearing "on the street" from members of ROCOR the resumption of communion between the ROC and ROCOR is not fully received even yet.  I am sure it will be but there are still many grumblings to be heard and some do not accept the communion in their hearts.  These things seem to take time and gentle shepherding.  I was very impressed watching that process when it first became public news.

But I don't remember a popular vote.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Ionnis on September 04, 2010, 01:26:24 PM
Reply #55 by ElijahMaria seals the deal for me. The Roman Catholic Church pays nothing more than lipservice to Orthodoxy.  Eastern Catholicism is just a scheme to get us in and destroy our Holy Orthodoxy.  Ultimately, Latin theology prevails.  Really, Eastern Catholicism is orthopraxy and heterodoxy.  Outwardly it all looks very similar, but inwardly it is infected by Latin theology.  Ultimately it exists with the understanding that Latin theology is always superior and must be bowed to when it contradicts Orthodox theology.  If this is the type of union you are expecting, the Orthodox enslaving themselves to Rome, it will never happen.  If this type of union occurs, it will not be true communion.  It will *look* like the Orthodox Church has united herself to Rome, but it will be a false church.  The true Church of Christ would never unite herself in such a manner. Pure blasphemy.  The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Period.  Any Orthodox Christian that believes otherwise is an enemy of the Church. 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 04, 2010, 07:35:25 PM
Reply #55 by ElijahMaria seals the deal for me. The Roman Catholic Church pays nothing more than lipservice to Orthodoxy.  Eastern Catholicism is just a scheme to get us in and destroy our Holy Orthodoxy.  Ultimately, Latin theology prevails.  Really, Eastern Catholicism is orthopraxy and heterodoxy.  Outwardly it all looks very similar, but inwardly it is infected by Latin theology.  Ultimately it exists with the understanding that Latin theology is always superior and must be bowed to when it contradicts Orthodox theology.  If this is the type of union you are expecting, the Orthodox enslaving themselves to Rome, it will never happen.  If this type of union occurs, it will not be true communion.  It will *look* like the Orthodox Church has united herself to Rome, but it will be a false church.  The true Church of Christ would never unite herself in such a manner. Pure blasphemy.  The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Period.  Any Orthodox Christian that believes otherwise is an enemy of the Church. 
I would not be in favor of the enslavement of the Orthodox Church to Rome. Was it that way before 1054? Why not go with the pre-1054 model?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Ionnis on September 04, 2010, 08:00:58 PM
As dramatic as this sounds, I think Archbishop Nicetas words still ring true:

Quote
We do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an ecumenical council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office. How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high; and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by consulting with us, but at his own arbitrary pleasure; then what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We would be the slaves, not the sons, of such a church. And the Roman seat would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.

Rome ultimately wants us to submit.  We are told we can keep our theology and practices and all that jazz, but at the same time we are being told that Roman teaching is the correct teaching and we are the ones in error.  How can we keep our theology while simultaneously being told that we are in error or that are theology is underdeveloped?  It doesn't make any sense to me.  It seems like a poor attempt at slight of hand.  Actually, it probably isn't a poor attempt, as many are falling for it. :-/

I feel like the Romans are being deceptive.  Father Ambrose is trying to get some answers (not in the best and nicest of ways *IMO*, but I can't really blame him) and all he gets is the runaround.  I understand his frustration.  I have been quietly following ElijahMaria's responses for a while now, with the sincere desire to come to a mutual understanding, and it has proven fruitless.  I have been watching her responses to questions asked of her with the sincere hope that she'll give a satisfying answer and I am continually let down.  The conclusions I have drawn is that 1) either Roman Catholic teaching is extremely esoteric and is only truly known by the privileged few or 2) there is some sort of deception going on. 

Of course I might be wrong in my perception, but these are my honest feelings.  I harbor no ill will towards anyone. 

John

P.S. To clarify and be fair to ElijahMaria, I have never spoken to her directly.  I have been satisfied with the questions asked of her here publically by other members, which is the reason why I haven't engaged her one-on-one.  My comments only relate to what she has stated publically here on the forum. 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 04, 2010, 08:10:04 PM
[size=10py]There would be an agreement concerning the issue of primacy in the hierarchy of the Church and jurisdictional issues.  And that would be sufficient IF the hierarchs are mutually agreed and call for resumption of communion based on a common core faith...[/size]

I am slightly surprised that your circle of Orthodox priest and theologian friends have not pointed out that this is incorrect.  This brings into focus the not insignificant difference in the understanding of the locus of authority in our two Churches.   It will not be a decision for the hierarchs but for the fullness of the entire Church.

From what I am hearing "on the street" from members of ROCOR the resumption of communion between the ROC and ROCOR is not fully received even yet.  I am sure it will be but there are still many grumblings to be heard and some do not accept the communion in their hearts.  These things seem to take time and gentle shepherding.  I was very impressed watching that process when it first became public news.

But I don't remember a popular vote.

In that case, you do not remember the process.

In the first place, assemblies were held on the diocesan level which included the priests of the diocese and the Starostas (lay Presidents of the parishes) often with some additional layperson for each parish.

Then there was a massive assembly in San Francisco which comprised delegates from all the dioceses around the world, both priests and laypeople, as well as the abbots of monasteries and monks and nuns.   All those who wished to speak were given a chance to do so.

Then they voted.  The voting was positive and in favour of the union.

I am sure there are still articles on the Net speaking of this process.... I'll go and look.


Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 04, 2010, 10:35:51 PM
However, I can imagine that by making use of the concept of development of doctrine, there might be a way of rewording a couple of RC teachings,  so that they would be acceptable to the E. Orthodox Church and then the Pope could become E. Orthodox and yet remain RC at the same time.

What do you mean "the Pope could become E. Orthodox"? Do you mean leave the Roman communion and join the Byzantine communion?

Could this happen in the actual real world? Well,  as we know, there have been Greek Popes in the past. So let us suppose that a Catholic Melkite bishop were to become Pope of Rome and he were to subscribe to a Zoghby type initiative which was acceptable to both RC and EO. As you know the original 1995 Zoghby initiative said:
1.   I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2.   I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

If then, both RC and EO were to agree on accepting the authority of the Pope of Rome, as it was before the separation, then, perhaps things could move more quickly in the attempt to reunify the Church.

If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 04, 2010, 10:35:51 PM
Reply #55 by ElijahMaria seals the deal for me. The Roman Catholic Church pays nothing more than lipservice to Orthodoxy.  Eastern Catholicism is just a scheme to get us in and destroy our Holy Orthodoxy.  Ultimately, Latin theology prevails.  Really, Eastern Catholicism is orthopraxy and heterodoxy.  Outwardly it all looks very similar, but inwardly it is infected by Latin theology.  Ultimately it exists with the understanding that Latin theology is always superior and must be bowed to when it contradicts Orthodox theology.  If this is the type of union you are expecting, the Orthodox enslaving themselves to Rome, it will never happen.  If this type of union occurs, it will not be true communion.  It will *look* like the Orthodox Church has united herself to Rome, but it will be a false church.  The true Church of Christ would never unite herself in such a manner. Pure blasphemy.  The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Period.  Any Orthodox Christian that believes otherwise is an enemy of the Church. 
I would not be in favor of the enslavement of the Orthodox Church to Rome. Was it that way before 1054? Why not go with the pre-1054 model?

You could, but it could only be done in recognition that one party deviated from that model and thus was outside the Church and thus must rejoin it.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 04, 2010, 10:35:52 PM
Quote
We do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an ecumenical council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office. How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high; and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by consulting with us, but at his own arbitrary pleasure; then what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We would be the slaves, not the sons, of such a church. And the Roman seat would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.

The first sentence does not appear consistent with the rest of the paragraph. If all of the rest is true, then the only logical conclusion is to deny the Roman church primacy and to deny a right to the most honorable seat.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 02:36:38 AM

Father Ambrose is trying to get some answers (not in the best and nicest of ways *IMO*, but I can't really blame him) and all he gets is the runaround.  I understand his frustration.  . 

I confess to being brought up in a form of Christianity in Serbia which is not as
passive as you Russians. I remember Mati Fevronia attacking a communist
with a milking pail when he made a derogatory remark about the value of
monastic life, and I have been on the streets of Cacak with the Dean of the
area when he punched a Jehovah's Witness on the nose after he had made nasty
remarks about Orthodoxy and the God worshipped by the Serbs.

So yes, I am contaminated by such experiences and do not have the innate
passivity and irenicism which animates the Russian soul. Couple that with
an Irish background where the Irish monks thoroughly enjoyed making war on
one another's monasteries and I am, I fear, quite incorrigible..

Do you know that the Irish (when Orthodox) did not immerse the right arm of a
baby boy in the baptismal font.  They kept it out and kept it unbaptized because
it would be needed to wield a sword.

Hmonk Ambrose

"Raiding and Warring in Monastic Ireland "
http://www.deremilitari.org/fitzpatrick.htm

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 02:44:58 AM
Back to the OP..... it would be nice if when the Pope becomes Orthodox he stays infallible long enough to decide on the question of toll houses.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: LBK on September 05, 2010, 02:54:56 AM
Quote
Do you know that the Irish (when Orthodox) did not immerse the right arm of a baby boy in the baptismal font.  They kept it out and kept it unbaptized because it would be needed to wield a sword.

What if the lad turned out to be left-handed?  ;) :P :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 02:56:23 AM
Quote
Do you know that the Irish (when Orthodox) did not immerse the right arm of a baby boy in the baptismal font.  They kept it out and kept it unbaptized because it would be needed to wield a sword.

What if the lad turned out to be left-handed?  ;) :P :laugh: :laugh:

Probably they gave him to the Druids.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 07:46:51 AM
When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 07:48:34 AM
But that will be beautifull.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 08:10:17 AM

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter..

. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy..

I have to say, Azul, that I don't see this function in the early Church for the Archbishops of Rome at all.  The decisions on heresies were not taken to the Popes but to Ecumenical Councils, the gatherings of the Church's bishops and the Pope did not attend a single one.

I am racking my brains trying to think what heresies were dealt with by the Pope but none come to mind.  Of course that could just be my old brain.   ;D

There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 08:23:12 AM
Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: �There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

St. Jerome

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Leo I
"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).
"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, �You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon
"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: �This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).



SOURCE (appended by moderator):  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 08:23:45 AM
Off-topic: Pls reply to my topic "Last Days".
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 08:30:07 AM

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter..

. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy..

I have to say, Azul, that I don't see this function in the early Church for the Archbishops of Rome at all.  The decisions on heresies were not taken to the Popes but to Ecumenical Councils, the gatherings of the Church's bishops and the Pope did not attend a single one.



It was both..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 08:33:45 AM
When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.


Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 08:38:58 AM
Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: �There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

If memory serves there were TWO letters sent to Ephesus from Rome.  One is the one as quoted above by Philip the Roman legate.  It was not read to the Council Fathers because of its ultra Roman claims.  The other letter which had been sent did not make any extravagant claims for the Archbishop of Rome and it was that letter which was read to the Council Fathers.

This was gone over on CAF years ago and I'll do a search for the material.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 08:54:26 AM
Council of Chalcedon
"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: �This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).


What you have posted is the usual truncated version given by Roman Catholic apologists in order to bolster their claims for the Pope of Rome.  If we look at the whole text we see that it does not bolster his claims at all.

"The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe: into this we were baptized; into this we baptize: Blessed Cyril so taught: this is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting faith: into this we were baptized: into this we baptize: we all so believe: so believes Leo, the Pope: Cyril thus believed: Pope Leo so interpreted it"


After Cyril's Letter had been read the Council Fathers said:


"And when these letters [i.e. Cyril's letter to Nestorius Καταφλυαροῦσι and his letter to John of Antioch Εὐφραινέσθωσαν] had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written."


Then Leo Letter was read and the Council Fathers said:


"After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away."

See the text at
http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

When we have the whole text in front of us, it gives a quite different impression than what the usual truncated Roman Catholic text does.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 08:58:04 AM
When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.




The pope of Rome was the leader of the Church in the first 1000 years.. The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith.. In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years.. It cannot be called catholic.. Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic.. The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope.. The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church.. Therefore the Schism was the first fall into apostasy, and the decimation of the Church.. Since that time it is still decimating and weakening till it reaches to the fullness of apostasy through the fall of Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.


The Orthodox Church is not THE Church..  The Church is above.. Our city is in heaven.. The people of God are the Church.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 08:58:37 AM

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter..

. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy..

I have to say, Azul, that I don't see this function in the early Church for the Archbishops of Rome at all.  The decisions on heresies were not taken to the Popes but to Ecumenical Councils, the gatherings of the Church's bishops and the Pope did not attend a single one.



It was both..

Could you tell us which heresies were taken to Rome and to the Pope for a decision?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 09:00:46 AM
When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.




The pope of Rome was the leader of the Church in the first 1000 years.. The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith.. In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years.. It cannot be called catholic.. Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic.. The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope.. The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church.. Therefore the Schism was the first fall into apostasy, and the decimation of the Church.. Since that time it is still decimating and weakening till it reaches to the fullness of apostasy through the fall of Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.


The Orthodox Church is not THE Church..  The Church is above.. Our city is in heaven.. The people of God are the Church.


When you write "Orthodox" in your profile, do you mean "Orthodox in communion with Rome"?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 09:05:38 AM
I don`t like contradictory discussions..

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

SOURCE (appended by moderator):  http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/ (http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 09:06:46 AM
When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.




The pope of Rome was the leader of the Church in the first 1000 years.. The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith.. In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years.. It cannot be called catholic.. Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic.. The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope.. The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church.. Therefore the Schism was the first fall into apostasy, and the decimation of the Church.. Since that time it is still decimating and weakening till it reaches to the fullness of apostasy through the fall of Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.


The Orthodox Church is not THE Church..  The Church is above.. Our city is in heaven.. The people of God are the Church.


When you write "Orthodox" in your profile, do you mean "Orthodox in communion with Rome"?

Why did you get angry?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 09:09:33 AM
Even if I do not know all the details of history , i know with my heart that the Papal primacy and the presidency of the See of Rome is at the level of "fact" ... And you know it also..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 09:09:49 AM
When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.. Peter who was urged by Christ to strengthen his brethren and to lead and feed His flock.. In the same manner the bishop of Rome in the early Church completed and made the declaration of Orthodoxy clear and whole.. He represented "the Rock" and nectar of the Orthodox faith.. So the papal infaibility can be invoked only when dealing with heresy.. So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.. But we have greater things to ponder than this.. I don`t think that the times we are in are waiting for the Pope to become Orthodox..

Another thought which disturbs me in your thought is this:   You are saying that for the first 1000 years the Pope of Rome was the source of infallibility for making decisions on heresies and for clarifying theology and misunderstandings, though the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

Then the Pope removed himself from the Church and for the last 1000 years, and even right now today, the Church is sort of limping along *without* the Pope and his infallibility and his charisms which come through the cathedra of Peter in Rome.

In other words the Orthodox Church has been lacking for a thousand years an essential element in the Church's life which Christ intended His Church to have.

If that *is* the case I would say that the Orthodox Church today is NOT the Church but, as the Pope himself says, it is a defective and wounded organisation lacking the Pope and his special gifts.




The pope of Rome was the leader of the Church in the first 1000 years.. The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith.. In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years.. It cannot be called catholic.. Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic.. The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope.. The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church.. Therefore the Schism was the first fall into apostasy, and the decimation of the Church.. Since that time it is still decimating and weakening till it reaches to the fullness of apostasy through the fall of Orthodoxy and Ecumenism.


The Orthodox Church is not THE Church..  The Church is above.. Our city is in heaven.. The people of God are the Church.


When you write "Orthodox" in your profile, do you mean "Orthodox in communion with Rome"?

Why did you get angry?

I am not angry but I am certainly curious about you and your Church membership.  You see, what you have written above is decidedly unorthodox!
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 09:11:04 AM
What is unorthodox?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 09:13:29 AM
What is unorthodox?

What you wrote in message 98.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 09:16:39 AM
What is unorthodox?

What you wrote in message 98.

Specifically what?



Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 09:21:23 AM
I don`t like contradictory discussions..

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

Naughty man!  You uplifted that without acknowledgement from

"Papal Authority and Early Heresies in the 1st Millennium AD"

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/

and that site has taken it from a book by Dave Armstrong, one of a small number of virulently anti-Orthodox Roman Catholic apologists.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 09:25:26 AM
What is unorthodox?

What you wrote in message 98.

Specifically what?


The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith..

Wrong.

 In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Wrong.

Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years..

Wrong.

 It cannot be called catholic..

Wrong.

Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic..

Wrong.

The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope..

Wrong.

The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church..

Wrong.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Alpo on September 05, 2010, 09:29:09 AM
Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: �There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

If memory serves there were TWO letters sent to Ephesus from Rome.  One is the one as quoted above by Philip the Roman legate.  It was not read to the Council Fathers because of its ultra Roman claims.

Why not? I thought we too believe that St. Peter is the prince and head of the apostles etc. and that the pope of Old Rome is one of the successors of St. Peter. It doesn's say that the pope of Old Rome has universal jurisdiction or that he is infallible so what's so awfully wrong with that letter?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 09:32:14 AM
I don`t like contradictory discussions..

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

Naughty man!  You uplifted that without acknowledgement from

"Papal Authority and Early Heresies in the 1st Millennium AD"

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/

and that site has taken it from a book by Dave Armstrong, one of a small number of virulently anti-Orthodox Roman Catholic apologists.

So? Are those things taken from there true or not? Does the source really matter?

Now tell me what Orthodoxy is?Is it about knowing the doctrine and history?Is it about arguing and getting angry on your brother?

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Orthodoxy is a state and it is more than that.It is about knowing God.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 09:49:14 AM
At the commencement of the Council the Roman legates conveyed to the Council Fathers the Pope of Rome's orders that Dioscorus must be expelled from the Council:

"Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave."


So what did the Council Fathers do?

They rejected the authority of the Pope.  They most certainly did not accept him as their head or the head of "all the churches."

How did they show this rejection of the Pope's claims?  They ignored the Pope's instructions not to allow Discorus to have a seat at the Council.

The Council Fathers gave Dioscorus a seat and allowed him to speak.

They refused to follow the Pope's instructions that he should be cast out if he attempted to speak.

Even the papal legates acted in a dishonest fashion.  After threatening to leave if Dioscorus was allowed to be there and to speak, they did not leave.

The whole incident is NOT proof of papal authority.  It is just the opposite.  It is proof that the Council Fathers did *not* see the Pope as having authority over them or over the activities of the Council.

A resounding and very public defeat for any claims of the Pope, and at an Ecumenical Council.
.

Read it all here, at the beginning of the webpage

http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 09:53:22 AM
The pope of Rome was the highest authority of faith..

Wrong.


St Maximos the Confessor : The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

SOURCE (inserted by moderator):  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=24770.0 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=24770.0)


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.

Wrong.

St. Jerome
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter�s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says �With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,� the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).




Yes the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years..

Wrong.

 It cannot be called catholic..

Wrong.

Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic..

Wrong.

If the Church really considers that much of a catholic than tell me how many Ecumenical Councils did it held after the Schism?

The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope..

Wrong.

The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church..

Wrong.

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: �I say to you,� he says, �that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head�that is why he is also called Cephas [�Rock�]�of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

St. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, �Upon this rock I will build my Church� . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, �He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!� . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).


SOURCE (appended by moderator):  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 10:01:54 AM

St Maximos the Confessor : The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.



This is the period of the Monothelite heresy and Saint Maximus was a little optimistic in his hope in the Pope for Pope Honorius himself fell into heresy with Monothelitism.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops.  During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 10:31:51 AM
The Catholic teaching is that the Pope is infaillible only when he speaks ex-cathedra..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 10:32:50 AM

St Maximos the Confessor : The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.



This is the period of the Monothelite heresy and Saint Maximus was a little optimistic in his hope in the Pope for Pope Honorius himself fell into heresy with Monothelitism.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops.  During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

"Arguing for a dual-will faculty in Christ, Maximus was called to Rome, where he supported the condemnation of Monothelitism by a regional church council under Pope Martin I in 649. Maximus and Martin were arrested by the emperor Constans II in an intricate theological�political tactic, and, after imprisonment from 653 to 655, Maximus was later tortured and exiled; he died in the wilderness near the Black Sea. "
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Iconodule on September 05, 2010, 10:38:07 AM
Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

Yes, many Popes were, but Fr. Ambrose's point is that not all of them were and the Papacy was not the unfailing bulwark of Orthodoxy that some hoped it would be.

I have to repeat Fr. Ambrose's question... are you really Orthodox or are you "Orthodox" in communion with Rome? 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 10:47:22 AM

St Maximos the Confessor : The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.



This is the period of the Monothelite heresy and Saint Maximus was a little optimistic in his hope in the Pope for Pope Honorius himself fell into heresy with Monothelitism.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops.  During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

"Arguing for a dual-will faculty in Christ, Maximus was called to Rome, where he supported the condemnation of Monothelitism by a regional church council under Pope Martin I in 649. Maximus and Martin were arrested by the emperor Constans II in an intricate theological�political tactic, and, after imprisonment from 653 to 655, Maximus was later tortured and exiled; he died in the wilderness near the Black Sea. "

Yes, Pope Saint Martin was orthodox and condemned the teaching of Pope Honorius.

To get a grasp of this complicated question do a google search and type in these words

"the Type" Honorius Martin Pope

Saint Martin was martyred for refusing to sign the Type.



Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 10:52:40 AM
The Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/ortpopes.htm

In this present short work it is our aim to present a full list of the holy
popes of Rome, a work which to our knowledge has never been carried out
before in its Orthodox context.

For a list of all these Popes, with very brief biographies, see message 14

at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27919.msg439853.html#msg439853
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 10:55:23 AM
You didn`t answer : How many ecumenical councils did the Orthodox Church held after the schism if it considers itself wholly Catholic?

there remains a part which you have not answered;

es the Orthodox Church is deffinetly lacking something for a thousand years..

Wrong.

 It cannot be called catholic..

Wrong.

Without the succesor of Peter, the pope, the Church is not catholic..

Wrong.

If the Church really considers that much of a catholic than tell me how many Ecumenical Councils did it held after the Schism?

The catholicity of the Church exists only through the pope..

Wrong.

The pope represent the integrality and universality of the Church..

Wrong.

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: �I say to you,� he says, �that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head�that is why he is also called Cephas [�Rock�]�of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

St. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, �Upon this rock I will build my Church� . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, �He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!� . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).



SOURCE (appended by moderator):  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 10:56:17 AM
Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

Yes, many Popes were, but Fr. Ambrose's point is that not all of them were and the Papacy was not the unfailing bulwark of Orthodoxy that some hoped it would be.

I have to repeat Fr. Ambrose's question... are you really Orthodox or are you "Orthodox" in communion with Rome? 

Yes it was.. But it was not infaillible..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 10:57:33 AM
Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

Yes, many Popes were, but Fr. Ambrose's point is that not all of them were and the Papacy was not the unfailing bulwark of Orthodoxy that some hoped it would be.

I have to repeat Fr. Ambrose's question... are you really Orthodox or are you "Orthodox" in communion with Rome? 

I am Eastern Orthodox under the patriarchate of Romania.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 11:03:29 AM

St Maximos the Confessor : The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)


In this way besides the Ecumenical Councils the pope was consulted as a source of infaibillity.



This is the period of the Monothelite heresy and Saint Maximus was a little optimistic in his hope in the Pope for Pope Honorius himself fell into heresy with Monothelitism.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops.  During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

Pope Martin I was Orthodox.

"Arguing for a dual-will faculty in Christ, Maximus was called to Rome, where he supported the condemnation of Monothelitism by a regional church council under Pope Martin I in 649. Maximus and Martin were arrested by the emperor Constans II in an intricate theological�political tactic, and, after imprisonment from 653 to 655, Maximus was later tortured and exiled; he died in the wilderness near the Black Sea. "

Yes, Pope Saint Martin was orthodox and condemned the teaching of Pope Honorius.

To get a grasp of this complicated question do a google search and type in these words

"the Type" Honorius Martin Pope

Saint Martin was martyred for refusing to sign the Type.





Maxim the Confessor did not support Honorius I.. So I don`t see what point are you trying to make other than deviate from what is being discussed.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 11:04:05 AM
You didn`t answer : How many ecumenical councils did the Orthodox Church held after the schism if it considers itself wholly Catholic?

Sorry, I did not notice that question.

In our times the Tradition is fairly settled and unchallenged and has been for over a millennium.  There was a time from the 4th to 8th centuries when the Church was rocked by serious heresies and so it called into temporary existence 7 great Councils to address them, to put down the false teaching and to formally clarify the true and orthodox teaching.  These Councils did not concern themselves with an attempt to act as an over-arching teaching authority nor to formulate doctrine in general.  They addressed the aspects of the faith -trinitarian, christological, pneumatological- which were currently in danger from heretical teachings.

Having dealt with the heresy threatening the Church the Councils dissolved.  They are extraordinary irruptions from the other world into the life of the Church, the work of the Spirit, in safeguarding the teaching of Christ and His path to salvation.

For the last 1200 years the Church has had no need to call further Councils.  Heresies which have come along have been localised and have been dealt with by local Synods and local Churches.

So, the teaching authority of the Church -which is the Tradition and the Spirit who flows within it- has flowed on quietly for centuries since the last Great Council in 787.

If we should be faced by a new church-wide heresy, then the Church will probably combat it again by convening an Ecumenical Council.  And probably God will be pleased to give us such superb and staunchly orthodox individuals as Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor to protect our holy faith.  For the "authority" to protect the faith is not the exclusive provenance of the archbishop of Rome but it can be given by God even to laymen and monastics.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 11:05:18 AM
Here is something to ponder on :

St Maximos the Confessor : The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692)

SOURCE (inserted by moderator):  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=24770.0 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=24770.0)


St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 33 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 53).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: �I say to you,� he says, �that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him�when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter�s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 39�10 [A.D. 312]).
Pope Julius I
"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20�35).
Council of Sardica
"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head�that is why he is also called Cephas [�Rock�]�of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: �You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven� [Matt. 16:18�19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

St. Jerome
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter�s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says �With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,� the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
...
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, �He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!� . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).
Ambrose of Milan
"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: �I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven�[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 133 [A.D. 388]).
St. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, �Upon this rock I will build my Church� . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: �There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Pope Leo I
"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).
"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, �You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).
Peter Chrysologus
"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
Council of Chalcedon
"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: �This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).


SOURCE (inserted by moderator):  http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm)


   Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

    Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

    Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

    Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

    Donatism held that sacraments administered by unworthy priests were invalid, and practiced re-baptism. The sect flourished in Africa, around Carthage. It began in 311 and was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-14), who also came from Africa, in 313.

    Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355). Learn more about St. Athanasius’ appeal to Rome by clicking here.

    Pelagianism is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

    Nestorianism contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person — a Godman. Nestorius (d. c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

    Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The cowriters of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

    Monothelitism is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

    The Iconoclastic Controversy, a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c.634-c.733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) — who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Adrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.


SOURCE (inserted by moderator):  http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/ (http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/papal-authority-and-early-heresies-in-the-1st-millennium-ad/)


(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) Neither Schultz nor I have received anything from you to indicate your desire to comply with my instruction that you give credit to your sources by posting links to the Web pages from which you copied the above text.  You are therefore on Warned status until you provide the links requested of you.  If you don't comply with my request for sources within five days of this warning by PM'ing them to me or to Schultz, your status will be escalated to Moderated, wherein every one of your posts will need to be approved by a moderator before it will appear on the forum.  If you think this action unfair, please feel free to appeal it to either Veniamin (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=996) or Fr. George (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=755).

- PeterTheAleut
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
The moderator team has yet to receive from you a private message containing the link(s) to the Web pages from which you copied the above material, and it's been more than five days since I last warned you for this.  You are therefore on post moderation until you give us the links requested of you.  You will still be able to post, but every one of your posts must be approved by a moderator before it will appear on the forum.  PM one of the moderators the links I requested so we can append them to your posts, and we will lift your post moderation.  Since your last warning, I noticed that you had submitted three or four posts prior to this one that show the same cut-and-paste work with no credit given to your sources, so you must credit your sources for those posts as well (cf. Replies # 92 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29681.msg469572.html#msg469572), 113 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29681.msg469596.html#msg469596), & 120 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29681.msg469611.html#msg469611)  above).  If you have any questions or concerns about my request, feel free to send them to me in a private message.  If you think this action wrong, please appeal my decision via private message to either Fr. George (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=755) or Fr. Chris (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=60).

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 11:12:09 AM
]

Maxim the Confessor did not support Honorius I.. So I don`t see what point are you trying to make other than deviate from what is being discussed.

No, it is not a deviation. I am disproving your point that the Popes may be looked upon as infallible opponents of heresy and never anything other than champions of the true faith.

Honorius failed miserably.  Saint Maximus was a little naive in placing his trust in the Pope since the previous one, Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite.  Perhaps Saint Maximus was not aware of that at the time?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 11:18:22 AM
]

Maxim the Confessor did not support Honorius I.. So I don`t see what point are you trying to make other than deviate from what is being discussed.

No, it is not a deviation. I am disproving your point that the Popes may be looked upon as infallible opponents of heresy and never anything other than champions of the true faith.

Honorius failed miserably.  Saint Maximus was a little naive in placing his trust in the Pope since the previous one, Honorius, was a heretic, a monothelite.  Perhaps Saint Maximus was not aware of that at the time?

Indeed.The popes were not infaillible but they were looked upon as the champions of the true faith, and the highest authority in orthodoxy.. Don`t worry S. Maximus was not naive, but we are a little bit of bigotish..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 11:20:41 AM
The presidency and supremacy of the See of Rome[Old] is a fact.. And every sincere an true orthodox knows this.. In fact no one can really call himself a true Orthodox if he denies that..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 11:24:12 AM
Dear Azul,

Have you seen the Renunciations which a Roman Catholic is required to make at his ceremony of reception into holy Orthodoxy?  These are used in Russia and in Serbia, and I imagine they are used in Romania too.

..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief that it does not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ's Body, the Universal Church?

..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual authority, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince; and that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor; and that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

..........Do you renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils,  and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 11:28:44 AM
The presidency and supremacy of the See of Rome[Old] is a fact.. And every sincere an true orthodox knows this.. In fact no one can really call himself a true Orthodox if he denies that..

Dimpotrivă !
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 11:38:19 AM
Not even Roman Catholics claim that the pope is the head of their church.. That is silly..

To whom did Christ say besides Peter : Feed my sheep? To whom else did He say I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?Who alone appears in the iconografy of the Church holding the keys in his hand?Of whom is being said that is the keeper of heaven and stands at the gates of heaven?Who is mentioned with name besides Christ the most in the NT? Why does Paul consider only some pillars?Among those Peter?Why does the hymnology and iconography of the Church show Peter alone as the holder of the keys of Heaven?

I did not say that the Pope of Rome is superior to Ecumenical Councils, nor infaillible in faith.. What i said was that he could be regarded as a source of infaibility when speaking ex cathedra, or when dealing with heresies.. But through that i actually ment that the he could be regarded and consulted as the champion of the true faith, because he succeeds the champion of faith who is Peter.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 05, 2010, 11:40:22 AM
The presidency and supremacy of the See of Rome[Old] is a fact.. And every sincere an true orthodox knows this.. In fact no one can really call himself a true Orthodox if he denies that..

Dimpotrivă !

Nu ai vrea sa vorbim pe chat?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 11:59:47 AM

Nu ai vrea sa vorbim pe chat?

My Romanian is confined to singing "Hristos a inviat din morti, cu moartea pre moarte calcand..." and crying "Narok" at church festivuties!   :laugh:
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 12:14:09 PM

Not even Roman Catholics claim that the pope is the head of their church.. That is silly..


Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

See also the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" which teaches exactly that.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 05, 2010, 03:39:48 PM

Not even Roman Catholics claim that the pope is the head of their church.. That is silly..


Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

See also the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" which teaches exactly that.

With all of that being said, Father Ambrose, we ALL know that Jesus Christ IS head of the Church, IS the Body of Christ, IS the one through whom all is possible, and without whom nothing IS.

And so your assertions to the contrary are indeed...silly and needlessly contentious.

In Christ,

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 05, 2010, 03:47:35 PM
Here is something to ponder on :

St Maximos the Confessor : The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692)

St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 33 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 53).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: �I say to you,� he says, �that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him�when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter�s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 39�10 [A.D. 312]).
Pope Julius I
"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20�35).
Council of Sardica
"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head�that is why he is also called Cephas [�Rock�]�of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: �You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven� [Matt. 16:18�19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

St. Jerome
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter�s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says �With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,� the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
...
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, �He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!� . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).
Ambrose of Milan
"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: �I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven�[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 133 [A.D. 388]).
St. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, �Upon this rock I will build my Church� . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: �There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Pope Leo I
"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).
"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, �You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).
Peter Chrysologus
"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
Council of Chalcedon
"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: �This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

    Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

    Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

    Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

    Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

    Donatism held that sacraments administered by unworthy priests were invalid, and practiced re-baptism. The sect flourished in Africa, around Carthage. It began in 311 and was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-14), who also came from Africa, in 313.

    Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355). Learn more about St. Athanasius’ appeal to Rome by clicking here.

    Pelagianism is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

    Nestorianism contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person — a Godman. Nestorius (d. c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

    Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The cowriters of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

    Monothelitism is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

    The Iconoclastic Controversy, a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c.634-c.733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) — who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Adrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.
Did you copy and paste this from somewhere?  If so, could you please credit your source by providing a link to the Web page from which you copied this?  Send it to Schultz or me via private message if you can't append it to your post.   Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 05, 2010, 07:44:06 PM
However, I can imagine that by making use of the concept of development of doctrine, there might be a way of rewording a couple of RC teachings,  so that they would be acceptable to the E. Orthodox Church and then the Pope could become E. Orthodox and yet remain RC at the same time.

What do you mean "the Pope could become E. Orthodox"? Do you mean leave the Roman communion and join the Byzantine communion?
First of all, in the scenario given, a Melkite bishop is already a member of the Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) Catholic Church.
In the case of a reunion, the EO and RC would be one, so that the Pope would be a member of both Churches which would be united. I think it is possible under some sort of reworking of a Zoghby type agreement together with an agreement to return to the situation as it was before 1054.
  But to be realistic, from the honest remarks made by many of the wonderful and devoted Orthodox Christians on this board, and seeing that the Catholics don't want to budge either, I would have to say that I am sorry about it, but realistically, any reunion between RC and EO appears to be very unlikely at this point in time. 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 05, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".
If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, then of course, the two Churches will stay separate. There are a whole lot of objections that could be raised on both sides. I can see where there are good reasons why honorable people would raise these objections.  I don't say that this is realistic at this point in time, but still I would like to see some sort of harmonious reconciliation, which would come naturally, easily, willingly,  and by a mutual desire where both sides would see the advantage of a reunion.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 09:16:50 PM

Not even Roman Catholics claim that the pope is the head of their church.. That is silly..


Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

See also the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" which teaches exactly that.

With all of that being said, Father Ambrose, we ALL know that Jesus Christ IS head of the Church, IS the Body of Christ, IS the one through whom all is possible, and without whom nothing IS.

And so your assertions to the contrary are indeed...silly and needlessly contentious.

In Christ,

Mary

I cannot believe you are unfamiliar with Pastor Aeternus -The Eternal Pastor- and so it is disrespectful to the Pope to label his teaching as "silly" and "contentious."

The Pope is writing on the topic of his being head of the Church.  And I know that modern Catholics prefer to downplay the Pope's claims but he has not renounced them and they remain magisterial teaching.  They are de fide for all Catholics.

Here, from among many, is an example of his claims

Chapter 3: On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."

---

....Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."[58]

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

If people prefer the original Latin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor_aeternus
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 09:28:41 PM
If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, .

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

1. There is a bishop in Rome who claims he is infallible when teaching faith or morals.  He also claims to have universal and total authority over the whole Christian Church, including all the other bishops. This is a belief held by many million Christians.

2. The beliefs of the bishop in Rome that he is infallible and holds universal power is not held by another group of Christians, also numbering many millions.

Before the separation can be ended, this has to be decided one way or the other.


Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 05, 2010, 11:08:02 PM
People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.
I can see what you are saying.  These serious differences would have to be worked out to the satisfaction and agreement from both sides, in a spirit of good faith,  good will and desire for reconciliation, but like I said, I am sorry about it, but, realistically,  I don't see that happening anytime soon.
If Catholic and Orthodox priests are coming to blows and fistfights over such a trivial matter as to whether a door at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre should be open or closed, then I don't see an excessive amount of charity or good will on either side.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 05, 2010, 11:16:52 PM
If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, .

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

1. There is a bishop in Rome who claims he is infallible when teaching faith or morals.  He also claims to have universal and total authority over the whole Christian Church, including all the other bishops. This is a belief held by many million Christians.

2. The beliefs of the bishop in Rome that he is infallible and holds universal power is not held by another group of Christians, also numbering many millions.

Before the separation can be ended, this has to be decided one way or the other.



As I already said, my opinion is that this is  an area where some modification would have to be made.   The Zoghby initiative suggests that the situation before 1054 would be considered as the norm for any reunion.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 11:22:51 PM
If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, .

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

1. There is a bishop in Rome who claims he is infallible when teaching faith or morals.  He also claims to have universal and total authority over the whole Christian Church, including all the other bishops. This is a belief held by many million Christians.

2. The beliefs of the bishop in Rome that he is infallible and holds universal power is not held by another group of Christians, also numbering many millions.

Before the separation can be ended, this has to be decided one way or the other.



As I already said, my opinion is that this is  an area where some modification would have to be made.   The Zoghby initiative suggests that the situation before 1054 would be considered as the norm for any reunion.

Doctrinally - yes.

Ecclesiologically and administratively - no.  Rome will not be able to have the same position as 1000 years ago.  The last one thousand years of schism and aberrant teaching have disqualified her.  The Church has lost confidence in her. 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stashko on September 05, 2010, 11:34:31 PM
People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.
I can see what you are saying.  These serious differences would have to be worked out to the satisfaction and agreement from both sides, in a spirit of good faith,  good will and desire for reconciliation, but like I said, I am sorry about it, but, realistically,  I don't see that happening anytime soon.
If Catholic and Orthodox priests are coming to blows and fistfights over such a trivial matter as to whether a door at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre should be open or closed, then I don't see an excessive amount of charity or good will on either side.


The door should remain closed ,If i had a choice to hear beautiful byzantine Chants and prayers ,who in there right mind would want to hear, Latin babble,in what ever language interfering with the Holy Orthodox Service Going On ......Catholic have there church next door and the door should be Bricked and cemented shut ,they shouldn't even be allowed inside the Holy Church of the Resurrection...This is the correct name by the way for this Holy Place ,the tomb is empty..... ;D
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 05, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
Doctrinally - yes.

Ecclesiologically and administratively - no.  Rome will not be able to have the same position as 1000 years ago.  The last one thousand years of schism and aberrant teaching have disqualified her.  The Church has lost confidence in her.  
There has got to be a sincere and strong desire on both sides for reunion. There has to be forgiveness and good will on both sides. And at the same time, all of the theological and administrative disagreements have to be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides.
I can see where honorable and decent people may not want the reunion, and want to just keep things as they are now. OK, I can live with it, if that's the way it is going to be.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 05, 2010, 11:42:13 PM
Constantinople will deal the death knell to unity with Catholicism

Ironically, it could well be Constantinople which is the major obstacle to reunion.  Ironic because Constantinople is seen as being in the forefront of negotiations with Rome.

But there is going to be a real dog fight when Constantinople presses ahead with its territorial claims under Canon 28 of Chalcedon.  It is already using this canon to lay claim to all of North America and Australia.

I'd love to be there in the day when the Patriarch instructs the Pope:  "Now, Your Holiness, please hand over all the keys to the churches and church institutions in America and Australia and inform all your bishops that they are now under my authority."

Yes, the claims of Constantinople under canon 28 present insurmountable obstacles.   

How very very ironic that the Church which traditionalist Orthodox fear most as a sell-out to Catholicism will be the very Church which radically impedes unity!!

And will the patriarch accept the infallibility of the Pope if he becomes Orthodox?  How likely do you think that is...?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 05, 2010, 11:45:41 PM
Here is something to ponder on :

What?

A lot of Ultramontanist rewrites on history, a few things in particular stuck out:
    
Quote
Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Yes, so the "Catholic Encyclopedia" claims, but its quoted sources places it still in Rome an Italy in 374:
Quote
Epiphanius, however, testifies that in the East in A.D. 374 they had deceived "a vast number of men" and were found, "not only in Rome and Italy but in Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus and the Thebaid and even in Persia".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

Quote
   Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355). Learn more about St. Athanasius’ appeal to Rome by clicking here.

Not a single reference to Arianism continuing on in the West for centuries (until Justinian came from the East and stamped it out), after it died out in the East in 382. Of course, it is the excuse for the Spanish church sticking the filioque in the Creed centuries after that date.

Quote
   Pelagianism is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

Pelagius came from the West (far West, England). The Patriarch of Jerusalem, recognizing him as Latin, sent him and Jerome out West to fight it out.  Zosimus reaffirmed his judgement is an overstatement: he had to be dragged into doing it.

    
Quote
Nestorianism contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person — a Godman. Nestorius (d. c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

Not a single reference to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, the real hero of Epheus.

    
Quote
Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The cowriters of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

The Council of Chalcedon accepted Pope St. Leo's Tome, but refused to adopt it as the Definition of the Council, and accepted it only after inspection.

    
Quote
Monothelitism is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

No mention of Pope Honorius, anathematized by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople

What selective memories these Ultramontanists have!
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 06, 2010, 06:31:32 AM
Back to the OP..... it would be nice if when the Pope becomes Orthodox he stays infallible long enough to decide on the question of toll houses.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 06, 2010, 06:31:32 AM
When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.

Why, then, were their councils of numerous autocephalous churches deciding on matters of heresy if the Bishop of Rome was the actual authority on this matter, rather than the conciliar Church?

So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.

That is a rather nonsensical statement. "The Pope can be regarded, in a way, as a source of infallibility", "if he will become Orthodox". Someone clearly cannot be infallible if they are not Orthodox.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 06, 2010, 06:31:32 AM
There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 06, 2010, 06:31:33 AM
If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, .

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

1. There is a bishop in Rome who claims he is infallible when teaching faith or morals.  He also claims to have universal and total authority over the whole Christian Church, including all the other bishops. This is a belief held by many million Christians.

2. The beliefs of the bishop in Rome that he is infallible and holds universal power is not held by another group of Christians, also numbering many millions.

Before the separation can be ended, this has to be decided one way or the other.

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 06, 2010, 09:51:52 AM

Not even Roman Catholics claim that the pope is the head of their church.. That is silly..


Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

See also the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" which teaches exactly that.

Does Pastor Aeternus say "The Pope is the head of the Church"?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 10:01:51 AM

Not even Roman Catholics claim that the pope is the head of their church.. That is silly..


Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

See also the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" which teaches exactly that.

Does Pastor Aeternus say "The Pope is the head of the Church"?

Pastor Aeternus is the Apostolic Constitution by which the Pope proclaimed the infallible dogma of his own infallibility.  All Catholics ought to be acquainted with it..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 06, 2010, 10:07:21 AM
I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 10:14:19 AM

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!


The Book of the Act of the Apostles, chapter 15, which chronicles the proceedings and decisions of the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem, is a primary scriptural evidence of the principle of Conciliarism as an apostolic and scriptural principle in the life of the Church.

The entire Council mitigates against Petrine Pimacy because

1.  Peter's preference for circumcision of Gentile converts is not approved and his preferred practice is outlawed

2.  Peter has a secondary role at the Council.  James takes the headship and finally announces the conciliar decisions.

If there actually are many Catholics, including some Orthodox faithful, who find more scriptural evidence for Petrine Primacy than Apostolic Conciliarism, then perhaps they would  show us the instances in the Book of Acts where this Petrine Primacy is exercised.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 06, 2010, 10:19:16 AM
When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.

Why, then, were their councils of numerous autocephalous churches deciding on matters of heresy if the Bishop of Rome was the actual authority on this matter, rather than the conciliar Church?

So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.

That is a rather nonsensical statement. "The Pope can be regarded, in a way, as a source of infallibility", "if he will become Orthodox". Someone clearly cannot be infallible if they are not Orthodox.

Besides councils the Pope was the one who settled conflicts.

The Pope could be regarded as the highest authority on faith because he sat in the chair of Peter who was the champion of Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 10:27:13 AM
 
I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.


I am a litle surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this particular Apostolic Constitution and I am greatly surpised if you are actually denying that the Pope is the head of the Church.  The Constitution is shot through and through with multiple statements of the Pope's place in the universal Church.

For example,  3.1:

"...we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church..."

In Latin it is "totiusque Ecclesiae caput" -  "head of the whole Church."

Notice that ther Pope declares this to be de fide - "which must be believed by all faithful Christians..."
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 06, 2010, 10:30:24 AM
I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.


I am a litle surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this particular Apostolic Constitution and I am greatly surpised if you are actually denying that the Pope is the head of the Church.  The Constitution is shot through and through with multiple statements of the Pope's place in the universal Church.

For example,  3.1:

"...we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church..."

In Latin it is "totiusque Ecclesiae caput" -  "head of the whole Church."

Notice that ther Pope declares this to be de fide - "which must be believed by all faithful Christians..."
Just making sure you are being genuine.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 06, 2010, 10:31:40 AM

Nu ai vrea sa vorbim pe chat?

My Romanian is confined to singing "Hristos a inviat din morti, cu moartea pre moarte calcand..." and crying "Narok" at church festivuties!   :laugh:

It means "Join me on chat?"

P.S:It is Noroc, not Narok.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 10:34:46 AM
I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.


I am a litle surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this particular Apostolic Constitution and I am greatly surpised if you are actually denying that the Pope is the head of the Church.  The Constitution is shot through and through with multiple statements of the Pope's place in the universal Church.

For example,  3.1:

"...we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church..."

In Latin it is "totiusque Ecclesiae caput" -  "head of the whole Church."

Notice that ther Pope declares this to be de fide - "which must be believed by all faithful Christians..."
Just making sure you are being genuine.

I cannot believe that you have known me so many years and do not know that I check and corroborate what I write, doubly so when I know it is going to be scrutinised by yourself and Mary.   :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 10:38:24 AM

Nu ai vrea sa vorbim pe chat?

My Romanian is confined to singing "Hristos a inviat din morti, cu moartea pre moarte calcand..." and crying "Narok" at church festivuties!   :laugh:

It means "Join me on chat?"


Yes, I translated it on

http://radugaslov.ru/promt.htm

This is a handy translation machine which works in several dozen languages.  Not always the most accurate but as good as any other.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 06, 2010, 10:43:40 AM
So?See you there?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 06, 2010, 10:44:51 AM
But Fr. Ambose, I think you know that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head of the Chruch. The Pope is only the Head of the Church as the Bishop is the head of a Diocese in your religion.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 06, 2010, 10:47:34 AM

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!


The Book of the Act of the Apostles, chapter 15, which chronicles the proceedings and decisions of the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem, is a primary scriptural evidence of the principle of Conciliarism as an apostolic and scriptural principle in the life of the Church.

The entire Council mitigates against Petrine Pimacy because

1.  Peter's preference for circumcision of Gentile converts is not approved and his preferred practice is outlawed

2.  Peter has a secondary role at the Council.  James takes the headship and finally announces the conciliar decisions.

If there actually are many Catholics, including some Orthodox faithful, who find more scriptural evidence for Petrine Primacy than Apostolic Conciliarism, then perhaps they would  show us the instances in the Book of Acts where this Petrine Primacy is exercised.

This is the only one of its kind.  

There are many other texts that support the claim of Petrine primacy, and primatial power in Scripture and in Tradition.

AND this particular text is not a good measure of the working of papal primacy.

A pope, in the spirit of the doctrine, does not go into the territory of a primate or bishop and demanded to see the books!...so to speak.

In every case the individual primate or bishop as been invited to visit with the Pope in Rome or in Avignon, in those years of internal division, and the Pope has talked to the individual concerned who is then free to go and either take counsel or not.

So Peter's failure to impose his opinion on James sets the tone and so it has been since, in principle.  

Where it does not work in a fraternal way, ALL primatial power has been abused.

So again these examples do not achieve the results you might hope for...do not paint the total picture.

This idea that the pope can demand a submission of the will that not even God demands is just hokus-pokus and not real and not charitable and not true and at some level I believe the insistence is the product of the workings of evil.

You and Isa must have taken the same class in historical method.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 06, 2010, 10:47:34 AM
I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.


I am a litle surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this particular Apostolic Constitution and I am greatly surpised if you are actually denying that the Pope is the head of the Church.  The Constitution is shot through and through with multiple statements of the Pope's place in the universal Church.

For example,  3.1:

"...we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church..."

In Latin it is "totiusque Ecclesiae caput" -  "head of the whole Church."

Notice that ther Pope declares this to be de fide - "which must be believed by all faithful Christians..."
Just making sure you are being genuine.

The comparison point is not that the Catholic Church has a supreme head and Orthodoxy does not:

The comparison point is that the pope is the supreme head of the Catholic Church: And Jesus the Christ is the Supreme Head of the Orthodox Church: Substantially denying that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the Supreme Head of the Church.

That that is what I have been saying is nonsense and that is indeed a nonsensical comparison.

The real comparison is that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ who is the Supreme Author of the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit.  He is the head of the Church ruling from the right hand of the Father in heaven.  One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Orthodoxy has no similar divinely authored system of ecclesial governance on earth.

There's the real comparison.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 10:48:37 AM
So?See you there?

Thanks, but no.  I am sure it would be too time-consuming, using that translation machine all the time. :laugh:
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: bogdan on September 06, 2010, 11:18:31 AM
But Fr. Ambose, I think you know that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head of the Chruch. The Pope is only the Head of the Church as the Bishop is the head of a Diocese in your religion.

Well, Orthodox have a problem with that as well. The Pope is not really a bishop in practice, because all bishops are ontologically co-equal; rather he has another higher echelon unto himself, and so he is above all bishops and has personal jurisdiction in all places, whether they are part of his patriarchate or not.

Whereas the Orthodox would be fine with the Pope having that power if it were limited to the Patriarchate of the West—as all Patriarchs have universal jurisdiction over their patriarchate—but Catholics teach (as I understand it) the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. We don't believe he ever had that power before the schism. He was used as the point of reference for Orthodox doctrine on different occasions, yes, but he never had personal jurisdiction per se over the entire Church. He was never the universal bishop.

I suppose it's a difference between a constitutional monarchy like the UK and an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarch, while he may be benevolent, still has the right to go into any village and tell people how to run things. Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth cannot really tell anyone what to do. Even the Queen's Speech, which sets the government's agenda, is written by the government and she just reads it.

That is akin to how we see the Pope's role. He is the outward face of unity, and in a certain sense is in control of it all, but only in the sense that he is the personification of the Church's conciliar consensus. But the Church does not need the Pope in an administrative sense. The Church does not need the Pope for a consensus to have force of law. Things are capable of running without him.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 11:23:34 AM
One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

In the 5th century the papacy was unable to retain the Oriental Orthodox in the Church, because (it is said these days) of a linguistic misunderstanding.    That does not speak well of Rome functioning properly as the centre of unity and universality.

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

In the 11th century the Pope lost the greater part of the Catholic Church.  Catholics in the East outnumbered Catholics in the West in those days.   The reason for this mass defection was the signal incompetency of the papacy to comprehend the Eastern Catholics.   After the issuing of the Anathemas by Humbert -which were known by the Popes to be groundless accusations- the Popes did not attempt to right the situation and bring the Church back into unity.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

The widespread corruption in the Catholic Church brought on the defection of millions of Catholics in the Protestant Reformation which carried entire countries out of the Catholic Church.

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 06, 2010, 11:41:10 AM
One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..

Come on, Father. This is a bit of a strawman. Every five centuries or so, there is disagreement in the Catholic church, therefore the Pope in invalid for unity?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 11:44:51 AM
One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..

Come on, Father. This is a bit of a strawman. Every five centuries or so, there is disagreement in the Catholic church, therefore the Pope in invalid for unity?

A disaster!
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 06, 2010, 12:39:03 PM
One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..

Come on, Father. This is a bit of a strawman. Every five centuries or so, there is disagreement in the Catholic church, therefore the Pope in invalid for unity?

A disaster!

And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 12:48:02 PM
And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?


In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.


Fr Ambrose  o..o~
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Marc1152 on September 06, 2010, 12:53:01 PM
And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?


In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.


Fr Ambrose  o..o~

Could someone explain what the Magisterium is within the Roman Catholic Church? i thought it merely referred to the teaching authority of the Church. We also understand that the Church has authority to teach and proclaim dogma, they just have a term for it ( as usual). Or is it an actual committee or something similar?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 06, 2010, 01:13:52 PM
Again it is not the purpose of the Petrine Office to FORCE communion and unity, any more that it is the purpose of divine grace to FORCE human and divine union.

So again you fall short of grasping several elements of the reality that you so valiantly try to deny.

But you can only really deny it by distorting it.

Mary

One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

In the 5th century the papacy was unable to retain the Oriental Orthodox in the Church, because (it is said these days) of a linguistic misunderstanding.    That does not speak well of Rome functioning properly as the centre of unity and universality.

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

In the 11th century the Pope lost the greater part of the Catholic Church.  Catholics in the East outnumbered Catholics in the West in those days.   The reason for this mass defection was the signal incompetency of the papacy to comprehend the Eastern Catholics.   After the issuing of the Anathemas by Humbert -which were known by the Popes to be groundless accusations- the Popes did not attempt to right the situation and bring the Church back into unity.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

The widespread corruption in the Catholic Church brought on the defection of millions of Catholics in the Protestant Reformation which carried entire countries out of the Catholic Church.

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 06, 2010, 02:47:28 PM
And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?


In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.


Fr Ambrose  o..o~

Could someone explain what the Magisterium is within the Roman Catholic Church? i thought it merely referred to the teaching authority of the Church. We also understand that the Church has authority to teach and proclaim dogma, they just have a term for it ( as usual). Or is it an actual committee or something similar?

There is no Office of the Magisterium nor is there a Magisterial Committee.  The closest one comes to a "place" where doctrine is clarified is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  But note that it is NOT called the Matisterial Congregation and it does not have an army of doctrinal police, nor an army of inquisitors, nor an army of spies.  There is no force or coercion in the exercise of the papal office and those to whom he delegates responsibility.

The Magisterium in the Catholic Church was, is and will remain the teaching authority.  It has several manifestations with responsibilities attached.  But the essential meaning of the word is direct reference to the teaching authority of the Church.

If you'd like more in terms of articles, let me know.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 06, 2010, 02:47:29 PM
And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?


In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.


Fr Ambrose  o..o~

Note that he did NOT say that this continuity is expressed equally faithfully by every single Orthodox patriarch, bishop, believer, priest, monk, etc.

Note that he does make certain assumptions when he writes that and those assumptions include the fact that the Catholic Church has done the same!!!...with even greater fullness in terms of union with the Petrine Office.
 
You may paint him as a dim-wit but he rarely misses details when he writes.  And very often, he is kind enough not to rub anyone's nose in them.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: minasoliman on September 06, 2010, 03:26:51 PM
Just a food for thought.

All this situation with the Pope as a Primate of the whole Church takes place only within the Roman empire.  It would be interesting to unearth any ancient Christian documents of Church fathers that were outside the empire that professed some sort of Petrine theology similar to some of the quotes we find of those within the empire.  I wonder what Armenian, Arabian Peninsular, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Ethiopian ancient Christian fathers would have said about Rome, or St. Peter's role.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: GregoryLA on September 06, 2010, 06:30:51 PM
There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.

This is indeed how Fr.John McGutchin describes the proceedings in his book "St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological controversy".
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 06, 2010, 07:50:43 PM
There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.
The Acts say otherwise.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 06, 2010, 07:54:22 PM
One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..

Come on, Father. This is a bit of a strawman. Every five centuries or so, there is disagreement in the Catholic church, therefore the Pope in invalid for unity?

A disaster!

And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy?

lol. name one.


Quote
Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?

What argument?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 06, 2010, 08:14:18 PM
The Pope could be regarded as the highest authority on faith because he sat in the chair of Peter who was the champion of Orthodoxy.

Practically speaking, the authority of an inter-church council had higher authority than the Pope. If that were not the case, than any such councils really had no reason to be held in the first place. Everyone should have just petitioned to Rome for answers.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 06, 2010, 08:14:18 PM
One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

In the 5th century the papacy was unable to retain the Oriental Orthodox in the Church, because (it is said these days) of a linguistic misunderstanding.    That does not speak well of Rome functioning properly as the centre of unity and universality.

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

In the 11th century the Pope lost the greater part of the Catholic Church.  Catholics in the East outnumbered Catholics in the West in those days.   The reason for this mass defection was the signal incompetency of the papacy to comprehend the Eastern Catholics.   After the issuing of the Anathemas by Humbert -which were known by the Popes to be groundless accusations- the Popes did not attempt to right the situation and bring the Church back into unity.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

The widespread corruption in the Catholic Church brought on the defection of millions of Catholics in the Protestant Reformation which carried entire countries out of the Catholic Church.

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..

Don't forget the loss of the Old Catholics in the 19th century.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 06, 2010, 08:14:19 PM
There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.

This is indeed how Fr.John McGutchin describes the proceedings in his book "St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological controversy".

Well it's not what the acts of the council themselves show.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 06, 2010, 08:14:19 PM
There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.
The Acts say otherwise.

Quite the contrary. As to the first statement: "the Tome of Leo, which made the Council Fathers so happy", the acts show that many of the bishops were rather unhappy with the Tome. Also, even the statement that "they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith" is not absolutely true as not all of the bishops accepted it at all, namely the Egyptian bishops.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 11:28:06 PM

You may paint him as a dim-wit but he rarely misses details when he writes. 


Mary, there you go again, making silly personal comments on what I write. :-[  I never said the Pope was a dimwit.  I have much respect for him.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 11:40:02 PM

Quite the contrary. As to the first statement: "the Tome of Leo, which made the Council Fathers so happy", the acts show that many of the bishops were rather unhappy with the Tome. Also, even the statement that "they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith" is not absolutely true as not all of the bishops accepted it at all, namely the Egyptian bishops.

Apparently they were unhappy because of linguistic problems!   The present day Egyptian bishops are quite happy with it and have officially declared, in union with the Vatican, that their previous problems were only linguistic misunderstandings between them.   Now, so they proclaim, miaphysitism and dyophysitism are one and same.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 06, 2010, 11:44:30 PM
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.
The Pope is the earthly leader of the Church, but only Christ is the supreme head of the Church. The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 06, 2010, 11:55:51 PM

 The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

Saint Paul obviously did not know this when he writes of how he stood up to Peter and called him a hypocrite to his face.

If Christ had willed Peter's authority then Catholics today would be mandated to circumcise their male children and to observe kosher food rules and not to eat with non-Jews.  Peter really was NOT doing a very good job in shepherding the Church in these areas.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 07, 2010, 12:23:14 AM

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!


If there actually are many Catholics, including some Orthodox faithful, who find more scriptural evidence for Petrine Primacy than Apostolic Conciliarism, then perhaps they would  show us the instances in the Book of Acts where this Petrine Primacy is exercised.

Anybody?  Catholic or Orthodox?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on September 07, 2010, 12:52:05 AM

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!


If there actually are many Catholics, including some Orthodox faithful, who find more scriptural evidence for Petrine Primacy than Apostolic Conciliarism, then perhaps they would  show us the instances in the Book of Acts where this Petrine Primacy is exercised.

Anybody?  Catholic or Orthodox?

Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH!  :D
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 07, 2010, 01:48:45 AM


Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH!  :D

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: BoredMeeting on September 07, 2010, 10:18:25 AM
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.
The Pope is the earthly leader of the Church, but only Christ is the supreme head of the Church. The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.
No, Christ spoke against any of the apostles having authority over the others and He never spoke about the successors gaining such authority.

And what of Peter's seat in Antioch? Shouldn't it be treated in the same manner as the one in Rome?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 07, 2010, 10:47:18 AM
The Pope is not above councils..

Peter did not supported the circumcision for converts at the Council of Jerusalem(Acts 15:7-11).Yes all Apostles received binding power and the keys of the divine kingdom and from them esspecially Peter.. Peter is regarded a great pillar by Paul among with James and John.. The figure of Peter appears in the patronage of the Church till James gets in the picture.Since that time James takes the first plan when he becames ruler of the Church in Jerusalem..





Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 07, 2010, 11:01:00 AM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: theistgal on September 07, 2010, 11:05:43 AM
So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 07, 2010, 11:15:48 AM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

Dear Wyatt,

I was replying to this statement of yours
Quote

The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.

Are you now revising it and saying that the Pope does not have authority from Christ to shepherd His Church in matters of discipline?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on September 07, 2010, 11:25:24 AM


Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH!  :D

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

Apparently my sarcasm didn't come off very clearly. I was being sarcastic.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 07, 2010, 11:37:06 AM


Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH!  :D

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

Apparently my sarcasm didn't come off very clearly. I was being sarcastic.

My 200% apology.  I know what it is like to be misunderstood on the forum.... it's the price we pay for being two countries divided by a common language.   :laugh: ;D :laugh:
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: synLeszka on September 07, 2010, 11:42:22 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership)
Church membership in 2007 was 1.147.000.000,[243] increasing from the 1950 figure of 437.000.000[245] and the 1970 figure of 654.000.000.[246] OOn 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166.000.000, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%). The increase was 33.02% in Africa, but only 1.17% in Europe. It was 15.91% in Asia, 11.39% in Oceania, and 10.93% in the Americas. As a result, Catholics were 17.77% of the total population in Africa, 63.10% in the Americas, 3.05% in Asia, 39.97% in Europe, 26.21% in Oceania, and 17.40% of the world population. Of the world's Catholics, the proportion living in Africa grew from 12.44% in 2000 to 14.84% in 2008, while those living in Europe fell from 26.81% to 24.31%.[1] Membership of the Catholic Church is attained through baptism.[247] If someone formally leaves the Church, that fact is noted in the register of the person's baptism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents)
Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church.[12] The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 300.000.000[13].
Orthodoxy is the largest single religious faith in Belarus (85%), Bulgaria (83%), Cyprus (80%), Georgia (89%), Greece (95%),[14] Moldova (98%), Montenegro (74%),[15] Romania (87%), Serbia (84%),[16] Russia (80%),[17] Republic of Macedonia (65%) and Ukraine (80%).[18]
In my opinion, the number of Orthodox in the former Soviet Union is inflated because other sources claim that there are huge numbers of atheists and agnostics there.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Iconodule on September 07, 2010, 11:50:58 AM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra.

Not very impressive, since Papal infallibilty was only dogmatically defined in 1870, and the definers surely had in mind this and other problematic episodes (e.g. Honorius) when they formulated the dogma.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 07, 2010, 01:21:19 PM
Are you now revising it and saying that the Pope does not have authority from Christ to shepherd His Church in matters of discipline?
If I gave the impression that the Pope is absolutely infallible in all things including discipline then, yes, a revision is needed because that was not the point I intended to convey. The Catholic Church, in her wisdom, indicated that there were restrictions to Papal Infallibility. From the Catholic point of view, disciplines can and do change, and the Pope's charism doesn't apply to disciplines.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: FormerReformer on September 07, 2010, 01:54:53 PM
Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy.

That's like saying I always tell the truth, except when I lie.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 07, 2010, 02:28:49 PM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

The rendition offered by Father Ambrose is also a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis of that particular Chapter and is not upheld in the context of Peter's authority as it is found in Scripture.  I am sure you can find Catholic responses to these exegetical assertions.  May even be able to find them on the Internet.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 07, 2010, 02:28:49 PM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

Dear Wyatt,

I was replying to this statement of yours
Quote

The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.

Are you now revising it and saying that the Pope does not have authority from Christ to shepherd His Church in matters of discipline?


A pope is quite capable of making mistakes, in the exercise of his primacy.  He is also capable of making mistakes in matters of doctrine, unless teaching infallibly as the universal Church teaching.

You, naturally, are adding things to Catholic doctrine that are not there.  Building in non-existent meaning makes it so much easier to knock down.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 07, 2010, 02:28:50 PM


Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH!  :D

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

Apparently my sarcasm didn't come off very clearly. I was being sarcastic.

Would you quote the passages in Scripture where Jesus gives the keys of authority to the rest of the Apostles, please.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 07, 2010, 02:28:50 PM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra.

Not very impressive, since Papal infallibilty was only dogmatically defined in 1870, and the definers surely had in mind this and other problematic episodes (e.g. Honorius) when they formulated the dogma.

Also you can make the same spurious claim about the Christological Councils if you want to debunk the Son of the Living God, Incarnate....

These kinds of assertions usually are dangerous because they are so general so as to be applicable to a variety of similar circumstances.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 07, 2010, 02:50:53 PM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 07, 2010, 03:13:45 PM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Iconodule on September 07, 2010, 07:00:14 PM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

I have to say, I can't get behind Second Chance's reasoning here either. The problem with Papal infallibility is that, precisely as a dogma, it is considered a divinely revealed truth, like the Trinity and the Incarnation. It's not something to be ditched lightly. There is nothing "mere" about dogma. One can be convinced it is true or that it is false, but sweeping it under the carpet is not an option.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 07, 2010, 07:01:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership)
Church membership in 2007 was 1.147.000.000,[243] increasing from the 1950 figure of 437.000.000[245] and the 1970 figure of 654.000.000.[246] OOn 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166.000.000, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%). The increase was 33.02% in Africa, but only 1.17% in Europe. It was 15.91% in Asia, 11.39% in Oceania, and 10.93% in the Americas. As a result, Catholics were 17.77% of the total population in Africa, 63.10% in the Americas, 3.05% in Asia, 39.97% in Europe, 26.21% in Oceania, and 17.40% of the world population. Of the world's Catholics, the proportion living in Africa grew from 12.44% in 2000 to 14.84% in 2008, while those living in Europe fell from 26.81% to 24.31%.[1] Membership of the Catholic Church is attained through baptism.[247] If someone formally leaves the Church, that fact is noted in the register of the person's baptism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents)
Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church.[12] The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 300.000.000[13].
Orthodoxy is the largest single religious faith in Belarus (85%), Bulgaria (83%), Cyprus (80%), Georgia (89%), Greece (95%),[14] Moldova (98%), Montenegro (74%),[15] Romania (87%), Serbia (84%),[16] Russia (80%),[17] Republic of Macedonia (65%) and Ukraine (80%).[18]
In my opinion, the number of Orthodox in the former Soviet Union is inflated because other sources claim that there are huge numbers of atheists and agnostics there.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg)

Roman Catholics

I have been told that Catholic figures are inflated because they count 1/2 billion people in Latin America.  Most of them are purely nominal.

I have been told that Catholic figures are skewed because they base them on the number of baptisms and ignore the fact that many of those people cease to be Catholics, etc.


Orthodox

Orthodox figures vary widely, but at least they are more realistic than the over inflated Catholic figures.   Orthodox figures are based on counts of the number of people who receive Communion to fulfill their Easter obligation of Confession and Communion.  This is exactly what we do in my parish.    So at least Orthodox figures are based on practicing Orthodox.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 07, 2010, 07:13:46 PM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

The rendition offered by Father Ambrose is also a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis of that particular Chapter and is not upheld in the context of Peter's authority as it is found in Scripture.  I am sure you can find Catholic responses to these exegetical assertions.  May even be able to find them on the Internet.

Mary

Excuse me, Mary, but with your scholarship you cannot be unaware that to label it a piece of Protestantism is awfully misleading.  It is in fact the interpretation of the passage given by Saint John Chrysostom in his commentary on the Book of Acts.

Chrysostom gives this understanding after 300 of the Church's existence, 300 years in which the Church had mulled these things over.

To call the understanding of the Church and the exegesis of this passage "a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis" blows my mind.   It has always been the ecclesial interpretation of the passage.  People need to be cautioned about Roman Catholic interpretations which do not derive from the consciousness of th Church but out of a need to bolster the aberrant teaching of the papacy.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 07, 2010, 07:19:36 PM
So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?
1054. The Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 07, 2010, 07:23:19 PM


Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH!  :D

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

Apparently my sarcasm didn't come off very clearly. I was being sarcastic.

Would you quote the passages in Scripture where Jesus gives the keys of authority to the rest of the Apostles, please.

Mary

What were the powers of the Keys as understood in the West in earlier days?

The Clavis Potentiae and the Clavis Scientiae


The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article The Power of the Keys where it seems that up until the 14th or 15th century the power of the keys was not understood in the limited modern Catholic understanding.  The understanding for the first millennium and a half in the West was centred on the power of all the clergy to judge penitents and forgive their sins.   It's a tantalisingly short article and it would be great to find a fuller source.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

"The meaning attached to the term [the power of the keys] by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance.

"The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments.

Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII [died 1334] in a well-known passage dealing with this subject. The definition, "The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge [the confessor] should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom", generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Peter. Lombard,  John XXII, St. Thomas Aquinas), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum.

"But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentiae [key of power]and the clavis scientiae [key of knowledge] was employed here. By the clavis scientiae was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentiae, the authority to grant or refuse absolution."

[For easier readibility I have taken the Latin sentences out of this extract, but of course left the English.  I don't believe that anything has been distorted by this but please read the article on the website if you want to see the Latin.]
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Shlomlokh on September 07, 2010, 08:39:59 PM
So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?
1054. The Church.
:) Spot on! I did not think of that, but it is absolutely true. Of course I would not expect our Roman Catholic friends to agree with us.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 07, 2010, 08:40:38 PM
So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?
1054. The Church.
:) Spot on! I did not think of that, but it is absolutely true. Of course I would not expect our Roman Catholic friends to agree with us.

In Christ,
Andrew

Of course not. :)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 07, 2010, 08:48:14 PM
So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?
1054. The Church.
:) Spot on! I did not think of that, but it is absolutely true. Of course I would not expect our Roman Catholic friends to agree with us.

In Christ,
Andrew

No I don't agree with it, but I'm glad you consider us friends though. I consider you guys friends as well even though we disagree. :D
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Jetavan on September 07, 2010, 10:50:36 PM
 "Unlike some of the other bosses I’ve worked for in my life, this one admits that he’s only infallible under certain extremely limited conditions."

-- Jesuit priest Guy Consolmagno (http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Mechanics-Scientists-Engineers-ebook/dp/B001HBI7QU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1283914078&sr=8-2), speaking about papal infallibility
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 07, 2010, 10:56:01 PM
Father,

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 07, 2010, 10:56:01 PM
You missed a part there, Father:

Quote
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in "Dict. Christ. Antiq.", s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hierarchy throughout the world.

Some few of the Fathers, however, are careful to note that the bestowal of this power upon St. Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles, denoted his primacy among the twelve (Optatus, "De Schism. Don.", vii, 3, in P.L., XI, 1087). Origen dilates at length on this point, but teaches erroneously that the power conferred upon the Twelve in Matthew 18:18, could only be exercised within certain restrictions of place, while that conferred upon St. Peter in Matthew 16:18, was of universal extent (Comm. in Matt., P.G., XIII, 1179).

(2) Occasionally, though infrequently, Christ's promise is not restricted to signify the power to forgive sins, but is taken in the fuller meaning of the gift of authority over the Church. Thus St. Gregory in his letter to the Emperor Maurice, after quoting Christ's words in Matthew 16:18-19, writes: "Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him [cura ei totius Ecclesiae et principatus committitur (Epist., lib. V, ep. xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)]. St. Maximus in a sermon on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (P.L., LVII, 403) says that to St. Peter was given the key of power (clavis potentioe), to St. Paul the key of knowledge (clavis scientioe). The idea of a key of knowledge is clearly derived from Christ's words to the Pharisees, Luke 11:52: "You have taken away the key of knowledge." This distinction of the clavis potentioe and clavis scientioe recurs frequently in the medieval writers, though without reference to St. Paul.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 07, 2010, 10:56:02 PM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

The rendition offered by Father Ambrose is also a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis of that particular Chapter and is not upheld in the context of Peter's authority as it is found in Scripture.  I am sure you can find Catholic responses to these exegetical assertions.  May even be able to find them on the Internet.

Mary

Excuse me, Mary, but with your scholarship you cannot be unaware that to label it a piece of Protestantism is awfully misleading.  It is in fact the interpretation of the passage given by Saint John Chrysostom in his commentary on the Book of Acts.

Chrysostom gives this understanding after 300 of the Church's existence, 300 years in which the Church had mulled these things over.

To call the understanding of the Church and the exegesis of this passage "a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis" blows my mind.   It has always been the ecclesial interpretation of the passage.  People need to be cautioned about Roman Catholic interpretations which do not derive from the consciousness of th Church but out of a need to bolster the aberrant teaching of the papacy.

I am familiar with English translations of that particular homily.  Would you mind extracting the text and putting it together with your earlier explanation so that we can see that they are identical, please.

Mary

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 07, 2010, 11:31:39 PM
"Unlike some of the other bosses I’ve worked for in my life, this one admits that he’s only infallible under certain extremely limited conditions."


...but like most bosses, expects to be obeyed when not infallible." ;D
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 07, 2010, 11:34:47 PM
Father,

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Mary
Maybe you can ask the same of St. Jerome:
Quote
But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert, Isaiah 40:3 Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says, John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God, and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother John 19:26-27 was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

How different from his whinny tone in the letter to Pope St. Damasus. Of course, here he is expounded on his disdain for marriage, and it gets the better of his Ultramontanism.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 12:20:15 AM

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 08, 2010, 04:19:18 AM

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The bishops take their power through Peter's successor. 

The keys are a symbol of authority and the power to bind and loose is intimately tied to that authority.

You can fuss and wiggle and snark all you like but the Petrine Office is of divine origin, and will remain as long as the Church remains, and for the first time in a long time you fellows have managed to make me quite contented to be an integral part of it.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 04:50:51 AM

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The bishops take their power through Peter's successor.

Rank heresy of course, but it is good that you have brought the belief out into the open.

Quote
You can fuss and wiggle and snark all you like but the Petrine Office is of divine origin

Again heresy in the eyes of the Church.

Quote
, and for the first time in a long time you fellows have managed to make me quite contented to be an integral part of it.

You are writing as if this is the first time you have encountered the Orthodox rejection of the papacy?

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2010, 10:45:05 AM

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The bishops take their power through Peter's successor. 

Really? A shame you couldn't tell the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.  They not only accepted Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch, whom Rome rejected (after sending his whinny letter to Rome, St. Jerome accepted ordination from St. Meletius' rival supported by Rome), they had him open the Council, and, in further opposition to Rome, rejected Rome's candidate for succession to St. Peter's first throne at Antioch and chose St. Flavius, over Rome's repeated objection.  New Rome remained in schism from Old Rome until St. John Chrysostom, who had accepted ordination from St. Meletius (as did St. Basil and St. Gregory, St. Meletios installing St. Gregory as bishop of Constantinople), and extoled St. Meletius.

Quote
The keys are a symbol of authority and the power to bind and loose is intimately tied to that authority.

You can fuss and wiggle and snark all you like but the Petrine Office is of divine origin, and will remain as long as the Church remains,

Really? You mean the Vatican? All four of the patriarchs that the Vatican has installed in Antioch claim St. Meletius in their episcopal lineage, not Paulinus, Rome's man (whose episcopal line died out).

The episcopacy is of divine origin, and continues, including in St. Peter's original see (the one whose throne the Vatican celebrates).
(http://www.balamandmonastery.org.lb/IgnatiusIV.JPG)

Quote
and for the first time in a long time you fellows have managed to make me quite contented to be an integral part of it.
Knock yourself out.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 08, 2010, 11:33:19 AM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 11:48:34 AM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
They are so important to us because they are true.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 08, 2010, 11:57:19 AM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
They are so important to us because they are true.

I do not doubt you. But, my question remains: Even if you believe that they are true, are they important enough for you to sacrifice the unity of the Body of Christ?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 12:16:11 PM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
They are so important to us because they are true.

I do not doubt you. But, my question remains: Even if you believe that they are true, are they important enough for you to sacrifice the unity of the Body of Christ?
Interesting question. Some might argue that perhaps the Church may have been imprudent in defining these dogmas because, even though they are true, the act of defining them  drove a larger wedge between the Catholic Church and other Apostolic Churches, (EO, OO, and ACE). I cannot comment on that because I know that I do not possess the wisdom that the Catholic Church possess.
What I do know is that Church has now defined them and there is no going back. Since they are true and have been defined we cannot throw them out.
Would your Church be willing to throw out it's teaching on any particular dogma for the sake of unity? I don't think so and that is one of the reasons that I respect the EOC. Orthodox Christians, like Catholic Christians, want unity to be a true unity of faith with no compromise. Because I believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ established the Papacy, I cannot ignore this truth for the sake of unity. I believe that to do so would be to betray Our Lord. Likewise, you believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ did not establish the Papacy.
And so we find ourselves where we are. Unfortunately out of communion, but still brothers in Christ.
At the very least, we can rejoice in what we share in common. We both worship the Holy Trinity, and honor the Incarnation of Our Lord. We both venerate, and pray to the Saints, claiming the Blessed Virgin Mary as our common mother. We both believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and in the efficacy of the sacraments. We both love Holy Tradition and the Teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We both have great saints that have shown us the way to true union with our God and Father. We both believe that the Divine Holy Spirit dwells in the souls of the faithful. Although we may not acheive unity this side of Heaven, there is much to celebrate.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 12:53:47 PM

/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 08, 2010, 01:29:22 PM

/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

:o
 ;D

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 08, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 08, 2010, 02:14:06 PM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

Having read Iconodule's reservations about my use of "mere dogma," I must insist that a dogma that was proclaimed in 1870 (far outside the Apostolic Age, the early Church Fathers, and even our common era), a dogma that is based on the gross heresy of a super-bishop, a dogma that was proclaimed unilaterally by--at best--one of the many Orthodox Christian Churches, such a dogma is not to be equated with the dogmas of the Incarnation, with Scripture or with Holy Tradition.

Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.
They are so important to us because they are true.

I do not doubt you. But, my question remains: Even if you believe that they are true, are they important enough for you to sacrifice the unity of the Body of Christ?
Interesting question. Some might argue that perhaps the Church may have been imprudent in defining these dogmas because, even though they are true, the act of defining them  drove a larger wedge between the Catholic Church and other Apostolic Churches, (EO, OO, and ACE). I cannot comment on that because I know that I do not possess the wisdom that the Catholic Church possess.
What I do know is that Church has now defined them and there is no going back. Since they are true and have been defined we cannot throw them out.
Would your Church be willing to throw out it's teaching on any particular dogma for the sake of unity? I don't think so and that is one of the reasons that I respect the EOC. Orthodox Christians, like Catholic Christians, want unity to be a true unity of faith with no compromise. Because I believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ established the Papacy, I cannot ignore this truth for the sake of unity. I believe that to do so would be to betray Our Lord. Likewise, you believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ did not establish the Papacy.
And so we find ourselves where we are. Unfortunately out of communion, but still brothers in Christ.
At the very least, we can rejoice in what we share in common. We both worship the Holy Trinity, and honor the Incarnation of Our Lord. We both venerate, and pray to the Saints, claiming the Blessed Virgin Mary as our common mother. We both believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and in the efficacy of the sacraments. We both love Holy Tradition and the Teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We both have great saints that have shown us the way to true union with our God and Father. We both believe that the Divine Holy Spirit dwells in the souls of the faithful. Although we may not acheive unity this side of Heaven, there is much to celebrate.

I of course applaud your honesty and strongly held beliefs. I certainly agree with you that Orthodox churches would not throw out a dogma simply for the sake of unity. However, there is a fundamental difference here: whereas we the Orthodox are preserving the dogmas of the whole, undivided Church, you are holding on to the dogmas that you only have added. If we threw out a dogma, in other words, it would also be your dogma.

As for your belief that the Lord Himself established the Papacy, I think that the time line is a bit off, don't you think? Show me anything in the Bible,  the Ecumenical Councils (accepted by the entire Church), indeed non-Roman sources during the first millennium that establish anything more than the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as first among equals. Show me any Scriptural basis for elevating a bishop so that he ontologically becomes another kind of bishop, a super-bishop as the Catholic Church has in fact defined the Bishop of Rome.

You know that there were doctrines of the Church that later were rejected, even though a huge majority of clergy and lat persons once followed the once-doctrine-but-now-heresy teachings. As a catholic (encompassing the whole Church) example, the teachings of Arius come to mind. In the East, the rejection of the false Union of the Council of Florence comes to mind. Look, it is indeed possible that y'all are wrong, isn't it so? In the case of the Orthodox Church, since we are still adhering to the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, we really cannot say that there was an error because (a) we look at the dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to the canons) as being fences around the Holy Mysteries (defined not merely as the Sacraments but the ineffable truth about the Triune God) and (b) because we would not wish to be presumptuous as doing so would also impact you, as well as your derivatives.  
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 08, 2010, 02:19:03 PM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us.  

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary

You shock me dear Mary; you are already in schism with us. Yet, you believe that we are the schismatics? May be what I just wrote is too strong: you say that we would be (in the future) in full and formal schism. Does that mean that we are not now in such a state, that we are in a less than full and formal schism--like being a little pregnant?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Schultz on September 08, 2010, 02:32:50 PM
I am familiar with English translations of that particular homily.  Would you mind extracting the text and putting it together with your earlier explanation so that we can see that they are identical, please.

Mary




Why should he do that when you refused to do the exact same thing when I asked you nicely regarding what translation of the Menaion you used?

Pot, meet kettle.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 03:21:13 PM
I of course applaud your honesty and strongly held beliefs. I certainly agree with you that Orthodox churches would not throw out a dogma simply for the sake of unity. However, there is a fundamental difference here: whereas we the Orthodox are preserving the dogmas of the whole, undivided Church, you are holding on to the dogmas that you only have added. If we threw out a dogma, in other words, it would also be your dogma.
Well, the fact of the matter is that I don't accept your premise that the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the entirety of the Apostolic Faith nor your premise that the Catholic Church has corrupted it.
As for your belief that the Lord Himself established the Papacy, I think that the time line is a bit off, don't you think? Show me anything in the Bible,  the Ecumenical Councils (accepted by the entire Church), indeed non-Roman sources during the first millennium that establish anything more than the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as first among equals. Show me any Scriptural basis for elevating a bishop so that he ontologically becomes another kind of bishop, a super-bishop as the Catholic Church has in fact defined the Bishop of Rome.
First, I don't believe that the Pope is some kind of "Super Bishop". The Sacrament of Holy Orders bestowed on the Pope is no different from the Sacrament of Holy Orders received by any other bishop. However, as the Bishop of Rome and the Final successor of St. Peter (and I think perhaps the successor of St. Paul as well) he is the first among equals and, as such, is charged with specific responsibilities and is granted certain charisms and authorities to meet these responsibilities.
Second, I am convinced by the Scriptures, Tradition, and History, that the Papacy is a divinely established institution. However, I don't think that debating that is issue is what this thread is about. There are multiple threads covering this topic but if you would like to look further into it, there is an interesting debate on the matter between an EO and a Catholic here: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/ (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/)
You know that there were doctrines of the Church that later were rejected, even though a huge majority of clergy and lat persons once followed the once-doctrine-but-now-heresy teachings. As a catholic (encompassing the whole Church) example, the teachings of Arius come to mind. In the East, the rejection of the false Union of the Council of Florence comes to mind. Look, it is indeed possible that y'all are wrong, isn't it so? In the case of the Orthodox Church, since we are still adhering to the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, we really cannot say that there was an error because (a) we look at the dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to the canons) as being fences around the Holy Mysteries (defined not merely as the Sacraments but the ineffable truth about the Triune God) and (b) because we would not wish to be presumptuous as doing so would also impact you, as well as your derivatives.  
And, again, I don't agree with your premise. I believe that there are certain Apostolic teachings from which the EO Church has deviated, especially in the last few centuries.
I am not looking to make this  a "Let's debate which Church is the True Church" thread. We have plenty of those. What I am trying to express to you here is that the reason why Catholics like myself don't believe that we should dump certain doctrines for the sake of unity, is that we are intellectually convinced that these doctrines are Apostolic and, thus, non-negotiables.
Thank you for the continued charitable conversation. I have always found your posts to be fair and honest.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 03:25:38 PM


You shock me dear Mary; you are already in schism with us. Yet, you believe that we are the schismatics? May be what I just wrote is too strong: you say that we would be (in the future) in full and formal schism. Does that mean that we are not now in such a state, that we are in a less than full and formal schism--like being a little pregnant?
What's with all this either/or linear thinking? Aren't the EO's more willing to accept paradoxical mysteries and to avoid tying down certain things with dogmatic exactitude? I believe that the EO's and Protestants have a special relationship to Christ's Church in that, all though they are not full members, they retain a partial-communion with the Church through which EO's maintain Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments, and Protestants maintain a valid baptism. Of course, the EO Church is much closer in commuinion than the protestants are but there is some partial communion anyway. Of course, I don't think that this means that the EO Church is in full communion nor are her members members of the Catholic Church. But we still have a special relationship with you as our closest brothers and sisters in Christ outside the visible bounds of the Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 08, 2010, 03:30:25 PM
I am familiar with English translations of that particular homily.  Would you mind extracting the text and putting it together with your earlier explanation so that we can see that they are identical, please.

Mary




Why should he do that when you refused to do the exact same thing when I asked you nicely regarding what translation of the Menaion you used?

Pot, meet kettle.

Not too long ago you gleefully rubbed my nose in "Two wrongs don't make a right."....I suppose that is all relative too...eh?

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 08, 2010, 03:30:26 PM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us.  

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary

You shock me dear Mary; you are already in schism with us. Yet, you believe that we are the schismatics? May be what I just wrote is too strong: you say that we would be (in the future) in full and formal schism. Does that mean that we are not now in such a state, that we are in a less than full and formal schism--like being a little pregnant?

The Catholic Church teaches that Orthodoxy has Apostolic Succession and is not in formal schism but is in material schism with the Catholic Church.   I am a Catholic.  I am sorry that is so shocking to you.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 03:33:03 PM
Second Chance,
I am trying to help you understand, that if I was really convinced that dogma concerning the Papacy was an innovation, and that Christ did not establish the Papacy, I would convert to one of the other Apostolic Churches (probably OO). But as it is, I am not convinced of the statement above. I am convinced of the opposite, and that is why I am Catholic and not EO or OO.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 08, 2010, 08:43:36 PM

/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

So the two Churches will remain divided with many questions unresolved? Papist and Mary and other RC's on one side and Father Ambrose and other Orthodox on the other side, with each side refusing to budge and each side talking past the other. 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 08, 2010, 09:02:00 PM

/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

So the two Churches will remain divided with many questions unresolved? Papist and Mary and other RC's on one side and Father Ambrose and other Orthodox on the other side, with each side refusing to budge and each side talking past the other. 

Pride is the worst of sins...

What? Yeah, I said it.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 09:08:14 PM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.


That is not correct, Mary, in the instance if the filioque.  The last official statements from our Patriarchs to the Popes very definitely term it a heresy and demand that you abandon it.   So I imagine that we have been in schism and without Apostolic Succession since the 1900s, by your criteria.  Whodda thunk it?  Maybe you are wrong?

The official letters sent to the Pope..

1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 08, 2010, 09:24:18 PM

/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

So the two Churches will remain divided with many questions unresolved? Papist and Mary and other RC's on one side and Father Ambrose and other Orthodox on the other side, with each side refusing to budge and each side talking past the other. 

Pride is the worst of sins...

What? Yeah, I said it.

Stan is right.  Certainly the Orthodox are not going to budge one iota from the tradition they have received. .  The Orthodox hear this chanted in church:

"This is the faith of the Apostles. This is the faith of the Fathers. This is the faith of the Orthodox. This is the faith that upholds the universe."
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ChristusDominus on September 08, 2010, 09:30:54 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stashko on September 08, 2010, 09:56:47 PM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.


That is not correct, Mary, in the instance if the filioque.  The last official statements from our Patriarchs to the Popes very definitely term it a heresy and demand that you abandon it.   So I imagine that we have been in schism and without Apostolic Succession since the 1900s, by your criteria.  Whodda thunk it?  Maybe you are wrong?

The official letters sent to the Pope..

1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Great Reply to Rome By The Holy Patriarchs  Hopefully they will be canonized, if they Arn't  already.......Lord Bless them ,this is the true defense of Holy Orthodoxy that this Present Patriarch Has to return to.....
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stashko on September 08, 2010, 10:07:03 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko

Go ahead and Follow someone that Blew his Own Trumpet ,stacked the deck and declared himself Infallible and supreme Not the way a True Apostle of Christ would act ,only a apostle of the[      ]would act this way............. ;D
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 08, 2010, 10:09:47 PM

/\  All the above from Papist... I am sitting here applauding!

So the two Churches will remain divided with many questions unresolved? Papist and Mary and other RC's on one side and Father Ambrose and other Orthodox on the other side, with each side refusing to budge and each side talking past the other. 

Pride is the worst of sins...

What? Yeah, I said it.

Stan is right.  Certainly the Orthodox are not going to budge one iota from the tradition they have received. .  The Orthodox hear this chanted in church:

"This is the faith of the Apostles. This is the faith of the Fathers. This is the faith of the Orthodox. This is the faith that upholds the universe."

And surely the Catholics can/will/would say the same thing.

I was only half joking. Unity between the two will only happen whenever they can both come to the table with unity under God in mind. I would envision an Ecumenical Council where that which can be agreed will be accepted and that which is debated is withheld (like the good ole days of the four oh ohs).

Either way, it was mostly a joke.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: theistgal on September 08, 2010, 10:09:53 PM
Aw, stop sugarcoating it, stashko, tell us what you *really* think! ;D
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 08, 2010, 10:11:46 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko

Go ahead and Follow someone that Blew his Own Trumpet ,stacked the deck and declared himself Infallible and supreme Not the way a True Apostle of Christ would act ,only a Apostle of the[      ]would act this way............. ;D

He who shall not be named?!

Voldemort.... Eeek :D
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 08, 2010, 10:37:24 PM
^ LOL. I saw a picture out there on the net that suggest that the Pope is Emperor Palpatine, lightning shooting from his finger tips and all. Of course the the artists involved think it's an insult. I think it's awesome.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2010, 10:47:45 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 08, 2010, 11:52:17 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 12:09:22 AM
The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only TWO.

Tim Staples says there are  FOUR, and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are EIGHTEEN  (although he is not quite sure about four of them.)

The even more famous Ludwig Ott says there are SIXTY.

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is a bit of a guess work.

I remember that Karl Keating, the head of CAF, had his own figure for infallible statements, but I cannot remember what it was.  Lots of confusion in trhe Catholic world.  What is infallible to one Catholic is not infallible to the next.

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 09, 2010, 12:20:54 AM
What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ChristusDominus on September 09, 2010, 03:02:34 AM
Whenever the Pope speaks on faith and morals. Infallibility does not mean impeccability.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 09, 2010, 03:27:58 AM
What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 03:39:42 AM
What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
lol. That's rather convenient, after the fact.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 03:53:34 AM
What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.

This is one of the weirdest things about Catholic dogma.  Nobody, not even the Pope, seems sure what is and is not.   Theologians range themselves on one side and the other, claiming infallibility or denying infallibility for various papal teachings.

Heck, why don't the Popes make it clear when they issue their teachings?   And why don't subsequent Popes clarify if it is infallible or not, especially when the theologians and the priests and the faithful haven't a clue.

The man in the Vatican seems to cause a lot of dogmatic confusion.  What earthly use is infallibility when determining if a teaching is infallible seems to bit like spinning the wheel in a lottery. 

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:20:27 AM
I would envision an Ecumenical Council where that which can be agreed will be accepted and that which is debated is withheld (like the good ole days of the four oh ohs).

You must be joking. "That which is debated is withheld"? That's not at all how the 400's were.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:20:28 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.

Obviously that formula was not defined until Vatican I or shortly before. What you are talking about is when papal infallibility is invoked after the fact of its definition, not the constrictions of what might have constituted ex cathedra throughout Church history.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:23:02 AM
Apparently they were unhappy because of linguistic problems!   The present day Egyptian bishops

Please note that it was not only the Egyptians who initially resisted the Tome of Leo, and thus we can infer were probably unhappy with it, even at the Council of Chalcedon. They were accompanied by the Palestinian and Illyrian bishops.

While the Palestinian and Illyrian bishops did approve the Tome after some novel orthodoxizing of its substance, it should be quite clear even from their later comments regarding it that they still weren't happy about it. For all we know there may have been even more than these three groups who were not "happy about it", per say, but were towing the line and signing onto whatever was put in front of them as the hypocritical bishops of that time were often inclined to do.

Finally, the 1500 year old Anti-Chalcedonian tradition which has for most of its time explicitly resisted Chalcedon on doctrinal grounds should make it quite clear that it was not mere linguistic problems.

The present day Egyptian bishops are quite happy with it and have officially declared, in union with the Vatican, that their previous problems were only linguistic misunderstandings between them.

It is true that some bishops in the OO churches are now advocating the idea that there was not true doctrinal difference between the two camps. Whether they represent the majority, I do not know.

It is true that the Egyptian bishops officially recognized the Agreed Statements in synodical discussion. Again, whether they did this because all were individually convinced that this was true, or they did this out of trust for their head, or they did it out of cowardice, I do not know.

However, the same bishops will in the same breath claim that the Tome of Leo was nonetheless "Nestorianizing" or "Nestorianesque", so whether they are actually happy about it, it cannot be said.

Now, so they proclaim, miaphysitism and dyophysitism are one and same.

I've said it a number of times before and I will say it again, the cause of our division is not simply "miaphysitism vs. dyophysitism".
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM
This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.
This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

Are you joking me? That wasn't just a matter of "church discipline". It touched on the very nature of the Church!
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership)
Church membership in 2007 was 1.147.000.000,[243] increasing from the 1950 figure of 437.000.000[245] and the 1970 figure of 654.000.000.[246] OOn 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166.000.000, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%). The increase was 33.02% in Africa, but only 1.17% in Europe. It was 15.91% in Asia, 11.39% in Oceania, and 10.93% in the Americas. As a result, Catholics were 17.77% of the total population in Africa, 63.10% in the Americas, 3.05% in Asia, 39.97% in Europe, 26.21% in Oceania, and 17.40% of the world population. Of the world's Catholics, the proportion living in Africa grew from 12.44% in 2000 to 14.84% in 2008, while those living in Europe fell from 26.81% to 24.31%.[1] Membership of the Catholic Church is attained through baptism.[247] If someone formally leaves the Church, that fact is noted in the register of the person's baptism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents)
Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church.[12] The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 300.000.000[13].
Orthodoxy is the largest single religious faith in Belarus (85%), Bulgaria (83%), Cyprus (80%), Georgia (89%), Greece (95%),[14] Moldova (98%), Montenegro (74%),[15] Romania (87%), Serbia (84%),[16] Russia (80%),[17] Republic of Macedonia (65%) and Ukraine (80%).[18]
In my opinion, the number of Orthodox in the former Soviet Union is inflated because other sources claim that there are huge numbers of atheists and agnostics there.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg)

Why did you post this?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM
Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

Huh? There can be no unity in dogmatic divergence.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The bishops take their power through Peter's successor.

Rank heresy of course, but it is good that you have brought the belief out into the open.

Quote
You can fuss and wiggle and snark all you like but the Petrine Office is of divine origin

Again heresy in the eyes of the Church.

Quote
, and for the first time in a long time you fellows have managed to make me quite contented to be an integral part of it.

You are writing as if this is the first time you have encountered the Orthodox rejection of the papacy?

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no
doubt: this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Saint Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

I thought ecumenism was the heresy of heresies?  ???
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church?

They're not. The Church is united either way you look at it.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 05:23:04 AM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary

That's just an outrageous claim, Mary. You know that significant numbers of EO/OO hierarchs have historically condemned papal supremacy and demanded that you recant of it.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 09, 2010, 08:09:07 AM
I would envision an Ecumenical Council where that which can be agreed will be accepted and that which is debated is withheld (like the good ole days of the four oh ohs).

You must be joking. "That which is debated is withheld"? That's not at all how the 400's were.

Debated or "that which is not agreed on". Orthodoxy has also developed the idea of receptionism where the ecumenical council then must be received (not rejected) by the body of the church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 09, 2010, 08:46:00 AM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us. 

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.


That is not correct, Mary, in the instance if the filioque.  The last official statements from our Patriarchs to the Popes very definitely term it a heresy and demand that you abandon it.   So I imagine that we have been in schism and without Apostolic Succession since the 1900s, by your criteria.  Whodda thunk it?  Maybe you are wrong?

The official letters sent to the Pope..

1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Please explain to us how the Greeks can be said to speak for the whole Church one day but not the next?

I don't think we'd be having the bilateral discussions that we are having now if there was not some understanding that we have not yet divided the two confessions so that a shared Apolosticity is completely severed, as it has been in other cases of schism.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 09, 2010, 09:08:30 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.

Obviously that formula was not defined until Vatican I or shortly before. What you are talking about is when papal infallibility is invoked after the fact of its definition, not the constrictions of what might have constituted ex cathedra throughout Church history.

It's up to the Church to determine those cases, or if there are any.  Its not for me or Father Ambrose or Scott Hahn to tell the Church.

Father Ambrose always does far more telling than asking.  I wonder how he would fare in the Vatican standing up to the current fathers of the Catholic Church and offering them the aggressive interpretations that he offers here.  I expect the heart and mind of the Church would elicit a far more sober response set from the hermit from New Zealand...and in either Latin or Greek as the hermit might choose.

For now, Ott's is still the standard text for dogmatic systematics.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 09:09:41 AM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us.  

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.


That is not correct, Mary, in the instance if the filioque.  The last official statements from our Patriarchs to the Popes very definitely term it a heresy and demand that you abandon it.   So I imagine that we have been in schism and without Apostolic Succession since the 1900s, by your criteria.  Whodda thunk it?  Maybe you are wrong?

The official letters sent to the Pope..

1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Please explain to us how the Greeks can be said to speak for the whole Church one day but not the next?

Because these are two of the "Symbolical Books" and accepted throughout the Orthodox Churches.


Quote
I don't think we'd be having the bilateral discussions that we are having now if there was not some understanding that we have not yet divided the two confessions so that a shared Apolosticity is completely severed, as it has been in other cases of schism.Mary


It was *your* theory that if the Orthodox rejected certain Roman things that we then are in schism and have lost Apostolic Succession.  I showed you that we have already done those things you mention and we have not lost Apostolic Succession.  Therefore your contentions are not consistent with reality.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 09:16:43 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.

Obviously that formula was not defined until Vatican I or shortly before. What you are talking about is when papal infallibility is invoked after the fact of its definition, not the constrictions of what might have constituted ex cathedra throughout Church history.

It's up to the Church to determine those cases, or if there are any.  Its not for me or Father Ambrose or Scott Hahn to tell the Church.

Father Ambrose always does far more telling than asking.  I wonder how he would fare in the Vatican standing up to the current fathers of the Catholic Church and offering them the aggressive interpretations that he offers here.  I expect the heart and mind of the Church would elicit a far more sober response set from the hermit from New Zealand...and in either Latin or Greek as the hermit might choose.

For now, Ott's is still the standard text for dogmatic systematics.

Mary

It that is the case, then we take it that Otts' enumeration of infallible statements as being 40 may be accepted as standard.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 09:23:25 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.

Obviously that formula was not defined until Vatican I or shortly before. What you are talking about is when papal infallibility is invoked after the fact of its definition, not the constrictions of what might have constituted ex cathedra throughout Church history.

Father Ambrose always does far more telling than asking. [Pot, meet kettle!  :laugh:]  I wonder how he would fare in the Vatican standing up to the current fathers of the Catholic Church and offering them the aggressive interpretations that he offers here.  I expect the heart and mind of the Church would elicit a far more sober response set from the hermit from New Zealand...and in either Latin or Greek as the hermit might choose.


I would pray for assistance from Saint Mark of Ephesus who was treated by the big boys of the Vatican as a bit of a dolt.

(http://www.archangelsbooks.com/prodimages/Small/Icons/a-240.jpg)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 09:34:24 AM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.

Obviously that formula was not defined until Vatican I or shortly before. What you are talking about is when papal infallibility is invoked after the fact of its definition, not the constrictions of what might have constituted ex cathedra throughout Church history.

Father Ambrose always does far more telling than asking. [Pot, meet kettle!  :laugh:]  I wonder how he would fare in the Vatican standing up to the current fathers of the Catholic Church and offering them the aggressive interpretations that he offers here.  I expect the heart and mind of the Church would elicit a far more sober response set from the hermit from New Zealand...and in either Latin or Greek as the hermit might choose.


I would pray for assistance from Saint Mark of Ephesus who was treated by the big boys of the Vatican as a bit of a dolt.

(http://www.archangelsbooks.com/prodimages/Small/Icons/a-240.jpg)
LOL.  The accounts of the time I read complained that St. Mark was the only theologian of any worth that Constantinople sent.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 09, 2010, 09:53:58 AM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us.  

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.


That is not correct, Mary, in the instance if the filioque.  The last official statements from our Patriarchs to the Popes very definitely term it a heresy and demand that you abandon it.   So I imagine that we have been in schism and without Apostolic Succession since the 1900s, by your criteria.  Whodda thunk it?  Maybe you are wrong?

The official letters sent to the Pope..

1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Please explain to us how the Greeks can be said to speak for the whole Church one day but not the next?

Because these are two of the "Symbolical Books" and accepted throughout the Orthodox Churches.


It will take more than inclusion in the Symbolical Books to produce the acts sufficient to sever the apostolic ties between our two confessions:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

e) Later Councils

The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Church of Christ. From this point of view, any general and major councils even after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity [1054] may still be considered and called "ecumenical councils." However, in deference to the "ecumenical problem" and as a matter of pastoral prudence and strategy, the Church has not given the name "ecumenical" to Councils that do not represent the "undivided Church" of the Byzantine Empire.

Nonetheless, important Councils convened in the East after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity and are as important in terms of establishing the faith and clearly enunciating its content. Such are the important Councils of 1341 and 1351, which established the Orthodox Christian doctrine concerning divine grace, the divine energies of God and the "uncreated light," according to the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas.

Councils convened during the seventeenth century to counteract Protestant infiltrations in the East and establish the Orthodox doctrine vis-à-vis the Protestant teachings, like the Councils of Jassi [1662] and Jerusalem [1672] are also considered to be councils of relative importance. Documents produced by these Councils, or ratified by them, along with other important documents, such as "confessions of faith" by Orthodox prelates and teachers (St. Photios, Michael Cerularius, Mark of Ephesus, Gennadios of Constantinople, Jeremiah II of Constantinople, Metrophanes Kritopoulos, Peter Moghila, etc.) are given the name of "Symbolic Books" of the Orthodox Church. They are certainly witnesses of the Orthodox faith "once handed down to the saints" and perpetuated in the Orthodox Church. However, their authority is subjected to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and the ancient Fathers of the Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 09, 2010, 11:10:41 AM
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.
Which would make sense because the Church has always opposed contraception and has never ordained women. However, I don't believe these statements were ever made ex cathedra.

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
lol. That's rather convenient, after the fact.
Isn't this the same way the Orthodox Church determines if a council is ecumenical?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 09, 2010, 11:17:03 AM
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

e) Later Councils

The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Church of Christ. From this point of view, any general and major councils even after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity [1054] may still be considered and called "ecumenical councils." However, in deference to the "ecumenical problem" and as a matter of pastoral prudence and strategy, the Church has not given the name "ecumenical" to Councils that do not represent the "undivided Church" of the Byzantine Empire.

Nonetheless, important Councils convened in the East after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity and are as important in terms of establishing the faith and clearly enunciating its content. Such are the important Councils of 1341 and 1351, which established the Orthodox Christian doctrine concerning divine grace, the divine energies of God and the "uncreated light," according to the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas.

Councils convened during the seventeenth century to counteract Protestant infiltrations in the East and establish the Orthodox doctrine vis-à-vis the Protestant teachings, like the Councils of Jassi [1662] and Jerusalem [1672] are also considered to be councils of relative importance. Documents produced by these Councils, or ratified by them, along with other important documents, such as "confessions of faith" by Orthodox prelates and teachers (St. Photios, Michael Cerularius, Mark of Ephesus, Gennadios of Constantinople, Jeremiah II of Constantinople, Metrophanes Kritopoulos, Peter Moghila, etc.) are given the name of "Symbolic Books" of the Orthodox Church. They are certainly witnesses of the Orthodox faith "once handed down to the saints" and perpetuated in the Orthodox Church. However, their authority is subjected to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and the ancient Fathers of the Church.

I see nothing especially remarkable about what you have placed in brown and red.  The Greek Archdiocesan site remarks that the Symbolical Books are "witnesses of the Orthodox faith once handed to the Saints and perpetuated in the Orthodox Church."  It goes on to mention that they are subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils - naturally.


The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787 and comprise the Symbolical Books, particularly items 1-5:


1 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)
2 The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054)
3 The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy
4 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441).
5 The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)
6 The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581)
7 The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)
8 The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642)
9 The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)
10 The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723)
11 The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848)
12 The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)
13 The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Marc1152 on September 09, 2010, 12:43:11 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko

But we have seen examples of the Pope approving dogma that was later considered heresy, in writing in an official context ( writing to a high Church Bishop)...

So now Ex Cathedra means saying the magic words first...  Tricky business.. hard to follow when it is and when it isn't. Is there a special handshake too?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCCWrcjeKzc&feature=related

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 01:01:45 PM
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.
Which would make sense because the Church has always opposed contraception and has never ordained women. However, I don't believe these statements were ever made ex cathedra.

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
lol. That's rather convenient, after the fact.
Isn't this the same way the Orthodox Church determines if a council is ecumenical?
no. What fizzled out is heresy. And when it fizzles out, it takes the heretics with it. They don't become part of the Church which spoke in Ecumenical Council.

And we make no pretense of a magic formula of infallibility.

Btw, the Vatican's authority once denounced NFP and non-consumated oral sex, but seems to have changed its mind, and Rome used to have married clergy and then changed on that too. If it goes back to the Apostolic practice of ordaining married men, it is going to be harder to explain now why they don't ordain women.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 01:07:45 PM
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

e) Later Councils

The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Church of Christ. From this point of view, any general and major councils even after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity [1054] may still be considered and called "ecumenical councils." However, in deference to the "ecumenical problem" and as a matter of pastoral prudence and strategy, the Church has not given the name "ecumenical" to Councils that do not represent the "undivided Church" of the Byzantine Empire.

Nonetheless, important Councils convened in the East after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity and are as important in terms of establishing the faith and clearly enunciating its content. Such are the important Councils of 1341 and 1351, which established the Orthodox Christian doctrine concerning divine grace, the divine energies of God and the "uncreated light," according to the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas.

Councils convened during the seventeenth century to counteract Protestant infiltrations in the East and establish the Orthodox doctrine vis-à-vis the Protestant teachings, like the Councils of Jassi [1662] and Jerusalem [1672] are also considered to be councils of relative importance. Documents produced by these Councils, or ratified by them, along with other important documents, such as "confessions of faith" by Orthodox prelates and teachers (St. Photios, Michael Cerularius, Mark of Ephesus, Gennadios of Constantinople, Jeremiah II of Constantinople, Metrophanes Kritopoulos, Peter Moghila, etc.) are given the name of "Symbolic Books" of the Orthodox Church. They are certainly witnesses of the Orthodox faith "once handed down to the saints" and perpetuated in the Orthodox Church. However, their authority is subjected to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and the ancient Fathers of the Church.

I see nothing especially remarkable about what you have placed in brown and red.  The Greek Archdiocesan site remarks that the Symbolical Books are "witnesses of the Orthodox faith once handed to the Saints and perpetuated in the Orthodox Church."  It goes on to mention that they are subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils - naturally.


The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787 and comprise the Symbolical Books, particularly items 1-5:


1 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)
2 The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054)
3 The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy
4 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441).
5 The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)
6 The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581)
7 The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)
8 The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642)
9 The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)
10 The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723)
11 The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848)
12 The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)
13 The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952)


Also included is Constantinople IV (879), which was convened before 1054 and "represents the "undivided Church" of the Byzantine Empire" [sic, correct: Empire of the Romans].

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 09, 2010, 01:23:10 PM
no. What fizzled out is heresy. And when it fizzles out, it takes the heretics with it. They don't become part of the Church which spoke in Ecumenical Council.
What I meant is doesn't the Orthodox Church determine whether a council is ecumenical after the fact, or does it immediately know if a council is ecumenical? I remember being told by someone on here that the Orthodox Church doesn't know whether a council is ecumenical as it is happening, but considers it ecumenical looking back on it. I am pretty sure this is the same way which the Catholic Church determines which statements by Popes are infallible before Papal Infallibility is to look at whether such teachings are still upheld by the Church and which are not. Obviously before the dogma was defined you wouldn't see Popes invoking their infallibility using ex cathedra wording, so determining what was infallible before the First Vatican Council would have to be done differently.

And we make no pretense of a magic formula of infallibility.
Okay.

Btw, the Vatican's authority once denounced NFP and non-consumated oral sex, but seems to have changed its mind, and Rome used to have married clergy and then changed on that too. If it goes back to the Apostolic practice of ordaining married men, it is going to be harder to explain now why they don't ordain women.
Again we are getting into the area of discipline versus doctrine or dogma. I won't comment on the Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality as I am sure there are other Catholics on here who are more knowledgeable on that topic than I am, but I do know that clerical celibacy is a discipline of the Western Church, not even the entire Catholic Church but just the Roman Rite. As such, it can and could change someday. I don't understand how allowing married clergy again could make it difficult for the Catholic Church to explain why it doesn't ordain women. There was a time when the clergy was allowed to be married, but there was never a time when women were ordained.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 09, 2010, 02:25:27 PM
Mary, please answer my question: why is holding onto this dogma (along with the dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the filioque) so critical to the Roman Catholic Church when it is an obstacle to the unity of the Church? I just do not and cannot see this as a foundational issue, that is, critical to our relationship to the Triune God. I am willing to accept that Roman Catholics truly believe in these innovations. I just cannot fathom why they are so important for the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that they are perpetuating the schism from the One True Church.

That's very simple.  Your hierarchs are not demanding that of us.  

When they do, then you will have entered into full and formal schism, and you will be like the Anglicans who are not recognized as having Apostolic Succession.

Mary

You shock me dear Mary; you are already in schism with us. Yet, you believe that we are the schismatics? May be what I just wrote is too strong: you say that we would be (in the future) in full and formal schism. Does that mean that we are not now in such a state, that we are in a less than full and formal schism--like being a little pregnant?

The Catholic Church teaches that Orthodoxy has Apostolic Succession and is not in formal schism but is in material schism with the Catholic Church.   I am a Catholic.  I am sorry that is so shocking to you.

M.

I must apologize in turn for being shocked; I had no idea that y'all had come up with different varieties of schism. So, we are kind of the red haired step children for y'all?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 09, 2010, 02:44:06 PM
I of course applaud your honesty and strongly held beliefs. I certainly agree with you that Orthodox churches would not throw out a dogma simply for the sake of unity. However, there is a fundamental difference here: whereas we the Orthodox are preserving the dogmas of the whole, undivided Church, you are holding on to the dogmas that you only have added. If we threw out a dogma, in other words, it would also be your dogma.
Well, the fact of the matter is that I don't accept your premise that the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the entirety of the Apostolic Faith nor your premise that the Catholic Church has corrupted it.
As for your belief that the Lord Himself established the Papacy, I think that the time line is a bit off, don't you think? Show me anything in the Bible,  the Ecumenical Councils (accepted by the entire Church), indeed non-Roman sources during the first millennium that establish anything more than the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as first among equals. Show me any Scriptural basis for elevating a bishop so that he ontologically becomes another kind of bishop, a super-bishop as the Catholic Church has in fact defined the Bishop of Rome.
First, I don't believe that the Pope is some kind of "Super Bishop". The Sacrament of Holy Orders bestowed on the Pope is no different from the Sacrament of Holy Orders received by any other bishop. However, as the Bishop of Rome and the Final successor of St. Peter (and I think perhaps the successor of St. Paul as well) he is the first among equals and, as such, is charged with specific responsibilities and is granted certain charisms and authorities to meet these responsibilities.
Second, I am convinced by the Scriptures, Tradition, and History, that the Papacy is a divinely established institution. However, I don't think that debating that is issue is what this thread is about. There are multiple threads covering this topic but if you would like to look further into it, there is an interesting debate on the matter between an EO and a Catholic here: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/ (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/)
You know that there were doctrines of the Church that later were rejected, even though a huge majority of clergy and lat persons once followed the once-doctrine-but-now-heresy teachings. As a catholic (encompassing the whole Church) example, the teachings of Arius come to mind. In the East, the rejection of the false Union of the Council of Florence comes to mind. Look, it is indeed possible that y'all are wrong, isn't it so? In the case of the Orthodox Church, since we are still adhering to the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, we really cannot say that there was an error because (a) we look at the dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to the canons) as being fences around the Holy Mysteries (defined not merely as the Sacraments but the ineffable truth about the Triune God) and (b) because we would not wish to be presumptuous as doing so would also impact you, as well as your derivatives.  
And, again, I don't agree with your premise. I believe that there are certain Apostolic teachings from which the EO Church has deviated, especially in the last few centuries.
I am not looking to make this  a "Let's debate which Church is the True Church" thread. We have plenty of those. What I am trying to express to you here is that the reason why Catholics like myself don't believe that we should dump certain doctrines for the sake of unity, is that we are intellectually convinced that these doctrines are Apostolic and, thus, non-negotiables.
Thank you for the continued charitable conversation. I have always found your posts to be fair and honest.

Thank you for your kind words. I have found you to be unfailingly eloquent, honest and knowledgeable. I suppose I don't have to add "But not right all of the time."  In any case, my premise was not that the Roman Catholic Church had necessarily corrupted our common dogmas (as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils). My premise was that we have been generally reticent to add to the dogmas of the undivided Church, whereas y'all unilaterally, thinking yourselves to be the totality of the Church, had added additional dogmas. Now, it is true that many Orthodox folks have been sorely tempted to follow your example. I am not one of those; I think that we can meet in a pan-Orthodox Council to address issues pertaining solely to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, to include the scope and practice of dialogue with our separated sister churches, but we cannot presume to do anything beyond that, particularly dogmatic definitions that would impact the essentials of faith. The way I see it the Roman Catholic Church is in a quandary: the additions that have been made either impact the essentials of faith or they are ancillary. If they are ancillary, they cannot be as important as an essential like unity of the Body. If they are essential, there are two potential problems with them: (1) they are not truly ecumenical but should be and/or (b) they may be impacting other essentials of faith in a negative way (such as the unity of the Body). Bottom line for this discussion must be the consideration of all aspects of this quandary. OTH, if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church does not have to concern herself with the legitimate positions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, then why are we having this discussion in the first place?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 09, 2010, 02:49:39 PM
So it looks like Pope is infallible unless he makes a mistake. Such a dogma can be made for anyone.
Papal infallibility "only" applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra. It's clear you just don't get it or you just want to hold onto silly polemical notions like some folks e.g. stashko
LOL. Can we nail you down for a definition of when he speaks ex cathedra?  Because it seems the Vatican has been evading giving the specifics.
I believe the wording the Pope uses when speaking ex cathedra starts out as "we declare, define, pronounce, and proclaim" or something similar.

Obviously that formula was not defined until Vatican I or shortly before. What you are talking about is when papal infallibility is invoked after the fact of its definition, not the constrictions of what might have constituted ex cathedra throughout Church history.

Father Ambrose always does far more telling than asking. [Pot, meet kettle!  :laugh:]  I wonder how he would fare in the Vatican standing up to the current fathers of the Catholic Church and offering them the aggressive interpretations that he offers here.  I expect the heart and mind of the Church would elicit a far more sober response set from the hermit from New Zealand...and in either Latin or Greek as the hermit might choose.


I would pray for assistance from Saint Mark of Ephesus who was treated by the big boys of the Vatican as a bit of a dolt.

(http://www.archangelsbooks.com/prodimages/Small/Icons/a-240.jpg)

I am sure that you would be graced.  I am equally sure that you would be somewhat constrained in your assertions by a number of factors, and would not be quite so readily able to assert and interpret at whim and will.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 09, 2010, 02:49:39 PM

It that is the case, then we take it that Otts' enumeration of infallible statements as being 40 may be accepted as standard.

Only if you are too legalistic in your thinking to probe any more deeply into meaning.  Then any number would suffice, I would think.

As I said Father Ott, and I will now include Father Denzinger, are two principle standard texts in systematics.  That does not mean that you can count in them, thumb through them,  or even read them, in any language,  without the oversight of the Church.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 09, 2010, 02:49:39 PM
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.
Which would make sense because the Church has always opposed contraception and has never ordained women. However, I don't believe these statements were ever made ex cathedra.

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
lol. That's rather convenient, after the fact.
Isn't this the same way the Orthodox Church determines if a council is ecumenical?
no. What fizzled out is heresy. And when it fizzles out, it takes the heretics with it. They don't become part of the Church which spoke in Ecumenical Council.

Oh my!  I went through several years of discernment some time ago wanting to come into Orthodoxy but not knowing how to resolve the fact that I don't believe that there is anything at all heretical about the teachings in the Catholic Church.  I worked with a bishop in the Orthodox Church simply because I happened upon circumstance that allowed that...encouraged that.  And the reception of teaching in Orthodoxy is nothing so passive as having "heresy fizzle out"....or so I've been told.

But I suppose your doctrinal theology is as good as your history...so, I'll have to accept this as a sincere effort on your part.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 09, 2010, 02:49:39 PM

I must apologize in turn for being shocked; I had no idea that y'all had come up with different varieties of schism. So, we are kind of the red haired step children for y'all?

No real need for apology.  I often presume levels of awareness that I should not, so I am the one who should offer...pardon my own insensitivity, please.

You know I don't think of the Orthodox faith or Orthodox Churches as any kind of "step-child," or lesser entities, or stunted faith.

In the first place, when the issue comes up at all, we, as Catholics,  are encouraged to see Orthodoxy as the Body of Christ, just as the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.  We don't DO things precisely the same way, EXPRESS things precisely the same way, PROFESS things precisely the same way...We never did.

We are taught that none of the differences are sufficient to warrant a loss of communion.  Not even the fact that Orthodoxy has severed communion with the Church in Rome. 

I have experienced religious instruction in Orthodoxy with an eye to becoming Orthodox so I feel even more strongly that there is nothing lesser about the Orthodox Church. 

Just as with my own Church I do not agree with all her members.  I certainly do not agree with many Orthodox believer's assertions about Catholic teaching.   But that is just the way of it and I accept that fact, sometimes with some measure of grace and sometimes without!

The fact that Orthodox faithful see my faith as something much less however is abundantly apparent each day I continue to remain as close as I do.  Sometimes I think I am more of an idiot for caring than y'all do!!

Mary

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 03:07:28 PM
no. What fizzled out is heresy. And when it fizzles out, it takes the heretics with it. They don't become part of the Church which spoke in Ecumenical Council.
What I meant is doesn't the Orthodox Church determine whether a council is ecumenical after the fact, or does it immediately know if a council is ecumenical? I remember being told by someone on here that the Orthodox Church doesn't know whether a council is ecumenical as it is happening, but considers it ecumenical looking back on it.

The Orthodox accept the Council, and the heretics do not, and so the wheat is shifted from the chaff.

I am pretty sure this is the same way which the Catholic Church determines which statements by Popes are infallible before Papal Infallibility is to look at whether such teachings are still upheld by the Church and which are not. Obviously before the dogma was defined you wouldn't see Popes invoking their infallibility using ex cathedra wording, so determining what was infallible before the First Vatican Council would have to be done differently.

It doesn't seem to be so clear after 1870 either: I've seen conflicting opinions on Humanae Vitae.

But Pastor Aeternus and Lumen Gentium makes a claim of such a thing as ex cathedra, and that is determinative on what is infallible.  The tautology of "what is ex cathedra is what has stood the test of time" renders such a concept as meaningless as well as useless. Certainly not a dogma required for salvation.

And we make no pretense of a magic formula of infallibility.
Okay.

Btw, the Vatican's authority once denounced NFP and non-consumated oral sex, but seems to have changed its mind, and Rome used to have married clergy and then changed on that too. If it goes back to the Apostolic practice of ordaining married men, it is going to be harder to explain now why they don't ordain women.
Again we are getting into the area of discipline versus doctrine or dogma. I won't comment on the Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality as I am sure there are other Catholics on here who are more knowledgeable on that topic than I am,
LOL. The topic or the teaching?

but I do know that clerical celibacy is a discipline of the Western Church, not even the entire Catholic Church but just the Roman Rite.

No, it's been imposed everywhere the Vatican can get away with it.

As such, it can and could change someday.

Yes, the standard disclaimer before the explanation of why that will never happened.

I don't understand how allowing married clergy again could make it difficult for the Catholic Church to explain why it doesn't ordain women. There was a time when the clergy was allowed to be married, but there was never a time when women were ordained.
Because the Vatican's apologists have painted themselves into quite a corner on mandated celebacy, such that lifing it has the same effect the lifing of the long ban on the vernacular had on hte Novus Ordo.

The Vatican has taken to claim that the Apostolic practice in the East of married clergy is the innovation, and that originally no clergy were married/sexually active.  
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

It's going to get harder and harder to now back track without calling into question its authority on other aspects, i..e. ordaining women.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 03:11:54 PM
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.
Which would make sense because the Church has always opposed contraception and has never ordained women. However, I don't believe these statements were ever made ex cathedra.

What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
lol. That's rather convenient, after the fact.
Isn't this the same way the Orthodox Church determines if a council is ecumenical?
no. What fizzled out is heresy. And when it fizzles out, it takes the heretics with it. They don't become part of the Church which spoke in Ecumenical Council.

Oh my!  I went through several years of discernment some time ago wanting to come into Orthodoxy but not knowing how to resolve the fact that I don't believe that there is anything at all heretical about the teachings in the Catholic Church.  I worked with a bishop in the Orthodox Church simply because I happened upon circumstance that allowed that...encouraged that.  And the reception of teaching in Orthodoxy is nothing so passive as having "heresy fizzle out"....or so I've been told.

But I suppose your doctrinal theology is as good as your history...so, I'll have to accept this as a sincere effort on your part.

M.
(http://ocafs.oca.org/Icons/greatlent/sundayorthodoxy.jpg)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 09, 2010, 03:22:43 PM
What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
In the time I have been Catholic, I have been taught that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. As far as what was infallible before Papal Infallibility was formally defined I do not know, and it would likely be trickier to figure out because the ex cathedra wording would have likely not been used before then, or at least not explicitly. I think it is safe to say that those teachings of previous Popes which are still alive within the Catholic Church today are infallible. Anything that was taught only for a time and then fizzled out would be pious opinion.
I have seen claims to the effect that Paul VI's 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae and JPII's declaration against women priests were infallible.

This is one of the weirdest things about Catholic dogma.  Nobody, not even the Pope, seems sure what is and is not.   Theologians range themselves on one side and the other, claiming infallibility or denying infallibility for various papal teachings.

Heck, why don't the Popes make it clear when they issue their teachings?   And why don't subsequent Popes clarify if it is infallible or not, especially when the theologians and the priests and the faithful haven't a clue.

The man in the Vatican seems to cause a lot of dogmatic confusion.  What earthly use is infallibility when determining if a teaching is infallible seems to bit like spinning the wheel in a lottery. 


It is true that there is a discussion among Catholic theologians as to whether or not these two documents are infallible or not. Even if these two documents were not infallible, they are authoritative and binding for Catholics. To say that they are not infallible, would mean that they are subject to further consideration and development in the future. There are theologians, such as Hans Kung, who have taught that there should be a reconsideration of the doctrine of infallibility. See the book: Infallible? An Inquiry. In the nineteenth century, before the 1870 definition, two catechisms in use in Ireland explicitly denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 09, 2010, 03:26:33 PM

I must apologize in turn for being shocked; I had no idea that y'all had come up with different varieties of schism. So, we are kind of the red haired step children for y'all?

No real need for apology.  I often presume levels of awareness that I should not, so I am the one who should offer...pardon my own insensitivity, please.

You know I don't think of the Orthodox faith or Orthodox Churches as any kind of "step-child," or lesser entities, or stunted faith.

In the first place, when the issue comes up at all, we, as Catholics,  are encouraged to see Orthodoxy as the Body of Christ, just as the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.  We don't DO things precisely the same way, EXPRESS things precisely the same way, PROFESS things precisely the same way...We never did.

We are taught that none of the differences are sufficient to warrant a loss of communion.  Not even the fact that Orthodoxy has severed communion with the Church in Rome. 

I have experienced religious instruction in Orthodoxy with an eye to becoming Orthodox so I feel even more strongly that there is nothing lesser about the Orthodox Church. 

Just as with my own Church I do not agree with all her members.  I certainly do not agree with many Orthodox believer's assertions about Catholic teaching.   But that is just the way of it and I accept that fact, sometimes with some measure of grace and sometimes without!

The fact that Orthodox faithful see my faith as something much less however is abundantly apparent each day I continue to remain as close as I do.  Sometimes I think I am more of an idiot for caring than y'all do!!

Mary



Dear Mary--Thank you for your gracious reply. I think you are a serious believer and that is all to the good. If, however, some folks denigrate your beliefs, this may be because they are pushing hard against your positions, perhaps just as hard as you seem to make them. Such is the fate of those of us who express ourselves forcefully (myself included, especially when I get my back up). In any case, another issue that may be affecting Orthodox-Catholic dialogues (aside from history), may the relative strength of Rome vis-a-vis the Orthodox Churches.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 09, 2010, 04:09:35 PM
I of course applaud your honesty and strongly held beliefs. I certainly agree with you that Orthodox churches would not throw out a dogma simply for the sake of unity. However, there is a fundamental difference here: whereas we the Orthodox are preserving the dogmas of the whole, undivided Church, you are holding on to the dogmas that you only have added. If we threw out a dogma, in other words, it would also be your dogma.
Well, the fact of the matter is that I don't accept your premise that the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the entirety of the Apostolic Faith nor your premise that the Catholic Church has corrupted it.
As for your belief that the Lord Himself established the Papacy, I think that the time line is a bit off, don't you think? Show me anything in the Bible,  the Ecumenical Councils (accepted by the entire Church), indeed non-Roman sources during the first millennium that establish anything more than the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as first among equals. Show me any Scriptural basis for elevating a bishop so that he ontologically becomes another kind of bishop, a super-bishop as the Catholic Church has in fact defined the Bishop of Rome.
First, I don't believe that the Pope is some kind of "Super Bishop". The Sacrament of Holy Orders bestowed on the Pope is no different from the Sacrament of Holy Orders received by any other bishop. However, as the Bishop of Rome and the Final successor of St. Peter (and I think perhaps the successor of St. Paul as well) he is the first among equals and, as such, is charged with specific responsibilities and is granted certain charisms and authorities to meet these responsibilities.
Second, I am convinced by the Scriptures, Tradition, and History, that the Papacy is a divinely established institution. However, I don't think that debating that is issue is what this thread is about. There are multiple threads covering this topic but if you would like to look further into it, there is an interesting debate on the matter between an EO and a Catholic here: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/ (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/)
You know that there were doctrines of the Church that later were rejected, even though a huge majority of clergy and lat persons once followed the once-doctrine-but-now-heresy teachings. As a catholic (encompassing the whole Church) example, the teachings of Arius come to mind. In the East, the rejection of the false Union of the Council of Florence comes to mind. Look, it is indeed possible that y'all are wrong, isn't it so? In the case of the Orthodox Church, since we are still adhering to the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, we really cannot say that there was an error because (a) we look at the dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to the canons) as being fences around the Holy Mysteries (defined not merely as the Sacraments but the ineffable truth about the Triune God) and (b) because we would not wish to be presumptuous as doing so would also impact you, as well as your derivatives.  
And, again, I don't agree with your premise. I believe that there are certain Apostolic teachings from which the EO Church has deviated, especially in the last few centuries.
I am not looking to make this  a "Let's debate which Church is the True Church" thread. We have plenty of those. What I am trying to express to you here is that the reason why Catholics like myself don't believe that we should dump certain doctrines for the sake of unity, is that we are intellectually convinced that these doctrines are Apostolic and, thus, non-negotiables.
Thank you for the continued charitable conversation. I have always found your posts to be fair and honest.

Thank you for your kind words. I have found you to be unfailingly eloquent, honest and knowledgeable. I suppose I don't have to add "But not right all of the time."  In any case, my premise was not that the Roman Catholic Church had necessarily corrupted our common dogmas (as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils). My premise was that we have been generally reticent to add to the dogmas of the undivided Church, whereas y'all unilaterally, thinking yourselves to be the totality of the Church, had added additional dogmas. Now, it is true that many Orthodox folks have been sorely tempted to follow your example. I am not one of those; I think that we can meet in a pan-Orthodox Council to address issues pertaining solely to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, to include the scope and practice of dialogue with our separated sister churches, but we cannot presume to do anything beyond that, particularly dogmatic definitions that would impact the essentials of faith. The way I see it the Roman Catholic Church is in a quandary: the additions that have been made either impact the essentials of faith or they are ancillary. If they are ancillary, they cannot be as important as an essential like unity of the Body. If they are essential, there are two potential problems with them: (1) they are not truly ecumenical but should be and/or (b) they may be impacting other essentials of faith in a negative way (such as the unity of the Body). Bottom line for this discussion must be the consideration of all aspects of this quandary. OTH, if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church does not have to concern herself with the legitimate positions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, then why are we having this discussion in the first place?
Second Chance,
Now I must thank you for your kind words as well. Indeed I see where you come to your conlusions. It seems to you and to others that in order for the Church to be truely  ecumenical, then the Catholic Church must be open to change. But, the Catholic Church sees itself as the Church established by Christ and, therefore, cannot change. So why have this conversation? I think its a matter of outreach, bringing the sheep back into the fold. I believe that we can discuss differences in theological emphasis without watering down the faith because the Byzantine Fathers are part of our heritage as well. We look at the different ways that particular Catholic dogmas have been expressed throughout histroy in order to see if there are certain expressions that are more compatible with the possibility of commuinion with EOs. This would be a way in which we could maitain the doctrines that we believe are true, and hope to reconcile with your church. Why would we want to do this? Well, becasue we love your guys and we want to be able to share the Eucharistic table with our brothers and sisters in Christ. I agree, unity is important. I also think that in order to find unity we need to determine what is essential to the faith, what is not essential and how theology can be expressed in a way that is compatible with both tradition without watering down the faith. Is this a difficult task? Indeed! I don't think that it can be accopmlished by human means, but rather, it will take the work of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 09, 2010, 04:33:49 PM
I of course applaud your honesty and strongly held beliefs. I certainly agree with you that Orthodox churches would not throw out a dogma simply for the sake of unity. However, there is a fundamental difference here: whereas we the Orthodox are preserving the dogmas of the whole, undivided Church, you are holding on to the dogmas that you only have added. If we threw out a dogma, in other words, it would also be your dogma.
Well, the fact of the matter is that I don't accept your premise that the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the entirety of the Apostolic Faith nor your premise that the Catholic Church has corrupted it.
As for your belief that the Lord Himself established the Papacy, I think that the time line is a bit off, don't you think? Show me anything in the Bible,  the Ecumenical Councils (accepted by the entire Church), indeed non-Roman sources during the first millennium that establish anything more than the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as first among equals. Show me any Scriptural basis for elevating a bishop so that he ontologically becomes another kind of bishop, a super-bishop as the Catholic Church has in fact defined the Bishop of Rome.
First, I don't believe that the Pope is some kind of "Super Bishop". The Sacrament of Holy Orders bestowed on the Pope is no different from the Sacrament of Holy Orders received by any other bishop. However, as the Bishop of Rome and the Final successor of St. Peter (and I think perhaps the successor of St. Paul as well) he is the first among equals and, as such, is charged with specific responsibilities and is granted certain charisms and authorities to meet these responsibilities.
Second, I am convinced by the Scriptures, Tradition, and History, that the Papacy is a divinely established institution. However, I don't think that debating that is issue is what this thread is about. There are multiple threads covering this topic but if you would like to look further into it, there is an interesting debate on the matter between an EO and a Catholic here: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/ (http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/primacy/)
You know that there were doctrines of the Church that later were rejected, even though a huge majority of clergy and lat persons once followed the once-doctrine-but-now-heresy teachings. As a catholic (encompassing the whole Church) example, the teachings of Arius come to mind. In the East, the rejection of the false Union of the Council of Florence comes to mind. Look, it is indeed possible that y'all are wrong, isn't it so? In the case of the Orthodox Church, since we are still adhering to the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, we really cannot say that there was an error because (a) we look at the dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to the canons) as being fences around the Holy Mysteries (defined not merely as the Sacraments but the ineffable truth about the Triune God) and (b) because we would not wish to be presumptuous as doing so would also impact you, as well as your derivatives.  
And, again, I don't agree with your premise. I believe that there are certain Apostolic teachings from which the EO Church has deviated, especially in the last few centuries.
I am not looking to make this  a "Let's debate which Church is the True Church" thread. We have plenty of those. What I am trying to express to you here is that the reason why Catholics like myself don't believe that we should dump certain doctrines for the sake of unity, is that we are intellectually convinced that these doctrines are Apostolic and, thus, non-negotiables.
Thank you for the continued charitable conversation. I have always found your posts to be fair and honest.

Thank you for your kind words. I have found you to be unfailingly eloquent, honest and knowledgeable. I suppose I don't have to add "But not right all of the time."  In any case, my premise was not that the Roman Catholic Church had necessarily corrupted our common dogmas (as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils). My premise was that we have been generally reticent to add to the dogmas of the undivided Church, whereas y'all unilaterally, thinking yourselves to be the totality of the Church, had added additional dogmas. Now, it is true that many Orthodox folks have been sorely tempted to follow your example. I am not one of those; I think that we can meet in a pan-Orthodox Council to address issues pertaining solely to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, to include the scope and practice of dialogue with our separated sister churches, but we cannot presume to do anything beyond that, particularly dogmatic definitions that would impact the essentials of faith. The way I see it the Roman Catholic Church is in a quandary: the additions that have been made either impact the essentials of faith or they are ancillary. If they are ancillary, they cannot be as important as an essential like unity of the Body. If they are essential, there are two potential problems with them: (1) they are not truly ecumenical but should be and/or (b) they may be impacting other essentials of faith in a negative way (such as the unity of the Body). Bottom line for this discussion must be the consideration of all aspects of this quandary. OTH, if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church does not have to concern herself with the legitimate positions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, then why are we having this discussion in the first place?
Second Chance,
Now I must thank you for your kind words as well. Indeed I see where you come to your conlusions. It seems to you and to others that in order for the Church to be truely  ecumenical, then the Catholic Church must be open to change. But, the Catholic Church sees itself as the Church established by Christ and, therefore, cannot change. So why have this conversation? I think its a matter of outreach, bringing the sheep back into the fold. I believe that we can discuss differences in theological emphasis without watering down the faith because the Byzantine Fathers are part of our heritage as well. We look at the different ways that particular Catholic dogmas have been expressed throughout histroy in order to see if there are certain expressions that are more compatible with the possibility of commuinion with EOs. This would be a way in which we could maitain the doctrines that we believe are true, and hope to reconcile with your church. Why would we want to do this? Well, becasue we love your guys and we want to be able to share the Eucharistic table with our brothers and sisters in Christ. I agree, unity is important. I also think that in order to find unity we need to determine what is essential to the faith, what is not essential and how theology can be expressed in a way that is compatible with both tradition without watering down the faith. Is this a difficult task? Indeed! I don't think that it can be accopmlished by human means, but rather, it will take the work of the Holy Spirit.
I would take a slightly different line than Papist on this, since I think that the Catholic Church can and has changed to some extent. Take for example, the teaching that women should wear headcovering in Church, or  the Inquisition and subsequent torture and execution of heretics, or the teaching on slavery, or the teaching on charging interest on loans. 
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 09, 2010, 04:37:08 PM
It doesn't seem to be so clear after 1870 either: I've seen conflicting opinions on Humanae Vitae.
It was my understanding that Humanae Vitae is infallible in that it upholds the traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality. However, it was also my understanding that the teachings of Humanae Vitae are infallible because it is reaffirming a clear and constant teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, not because the Pope proclaimed it ex cathedra.

No, it's been imposed everywhere the Vatican can get away with it.
You make it sound like a punishment. I admire and greatly respect those who are able to be celibate. It is a gift which not many have. Most cannot become a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven.

Because the Vatican's apologists have painted themselves into quite a corner on mandated celebacy, such that lifing it has the same effect the lifing of the long ban on the vernacular had on hte Novus Ordo.

The Vatican has taken to claim that the Apostolic practice in the East of married clergy is the innovation, and that originally no clergy were married/sexually active.  
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

It's going to get harder and harder to now back track without calling into question its authority on other aspects, i..e. ordaining women.
The Catholic Church does not see itself as having the authority to ordain women and thus undo something Christ did when He ordained twelve male apostles. Whether those males who are successors to the Apostles are able to marry or not is a disciplinary decision. Also, I don't understand what you find so scandalous about that link you posted from the Vatican web site. In the very first paragraph it admits that the Bishops and Presbyters of the Early Church and after that for a time were married. That doesn't sound to me like the Vatican is backtracking and trying to put forth a revisionist theory that the clergy was always celibate as you seem to think the Vatican is doing.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 09, 2010, 04:48:02 PM
It doesn't seem to be so clear after 1870 either: I've seen conflicting opinions on Humanae Vitae.
It was my understanding that Humanae Vitae is infallible in that it upholds the traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality. However, it was also my understanding that the teachings of Humanae Vitae are infallible because it is reaffirming a clear and constant teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, not because the Pope proclaimed it ex cathedra.
I think that Father Francis A. Sullivan has raised some questions on whether or not this was infallible. See: Fr. Francis Sullivan, S.J., : Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, Dublin, Gill & Macmillan, 1983, pp. 143ff.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 09, 2010, 05:47:18 PM
It doesn't seem to be so clear after 1870 either: I've seen conflicting opinions on Humanae Vitae.
It was my understanding that Humanae Vitae is infallible in that it upholds the traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

If by "traditional Catholic teaching" you mean St. Jerome et alia, no, it does not.  They make no distinction whatsoever between ABC and NFP: the married exist to breed for the monasteries. That is why HV is devoid of patristics. Neither it, nor its apologists it seems, have found any to support its contention that "being open to life" is determinative.

However, it was also my understanding that the teachings of Humanae Vitae are infallible because it is reaffirming a clear and constant teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, not because the Pope proclaimed it ex cathedra.
Then we don't need a supreme pontiff speaking ex cathedra then.

No, it's been imposed everywhere the Vatican can get away with it.
You make it sound like a punishment.
How it has been done, an affliction.

I admire and greatly respect those who are able to be celibate. It is a gift which not many have. Most cannot become a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven.

Then what do you say of extracting from those who do not have the gift?  It's like a tax collecting squeezing blood from a rock.

Because the Vatican's apologists have painted themselves into quite a corner on mandated celebacy, such that lifing it has the same effect the lifing of the long ban on the vernacular had on hte Novus Ordo.

The Vatican has taken to claim that the Apostolic practice in the East of married clergy is the innovation, and that originally no clergy were married/sexually active.  
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

It's going to get harder and harder to now back track without calling into question its authority on other aspects, i..e. ordaining women.
The Catholic Church does not see itself as having the authority to ordain women and thus undo something Christ did when He ordained twelve male apostles. Whether those males who are successors to the Apostles are able to marry or not is a disciplinary decision.

Your friends St. Jerome et alia and their modern disciples see it differently, and openly display their abhorence for the idea of a man having touched a woman offering the sacrifice of the altar. St. Jerome, for instance, states "the blood of martyrdom does not wash away matrimony" as if it was filth one needed to be cleasned of.

Also, I don't understand what you find so scandalous about that link you posted from the Vatican web site. In the very first paragraph it admits that the Bishops and Presbyters of the Early Church and after that for a time were married.

You're not reading closely:
Quote
It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline.

That doesn't sound to me like the Vatican is backtracking and trying to put forth a revisionist theory that the clergy was always celibate as you seem to think the Vatican is doing.

Quote
Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent bishop at the Council of Nicaea, writes in the Demonstratio Evangelica, I, 9 (3 15-325): «It is fitting, according to Scripture, ‘that a bishop be the husband of an only wife’. But this being understood, it behoves consecrated men, and those who are at the service of God’s cult, to abstain thereafter from conjugal intercourse with their wives.» St Jerome, who had a good knowledge of the Eastern Churches, writes to the priest Vigilantius (406): «What would the Eastern Churches do? What would (those of) Egypt and the Apostolic See do, they who never accept clerics unless they are virgins or continent men, or if they had had a wife, (accept them only) if they give up matrimonial life...» (Adversus Vigilantium, 2).

The canon from the Synod of Carthage (390) which is quoted had declared perpetual continence (...continentes esse in omnibus) to be «what the apostles taught and what antiquity itself has observed». Here it is presented as saying the same of ‘temporary’ continence. The Trullan Synod is regarded in the East as part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (681-2), thus having supreme legislative authority. It has since remained the definitive statement on clerical marriage. Rome, on the other hand, immediately objected to the canons which were against Western discipline and to this day has not accepted them as belonging to the ecumenical heritage.51


One scriptural quotation notable for its absence in the early texts is the Matthean logion: «eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom» (Mt 19:12), which is never directly applied to priests. This omission suggests an attitude that priestly continence was not to be considered a voluntary perfection of the priestly state, but rather to be an intrinsic characteristic. Pope Siricius (385) called its relation to priesthood ‘indissoluble’54 Subsequent Western canonical tradition, by its refusal to mitigate the law, seems to have displayed a similar conviction.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 09, 2010, 06:39:36 PM

Dear Mary--Thank you for your gracious reply. I think you are a serious believer and that is all to the good. If, however, some folks denigrate your beliefs, this may be because they are pushing hard against your positions, perhaps just as hard as you seem to make them. Such is the fate of those of us who express ourselves forcefully (myself included, especially when I get my back up). In any case, another issue that may be affecting Orthodox-Catholic dialogues (aside from history), may the relative strength of Rome vis-a-vis the Orthodox Churches.

Thank you! 

I think that you have introduced something here that is most cogent to any discussion of resumption of communion.  I think that size and centralized authority is of utmost concern.  Sometimes that concern is over done but in other instances there is insufficient concern or attention paid.  I think that in the hoopla over the "excesses" of papal primacy and infallibility, outsiders tend to miss the fact that the bishops in the Roman rite are a law unto themselves...quite literally above the law and that is codified in the canons.  What is seen from the outside as a pyramidal structure actually conceals the fact that each bishop has absolute power in his see.   To me this is the far greater threat than the papacy.  But that is real.  So much that gets talked about outside of the lived context and canonical interpretation of the Church is simply fantasy, which of course is easy to combat when the stakes are nil, and becomes a rhetorical contest rather than anything approximating sincere and real dialogue.

I tend to watch and listen to my own very carefully and I know that there are Catholic bishops who are not in the least bit interested in the eastern Churches.  To them they are nationalist ghetto churches with delusions of adequacy in terms of doctrinal expression, and a substandard liturgy that is all frills and froth and clerical grandstanding.  They are no longer in any kind of majority in the Roman rite but there was a time when I think that there were many more of them than today.  That is of great concern to me.  Should be to others.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: minasoliman on September 09, 2010, 07:10:31 PM
We are taught that none of the differences are sufficient to warrant a loss of communion.  Not even the fact that Orthodoxy has severed communion with the Church in Rome. 

Can you expand on that further?  I thought that certain differences are indeed roadblocks.  Are you saying that certain dogmas like Papal Infallibility need not separate us, that it might not be an essential faith for all Apostolic Christians to believe in?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 09, 2010, 11:19:26 PM
Debated or "that which is not agreed on".

Again, that is not how the 400's were. When there was apparent disagreement on a matter of doctrine, they battled it out.

Orthodoxy has also developed the idea of receptionism where the ecumenical council then must be received (not rejected) by the body of the church.

Ok...............

What is the relevance of that statement?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 09, 2010, 11:31:36 PM
If by "traditional Catholic teaching" you mean St. Jerome et alia, no, it does not.  They make no distinction whatsoever between ABC and NFP: the married exist to breed for the monasteries. That is why HV is devoid of patristics. Neither it, nor its apologists it seems, have found any to support its contention that "being open to life" is determinative.
And here is where we reach the point where we must just go our separate ways and agree upon the irreconcilable differences between our Churches. Catholicism believes that doctrine develops and is clarified and Orthodoxy believes it is stagnant.

Then we don't need a supreme pontiff speaking ex cathedra then.
Just because ex cathedra is not the sole way the Church receives her teachings doesn't mean it is never needed.

How it has been done, an affliction.
You are free to hold that opinion, although no one in the Latin Church is forcing men to become priests. They know the huge sacrifice they have to make, and still make it. Now there is the speculative aspect of this discussion about whether the discipline will be lifted in the Latin Church to help solve the priest shortage crisis, and that I do not know. I do know that whether it happens or not will not matter to me. I will support the Church either way.

Then what do you say of extracting from those who do not have the gift?  It's like a tax collecting squeezing blood from a rock.
Why is celibacy in the western branch of the Catholic Church such a pet peeve for you?

Your friends St. Jerome et alia and their modern disciples see it differently, and openly display their abhorence for the idea of a man having touched a woman offering the sacrifice of the altar. St. Jerome, for instance, states "the blood of martyrdom does not wash away matrimony" as if it was filth one needed to be cleasned of.
That sounds like a snippet of something taken out of context to me, but as far as celibacy being the higher path...St. Paul seems to agree....

"For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I." -1 Corinthians 7:7-8

...so does Christ:

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." -St. Matthew 19:12

You're not reading closely:
Quote
It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline.
All this sounds like it is saying is that one cannot prove that celibacy did not exist, or rather co-exist, with a married priesthood in the Early Church. It is irrelevant though since the Church, by her God given authority to bind and loose, can impose the discipline if she wishes, just as she can remove the discipline if she wishes.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: theistgal on September 09, 2010, 11:40:01 PM
St. Jerome was a notable curmudgeon and stated that the primary purpose of marriage was to produce virgins!  :D 

Yet his best friends were a married couple who became saints (sorry I can't remember their names offhand - she was Prisca?? I think?) so maybe his bark was worse than his bite. ;)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: theistgal on September 09, 2010, 11:42:55 PM
(P.S. Jerome's married friends were Paula and Eustochium.)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Jetavan on September 10, 2010, 12:03:09 AM
(P.S. Jerome's married friends were Paula and Eustochium.)
Were they married to each other?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 10, 2010, 12:27:48 AM

Catholicism believes that doctrine develops and is clarified and Orthodoxy believes it is stagnant.


Dear Wyatt,

Does this mean that when Catholic doctrine reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine never stops developing?  That's a curious idea!!!

I do not know where you have studied Orthodoxy but you have been misinformed by someone.  The words of our holy father Saint Vincent of Lerins are the perfect expression of the Orthodox approach to doctrine and its clarification, to ecumenical councils,. etc....

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.


Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 10, 2010, 12:40:29 AM
We are taught that none of the differences are sufficient to warrant a loss of communion.  Not even the fact that Orthodoxy has severed communion with the Church in Rome. 

Can you expand on that further?  I thought that certain differences are indeed roadblocks.  Are you saying that certain dogmas like Papal Infallibility need not separate us, that it might not be an essential faith for all Apostolic Christians to believe in?

No.  I can't explain it further.  It is what it is.  I am taught not to look at Orthodoxy as anything but a true sister Church.  If that offends, I apologize.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 10, 2010, 12:40:29 AM
We are taught that none of the differences are sufficient to warrant a loss of communion.  Not even the fact that Orthodoxy has severed communion with the Church in Rome. 

Can you expand on that further?  I thought that certain differences are indeed roadblocks.  Are you saying that certain dogmas like Papal Infallibility need not separate us, that it might not be an essential faith for all Apostolic Christians to believe in?

I will say this much:  I think that our theologians and hiearachs and historians, Orthodox and Catholic, are quite capable of putting together a teaching concerning both primacy and infallibility that will be acceptably orthodox with language that is clear and which does not detract from any existing Catholic dogmatic constitutions.

Having said that one then waits for the slop buckets to being to fall.

I however will be asleep and won't hear the splash.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 10, 2010, 12:40:29 AM
And here is where we reach the point where we must just go our separate ways and agree upon the irreconcilable differences between our Churches. Catholicism believes that doctrine develops and is clarified and Orthodoxy believes it is stagnant.

That was a pretty lame way of phrasing it.  :-\
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: stanley123 on September 10, 2010, 01:51:49 AM
  I think that our theologians and hiearachs and historians, Orthodox and Catholic, are quite capable of putting together a teaching concerning both primacy and infallibility that will be acceptably orthodox with language that is clear and which does not detract from any existing Catholic dogmatic constitutions.
I agree that something like this is theoretically possible as I have indicated above. But I don't see it happening because both sides have to want it to happen.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 10, 2010, 03:41:37 AM
We are taught that none of the differences are sufficient to warrant a loss of communion.  Not even the fact that Orthodoxy has severed communion with the Church in Rome. 

Can you expand on that further?  I thought that certain differences are indeed roadblocks.  Are you saying that certain dogmas like Papal Infallibility need not separate us, that it might not be an essential faith for all Apostolic Christians to believe in?

I will say this much:  I think that our theologians and hiearachs and historians, Orthodox and Catholic, are quite capable of putting together a teaching concerning both primacy and infallibility that will be acceptably orthodox with language that is clear and which does not detract from any existing Catholic dogmatic constitutions."

Having said that one then waits for the slop buckets to being to fall.

I however will be asleep and won't hear the splash.


One slop bucket has already fallen but you have not noticed..  A Catholic on the forum has said that Orthodoxy is stagnant and therefore presumably incapable of "putting together a teaching concerning both primacy and infallibility that will be acceptably orthodox with language that is clear and which does not detract from any existing Catholic dogmatic constitutions.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 06:18:50 AM
If by "traditional Catholic teaching" you mean St. Jerome et alia, no, it does not.  They make no distinction whatsoever between ABC and NFP: the married exist to breed for the monasteries. That is why HV is devoid of patristics. Neither it, nor its apologists it seems, have found any to support its contention that "being open to life" is determinative.
And here is where we reach the point where we must just go our separate ways and agree upon the irreconcilable differences between our Churches. Catholicism believes that doctrine develops and is clarified

You mean deformed: every novelty the Vatican has introduced has muddled things, and clarified nothing. The filioque is a perfect example, each "clarification" in its, as every innovation's, defense further painting you into a corner.

Quote
and Orthodoxy believes it is stagnant.

You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deut. 4:2

For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. Rev. 22:18-9

You of course, to do whatever you like, "But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, you have your choice: choose this day that which pleaseth you, whom you would rather serve, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord. Joshua 24:15.

If it's not broke, don't fix it.  One would think that Vatican II would teach one all he needs to know about change for the sake of change and dogmatic pronouncements that are not needed.

Then we don't need a supreme pontiff speaking ex cathedra then.
Just because ex cathedra is not the sole way the Church receives her teachings doesn't mean it is never needed.

Name an instance that it was needed, and was exercised.

How it has been done, an affliction.
You are free to hold that opinion, although no one in the Latin Church is forcing men to become priests.

No, it is forcing men to deny their vocation, while accepting men which landed it into all the scandals and law suits.

They know the huge unnecessarysacrifice they have to make,

fixed that for you.

and still make it.

Many do, others don't. The drop in vocations and the scandals show that from two different angles.

Now there is the speculative aspect of this discussion about whether the discipline will be lifted in the Latin Church to help solve the priest shortage crisis, and that I do not know. I do know that whether it happens or not will not matter to me. I will support the Church either way.

Then what do you say of extracting from those who do not have the gift?  It's like a tax collecting squeezing blood from a rock.
Why is celibacy in the western branch of the Catholic Church such a pet peeve for you?

The denigration of marriage that the Vatican depends on to uphold such a teaching in preference to the teaching and dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  This sanctimony is often combined with that of anullment Corban.

Your friends St. Jerome et alia and their modern disciples see it differently, and openly display their abhorence for the idea of a man having touched a woman offering the sacrifice of the altar. St. Jerome, for instance, states "the blood of martyrdom does not wash away matrimony" as if it was filth one needed to be cleasned of.
That sounds like a snippet of something taken out of context to me,

Because of its inconvenience?

but as far as celibacy being the higher path...St. Paul seems to agree....

Doesn't seem so "Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled." Heb. 13:4. As for your friend Jerome, take his context:
Quote
Coming to the Gospel he sets before us Zacharias and Elizabeth, Peter and his mother-in-law, and, with a shamelessness to which we have now grown accustomed, fails to understand that they, too, ought to have been reckoned among those who served the Law. For the Gospel had no being before the crucifixion of Christ— it was consecrated by His passion and by His blood. In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord: Matthew 19:27 Lo we have left all and followed you, the Lord answered him, Luke 18:29-30 Verily I say unto you, there is no man that has left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life. But if, in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with the words Have we no right to lead about women or wives (for γυνή in Greek has both meanings) even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and the brethren of the Lord? let him add what is found in the Greek copies, Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives? This makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. Where there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of money, and mention is afterwards made of women that are sisters, it is quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those women who ministered of their substance. And we read the same account in the Old Testament of the Shunammite who was wont to welcome Elisha, and to put for him a table, and bread, and a candlestick, and the rest. At all events if we take γυναίκας to mean wives, not women, the addition of the word sisters destroys the effect of the word wives, and shows that they were related in spirit, not by wedlock. Nevertheless, with the exception of the Apostle Peter, it is not openly stated that the Apostles had wives; and since the statement is made of one while nothing is said about the rest, we must understand that those of whom Scripture gives no such description had no wives. Yet Jovinianus, who has arrayed against us Zacharias and Elizabeth, Peter and his wife's mother, should know, that John was the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, that is, a virgin was the offspring of marriage, the Gospel of the law, chastity of matrimony; so that by a virgin prophet the virgin Lord might be both announced and baptized. But we might say concerning Peter, that he had a mother-in-law when he believed, and no longer had a wife, although in the Sentences we read of both his wife and daughter. But for the present our argument must be based wholly on Scripture. He has made his appeal to the Apostles, because he thinks that they, who hold the chief authority in our moral system and are the typical Christian teachers, were not virgins. If, then, we allow that they were not virgins (and, with the exception of Peter, the point cannot be proved), yet I must tell him that it is to the Apostles that the words of Isaiah relate: Isaiah 1:9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like Gomorrha. So, then, they who were by birth Jews could not under the Gospel recover the virginity which they had lost in Judaism. And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask, John 13:25 he requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord had risen, John 20:4 they both ran to the sepulchre, but John outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw; the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter, It is the Lord. Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be bound by another, and led whither he would not, and must suffer on the cross, Peter said, Lord what shall this man do? being unwilling to desert John, with whom he had always been united. Our Lord said to him, What is that to you if I wish him so to be? Whence the saying went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage is not washed away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its sleep is not death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert, Isaiah 40:3 Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says, John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God, and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother John 19:26-27 was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple.

And this is quite tame to other things he says in praise to damn marriage.

"For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I." -1 Corinthians 7:7-8

...so does Christ:

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." -St. Matthew 19:12

 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

Seems your friend St. Jerome didn't think much of that, not only desperately by "argument" trying to void the Apostles' marriages, but praising the idea that they abandoned their wives.  Christ does not exempt Himself from "let no man," he tells St. Paul otherwise " But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. 11 And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called.  Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed" I Cor. 7:10-1, 20, 27.

Seems Christ had other thoughts than St. Jerome on this matter.  Matthew 16:23 The Vatican's essay, as I quoted, shows that the Church didn't see any relevance of Mat. 19:12 on this issue. But in the spirit of St. Jerome, rather than the Spirit of Christ, tries to be inventive to get around that inconvenient fact.

You're not reading closely:
Quote
It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline.
All this sounds like it is saying is that one cannot prove that celibacy did not exist, or rather co-exist, with a married priesthood in the Early Church. It is irrelevant though since the Church, by her God given authority to bind and loose, can impose the discipline if she wishes, just as she can remove the discipline if she wishes.
You're not reading closer: he is not claiming that celibacy co-exsted with a married priesthood, but within the married priesthood. "Perfect continence": I have to admit I find that phrase particularly dopey.

And the Church has spoken: as St. Paphnouti said at the First Ecumenical Council, we are not free to impose a burden the Apostles did not.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 10, 2010, 09:29:01 AM
Paula and Eustochium were mother and daughter
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 10, 2010, 12:02:27 PM
Does this mean that when Catholic doctrine reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine never stops developing?  That's a curious idea!!!
I can see that I inadvertently stirred up hostility when I used the word "stagnant," which I would like to retract and apologize for because it carries a negative connotation that I did not intend when I said it. What would be better terminology perhaps would be dynamic versus static. Of course, just because the Catholic Church believes in development of doctrine doesn't mean that it just changes stuff willy-nilly. This is a misconception that most Protestants and, unfortunately, a fair number of Orthodox believe about the Catholic Church which just isn't true. I would assert that the Orthodox Church believes in development of doctrine as well or else it would reject all Ecumenical Councils and simply follow what the Early Church believed. If we truly had the fullest understanding of the truth from the very beginning then Christ would not have sent the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Church would need no guidance if all truth was fully understood from the beginning.

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

So, coming back to the Holy Spirit, what does the Orthodox Church believe the purpose of the Holy Spirit is since all truth, according to you, is already fully received and we cannot reach a deeper understand of truth? If the truth existed in full clarity from the beginning and need not develop, why hold Councils? I have heard people on here poke fun at Papal Infallibility because of the fact that they think 1870 is pretty late to define dogma, yet if we truly had the fullness of truth as well as the fullest understanding of truth from the beginning with Christ and the Apostles, there would be no necessity for the Holy Spirit or for Ecumenical Councils.

I do not know where you have studied Orthodoxy but you have been misinformed by someone.  The words of our holy father Saint Vincent of Lerins are the perfect expression of the Orthodox approach to doctrine and its clarification, to ecumenical councils,. etc....
Admittedly, my knowledge of Orthodoxy is somewhat limited. I have a friend who recently became Eastern Orthodox and have talked to him some and I also have read a lot on this forum, but that is about the extent of it.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 10, 2010, 12:30:24 PM

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 01:12:05 PM
Does this mean that when Catholic doctrine reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine never stops developing?  That's a curious idea!!!
I can see that I inadvertently stirred up hostility when I used the word "stagnant," which I would like to retract and apologize for because it carries a negative connotation that I did not intend when I said it. What would be better terminology perhaps would be dynamic versus static. Of course, just because the Catholic Church believes in development of doctrine doesn't mean that it just changes stuff willy-nilly.
Define willy-nilly.
Quote
This is a misconception that most Protestants and, unfortunately, a fair number of Orthodox believe about the Catholic Church which just isn't true.
Its record says otherwise.
Quote
I would assert that the Orthodox Church believes in development of doctrine as well or else it would reject all Ecumenical Councils and simply follow what the Early Church believed.
She does simply follow what the Early Church believed, which is why she held the Ecumenical councils. We have covered this ground before:
The Orthodox Church does not have the Roman Catholic concept of the development of doctrine.
So Nicaea wasn't a development? You believe that the understanding of the Trinity was as developed before Nicaea as it was after? If so, what was the purpose of Nicaea in the first place? I'm really having a difficult time understanding what the Orthodox think the purpose of an Ecumenical Council is if our understanding of teachings doesn't develop over time. After all, even the earliest Ecumenical Council took place around 300 years after Christ. Isn't that pretty late in the game for any teachings to be pronounced if you believe everything was taught once and for all by Christ and the Apostles?
Still haven't read the post?
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more.  I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith.  I'll adapt it to the OP.

An example of what happens when Sola Scriptura runs against Apostolic Tradition:
Joshua Joshua 22:10 And when they came to the region about the Jordan, that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size. 11 And the people of Israel heard say, "Behold, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh have built an altar at the frontier of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that belongs to the people of Israel." 12 And when the people of Israel heard of it, the whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh, to make war against them. 13 Then the people of Israel sent to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, 14 and with him ten chiefs, one from each of the tribal families of Israel, every one of them the head of a family among the clans of Israel. 15 And they came to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, and they said to them, 16 "Thus says the whole congregation of the LORD, 'What is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the LORD, by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the LORD? 17 Have we not had enough of the sin at Pe'or from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the LORD, 18 that you must turn away this day from following the LORD? And if you rebel against the LORD today he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow. 19 But now, if your land is unclean, pass over into the LORD's land where the LORD's tabernacle stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us; only do not rebel against the LORD, or make us as rebels by building yourselves an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. 20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.'"

21 Then the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh said in answer to the heads of the families of Israel, 22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith toward the LORD, spare us not today 23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD; or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or cereal offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance. 24 Nay, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel ? 25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you Reubenites and Gadites; you have no portion in the LORD.' So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD. 26 Therefore we said, 'Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, 27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings; lest your children say to our children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD."' 28 And we thought, If this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, 'Behold the copy of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you.' 29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!"

30 When Phin'ehas the priest and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites spoke, it pleased them well. 31 And Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest said to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites, "Today we know that the LORD is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this treachery against the LORD; now you have saved the people of Israel from the hand of the LORD." 32 Then Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, and the chiefs, returned from the Reubenites and the Gadites in the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the people of Israel, and brought back word to them. 33 And the report pleased the people of Israel; and the people of Israel blessed God and spoke no more of making war against them, to destroy the land where the Reubenites and the Gadites were settled. 34 The Reubenites and the Gadites called the altar Witness; "For," said they, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."

Now, note the following:

The Sola Scriptura folks were quite correct: the Law given to Moses had restricted sacrifices to one altar before the one Tabernacle. Btw, the tribes living on the East of the Jordan was a deviation from what God had commanded, revealed in His Word, and to which the Prophet Moses objected (Numbers 32, especially verses 6-15). Sort of like the innovation of the monarchy (I Kingdoms/Samuel 8, esp. verses 6-7), but we go a Messiah out of that (I Chronicles 17). Yet it is those who add Tradition to the mix who save Israel that day, as the chiefs of the Assembly/Congregation (we would say "Church") of Israel admit.

However, the Sola Scriptura first accuse the Eastern tribes of rebelling against God's Word, setting something that they see in addition to, and hence in opposition to (in their mind) in order to supplant God's Word, and replacing the Word of God with the traditions of men. And their solution? Just stick to the text and cross over to us.

The Eastern tribes had the foresight to see that, people being people, and sin being sin, that the Books of Moses were not going to suffice to stop Israel from sin. Those on the West Bank would focus on the literal promises to Abraham (which said nothing of the East Bank) and would interpret it in a manner which suited their sense of sensibilities: the Promised Land should fit our idea of the Land of Canaan (sort of like the idea of eating Body and Blood). Acting on this, they would exclude the Easterners, leading them to sin.

So the solution? Set up an interpretation of the letter of the law that preserved an indisputable indication of its spirit. And this they did.

A Melkite priest gave the best one word definition of Chrsitianity: witness.

Now, the problem most Protestants have with Tradition is the idea that the Church which set it up has tried to suppliment, and hence oppose, in order to supplant, Scripture.

We do not believe in, say, the Real Presense because St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom the Aposles ordained themselves as successor of St. Peter in the place where the disciples were first called Christians, writes in c. 105:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they will not confess that the Eucharist is the self same flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

we believe in the Real Presence because He said, "This is My Body," "This is My Blood." Rising, He appeared and was known to the Apostles in the breakding of the bread that first Pascha (Luke 24:13-36 NOT btw, in His opening of the scriptures, though that did make their heart burn). Those who continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrines communed in the breaking of bread in the prayers of the DL every Sunday from the Resurrection until June 7, 2009 (Acts 2:42, 20:7), which we received, delievered to us by the Apostles from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23. btw. when these words were written, the Church had been gathering on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7) for over two decades).

Now, the Aposles weren't doing this because of the verses quoted. Rather the verses were written to record what the Apostles did, what they were doing, believing, teaching, whether by word or letter (I Thess. 2:15) so those who followed could stand fast and hold these traditions, and withdraw (I Thes. 3:6) from those who refused to walk according to the traditions which they delievered and which we received.

St. Ignatius stood fast and held that tradition, and did not neglect that gift that was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, guarding what was committed to him. (I Tim. 4:14, 6:20) St. Ignatius set in order bishops in every city as the Aposltes commanded, to hold fast the faithful word as it had been taught, by word or letter, to both exhort and convict by sound doctrine those of a different opinion (heresia) who contradicted, and refused to walk according to that tradition. (cf. Titus 1:5-9). As the letters show, strong in the grace of Christ Jesus, he was committing these traditions he heard by word from the Apostles to the Faithful to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:1-2), that the Catholic Church continue in breaking the bread, the communion of the self same Body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16).

We do not believe in the Real Presence because St. Ignatius says so: he received the same Faith we received, and he stands as a Witness that God has erected between the Apostles and us, as a sign post as to whether we walk according to the Tradition of the Apostles or not. "Lo! I am with you always (Greek: "all the days") even unto the end of the age." Those were His parting words. And so He has: rather than standing gazing, the Church has raised up witnessses to that same Faith, who stand as witnesses between us and the Apostles. We have not abandoned the Bible for the Fathers (and Mothers!). Rather surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we are able to point to the Witness, like the Eastern Tribes to the altar on the Jordan, to show that we are right in our interpretation of Scripture, including the Words of Institution (themselves written in the Gospels to reflect Church practice). Every generation, we can document, from the Apostles to this day, those who, if they lived in our day, would come to OUR Church and commune with us (of course, closed communion is part of that Apostolic Tradition). Their Faith is our Faith, and that is the value of their words, not that they replace the Bible. Rather they preserve the full import of the Bible.

Tradition is giving our ancestors, our Fathers, the ones who passed down the Faith and copied and preserved the Bible, a vote.

Catechesis means "echo," and Christ's Word has roared throughout the generations through Apostolic Tradition.

As our priest says, if you come up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one else has, be cautious and ask yourself if you are wrong. If it contradicts what has gone before, YOU ARE DEFINITELY WRONG.

How to interpret Acts 8:31? The believers of sola scriptura cannot tell us. They have no one to guide them.
Title of the thread confused the Consensus Patrum as a Source of Faith: the Consensus does not provide the Source of Faith, it reflects it.

There is only one soure of the Faith, Christ.  How that one source is transmitted, and how its transmition is verified, is what is at issue.

The Faith is transitted in the Holy Mysteries: as the Fathers say, Christ has passed into the Holy Mysteries, the signs of Christ's life within His Body, the Church.  When the Church acts as the Body of Christ, as a Body, in unity with her Head, then she speaks infallibly.  That is why the assent of the Faithful is needed, for instance, for the Ecumenicity of a Council.

There is, for no instance, no objective criteria on which to base the canon of the Bible.  Authorship by an Apostle does not determine the canon of the NT: St. Luke, strictly speaking, is not an Apostle-he does not include himself in the company of eyewitness and ministers of the Word from the beginning (Luke 1:2, cf. Acts 1:21-2). Yet there is no question of it being in the Orthodox canon.  St. Clement's first epistle (I'll leave aside the question of the second) which was reckoned as Scripture: after Clement received his doctrine directly from the Apostles, and not as an eyewitness of Christ, the same way  St. Luke received his doctrine.  Clement's epistles are approved by the Apostolic Canons (85), but yet St. Luke is canonized and St. Clement is not.  If an archaeologist dug up St. Paul's missing Epistles or when they dug up the Gospels that record Acts 20:35, or the Jesus seminar could prove that St. Thomas wrote the Gospel named after him, none were or would be accepted into the canon.  The Church has spoken.  Many Fathers and Churches deemed Reveltion spurious, but the Church accepted it into the canon, and even if textual criticism would able to prove that St. John did not write it, it would remain in the canon as the Church has received it as an expression of her Faith in the return of her Bridegroom.

And that is why the Bible is canonized: it is not that the Church collected documents that the Apostles wrote.  Rather, they looked at what the Faithful had produced in the bosom of the Church, recognized herself in it, and adopted it as her self revelation.  Sort of like when parents see themselves in their children, and leave them as their legacy.  The Bible is not like the America Constitution, which brought a new government into order which is derived from that constition: it is like the Canadian Constitution, which merely codifies the system of government in place.  When St. Paul refers to Christ's life, he is not teaching history. He is appealing to an audience who already knows His life. Case in point: St. Paul's account of the Mystical Supper predates all the Gospels' accounts of it.  But he is not telling the Corinthians nothing that they do not already know (I Corin. 11:23)  In fact the ongoing Great Canon of the DL helped shape the Gospels' account.

That is why Sola Scriptura doesn't work: it is like owning the manuel, but not owning the car.

St. Theophan deals with the issue of why we say prayers written by the saints.  It is not because they are a replacement for Scripture nor for our own words.  But as we do not know how to pray as we ought, we look to those who did.  The saints we know (because they have been glorified, and their words consecrated by the usage of the Church) had reached the stage where the Holy Spirit spoke within them at prayer.  In that state, they composed in human language their thoughts in that state.  Using these words as guideposts, we are trying to follow them into the state where the Holy Spirit gives utterance to our prayers.  As the lesson of the Samaritan woman shows: the Samaritans came because of what she told them, but they reached a point at which they believed from knowing Him for themselves (John 4:43).

So too the Liturgy: the Church gathered as the Body of Christ so that He made be in their midst have put that experience into words.  The Church as a whole has adopted the Liturgy as the public expression of that experience, hence the appeal of liturgical texts for dogma: lex credendi, lex orandi.  But in that order: we do not believe that Christ is in the Eucharist because the DL says so, rather because we believe so, and experience Him in the Eucharist, that the DL so says.

So too the Dogmatic Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.  The Faith cannot be added too.  No development of doctrine, if it was not in the Apostles' preaching it cannot be in the Dogma of the Church.  When heresy infected the Body of Christ, the Body of Christ, as a Body, mustered its antibodies, the Fathers and developed an immunity, the Dogmatic Definitions, to the heresy.  They did not add to the Faith: as the body already has the antibody proteins but only puts them to work to form a defense against the foreign pathogen, so too the Fathers only erect from pre-existing materials a boundary marker which the Orthodox may not move.  The Fathers confessed the same Faith, but in different words to ensure it remained the same Faith.  The expression of Faith changes only so that the Faith can remain the same, something litrugists should keep in mind.

The iconography writes an icon only when he follows the canon the Church has laid down for the visual expression of her Faith. Otherwise he is a forger and a counterfeiter (like our deluded friend Lentz).  The icon is the expression of the Church, not personal agendas, and just like a counterfeiter tries to make his money look real but it has no value, so too the icongrapher who oversteps the Church's bounds.  That is why we appeal to the icons when we are asked about what we believe, because they are backed by the full Faith and Credit of the Church.

No Church Father is infallible: only Christ is infallible, and the Church's infallibility flows from her being His Body.  But that flows only when she acts as a Body, like in Ecumenical Council.  Any individual member cannot act infallibility, so why the claim of the alleged "visible head" to speak infallibly cannot be accepted.  So too, no one should expect every word of an individual Father to be infallible.  It is only in as much as they reflect the common Faith, between us and them and lived in the Church now, that they constitute the Consensus Patrum.  What they served, as I pointed out in my OP, as a witness between us and heretics, so when they claim that the Real Presence is an innovation, that we point to St. Ignatius etc.: they witenss to the Faith as we witness to the Faith.

Which is the point of my OP to the OP: merely extended Sola Scriptura to included Ecumenical Councils and certain Fathers misses the point.  These are not the source of Faith: they are witnesses, like the altar on the Jordan, to make sure we have kept the Faith.


If we truly had the fullest understanding of the truth from the very beginning then Christ would not have sent the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Church would need no guidance if all truth was fully understood from the beginning.
It was delievered once and for all to the saints.  The Apostles taught us all we need to know. Prying into mysteries we, who have Faith, do not need to do isn't development.  It's asking for trouble, the kind that necessitate Ecumenical Councils.

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea.

The Eternal and All Holy Trinity was exactly the same: if Arius had Faith in Him, Nicea would not have been necessary.

Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D.

And they weren't there to object. We were. So Arius, but his folllowing died out.  Some people refuse to learn from the mistakes of others.

They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

No, just restated the Faith in affirming it in the face of novelties.

So, coming back to the Holy Spirit, what does the Orthodox Church believe the purpose of the Holy Spirit is since all truth, according to you, is already fully received and we cannot reach a deeper understand of truth?

He is Who is.  He doesn't need a purpose to justify His existence. And we do not need to dissect His working in us.

If the truth existed in full clarity from the beginning and need not develop, why hold Councils?

Because some people do not trust the Spirit, lack Faith, and start trying to fit God into their understanding, and have to be slapped up side their head.
(http://christian4moses.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/nicholas-and-arius.jpg)

I have heard people on here poke fun at Papal Infallibility because of the fact that they think 1870 is pretty late to define dogma, yet if we truly had the fullness of truth as well as the fullest understanding of truth from the beginning with Christ and the Apostles, there would be no necessity for the Holy Spirit or for Ecumenical Councils.

No, we would still have to depend on the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life.  The idlely curious make Ecumenical Councils necessary.

If ex cathedra had the fullness of truth, it would have made all the councils superfluous (which is now why the Vatican reinterprets Ecumenical council in the light, or rather darkness, of Pastor Aeternas.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: theistgal on September 10, 2010, 01:18:49 PM
Sorry for my error, St Eustochium was indeed the daughter of St Paula.  Since she did take a vow of virginity, I believe St Jerome's comment ("marriage is primarily good for producing virgins") was in reference to her.

Thanks for the correction, Mary.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 01:29:04 PM

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.
Au contraire, quite easy. See above.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29681.msg470990.html#msg470990
I remember being told by the Unitarians how the understanding of every bishop at Nicea was not as developed as the "understanding" of theology of the average seminarian today. "Yes," I admitted. "That's why the Fathers got it right at Nicea."

Isn't reform, "development?" Why not the perpetual "reformation" of Protestantism, Ecclesia semper reformanda est?  Didn't you prove that at Vatican II?  Why not Modernism? It gave birth to devleopment of doctrine? After all  "Lamentabili Sane Exitu" isn't infallible, was "Pascendi dominici gregis" issued ex cathedra? Why not continuous revelation? The Church's understanding did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented by Origin, but she was ready when Joseph Smith Jr. came.  These are really difficult charges for the Vatican to answer.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 01:31:58 PM
Sorry for my error, St Eustochium was indeed the daughter of St Paula.  Since she did take a vow of virginity, I believe St Jerome's comment ("marriage is primarily good for producing virgins") was in reference to her.

Thanks for the correction, Mary.
LOL. I hope you are refering to St. Eustochium and not St. Paula.

He said he praised marriage because it gave him virgins, here and elsewhere.  The letter to St. Eustochium is not so misogynist, but very mianthropic IIRC. Makes one appreciate St. Augustine's level head.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 10, 2010, 03:41:36 PM

Dear Mary--Thank you for your gracious reply. I think you are a serious believer and that is all to the good. If, however, some folks denigrate your beliefs, this may be because they are pushing hard against your positions, perhaps just as hard as you seem to make them. Such is the fate of those of us who express ourselves forcefully (myself included, especially when I get my back up). In any case, another issue that may be affecting Orthodox-Catholic dialogues (aside from history), may the relative strength of Rome vis-a-vis the Orthodox Churches.

Thank you! 

I think that you have introduced something here that is most cogent to any discussion of resumption of communion.  I think that size and centralized authority is of utmost concern.  Sometimes that concern is over done but in other instances there is insufficient concern or attention paid.  I think that in the hoopla over the "excesses" of papal primacy and infallibility, outsiders tend to miss the fact that the bishops in the Roman rite are a law unto themselves...quite literally above the law and that is codified in the canons.  What is seen from the outside as a pyramidal structure actually conceals the fact that each bishop has absolute power in his see.   To me this is the far greater threat than the papacy.  But that is real.  So much that gets talked about outside of the lived context and canonical interpretation of the Church is simply fantasy, which of course is easy to combat when the stakes are nil, and becomes a rhetorical contest rather than anything approximating sincere and real dialogue.

I tend to watch and listen to my own very carefully and I know that there are Catholic bishops who are not in the least bit interested in the eastern Churches.  To them they are nationalist ghetto churches with delusions of adequacy in terms of doctrinal expression, and a substandard liturgy that is all frills and froth and clerical grandstanding.  They are no longer in any kind of majority in the Roman rite but there was a time when I think that there were many more of them than today.  That is of great concern to me.  Should be to others.

M.

To give you an idea of where I am coming from, Metropolitan Kallistos (among others) have influenced my thinking regarding the differences between Rome and the other sister churches. In The Orthodox Church, he strained to be as even as he could but he could not overcome the historical developments. You may have read this book, as well as other books by Father Schmemann, et al, who posit differing approaches to ecclesiology and theology, that could be complementary but instead accentuated the differences. Take the schism that the Latins call the Photian one, while the Greeks called the Schism of Pope Nicolas. Forget about anything that followed, to me this exemplifies the schism. On the one hand, you have one church (Rome) trying to rule over the entire universe, and on the other hand you have a Patriarch who is bravely resisting this unprecedented and unjustified power grab by the Pope Nicolas. Metropolitan Kallistos cites the seminal work by the RC theologian F. Dvornik, who acknowledges that Nicolas was in the wrong (although Saint Photius comes under criticism for having pushed back too hard).  (I hope I correctly related these events from my reading. If not, my apologies and I welcome corrections). My point is that the personal ambitions of one man (Nicolas) accentuated the differences to such a degree that the eventual schism became inevitable. One could bring in the ambitions of Charlemagne as well as the arrogance of the Eastern Empire in regarding the non-Greeks as barbarians. Both sides committed errors in judgment but the biggest problem was the inordinate power that accrued to the Papacy. The development of such a super-bishop was simply wrong and no amount of rationalization can justify it. Unlike you, I am not dismayed by the powers held by a diocesan bishop because of the traditional approach to ecclesiology (the Ignatian model and Apostolic Canon 34).
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 10, 2010, 04:23:33 PM
Define willy-nilly.

It's not like the Pope just wakes up one morning and decides to declare ex cathedra that Jesus is not the Son of God and didn't die on the cross. I know that is an extreme example, but there are more than a few Protestants and some Orthodox that seem to think this is what infallibility and development of doctrine means or what it would allow to happen.

It was delievered once and for all to the saints.  The Apostles taught us all we need to know. Prying into mysteries we, who have Faith, do not need to do isn't development.  It's asking for trouble, the kind that necessitate Ecumenical Councils.

Show me a pre-Nicea quote from an Apostle or Early Church Father which reads with the same level of detail and clarity as both the Nicene documents and writing on the Trinity post-Nicea. I bet you won't find it.

The Eternal and All Holy Trinity was exactly the same: if Arius had Faith in Him, Nicea would not have been necessary.

This is a red herring. I wasn't saying that the Holy Trinity didn't exist before Nicea. I said the Christian understanding of the Trinity prior to Nicea was not nearly as developed as after Nicea.

And they weren't there to object. We were. So Arius, but his folllowing died out.  Some people refuse to learn from the mistakes of others.

Before Nicea there was confusion as to the nature of God. During the First Council of Nicea, the Holy Spirit guided the bishops of the Church to develop and codify a correct understanding of God as a Trinity of Persons.

No, just restated the Faith in affirming it in the face of novelties.

So what Ante-Nicene Fathers referred to the Son as consubstantial to the Father and spoke with such precision as after Nicea? If Nicea was simply a restatement we should be able to look before Nicea and find the same level of clarity. Does it exist?

He is Who is.  He doesn't need a purpose to justify His existence. And we do not need to dissect His working in us.

He doesn't need to, but He did. Christ told us the Holy Spirit would be sent to lead us into truth. "Lead" indicates a process or journey, not simply having a perfect understanding of truth from the very beginning and simply restating it at Councils.

Because some people do not trust the Spirit, lack Faith, and start trying to fit God into their understanding, and have to be slapped up side their head.

And because sometimes a teaching is vague and needs to be developed in order for us humans to understand what the Spirit is teaching.

No, we would still have to depend on the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life.  The idlely curious make Ecumenical Councils necessary.

The movement and working of the Holy Spirit within the Church make Ecumenical Councils a nature occurrence.

If ex cathedra had the fullness of truth, it would have made all the councils superfluous (which is now why the Vatican reinterprets Ecumenical council in the light, or rather darkness, of Pastor Aeternas.

Not really, Councils are still the ordinary means in which the Catholic Church defines, defends, and upholds truth. There have been far more Councils than ex cathedra statements.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 10, 2010, 05:17:12 PM
Sorry for my error, St Eustochium was indeed the daughter of St Paula.  Since she did take a vow of virginity, I believe St Jerome's comment ("marriage is primarily good for producing virgins") was in reference to her.

Thanks for the correction, Mary.

Welcome.  I chuckled when I read your note and hesitated to say anything, but then I figured you were a big girl and could handle the facts of the matter!!  :)   Eustochium is not my idea of the most feminine name in the world, but they must have been wonderful women to have been able to tame the lion Jerome!!  I've always been intrigued by them which is why knew about them...that and I think it is a Catholic school thing  :laugh:

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Marc1152 on September 10, 2010, 05:37:15 PM

Dear Mary--Thank you for your gracious reply. I think you are a serious believer and that is all to the good. If, however, some folks denigrate your beliefs, this may be because they are pushing hard against your positions, perhaps just as hard as you seem to make them. Such is the fate of those of us who express ourselves forcefully (myself included, especially when I get my back up). In any case, another issue that may be affecting Orthodox-Catholic dialogues (aside from history), may the relative strength of Rome vis-a-vis the Orthodox Churches.

Thank you! 

I think that you have introduced something here that is most cogent to any discussion of resumption of communion.  I think that size and centralized authority is of utmost concern.  Sometimes that concern is over done but in other instances there is insufficient concern or attention paid.  I think that in the hoopla over the "excesses" of papal primacy and infallibility, outsiders tend to miss the fact that the bishops in the Roman rite are a law unto themselves...quite literally above the law and that is codified in the canons.  What is seen from the outside as a pyramidal structure actually conceals the fact that each bishop has absolute power in his see.   To me this is the far greater threat than the papacy.  But that is real.  So much that gets talked about outside of the lived context and canonical interpretation of the Church is simply fantasy, which of course is easy to combat when the stakes are nil, and becomes a rhetorical contest rather than anything approximating sincere and real dialogue.

I tend to watch and listen to my own very carefully and I know that there are Catholic bishops who are not in the least bit interested in the eastern Churches.  To them they are nationalist ghetto churches with delusions of adequacy in terms of doctrinal expression, and a substandard liturgy that is all frills and froth and clerical grandstanding.  They are no longer in any kind of majority in the Roman rite but there was a time when I think that there were many more of them than today.  That is of great concern to me.  Should be to others.

M.

That is pretty much how the Orthodox Church in America got it's start. Ukrainians (I believe) built a nice Church and got a married Priest to come to the USA to serve. When he reported to the Catholic Bishop in Chicago, he was turned away with statements like "We don't need your kind of Priest here" (Married) and if they need a Priest they can always go to the Polish Priest.

He then decided to report to the Russian Bishop in San Francisco and the OCA was off and running. Thousands switched.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 10, 2010, 05:52:44 PM
Define willy-nilly.

It's not like the Pope just wakes up one morning and decides to declare ex cathedra that Jesus is not the Son of God and didn't die on the cross. I know that is an extreme example, but there are more than a few Protestants and some Orthodox that seem to think this is what infallibility and development of doctrine means or what it would allow to happen.
What if he wakes up after a week? A month? A year? A century? Several centuries?

It is said that 1204 is when the schism became real for Constantinople.  Would the Vatican tried that in 1054? Maybe, maybe not.  But that's irrelevant.  It matters not how slowly the weed of history grows, putting down roots.  No matter how long the roots, they must be uprooted.  Heresy cannot be grafted on the true tree. Rome tried doing in Antioch in the 4th century what it did in Constantinople in 1204.  Even if Ultramontanism has roots 8 centuries long, it is still heresy, and needs to be uprooted, lest the Faithful eat tares  instead of wheat.

It was delievered once and for all to the saints.  The Apostles taught us all we need to know. Prying into mysteries we, who have Faith, do not need to do isn't development.  It's asking for trouble, the kind that necessitate Ecumenical Councils.

Show me a pre-Nicea quote from an Apostle or Early Church Father which reads with the same level of detail and clarity as both the Nicene documents and writing on the Trinity post-Nicea.

You talk as if that is a bad thing.  I'm sure the average seminary textbook goes into more detail than the early Fathers. Thats why the seminaries produce atheists and the Fathers conquered Caesar.

I bet you won't find it.

Sure I won't. Between persecusion and the Faith refined by fire, most heresies died out without a trace.  It took the Edict of Toleration for busybodies to delve into theology, not having anything better to do and no disincentive to learn better.

The Eternal and All Holy Trinity was exactly the same: if Arius had Faith in Him, Nicea would not have been necessary.

This is a red herring. I wasn't saying that the Holy Trinity didn't exist before Nicea. I said the Christian understanding of the Trinity prior to Nicea was not nearly as developed as after Nicea.

Same thing.  We quantitatively didn't know any more before Nicea on the Holy Trinity than we knew afterwards, except we had fancier terms and even fancier heretics throwing them around.

And they weren't there to object. We were. So Arius, but his folllowing died out.  Some people refuse to learn from the mistakes of others.

Before Nicea there was confusion as to the nature of God. During the First Council of Nicea, the Holy Spirit guided the bishops of the Church to develop and codify a correct understanding of God as a Trinity of Persons.

We knew that before.  The Early Christians knew (conoscre) Father, Son and Holy Spirit since Pentecost.  But pinheads, not satisfied with that, had to know (scire) the Holy Trinity, something beyond human ability. So lines had to be drawn on the roadside for those drifting off the road.  Those saying on the straight and narrow had no need, before or after.  The deacon St. Athanasius, for instance, had no need of the term homoousios.

No, just restated the Faith in affirming it in the face of novelties.

So what Ante-Nicene Fathers referred to the Son as consubstantial to the Father and spoke with such precision as after Nicea? If Nicea was simply a restatement we should be able to look before Nicea and find the same level of clarity. Does it exist?

Was it needed?

He is Who is.  He doesn't need a purpose to justify His existence. And we do not need to dissect His working in us.

He doesn't need to, but He did. Christ told us the Holy Spirit would be sent to lead us into truth. "Lead" indicates a process or journey, not simply having a perfect understanding of truth from the very beginning and simply restating it at Councils.

I didn't say a thing about understanding, perfect or otherwise.  We need to live perfect Faith, not satisfy idle curiosity.

Because some people do not trust the Spirit, lack Faith, and start trying to fit God into their understanding, and have to be slapped up side their head.

And because sometimes a teaching is vague and needs to be developed in order for us humans to understand what the Spirit is teaching.

No. Preaching Christ crucified is quite simple and clear.  Wandering off into meaningless talk, foolish contravercies, etc. is a dead end, one many a heretic rushed into.

No, we would still have to depend on the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life.  The idlely curious make Ecumenical Councils necessary.

The movement and working of the Holy Spirit within the Church make Ecumenical Councils a nature occurrence.

No, I'm aware that the Vatican, especially after Vatican II, has reformulated its ideas into an Ecumenical Council for the sake of dogmatizing. The Fathers always saw the Councils as a crisis mode.  That is why the Ecumenical Councils solved problems and the Vatican's councils created problems.

If ex cathedra had the fullness of truth, it would have made all the councils superfluous (which is now why the Vatican reinterprets Ecumenical council in the light, or rather darkness, of Pastor Aeternas.

Not really, Councils are still the ordinary means in which the Catholic Church defines, defends, and upholds truth. There have been far more Councils than ex cathedra statements.

We haven't got the definitive number of ex cathedra statements, have we?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 10, 2010, 09:26:17 PM
What if he wakes up after a week? A month? A year? A century? Several centuries?

Of course, from the Catholic point of view that cannot happen because of our belief that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from heresy via the charism of infallibility. To us, infallibility does not mean that the Pope can proclaim heresy and make it orthodox; it means that the Pope cannot proclaim anything except that which is orthodox when speaking ex cathedra.

It is said that 1204 is when the schism became real for Constantinople.  Would the Vatican tried that in 1054? Maybe, maybe not.  But that's irrelevant.  It matters not how slowly the weed of history grows, putting down roots.  No matter how long the roots, they must be uprooted.  Heresy cannot be grafted on the true tree. Rome tried doing in Antioch in the 4th century what it did in Constantinople in 1204.  Even if Ultramontanism has roots 8 centuries long, it is still heresy, and needs to be uprooted, lest the Faithful eat tares  instead of wheat.

Since Rome's claim to primacy goes at least as far back as the 4th century, perhaps it was the naysayers who were and are in error.

You talk as if that is a bad thing.  I'm sure the average seminary textbook goes into more detail than the early Fathers. Thats why the seminaries produce atheists and the Fathers conquered Caesar.

You seem to talk as if knowledge is a bad thing. Does the Holy Spirit want to lead us ever into a deeper understanding of holy truths or does it simply want us to have a vague idea of the truth? That seems to be our main disagreement. I would say that the Holy Spirit is always leading us to a fuller understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven and Godly things, whereas you seem to be saying that everything must remain a mystery. The Catholic Church certainly accepts that some things are and perhaps will always be a mystery, but it also believes that it is possible to grow in our understanding of certain things of the Holy Spirit wills it.


Same thing.  We quantitatively didn't know any more before Nicea on the Holy Trinity than we knew afterwards, except we had fancier terms and even fancier heretics throwing them around.

So you basically think that the "fancier terms" were just fluff and didn't actually deepen our understanding of the Godhead?

We knew that before.  The Early Christians knew (conoscre) Father, Son and Holy Spirit since Pentecost.  But pinheads, not satisfied with that, had to know (scire) the Holy Trinity, something beyond human ability. So lines had to be drawn on the roadside for those drifting off the road.  Those saying on the straight and narrow had no need, before or after.  The deacon St. Athanasius, for instance, had no need of the term homoousios.

Well of course we knew that there was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit since Jesus had made reference to the Father and had mentioned sending the Holy Spirit, but did we really know how they related to each other or know the specifics (e.g. that they are each 100% God, not just one-third; that they are not three modes or manifestations of God [modalist/oneness pentecostal view], but rather three separate Persons; etc.)?

Was it needed?

Not at first, but you're diverting the issue. My issue was that you claim there is no development of doctrine, but it is clear that trinitarian doctrine before Nicea and after Nicea are quite different.

I didn't say a thing about understanding, perfect or otherwise.  We need to live perfect Faith, not satisfy idle curiosity.

Apparently having a proper understanding is important too or else Christ wouldn't have promised to send the Spirit to lead us into truth:

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you." -St. John 16:13

From participating in this conversation, I have realized something that is quite interesting. It seems that the Orthodox position is that the Holy Spirit led (past tense) the Apostles into all truth at Pentecost and the deed was done, whereas the Catholic viewpoint seems to be that Pentecost was the beginning of a process rather than a one-time event.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 11, 2010, 03:22:51 AM
Are those of 2nd and 3rd Rome considered succesors of Peter?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 03:46:55 AM

Catholicism believes that doctrine develops and is clarified and Orthodoxy believes it is stagnant.



What do Catholics on the Forum think of the contention above, that Roman Catholic doctrine needs to be in an incessant start of development?  And presumably once the development ceases, as he mentions has happened in Orthodoxy, the doctrine begins to stagnate?

Can anybody refer us to papal or magisterial pronouncements or simply from acceptable theologians, that it is imperative for doctrine to be in a state of development?

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 11, 2010, 04:11:09 AM

Dear Mary--Thank you for your gracious reply. I think you are a serious believer and that is all to the good. If, however, some folks denigrate your beliefs, this may be because they are pushing hard against your positions, perhaps just as hard as you seem to make them. Such is the fate of those of us who express ourselves forcefully (myself included, especially when I get my back up). In any case, another issue that may be affecting Orthodox-Catholic dialogues (aside from history), may the relative strength of Rome vis-a-vis the Orthodox Churches.

Thank you! 

I think that you have introduced something here that is most cogent to any discussion of resumption of communion.  I think that size and centralized authority is of utmost concern.  Sometimes that concern is over done but in other instances there is insufficient concern or attention paid.  I think that in the hoopla over the "excesses" of papal primacy and infallibility, outsiders tend to miss the fact that the bishops in the Roman rite are a law unto themselves...quite literally above the law and that is codified in the canons.  What is seen from the outside as a pyramidal structure actually conceals the fact that each bishop has absolute power in his see.   To me this is the far greater threat than the papacy.  But that is real.  So much that gets talked about outside of the lived context and canonical interpretation of the Church is simply fantasy, which of course is easy to combat when the stakes are nil, and becomes a rhetorical contest rather than anything approximating sincere and real dialogue.

I tend to watch and listen to my own very carefully and I know that there are Catholic bishops who are not in the least bit interested in the eastern Churches.  To them they are nationalist ghetto churches with delusions of adequacy in terms of doctrinal expression, and a substandard liturgy that is all frills and froth and clerical grandstanding.  They are no longer in any kind of majority in the Roman rite but there was a time when I think that there were many more of them than today.  That is of great concern to me.  Should be to others.

M.

That is pretty much how the Orthodox Church in America got it's start. Ukrainians (I believe) built a nice Church and got a married Priest to come to the USA to serve. When he reported to the Catholic Bishop in Chicago, he was turned away with statements like "We don't need your kind of Priest here" (Married) and if they need a Priest they can always go to the Polish Priest.

He then decided to report to the Russian Bishop in San Francisco and the OCA was off and running. Thousands switched.

And thousands did not.  And some of them go back and forth like it's the River Jordan...same river, different sides.

But you are correct.  That is precisely the kind of Roman rite bishop who has served to harden the schism since Trent.  It became much worse between us as confessions once Catholic monasticism had the heart cut out of it in England and Europe.  The people were separated from the traditional monastic contact and that had a terrible impact on our clergy, the laity and our bishops.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 11, 2010, 04:11:09 AM

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 04:33:09 AM

I can see that I inadvertently stirred up hostility when I used the word "stagnant," which I would like to retract and apologize for because it carries a negative connotation that I did not intend when I said it. What would be better terminology perhaps would be dynamic versus static.

Dynamic versus static

Matter of fact, I've told my brother to put my much loved copy of Lossky's "Mystical Theology" in with me in my coffin.

My father confessor had advised me to read Tanquerry's "The Spiritual Life" and to read it again and again.   Now although Tanquerey was then reading recommended for seminarians and young clergy, how dry and "stagnant" and "static" he is. Dynamic? - the word is one of the least applicable.  A textbook to be slogged through to discover the theological basis and the principles of Roman Catholic spiritual life.


But when I was reading Tanquerey, God came to my assistance and Lossky jumped off the library shelf and into my life and changed my heart forever.  Here was another treatise but *what* a difference!   Here was a vital interaction between ancient theology and personal spiritual life.   Lossky shows how the ancient doctrine of the Church vivifies our own lives.  There was nothing stagnant nor static.  It was a sheer joy to read.

Fr Ambrose o..o~
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 08:07:12 AM
What if he wakes up after a week? A month? A year? A century? Several centuries?

Of course, from the Catholic point of view that cannot happen because of our belief that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from heresy via the charism of infallibility. To us, infallibility does not mean that the Pope can proclaim heresy and make it orthodox; it means that the Pope cannot proclaim anything except that which is orthodox when speaking ex cathedra.
Yet he has.  Of course, we have to get an official list of when he has spoken ex cathedra to get a complete disposal of that issue.  But take Pastor Aeternus, laying aside the tautology that it is infallible because it says he speaks infallibly: as Fr. Ambrose has actually posted, the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, with its imprematur, states that "infallibility is a Protestant lie" claiming that it was a caricuture and slur that Protestants made against the papacy.  Hefele had to stop and revise his magnus opus on the Councils when Vatican I happened.  In particular his account on the Fifth Council (Honorius) had to be brought into line with the "new truth."
It is said that 1204 is when the schism became real for Constantinople.  Would the Vatican tried that in 1054? Maybe, maybe not.  But that's irrelevant.  It matters not how slowly the weed of history grows, putting down roots.  No matter how long the roots, they must be uprooted.  Heresy cannot be grafted on the true tree. Rome tried doing in Antioch in the 4th century what it did in Constantinople in 1204.  Even if Ultramontanism has roots 8 centuries long, it is still heresy, and needs to be uprooted, lest the Faithful eat tares  instead of wheat.

Since Rome's claim to primacy goes at least as far back as the 4th century, perhaps it was the naysayers who were and are in error.

Primacy =/= supremacy.  Equating the two muddles the issue.

Even if supremacy went back to the second century, or even if you could twist Pope (an anachronism, btw) St. Clement's letter into a first century expression of suprmacy, that would make it only a very old heresy.  No perhaps about it.

You talk as if that is a bad thing.  I'm sure the average seminary textbook goes into more detail than the early Fathers. Thats why the seminaries produce atheists and the Fathers conquered Caesar.
You seem to talk as if knowledge is a bad thing.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. I Tim. 6:20.
I was converted to Orthodoxy while at the University of Chicago, a Nobel place, from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and know the difference between knowledge and the pretense of it.


Does the Holy Spirit want to lead us ever into a deeper understanding of holy truths or does it simply want us to have a vague idea of the truth?

The Church has been rejecting gnosticism ever since the NT.  Truth is a person (I Am), not a propositin.

That seems to be our main disagreement.

No, I object to complication for the sake of complication.

I would say that the Holy Spirit is always leading us to a fuller understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven and Godly things, whereas you seem to be saying that everything must remain a mystery. The Catholic Church certainly accepts that some things are and perhaps will always be a mystery,

You mean the Vatican?  The interest it has on dogmatizing on the afterlife seems to indicate otherwise. We'll know when we get there, and we'll let God sort out what He does with the prayers for the departed.

but it also believes that it is possible to grow in our understanding of certain things of the Holy Spirit wills it.
Then He would have told the Apostles when He came down, as Christ promised. An "Age of the Holy Spirit" led to Montanism and Pentacostalism, and all sorts of nonsense in between.

Same thing.  We quantitatively didn't know any more before Nicea on the Holy Trinity than we knew afterwards, except we had fancier terms and even fancier heretics throwing them around.
So you basically think that the "fancier terms" were just fluff and didn't actually deepen our understanding of the Godhead?

No, they do not.  If there were not so many people addicted to philosophical fluff (among which unfortunately I am), they would not be needed. 1x1x1=1, like Father, like Son, etc. The 1st cent. Christians know (conoscere) that.  Nicea didn't increase that simple truth.

We knew that before.  The Early Christians knew (conoscre) Father, Son and Holy Spirit since Pentecost.  But pinheads, not satisfied with that, had to know (scire) the Holy Trinity, something beyond human ability. So lines had to be drawn on the roadside for those drifting off the road.  Those saying on the straight and narrow had no need, before or after.  The deacon St. Athanasius, for instance, had no need of the term homoousios.
Well of course we knew that there was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit since Jesus had made reference to the Father and had mentioned sending the Holy Spirit, but did we really know how they related to each other or know the specifics (e.g. that they are each 100% God, not just one-third; that they are not three modes or manifestations of God [modalist/oneness pentecostal view], but rather three separate Persons; etc.)?
Yes, we knew (conoscere).

Do you really think we know the specifics now?

Was it needed?
Not at first, but you're diverting the issue. My issue was that you claim there is no development of doctrine, but it is clear that trinitarian doctrine before Nicea and after Nicea are quite different.

Only among those who wanted to know about God, rather than knowing Him.  The Desert Fathers said: seek God, not where God lives.

I didn't say a thing about understanding, perfect or otherwise.  We need to live perfect Faith, not satisfy idle curiosity.
Apparently having a proper understanding is important too or else Christ wouldn't have promised to send the Spirit to lead us into truth:

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you." -St. John 16:13

He came, He taught, they proclaimed.

From participating in this conversation, I have realized something that is quite interesting. It seems that the Orthodox position is that the Holy Spirit led (past tense) the Apostles into all truth at Pentecost and the deed was done, whereas the Catholic viewpoint seems to be that Pentecost was the beginning of a process rather than a one-time event.

It is a one time event like the sacrifice of the mass (to use your term).
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 11, 2010, 08:26:45 AM

I can see that I inadvertently stirred up hostility when I used the word "stagnant," which I would like to retract and apologize for because it carries a negative connotation that I did not intend when I said it. What would be better terminology perhaps would be dynamic versus static.

Dynamic versus static

Matter of fact, I've told my brother to put my much loved copy of Lossky's "Mystical Theology" in with me in my coffin.

My father confessor had advised me to read Tanquerry's "The Spiritual Life" and to read it again and again.   Now although Tanquerey was then reading recommended for seminarians and young clergy, how dry and "stagnant" and "static" he is. Dynamic? - the word is one of the least applicable.  A textbook to be slogged through to discover the theological basis and the principles of Roman Catholic spiritual life.


But when I was reading Tanquerey, God came to my assistance and Lossky jumped off the library shelf and into my life and changed my heart forever.  Here was another treatise but *what* a difference!   Here was a vital interaction between ancient theology and personal spiritual life.   Lossky shows how the ancient doctrine of the Church vivifies our own lives.  There was nothing stagnant nor static.  It was a sheer joy to read.

Fr Ambrose o..o~


Well you might have a case if Tanquerey were the only spiritual writer in the Church. 

In fact the only way that Lossky can say some of the things he says about the Catholic faith and spiritual life is to NOT pay attention to the writers, saints and doctors, who are as and more dynamic than he is.

That is not to denigrate his work in Orthodoxy but it is to say that he's a poor one to use to compare since his own comparisons of the two confessions are deeply flawed, and the reason I know that and see that is that I've read the saints and doctors of my Church and let the rest alone, till I was better able to put them in perspective.

I believe I've heard good pastors and spiritual fathers in Orthodoxy give the same advice.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 08:29:09 AM

But take Pastor Aeternus, laying aside the tautology that it is infallible because it says he speaks infallibly: as Fr. Ambrose has actually posted, the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, with its imprematur, states that "infallibility is a Protestant lie" claiming that it was a caricuture and slur that Protestants made against the papacy.

Because of my Irish background Keenan's Catechism fascinates me.

Keenan's Catechism was used throughout England and Ireland and parts of the United States.  It used to be published n the UK by Burnes and Oates, the UK publishers to the Holy See.

The Irish and the English were taught to explicitly deny papal infallibility.

This Anglo-Irish Catechism contained the following question:

.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.

Every little Catholic boy and girl learnt this by heart. The Pope is not infallible.
--------------------------------

In 1826, in the time of Pope Leo XII, the Bishops of Ireland wrote to the faithful Catholics of Ireland a "Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland" :

"The Catholics of Ireland declare their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible."

Of course 40 years later in 1870 when the Pope was declared infallible, the poor Irish bishops, probably now in some sort of material heresy, had to hastily backtrack and try to forget that they had ever taught their people that he was not.


They were also obliged to change Keenan's Catechism and its teaching. What was Catholic teaching in 1869 had become heresy in 1870.

After Vatican I and 1870, the question was omitted from the Catechism, but 26 years later in 1896, the following was added:

.......... "Q: Is the Pope infallible?
.......... A: Yes, the Pope is infallible.

.......... Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism.
.......... A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma."

Does anybody other than me have to smile at the logic of that last answer?  Declaring that the Pope is not infallible is an implicit assertion that he is!  :laugh:


God bless,
Fr Ambrose  o..o~
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Azul on September 11, 2010, 08:54:40 AM
The Pope was never infaillible and it is not infaillible not even when speaking "ex cathedra".However he was looked upon with respect as a high consultant in faith..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 08:58:40 AM

In 1825, a British Parliamentary Royal Commission was established in view of the forthcoming Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.  Some of the questions put to Roman Catholic Bishops are as follows.  The Catholic bishops were giving their testimony under oath and they deny universal papal authority and jurisdiction..


Question to Bishop Dr. Oliver Kelley
Q: Do the R.C. clergy insist that all the Bulls of the Pope are entitled to obedience?

A: The Roman Catholic doctrine in respect to Bulls from the Pope is that they are always to be treated with respect; but if those Bulls or Rescripts proceeding from the Pope do contain doctrines or matters which are not compatible with the discipline of the particular Church to which they may be directed, they feel it their duty then to remonstrate respectfully, and not to receive the regulations that may emanate from the Pope.

Question to Bishop Doyle
Q: Can you state in what respect the national canons received in Ireland, or any particular construction put upon the general canons, differ from those which are received in other countries?

A: For instance, a particular church, or the canons of a particular church, might define that the authority of a general council was superior to that of the Pope: Such canon may be received, for instance in Ireland or France, and might not be received in Italy or Spain.

Question to Bishop Murray
Q: Is the decree of the Pope valid without the consent of the Council?

A: A decree of the Pope in matters of doctrine is not considered binding on Catholics, if it have not the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or assembled by its Bishops in Council.


http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=YkwDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436&dq=%22The+Roman+Catholic+doctrine+in+respect+to+Bulls+from+the+Pope%22&source=bl&ots=Mn0MWAzjb7&sig=dHAfSlVvgKd7zSVHO1cg6AT8ltA&hl=en&ei=U3uLTLDSIpS-sQO255nNBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 09:00:44 AM

But take Pastor Aeternus, laying aside the tautology that it is infallible because it says he speaks infallibly: as Fr. Ambrose has actually posted, the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, with its imprematur, states that "infallibility is a Protestant lie" claiming that it was a caricuture and slur that Protestants made against the papacy.

Because of my Irish background Keenan's Catechism fascinates me.

Keenan's Catechism was used throughout England and Ireland and parts of the United States.  It used to be published n the UK by Burnes and Oates, the UK publishers to the Holy See.

The Irish and the English were taught to explicitly deny papal infallibility.

This Anglo-Irish Catechism contained the following question:

.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.

Every little Catholic boy and girl learnt this by heart. The Pope is not infallible.
--------------------------------

In 1826, in the time of Pope Leo XII, the Bishops of Ireland wrote to the faithful Catholics of Ireland a "Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland" :

"The Catholics of Ireland declare their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible."

Of course 40 years later in 1870 when the Pope was declared infallible, the poor Irish bishops, probably now in some sort of material heresy, had to hastily backtrack and try to forget that they had ever taught their people that he was not.


They were also obliged to change Keenan's Catechism and its teaching. What was Catholic teaching in 1869 had become heresy in 1870.

After Vatican I and 1870, the question was omitted from the Catechism, but 26 years later in 1896, the following was added:

.......... "Q: Is the Pope infallible?
.......... A: Yes, the Pope is infallible.

.......... Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism.
.......... A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma."

Does anybody other than me have to smile at the logic of that last answer?  Declaring that the Pope is not infallible is an implicit assertion that he is!  :laugh:


God bless,
Fr Ambrose  o..o~

Oh dear, it is worse than I remembered.  I mean, if they had left it in silence, at least they could claim that that what the catechism up to and including 1870 meant was that the pope himself wasn't infallible (as for instance the Ismaili's believe in their imam) but only ex cathedra etc. and the usual jesuitry on the matter, but to "correct" it by just saying, with "imprimatur" of course, that the pope is infallible exposes it for what it is.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 11, 2010, 09:24:37 AM
All of these particular statements are true to this day, and the language of the dogmatic constitution elevating the status of primacy and infallibility uphold my assertion.

So I have no idea what you think you are doing with the statements to somehow stand against the Church and her teaching.  They do not.  There is NO stinger in this bee.

Mary


In 1825, a British Parliamentary Royal Commission was established in view of the forthcoming Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.  Some of the questions put to Roman Catholic Bishops are as follows.  The Catholic bishops were giving their testimony under oath and they deny universal papal authority and jurisdiction..


Question to Bishop Dr. Oliver Kelley
Q: Do the R.C. clergy insist that all the Bulls of the Pope are entitled to obedience?

A: The Roman Catholic doctrine in respect to Bulls from the Pope is that they are always to be treated with respect; but if those Bulls or Rescripts proceeding from the Pope do contain doctrines or matters which are not compatible with the discipline of the particular Church to which they may be directed, they feel it their duty then to remonstrate respectfully, and not to receive the regulations that may emanate from the Pope.

Question to Bishop Doyle
Q: Can you state in what respect the national canons received in Ireland, or any particular construction put upon the general canons, differ from those which are received in other countries?

A: For instance, a particular church, or the canons of a particular church, might define that the authority of a general council was superior to that of the Pope: Such canon may be received, for instance in Ireland or France, and might not be received in Italy or Spain.

Question to Bishop Murray
Q: Is the decree of the Pope valid without the consent of the Council?

A: A decree of the Pope in matters of doctrine is not considered binding on Catholics, if it have not the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or assembled by its Bishops in Council.


http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=YkwDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436&dq=%22The+Roman+Catholic+doctrine+in+respect+to+Bulls+from+the+Pope%22&source=bl&ots=Mn0MWAzjb7&sig=dHAfSlVvgKd7zSVHO1cg6AT8ltA&hl=en&ei=U3uLTLDSIpS-sQO255nNBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 11, 2010, 10:38:23 AM
Yet he has.  Of course, we have to get an official list of when he has spoken ex cathedra to get a complete disposal of that issue.  But take Pastor Aeternus, laying aside the tautology that it is infallible because it says he speaks infallibly: as Fr. Ambrose has actually posted, the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, with its imprematur, states that "infallibility is a Protestant lie" claiming that it was a caricuture and slur that Protestants made against the papacy.  Hefele had to stop and revise his magnus opus on the Councils when Vatican I happened.  In particular his account on the Fifth Council (Honorius) had to be brought into line with the "new truth."

I must say, I am not that shocked to see that a catechism actually declared that the Pope is not infallible before infallibility was defined. Before the Immaculate Conception was defined there were people who believed it and people who didn't, and that is fully acceptable before something is dogmatically defined. I know that is strange to Eastern Orthodoxy but that is the way it works for us.

Primacy =/= supremacy.  Equating the two muddles the issue.

Even if supremacy went back to the second century, or even if you could twist Pope (an anachronism, btw) St. Clement's letter into a first century expression of suprmacy, that would make it only a very old heresy.  No perhaps about it.

What I wonder is how can you be so sure? Obviously, as an Orthodox Christian you reject Papal Infallibility because Orthodoxy as a whole rejects it, just as I accept Papal Infallibility because I am Catholic. However, if you take a step back and look at both sides of the disagreement, ultimately what is it that makes you certain that Papal supremacy and infallibility is the heresy and first among equals is the proper understanding of the role of Rome?

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. I Tim. 6:20.
I was converted to Orthodoxy while at the University of Chicago, a Nobel place, from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and know the difference between knowledge and the pretense of it.

If I may ask, what was your faith before that? I myself have only been Catholic since Easter Vigil 2007 and before that had an eclectic Protestant background but one that was rooted most firmly in the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition.

The Church has been rejecting gnosticism ever since the NT.  Truth is a person (I Am), not a propositin.

A desire for true, God-given knowledge is hardly gnostic. If so then King Solomon was also king of the gnostics.

No, I object to complication for the sake of complication.

The Catholic Church is not the one who complicates for the sake of complication. Those who get on the "Spirit of Vatican II" bandwagon to try and justify a whole bunch of abuses are the ones that complicate and confuse. I have confidence that Pope Benedict XVI will smooth over much of the turmoil within the Church.

You mean the Vatican?

No, I meant the Catholic Church as a whole.

The interest it has on dogmatizing on the afterlife seems to indicate otherwise. We'll know when we get there, and we'll let God sort out what He does with the prayers for the departed.

Just binding and loosing, man. Binding and loosing.

No, they do not.  If there were not so many people addicted to philosophical fluff (among which unfortunately I am), they would not be needed. 1x1x1=1, like Father, like Son, etc. The 1st cent. Christians know (conoscere) that.  Nicea didn't increase that simple truth.

Why the aversion to philosophy? I was always under the impression that philosophy aided us in grasping theology.

Do you really think we know the specifics now?

We know that the Son is consubstantial to the Father, and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist eternally as three separate Persons while simultaneously being one. After the Council this was very clear and had this wording, and everyone was required to believe it in order to be part of the Church. I am still not convinced that everyone had this understanding before the Council. Also, before the Council you could be a part of the Church without having to believe this, no?

Only among those who wanted to know about God, rather than knowing Him.  The Desert Fathers said: seek God, not where God lives.

We should seek knowledge of God because of our love of God. That is like saying you do not have to know anything about your spouse or children and that simply loving them is enough.

He came, He taught, they proclaimed.

Then the Holy Spirit came to clarify.

It is a one time event like the sacrifice of the mass (to use your term).

Now I am a little confused. At first you said the Holy Spirit gave everything the Apostles needed at Pentecost, and now you seem to be backtracking and saying it is an ongoing event. Did the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth at Pentecost or was Pentecost the start of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church throughout the ages?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 11:07:56 AM

I must say, I am not that shocked to see that a catechism actually declared that the Pope is not infallible before infallibility was defined. Before the Immaculate Conception was defined there were people who believed it and people who didn't, and that is fully acceptable before something is dogmatically defined. I know that is strange to Eastern Orthodoxy but that is the way it works for us.

[

Yes, Wyatt, you have a point, and one we as Orthodox often forget.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.  Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived.  Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

There actually is a great gulf between our Churches on this matter.  The certainty of our faith is grounded in our Tradition,.  The certainty of the Roman Catholic faith is grounded in magisterial statements.  In other words, the faith is effectively taken out of the hands of the Church as a whole.  The faithful are disenfranchised and the faith is posited in the hands of a small elite group known as the "Magisterium."  I frankly would not wish to be in communion with a Church which has this disjunct between its upper echelon and the great majority of its members.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 02:33:18 PM
All of these particular statements are true to this day, and the language of the dogmatic constitution elevating the status of primacy and infallibility uphold my assertion.

So I have no idea
[/quote]
I am afraid that is true. freedom is slavery.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 11, 2010, 02:49:31 PM

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

I don't know how we could miss it.  Catholic Church teaches PRECISELY the same thing.

Mary
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 11, 2010, 02:49:31 PM
All of these particular statements are true to this day, and the language of the dogmatic constitution elevating the status of primacy and infallibility uphold my assertion.

So I have no idea
I am afraid that is true. freedom is slavery.
[/quote]

Enslavement to God is freedom!!  The only true freedom possible.

That I may be enslaved to Christ the King!

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 11, 2010, 02:50:00 PM

I must say, I am not that shocked to see that a catechism actually declared that the Pope is not infallible before infallibility was defined. Before the Immaculate Conception was defined there were people who believed it and people who didn't, and that is fully acceptable before something is dogmatically defined. I know that is strange to Eastern Orthodoxy but that is the way it works for us.

[

Yes, Wyatt, you have a point, and one we as Orthodox often forget.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.  Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived.  Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.

The two most egregious errors here are:

1. There is no great divide or rupture between the font of sacred Tradition and the Magesterial charge to go and make disciples [teaching the people of all nations].  So your first premises are false and so your conclusions cannot help but be spurious.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

Quote
1. From her very beginning, the Church has professed faith in the Lord, crucified and risen, and has gathered the fundamental contents of her belief into certain formulas. The central event of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, expressed first in simple formulas and subsequently in formulas that were more developed,1 made it possible to give life to that uninterrupted proclamation of faith, in which the Church has handed on both what had been received from the lips of Christ and from his works, as well as what had been learned "at the prompting of the Holy Spirit."2

The same New Testament is the singular witness of the first profession proclaimed by the disciples immediately after the events of Easter: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve."3

2. In the course of the centuries, from this unchangeable nucleus testifying to Jesus as Son of God and as Lord, symbols witnessing to the unity of the faith and to the communion of the churches came to be developed. In these, the fundamental truths which every believer is required to know and to profess were gathered together. Thus, before receiving Baptism, the catechumen must make his profession of faith. The Fathers too, coming together in Councils to respond to historical challenges that required a more complete presentation of the truths of the faith or a defense of the orthodoxy of those truths, formulated new creeds which occupy "a special place in the Church's life"4 up to the present day. The diversity of these symbols expresses the richness of the one faith; none of them is superseded or nullified by subsequent professions of faith formulated in response to later historical circumstances.

3. Christ's promise to bestow the Holy Spirit, who "will guide you into all truth," constantly sustains the Church on her way.5 Thus, in the course of her history, certain truths have been defined as having been acquired though the Holy Spirit's assistance and are therefore perceptible stages in the realization of the original promise. Other truths, however, have to be understood still more deeply before full possession can be attained of what God, in his mystery of love, wished to reveal to men for their salvation.6

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. The idea that there are "non-codified" magisterial teachings from the sacred font of Tradition that need not be believed for any reason, is a false assertion about the Catholic Church's teaching source, which is the same as her teaching authority, Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

Quote
1) first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the "infallible Magisterium" and the "fallible Magisterium".

In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the <depositum fide>), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly "defined" by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council. Whenever the Bishops dispersed in their individual Dioceses in communion with the Successor of Peter teach a truth to be held in a definitive way (cf. <Lumen gentium>, n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope's <ex cathedra> Magisterium or that of a Council.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 11, 2010, 02:53:04 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 11, 2010, 02:56:14 PM

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.
Arians saw "new doctrines" at Nicea. The OO's saw "new doctrines" being introduced at Chalcedon. Nestorians saw "new doctrines"  at Ephesus.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 11, 2010, 03:09:27 PM

I must say, I am not that shocked to see that a catechism actually declared that the Pope is not infallible before infallibility was defined. Before the Immaculate Conception was defined there were people who believed it and people who didn't, and that is fully acceptable before something is dogmatically defined. I know that is strange to Eastern Orthodoxy but that is the way it works for us.

[

Yes, Wyatt, you have a point, and one we as Orthodox often forget.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.  Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived.  Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

There actually is a great gulf between our Churches on this matter.  The certainty of our faith is grounded in our Tradition,.  The certainty of the Roman Catholic faith is grounded in magisterial statements.  In other words, the faith is effectively taken out of the hands of the Church as a whole.  The faithful are disenfranchised and the faith is posited in the hands of a small elite group known as the "Magisterium."  I frankly would not wish to be in communion with a Church which has this disjunct between its upper echelon and the great majority of its members.


Uhh...if by "small elite group" you mean every Bishop of the Catholic Church and the Pope then, yeah, that is what the Magisterium is. Personally, I could never join a Church that wasn't guided by the Magisterium. Saints, theologians, and Church Fathers are great, but they by themselves cannot speak for the Church. Obviously, you guys don't accept everything all the Saints and Fathers of the Church have said (e.g. St. Augustine), so how do you determine which Fathers to listen to and what teachings are orthodox and which ones must be discarded? St. Augustine taught limbo of the infants, but this has never been formally accepted by the Catholic Church.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is not at odds with Tradition. It upholds Tradition.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 11, 2010, 05:27:55 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 11, 2010, 06:21:22 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.

This is an assertion that you cannot support, either with the very words of the document, or by the meaning ascribed to the words by the Church.

Holy Mother of God, save us!!

Anathema to protestants, understood clearly by Orthodoxy.

The whole discussion against primacy and infallibility is very poorly formed by the Orthodox, because the meaning ascribed by the Church is ignored or scoffed-off.

M.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 08:12:09 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible.

Father Ambrose, I do believe that Keenan's catechims has a imprematur and nihil obstant, no?

And the edition with the correction, that would have a nihil obstant and imprimatur also, no?

It would be heresy to declare so.

Your magisterium said "Protestant invention." Until it said "implicitly accepting the dogma" it "impugned."

In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

and yet Lumen Gentium makes it clear that he can exercise it at any time without the bishops.

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
Then why their confession that they had "impugned it"?

Now, how did I know you were going to split hairs and try a Honorius defense?
Oh dear, it is worse than I remembered.  I mean, if they had left it in silence, at least they could claim that that what the catechism up to and including 1870 meant was that the pope himself wasn't infallible (as for instance the Ismaili's believe in their imam) but only ex cathedra etc. and the usual jesuitry on the matter, but to "correct" it by just saying, with "imprimatur" of course, that the pope is infallible exposes it for what it is.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 08:14:00 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.

This is an assertion that you cannot support, either with the very words of the document, or by the meaning ascribed to the words by the Church.

Holy Mother of God, save us!!

Anathema to protestants, understood clearly by Orthodoxy.

"Anathema to Honorius!"-the Fathers.


Quote
The whole discussion against primacy and infallibility is very poorly formed by the Orthodox, because the meaning ascribed by the Church is ignored or scoffed-off.
We just do not have the flexibility to performed the necessary mental gymnastics.
From this (Lumen Gentium):
Quote
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.(30*) The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, (31*) fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church.(32*) For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity.



The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office.(38*)


25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)


And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)


Any institute of perfection and its individual members may be removed from the jurisdiction of the local Ordinaries by the Supreme Pontiff and subjected to himself alone. This is done in virtue of his primacy over the entire Church in order to more fully provide for the necessities of the entire flock of the Lord and in consideration of the common good.(7*) In like manner, these institutes may be left or committed to the charge of the proper patriarchical authority. The members of these institutes, in fulfilling their obligation to the Church due to their particular form of life, ought to show reverence and obedience to bishops according to the sacred canons. The bishops are owed this respect because of their pastoral authority in their own churches and because of the need of unity and harmony in the apostolate.(8*).

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss-specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations."
+ PERICLE FELICI
Titular Archbishop of Samosata
Secretary General of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 08:40:20 PM

Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:


So if the Pope is not infallible himself, the question is "the Pope AND WHO ELSE is infallible?"

My understanding is that the Pope does not need to have the Bishops ask or tell him to make an infallible statement

And the dogmatic definition of Pastor Aeternus is quite emphatic that he does not need the bishops or anybody else in the Church.

Pastor Aeternus proclaims, infallibly that the Pope's infallible definitions are of themselves - and not by virtue of the Church's consensus - irreformable.  The Pope does not need the Church's consensus as we have been led to believe.  

So when people use clever arguments to say that the Pope himself is not infallible, then we must ask "the Pope and who else is infallible?"

---------------------------------
"...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

"...docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Romanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens, pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque eiusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae irreformabiles esse.
Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit."
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 08:46:56 PM

...every Bishop of the Catholic Church and the Pope then, yeah, that is what the Magisterium is. Personally, I could never join a Church that wasn't guided by the Magisterium.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is not at odds with Tradition. It upholds Tradition.

So why was the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church completely ignored in the teaching on contraception promulgated by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae?

We know that the majority of the Magisterium was opposed to what Paul VU promulgated.   He refused to be guided by the Magisterium.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 09:33:29 PM
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:


Is it no longer taught that the Pope is infallible in his office and in his person?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: theistgal on September 11, 2010, 10:00:21 PM
?  All I've read on the subject (both pre- and post-Vaican II) says explicitly that it's the Pope speaking *as Pope* (iow,  in his office) that's infallible but NOT the Pope speaking *as himself* (his person).

IOW, Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger - not infallible.  Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict VI - infallible.

(Of course I know you don't accept the infallibility, just pointing out the difference.)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 11, 2010, 10:53:06 PM
We know that the majority of the Magisterium was opposed to what Paul VU promulgated.   He refused to be guided by the Magisterium.

This tells me that you do not have a proper understanding of what the term Magisterium means in the Catholic Church. You can't have "a majority of the Magisterium." There is simply the Magisterium, which is all of the Bishops of the Church in union with and including the Pope teaching infallibly. You can have "a majority of bishops," but a majority of bishops is not the Magisterium. For example, if the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) decided to hold a council without the other bishops of the Church and attempted to define dogma, that could not happen. Why? Because the USCCB is a group of bishops, not all of the bishops, so therefore not the Magisterium. Magisterial authority only exists when all of the bishops of the Catholic Church come together.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 11, 2010, 11:00:47 PM
Quote
This tells me that you do not have a proper understanding of what the term Magisterium means in the Catholic Church. You can't have "a majority of the Magisterium." There is simply the Magisterium, which is all of the Bishops of the Church in union with and including the Pope teaching infallibly. .

So why did the Magisterium go against the Pope in the matter of the teaching he proclaimed in Humanae Vitae?

We see the outworking of the Magisterium today in the tacit non-acceptance of Humanae Vitae in the dioceses and the parishes.  It is not taught.  It is ignored.  Magisterium regnat!

And of course this is exactly what the English and Irish bishops explained to the British Parliamentary Commission.  Individual Churches (they name Ireland and England, Italy and Spain) are not obliged to accept and teach the papal opinion contained in papal Bulls.  I think that Mary has agreed with the bishops here, or at least she finds nothing contrary to Catholic teaching in what they say.

Or in other words, what we could term "National Magisteriums" are superior in authority to the Pope.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 11:05:17 PM

...every Bishop of the Catholic Church and the Pope then, yeah, that is what the Magisterium is. Personally, I could never join a Church that wasn't guided by the Magisterium.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is not at odds with Tradition. It upholds Tradition.

So why was the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church completely ignored in the teaching on contraception promulgated by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae?

We know that the majority of the Magisterium was opposed to what Paul VU promulgated.   He refused to be guided by the Magisterium.

Hmmmm. that is a problem.

If Humanae Vitae was ex cathedra, of course the opposition wouldn't matter: the pope, we are told, speaks infallibly ex cathedra with no need on anyone else. Of course, we cannot get a definitive answer whether Humanae Vitae is ex cathedra or not.

If it is not, then Pope Paul's opinion, according to what we are told here, is just one out of many.

Of course, that is not what Lumen Gentium tells us.

Again, infallibility solves nothing but creates problems.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 11, 2010, 11:07:15 PM
We know that the majority of the Magisterium was opposed to what Paul VU promulgated.   He refused to be guided by the Magisterium.

This tells me that you do not have a proper understanding of what the term Magisterium means in the Catholic Church. You can't have "a majority of the Magisterium." There is simply the Magisterium, which is all of the Bishops of the Church in union with and including the Pope teaching infallibly. You can have "a majority of bishops," but a majority of bishops is not the Magisterium. For example, if the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) decided to hold a council without the other bishops of the Church and attempted to define dogma, that could not happen. Why? Because the USCCB is a group of bishops, not all of the bishops, so therefore not the Magisterium.

That's good to hear.

So you will be voiding the Council of Toledo and its filioque, no?


Quote
Magisterial authority only exists when all of the bishops of the Catholic Church come together.

Only 150 bishops met at Constantinople I, and the bishop of Rome won't one of them. Nor even a representative for him. Yet they managed to write the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ChristusDominus on September 12, 2010, 01:14:43 AM
Humanae Vitae (Human Life) was an encyclical of Pope Paul VI. An encyclical is not Ex Cathedra, yet many consider the Pope's words to be prophetic. I think that many Catholics and other Christians would truly benefit form this encyclical. Whether a Catholic adheres to Humanae Vitae or not is another issue. Yet, many (in their own personal opinons) consider this encyclical to be prophetic.

Encyclical:

An encyclical was originally a circular letter sent to all the churches of a particular area in the ancient Catholic Church. At that time, the word could be used for a letter sent out by any bishop. The word comes from Latin encyclia (from the Greek "en kyklo, ἐν κύκλῳ") meaning "general" or "encircling", which is also the origin of the word "encyclopedia". The Roman Catholic Church generally only uses this term for Papal encyclicals, but the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion retain the older usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 01:28:11 AM
Humanae Vitae (Human Life) was an encyclical of Pope Paul VI. An encyclical is not Ex Cathedra, yet many consider the Pope's words to be prophetic. I think that many Catholics and other Christians would truly benefit form this encyclical. Whether a Catholic adheres to Humanae Vitae or not is another issue. Yet, many (in their own personal opinons) consider this encyclical to be prophetic.

It's a bit of a dead duck in the water and generally ignored by Catholics.   The US Conference of Catholic Bishops estimate that 2% to 3% of married Catholics use NFP and the remainder use methods of contraception considered gravely sinful and condemned by their Church.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ChristusDominus on September 12, 2010, 01:42:39 AM
Humanae Vitae (Human Life) was an encyclical of Pope Paul VI. An encyclical is not Ex Cathedra, yet many consider the Pope's words to be prophetic. I think that many Catholics and other Christians would truly benefit form this encyclical. Whether a Catholic adheres to Humanae Vitae or not is another issue. Yet, many (in their own personal opinons) consider this encyclical to be prophetic.

It's a bit of a dead duck in the water and generally ignored by Catholics.   The US Conference of Catholic Bishops estimate that 2% to 3% of married Catholics use NFP and the remainder use methods of contraception considered gravely sinful and condemned by their Church.
I actually wish it were Ex Cathedra. Another thing, I actually thought that Orthodox Christians had a stricter adhereness to tradition concerning this matter.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).


http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp)
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 02:06:38 AM
[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

Quote
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Two issues here of course, contraception through drugs and abortion through tight binding.

Quote
Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

Saint Augustine covers several points here but I notice he condemns NFP since intercourse is often timed using NFP techniques when conception is not possible and in this way couples are pursing their intent of obstructing procreation but enjoying sex, something seen by Augustine as pure lust..
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 12, 2010, 02:23:20 AM

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.
Arians saw "new doctrines" at Nicea. The OO's saw "new doctrines" being introduced at Chalcedon. Nestorians saw "new doctrines"  at Ephesus.

Actually, Chalcedon wasn't exactly "new doctrine" from an OO perspective. It was more so a blending of orthodoxy and Nestorianism, neither of which were terribly new doctrines at that point.

Anyway, what is your point?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 07:44:42 AM
Humanae Vitae (Human Life) was an encyclical of Pope Paul VI. An encyclical is not Ex Cathedra, yet many consider the Pope's words to be prophetic. I think that many Catholics and other Christians would truly benefit form this encyclical. Whether a Catholic adheres to Humanae Vitae or not is another issue. Yet, many (in their own personal opinons) consider this encyclical to be prophetic.

It's a bit of a dead duck in the water and generally ignored by Catholics.   The US Conference of Catholic Bishops estimate that 2% to 3% of married Catholics use NFP and the remainder use methods of contraception considered gravely sinful and condemned by their Church.
I actually wish it were Ex Cathedra. Another thing, I actually thought that Orthodox Christians had a stricter adhereness to tradition concerning this matter.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).


http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp)

This is alwasy interesting:
Quote
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis.  The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman.  That is not what Onan did.  He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.

Quote
Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
So we resort to the argument from silence....

You missed some quotes:
Quote
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).
Seems Lactanius wouldn't care much for NFP.

Quote
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

This use of castration as a support of HV is interesting, as I've never come across someone using castration as a form of birth control on themselves.  There were various pagan and gnostic reasons for it, none directly as some form of castration.

Btw, on St. Clement, he evidently agreed with the theory of humunculus, the idea that semsn had a person in it, so spilling seed would be starving a person already here, i.e. abortion. Such, as we now know, is not the case. If it were, every father would be a man who devours his children, with the constant reabsortion that goes on without ejaculation. Serious reprecussions for the celibates like Lactanius and Jerome.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 07:49:40 AM
[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods, and far, far better than coitus interruptus. The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

When used to conceived, it's success rate is also very high.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 08:40:41 AM
All of these particular statements are true to this day, and the language of the dogmatic constitution elevating the status of primacy and infallibility uphold my assertion.

So I have no idea
I am afraid that is true. freedom is slavery.

Enslavement to God is freedom!!  The only true freedom possible.

That I may be enslaved to Christ the King!
Yes, that is true (my name means "Slave of Christ"), but that has nothing to do with the Curia of "truth."

It is rather amusing to watch Winston Cardinal Smith at work, but it can make you dizzy.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 08:47:14 AM
[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods,


The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 12, 2010, 09:20:44 AM
Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


Assuming your figure is correct, what's 2% of a billion? Another big number? Like 20,000,000?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 12, 2010, 09:22:29 AM
[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods,


The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?

oddly enough, the vast majority of those using NFP are not subject to the Vatican.  I know plenty of Orthodox and Protestants (and I've heard of non-Christians) who use it (or so they say: I don't check).
A small study which included a small number it seems of Evangelicals
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 09:51:23 AM
Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


Assuming your figure is correct, what's 2% of a billion? Another big number? Like 20,000,000?

Please see message 14 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25065.msg389501.html#msg389501
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 10:06:00 AM
oddly enough, the vast majority of those using NFP are not subject to the Vatican.  I know plenty of Orthodox and Protestants (and I've heard of non-Christians) who use it (or so they say: I don't check).
A small study which included a small number it seems of Evangelicals
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193

Not sure how much I would go with what this woman is contending:

The converse side of what she is claiming is that couples not using NFP as their form of contraception

- have a high divorce rate;
- experience less happy marriages;
- are les happy and less satisfied in their everyday lives;
- have considerably less marital relations;
- share a deeper intimacy with spouse than those who contracept;
- realize a shallower  level of communication with spouse;
- have relatively smaller families with fewer children;
- are appreciably less religious and attend church less often;
- incorporate prayer less in their daily lives;
- do no rely strongly on the teachings of the Church, the Bible and Almighty God;
- are personally less happy;
- do not have strong traditional, social, and moral views;
- preserve the family unit less responsibly than the other groups;.
- are ikely to have had an abortion;
- are likely to have cohabitated;
- are likely to work full time;
- are likely to be supportive of and to engage in sex outside of marriage;
_____________________

I must say, with 30 years of pastoral experience, than many of these factors do NOT apply to Orthodox married couples using birth control.  We must form a unique subset in society?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 10:15:05 AM
We just do not have the flexibility to performed the necessary mental gymnastics.

This is abundantly clear to us. 

Another difficult concept to play with:

When it is said that the pope can speak without the bishops, what that MEANS is that if the bishops in the Church today, for example, all said that women could be ordained, then the Pope, speaking with the voice of the universal Church for all time could say "No!" and be speaking authoritatively with the bishops of yesterday, and without the bishops of today.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 10:15:05 AM
This document and letter should address your questions Father Ambrose.  Wyatt and Papist are not wrong in taking exception to Orthodox interpretations of the doctrines in question.

There really doesn't need to be much more said than is said in these documents.  There's no real point in saying much else in any event.

M.



I must say, I am not that shocked to see that a catechism actually declared that the Pope is not infallible before infallibility was defined. Before the Immaculate Conception was defined there were people who believed it and people who didn't, and that is fully acceptable before something is dogmatically defined. I know that is strange to Eastern Orthodoxy but that is the way it works for us.

[

Yes, Wyatt, you have a point, and one we as Orthodox often forget.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.  Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived.  Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.

The two most egregious errors here are:

1. There is no great divide or rupture between the font of sacred Tradition and the Magesterial charge to go and make disciples [teaching the people of all nations].  So your first premises are false and so your conclusions cannot help but be spurious.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

Quote
1. From her very beginning, the Church has professed faith in the Lord, crucified and risen, and has gathered the fundamental contents of her belief into certain formulas. The central event of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, expressed first in simple formulas and subsequently in formulas that were more developed,1 made it possible to give life to that uninterrupted proclamation of faith, in which the Church has handed on both what had been received from the lips of Christ and from his works, as well as what had been learned "at the prompting of the Holy Spirit."2

The same New Testament is the singular witness of the first profession proclaimed by the disciples immediately after the events of Easter: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve."3

2. In the course of the centuries, from this unchangeable nucleus testifying to Jesus as Son of God and as Lord, symbols witnessing to the unity of the faith and to the communion of the churches came to be developed. In these, the fundamental truths which every believer is required to know and to profess were gathered together. Thus, before receiving Baptism, the catechumen must make his profession of faith. The Fathers too, coming together in Councils to respond to historical challenges that required a more complete presentation of the truths of the faith or a defense of the orthodoxy of those truths, formulated new creeds which occupy "a special place in the Church's life"4 up to the present day. The diversity of these symbols expresses the richness of the one faith; none of them is superseded or nullified by subsequent professions of faith formulated in response to later historical circumstances.

3. Christ's promise to bestow the Holy Spirit, who "will guide you into all truth," constantly sustains the Church on her way.5 Thus, in the course of her history, certain truths have been defined as having been acquired though the Holy Spirit's assistance and are therefore perceptible stages in the realization of the original promise. Other truths, however, have to be understood still more deeply before full possession can be attained of what God, in his mystery of love, wished to reveal to men for their salvation.6

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. The idea that there are "non-codified" magisterial teachings from the sacred font of Tradition that need not be believed for any reason, is a false assertion about the Catholic Church's teaching source, which is the same as her teaching authority, Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

Quote
1) first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the "infallible Magisterium" and the "fallible Magisterium".

In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the <depositum fide>), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly "defined" by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council. Whenever the Bishops dispersed in their individual Dioceses in communion with the Successor of Peter teach a truth to be held in a definitive way (cf. <Lumen gentium>, n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope's <ex cathedra> Magisterium or that of a Council.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Aindriú on September 12, 2010, 10:19:01 AM
Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


Assuming your figure is correct, what's 2% of a billion? Another big number? Like 20,000,000?

Please see message 14 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25065.msg389501.html#msg389501

I don't see have it's relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion isn't how widespread the use. The conclusion is those 20-30 million-ish people have a better success rate than a separate group. I'm arguing the statistic,  not the validity.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 10:26:07 AM

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

Well I am not sure how you can sit there and say they don't understand what you've written here because their Church teaches the same thing....precisely the same thing.

What happens is that the Catholic Church says that ALL of the doctrine that Orthodoxy denies that the Catholic Church confirms is truth and is found in Tradition.

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all.  Some will grant the filioque is not heretical.  Others will call it the arch heresy.   Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on and on and there are no two people in a day who give me the same list, and sometimes if I am around them long enough the list changes.

So if I believe in development of doctrine in the same language that you've offered it here and I understand what my Church doctrine means and its genesis AND I can distinguish doctrine from discipline, mutable from immutable...do you really think I can take Orthodoxy's multitude of characterizations of the heretical Roman seriously?   

I take it seriously because it keeps us from being in communion...absolutely!!  That is quite serious.

But do I feel spiritually challenged or threatened by the kinds of things I encounter here?  Does my understanding of Catholic doctrine waiver?  Not in the least.

In fact, watching the false and misleading characterizations of my faith serves to strengthen it far more than had I just stayed in a Catholic Cocoon. 

So that keeps me from having a real problem but it does nothing to advance the efforts to find a way out of schism.

Mary

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 11:28:48 AM

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all. 


We are seeing this now come under the microscope.  Thanks to the Greek insistence at Belgrade 2006, Ravenna 2007 and Cyprus 2009 that there exists a "global protos" in Orthodoxy (the Patriarch of Constantinople) and a "universal Bishop" (the Pope of Rome) in the future combined Catholic-Orthodox Church the matter now cannot be left on the back burner.  Russia especially strenuously denies these Greek contentions.  It will be intriguing to see what is said at Vienna this month.

I recall that Russia spent 3 years preparing a document which, inter alia, speaks against any form of universal primacy and this was distributed to all delegates on Cyprus last year.  But it has been kept successfully embargoed.  Let us hope that Vienna will see its release.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 11:31:54 AM

Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on


I hope that in my parish they are all better educated than to make these issues of such importance as the Orthodox whom you know.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 11:37:14 AM
[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods,


The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


That conclusion is reached because the study that you cite endlessly is faulty.  That has been pointed out to you endlessly in other venues, yet you continue to use it.  It does not matter who did the survey or for whom, which is your general response to any criticism.  A rather weak response indeed. 

What matters is that the survey is very limited in its population N in that it surveys a very very narrow range of people in their child bearing years.  The 2-3 percent figure measures newly married couples...doh!...many of whom are seeking to have children and have no real perceived need...yet....to be using NFP to conceive.   There are other considerations of the survey as well but there's no real point in spending more time on it.

Oh well...have fun!!

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 12, 2010, 12:13:19 PM
Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


That conclusion is reached because the study that you cite endlessly is faulty.  That has been pointed out to you endlessly in other venues, yet you continue to use it.


Mary, you are verging on deceiving forum members because you have been informed a number of times that the statistics come from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) -from the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 12, 2010, 02:44:21 PM
Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


That conclusion is reached because the study that you cite endlessly is faulty.  That has been pointed out to you endlessly in other venues, yet you continue to use it.


Mary, you are verging on deceiving forum members because you have been informed a number of times that the statistics come from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) -from the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.


I think I just said that you focus on who did the survey for whom, rather than on the contents of the survey and how the manipulation of the data and the population N and source has direct impact on the percentage that you wave about.

So no, I am not deceiving you or anyone else.  I am looking at the data and seeing is limits.

And furthermore a valid and moral precept observed in the breach is no less a valid and moral precept.

I would expect you to know that axiomatically as a priest and a monk.

M.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 13, 2010, 01:06:00 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2010, 02:10:30 PM

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

Well I am not sure how you can sit there and say they don't understand what you've written here because their Church teaches the same thing....precisely the same thing.

What happens is that the Catholic Church says that ALL of the doctrine that Orthodoxy denies that the Catholic Church confirms is truth and is found in Tradition.

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all.  Some will grant the filioque is not heretical.  Others will call it the arch heresy.   Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on and on and there are no two people in a day who give me the same list, and sometimes if I am around them long enough the list changes.
Funny, we get the same malleable list of what are ex cathedra statements.

Quote
So if I believe in development of doctrine in the same language that you've offered it here and I understand what my Church doctrine means and its genesis AND I can distinguish doctrine from discipline, mutable from immutable...do you really think I can take Orthodoxy's multitude of characterizations of the heretical Roman seriously?

I take it seriously because it keeps us from being in communion...absolutely!!  That is quite serious.

But do I feel spiritually challenged or threatened by the kinds of things I encounter here?  Does my understanding of Catholic doctrine waiver?  Not in the least.

In fact, watching the false and misleading characterizations of my faith serves to strengthen it far more than had I just stayed in a Catholic Cocoon.
(http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/upload/2008/01/do_schools_matter/head%20in%20sand.gif)

Quote
  So that keeps me from having a real problem but it does nothing to advance the efforts to find a way out of schism.
The door is open. If you don't want to walk through it, that's your decision.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 13, 2010, 02:56:55 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.

Of course it is indeed a heretical position. That is what we see when we read the dogma stated as "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

It is precisely because he is the Roman Pontiff that he can speak ex cathedra. Notice that this definition does not say that the Pope is infallible when he enunciates a doctrine that all have believed from the Apostles on; it says "he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church."  I do not care is he does it many times, once or at no time. It is this "heretical monstrosity" as you call it that is at issue. Y'all have defined the Bishop of Rome to have special authority above any other bishop; y'all have declared him to have universal jurisdiction contra anything in the Holy Scriptures, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers; indeed, the Holy Tradition that we all adhered to over 7-8 centuries (at least); y'all have come up with this illogical "authority" of being somehow infallible as if the Bishop of Rome is not mortal. What next, will you declare him to be sinless? Because you do in fact say that when he speaks ex cathedra (that is as the Bishop of Rome).
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Papist on September 13, 2010, 03:22:06 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.

Of course it is indeed a heretical position. That is what we see when we read the dogma stated as "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

It is precisely because he is the Roman Pontiff that he can speak ex cathedra. Notice that this definition does not say that the Pope is infallible when he enunciates a doctrine that all have believed from the Apostles on; it says "he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church."  I do not care is he does it many times, once or at no time. It is this "heretical monstrosity" as you call it that is at issue. Y'all have defined the Bishop of Rome to have special authority above any other bishop; y'all have declared him to have universal jurisdiction contra anything in the Holy Scriptures, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers; indeed, the Holy Tradition that we all adhered to over 7-8 centuries (at least); y'all have come up with this illogical "authority" of being somehow infallible as if the Bishop of Rome is not mortal. What next, will you declare him to be sinless? Because you do in fact say that when he speaks ex cathedra (that is as the Bishop of Rome).

Keep beating that straw man.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 13, 2010, 04:08:18 PM
.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.

Of course it is indeed a heretical position. That is what we see when we read the dogma stated as "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

It is precisely because he is the Roman Pontiff that he can speak ex cathedra. Notice that this definition does not say that the Pope is infallible when he enunciates a doctrine that all have believed from the Apostles on; it says "he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church."  I do not care is he does it many times, once or at no time. It is this "heretical monstrosity" as you call it that is at issue. Y'all have defined the Bishop of Rome to have special authority above any other bishop; y'all have declared him to have universal jurisdiction contra anything in the Holy Scriptures, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers; indeed, the Holy Tradition that we all adhered to over 7-8 centuries (at least); y'all have come up with this illogical "authority" of being somehow infallible as if the Bishop of Rome is not mortal. What next, will you declare him to be sinless? Because you do in fact say that when he speaks ex cathedra (that is as the Bishop of Rome).


You really ought to hear some of us when we read things like this and say to you that these assertions make no sense in terms of the reality and meaning of the doctrine. 

You are in error in your understanding.

I know that is tough to believe because you are so deeply convinced that you cannot be.

But as a Catholic who does know a little bit about the meaning of Catholic doctrine, I am telling you that you are out in left field with this paragraph.  You certainly may stay there.  I hope not all Orthodox believers decide to stay with you, but one never knows.

If you want to know how crazy it all is pick up ANY Orthodox text and in it you will find something about how Orthodoxy is not like the Catholic Church in this or that...always a comparison of some kind, and very often not recognizable to Catholics as Catholic teaching.

You NEVER find that in Catholic theology and spiritual texts unless there is some explicit intent to discuss the eastern confessions.  It says something when it becomes clear that the Catholic never needs to identify him or herself by comparison with Orthodoxy.

For most of them you don't exist except as an oddity...and so you are going to stand here and tell me that you know better than the rest of us what we believe, or can tell us the meaning of texts better than our own pastors and teachers?

I don't think so.

M.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2010, 11:04:01 PM

.In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries.

I believe you are confusing infallibility with clairvoyance or omniscience!


Btw, I see that nobody wishes to answer my question:

Is it no longer taught that the Pope is infallible in his office and his person?

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 14, 2010, 12:36:26 AM
The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Openness to life has nothing to do with the failure rate of the method. It has to do with the intent of the married couple, which is why it is still possible to use NFP as contraception (and thus sinfully) if the couple uses NFP for the purpose of preventing ever having children.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: ialmisry on September 14, 2010, 03:05:59 AM
The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Openness to life has nothing to do with the failure rate of the method. It has to do with the intent of the married couple, which is why it is still possible to use NFP as contraception (and thus sinfully) if the couple uses NFP for the purpose of preventing ever having children.

What if they intend to have children some day, and just never get around to it?  Your Humane Vitae specifically says:
Quote
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

So it would seem that a single instance of intercourse with no intent to conceive (i.e. your NFP) is just as bad as repeated intercourse that never gets around to aiming to conceive.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 03:46:05 AM

.In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries.

I believe you are confusing infallibility with clairvoyance or omniscience!


Btw, I see that nobody wishes to answer my question:

Is it no longer taught that the Pope is infallible in his office and his person?



Never did teach that, Father.  You need to consult the acta of the first Vatican Council:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 14, 2010, 03:47:11 AM

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.
Arians saw "new doctrines" at Nicea. The OO's saw "new doctrines" being introduced at Chalcedon. Nestorians saw "new doctrines"  at Ephesus.

Actually, Chalcedon wasn't exactly "new doctrine" from an OO perspective. It was more so a blending of orthodoxy and Nestorianism, neither of which were terribly new doctrines at that point.

Anyway, what is your point?

At that, a number of Nestorians interpreted what came forth at Ephesus I as essentially a revival of Apollinarianism, and as such even that was not entirely "new doctrine" from their perspective.

And from what I can tell, some of the Arians interpreted the doctrine of Nicaea I as essentially Sabellian.

So...?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: deusveritasest on September 14, 2010, 03:47:12 AM

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

Well I am not sure how you can sit there and say they don't understand what you've written here because their Church teaches the same thing....precisely the same thing.

What happens is that the Catholic Church says that ALL of the doctrine that Orthodoxy denies that the Catholic Church confirms is truth and is found in Tradition.

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all.  Some will grant the filioque is not heretical.  Others will call it the arch heresy.   Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on and on and there are no two people in a day who give me the same list, and sometimes if I am around them long enough the list changes.

So if I believe in development of doctrine in the same language that you've offered it here and I understand what my Church doctrine means and its genesis AND I can distinguish doctrine from discipline, mutable from immutable...do you really think I can take Orthodoxy's multitude of characterizations of the heretical Roman seriously?   

I take it seriously because it keeps us from being in communion...absolutely!!  That is quite serious.

But do I feel spiritually challenged or threatened by the kinds of things I encounter here?  Does my understanding of Catholic doctrine waiver?  Not in the least.

In fact, watching the false and misleading characterizations of my faith serves to strengthen it far more than had I just stayed in a Catholic Cocoon. 

So that keeps me from having a real problem but it does nothing to advance the efforts to find a way out of schism.

Mary



So what is meant by "doctrinal development" then? Are you telling me that it is not taught that the Church has the authority to define new doctrines which it understands to be true?
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 14, 2010, 08:03:41 AM
Infallibility was given to Saint Peter by Jesus Christ and, in his person, to his successors.

The teaching of Saint Peter, as given through the august lips of the Supreme Pontiff and the Successor of Saint Peter Pope Pius X.

Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.

54 Q. What, then, is the dignity of the Pope?
A. The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful.

55 Q. Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A. The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.

56 Q. How is it that the Pope is infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible because of the promise of Jesus Christ, and of the unfailing assistance of the Holy Ghost.

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.

58 Q. What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A. He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.

59 Q. Why has God granted to the Pope the gift of infallibility?
A. God has granted the Pope the gift of infallibility in order that we all may be sure and certain of the truths which the Church teaches.

60 Q. When was it defined that the Pope is infallible?
A. That the Pope is infallible was defined by the Church in the [First] Vatican Council; and should anyone presume to contradict this definition he would be a heretic and excommunicated.

61 Q. In defining that the Pope is infallible, has the Church put forward a new truth of faith?
A. No, in defining that the Pope is infallible the Church has not put forward a new truth of faith; but to oppose new errors she has simply defined that the infallibility of the Pope, already contained in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, is a truth revealed by God, and therefore to be believed as a dogma or article of faith.



http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: Wyatt on September 14, 2010, 11:14:27 AM
Infallibility was given to Saint Peter by Jesus Christ and, in his person, to his successors.

"In his person," in other words, means in St. Peter's person, does it not? Whenever I first read this that was the meaning that I took from it. In other words, the Pope derives his infallibility from the person of St. Peter, or to put it another way, by virtue of St. Peter. Maybe I am off-base but that is how I first read this.
Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 11:52:53 AM

As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.
This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

Well I am not sure how you can sit there and say they don't understand what you've written here because their Church teaches the same thing....precisely the same thing.

What happens is that the Catholic Church says that ALL of the doctrine that Orthodoxy denies that the Catholic Church confirms is truth and is found in Tradition.

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all.  Some will grant the filioque is not heretical.  Others will call it the arch heresy.   Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on and on and there are no two people in a day who give me the same list, and sometimes if I am around them long enough the list changes.

So if I believe in development of doctrine in the same language that you've offered it here and I understand what my Church doctrine means and its genesis AND I can distinguish doctrine from discipline, mutable from immutable...do you really think I can take Orthodoxy's multitude of characterizations of the heretical Roman seriously?   

I take it seriously because it keeps us from being in communion...absolutely!!  That is quite serious.

But do I feel spiritually challenged or threatened by the kinds of things I encounter here?  Does my understanding of Catholic doctrine waiver?  Not in the least.

In fact, watching the false and misleading characterizations of my faith serves to strengthen it far more than had I just stayed in a Catholic Cocoon. 

So that keeps me from having a real problem but it does nothing to advance the efforts to find a way out of schism.

Mary



So what is meant by "doctrinal development" then? Are you telling me that it is not taught that the Church has the authority to define new doctrines which it understands to be true?

Doctrinal development in the Catholic Church does NOT mean that the Church has the authority to define any new truths of revelation.  Our understanding may change but the truths of the faith may not be contradicted by any new expression of the SAME apostolic truth.  We distinguish between doctrine and discipline.  The Christological and Trinitarian truths are the core or heart of the faith and all else falls into some supportive category. 

There are also varying degrees of certitude with which we can say that something is a doctrinal truth.  As the Vatican document I referenced pointed out, infallibility simply gives us a guideline for the degree of certitude with which we may profess any given truth.

All truths of revelation, mediated by Scripture and Tradition, must be believed but there ways in which we are asked to believe various truths.    They are not the same in magnitude.

To the core truths and their strongest supporting truths we are called to believe in faith...or assent de fide.

To other truths we are called to assent with religious assent, simply because they have come down through the minor traditions of the Church, her saints and doctors, some of her councils and synods.

To many other truths, such as the words of our teachers, the bishops, some conciliar acts or canons, the pope, we are called to give intellectual assent and assent of the will, which means to think about these things in light of Scripture and Tradition and see where there might be some truth in the ideas or instructions given.  It means that we are called not to fight so against these teachings so that we would enter into schism with the Body.
============

This is all very rough but in most of the chatter that goes on in this venue and among Orthodox internally there is absolutely no knowledge of such things.    They have no meaning to you in terms of helping you ascribe meaning to Church teachings...to gain the minds of the fathers of the Church.  So you all ascribe whatever meaning you've heard others describe in talk or in text...and you never question it and when Catholics tell you that you are mistaken you attack them verbally...sometimes physically.

It's a stupid mess.  I hate it.

Perhaps our bishops together can sort it out.

There are days when it is difficult to keep caring one way or the other.  My time here has not helped much, and I doubt that what I say has made any difference other than to confirm in my readers the sure belief that there is just one more Catholic nut-case in the world. 

But, there are brother and sister Catholics who think the same thing because we don't see eye to eye, so I guess it is better to speak and get spit on than not to speak at all.

At least that is a shared experience between us as Catholic and Orthodox.

M.

Title: Re: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?
Post by: elijahmaria on September 14, 2010, 11:52:54 AM
His detractors picked at the King of the Jews in much the same way, Father, that you pick away at the Catholic Church....never bothering in the least to deal with meaning or consider anything but superficial truths, only happy to rabble rouse and inflame with sly accusations, appealing to base sense and fear. 

Yours is a bitter victory, so enjoy it while the taste of it is still sweet in your mouth.

M.


Infallibility was given to Saint Peter by Jesus Christ and, in his person, to his successors.

The teaching of Saint Peter, as given through the august lips of the Supreme Pontiff and the Successor of Saint Peter Pope Pius X.

Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.

54 Q. What, then, is the dignity of the Pope?
A. The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful.

55 Q. Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A. The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.

56 Q. How is it that the Pope is infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible because of the promise of Jesus Christ, and of the unfailing assistance of the Holy Ghost.

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.

58 Q. What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A. He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.

59 Q. Why has God granted to the Pope the gift of infallibility?
A. God has granted the Pope the gift of infallibili