Papal Infallibility vs Ecumenical Councils

[Marat]

When I was taking RCIA class before I decided on joining the Orthodox Church, we received a handout titled Church Levels of Teaching Authority. There were three listed as infallible: Ex Cathedra statements by the Pope, Ecumenical Councils, and Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Only the first two are listed in the category of Extraordinary Magisterium however, with the third listed as Ordinary Magisterium.

My question is about the first two. If papal infallibity has always existed, what is the purpose of having ecumenical councils? If the pope is infallible, why did it take a council (Vatican I) to declare this as such? The council would be infallible, so wouldn't that make it above papal infallibility if the council was the one to bestow that power?

Can any Catholics here help me to understand this better? Or any Orthodox for that matter. I'm not trying to start any arguments, just trying to understand a viewpoint better.

Thanks for any input.

[drewmeister2]

When I was taking RCIA class before I decided on joining the Orthodox Church, we received a handout titled Church Levels of Teaching Authority. There were three listed as infallible: Ex Cathedra statements by the Pope, Ecumenical Councils, and Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Only the first two are listed in the category of Extraordinary Magisterium however, with the third listed as Ordinary Magisterium.

My question is about the first two. If papal infallibity has always existed, what is the purpose of having ecumenical councils? If the pope is infallible, why did it take a council (Vatican I) to declare this as such? The council would be infallible, so wouldn't that make it above papal infallibility if the council was the one to bestow that power?

Can any Catholics here help me to understand this better? Or any Orthodox for that matter. I'm not trying to start any arguments, just trying to understand a viewpoint better.

Thanks for any input.

Well, papal infallibility hasn't always existed, it was invented by the Latins.  Things in the Church are done conciliarily, not as if a dictatorship. 

[Papist]

Well, papal infallibility hasn't always existed, it was invented by the Latins.  Things in the Church are done conciliarily, not as if a dictatorship. 

Then that would be an oligarchy. The few opprosing the many and all that Jazz. In reality, universal jurisdiction of the Pope is no more "oppressive" than the territorial jurisdication of the Bishop.

[Αριστοκλής]

Then that would be an oligarchy. The few opprosing the many and all that Jazz. In reality, universal jurisdiction of the Pope is no more "oppressive" than the territorial jurisdication of the Bishop.

History belies that. 

[Papist]

History belies that. 

Really? How? Back up your claim? The bishop ruling my diocese is a man whose "oppresive" rule has suppressed the Tridentine Liturgy.

[dantxny]

I think he's meaning is that who does the pope have to answer to?  No one.  He cannot be removed, although, some sticky incidents have occured when there are more than one pope at a time.  Rather, a dissident Orthodox bishop can be removed by the Synod.  History has shown itself much more reliable on that then in the Latin Church.

[BoredMeeting]

Really? How? Back up your claim? The bishop ruling my diocese is a man whose "oppresive" rule has suppressed the Tridentine Liturgy.

I'm trying to imagine a parallel in the Orthodox Church yet I can't even come up with a reasonable hypothetical. We would appeal directly to the Synod for relief.

[Αριστοκλής]

Really? How? Back up your claim? The bishop ruling my diocese is a man whose "oppresive" rule has suppressed the Tridentine Liturgy.

Historically? Sure, no problem.

Ample discussion is found elsewhere on OC.net about the treachery of 1204 and the creation of a Latin patriarchate (when Rome FINALLY accepted Canon 28 from the FOURTH Ecumenical Council in 451).

Add to that the earlier replacement at papal instigation of all pre-Norman Celtic bishops and abbots after 1066 with Latin Catholics - the pope even offering rewards to the Normans for this. This is, of course, but one of the reasons we say the Celtics were Orthodox (if not in name).

Read up on the early 14th century subjugation of the Church in Crete when the pope of the day (forget which but I can look it up in a hour or so) first came up with the "idea" of "one Church- two rites" as if the Church pre-schism wasn't one Church - many rites. This the germ of the 15th century council of Florence, that a gernm for the Unias of the 16th & 17th century).

In Crete all Orthodox bishops were replaced with Latins.
No Greek priest was allowed off the island to go anywhere but to Latin Italy.
No Greek was allowed to be ordained in any but the Latin church as a Roman Catholic.
The "Greek rite" was altered with the filioque.
No Greek was allowed a role in government unless he converted to the latin Church.

There's more on Crete but I only have one operating brain cell left according to my wife 

I'm sure Orthodoc, if he gets over the "U"-protest, will provide ample material on the Unias of 1596 and 1636.

[Papist]

I'm trying to imagine a parallel in the Orthodox Church yet I can't even come up with a reasonable hypothetical. We would appeal directly to the Synod for relief.

What would you do in a situation like the Arian crisis in which almost every Bishop fell to heresy?

[Papist]

Historically? Sure, no problem.

Ample discussion is found elsewhere on OC.net about the treachery of 1204 and the creation of a Latin patriarchate (when Rome FINALLY accepted Canon 28 from the FOURTH Ecumenical Council in 451).

Add to that the earlier replacement at papal instigation of all pre-Norman Celtic bishops and abbots after 1066 with Latin Catholics - the pope even offering rewards to the Normans for this. This is, of course, but one of the reasons we say the Celtics were Orthodox (if not in name).

Read up on the early 14th century subjugation of the Church in Crete when the pope of the day (forget which but I can look it up in a hour or so) first came up with the "idea" of "one Church- two rites" as if the Church pre-schism wasn't one Church - many rites. This the germ of the 15th century council of Florence, that a gernm for the Unias of the 16th & 17th century).

In Crete all Orthodox bishops were replaced with Latins.
No Greek priest was allowed off the island to go anywhere but to Latin Italy.
No Greek was allowed to be ordained in any but the Latin church as a Roman Catholic.
The "Greek rite" was altered with the filioque.
No Greek was allowed a role in government unless he converted to the latin Church.

There's more on Crete but I only have one operating brain cell left according to my wife 

I'm sure Orthodoc, if he gets over the "U"-protest, will provide ample material on the Unias of 1596 and 1636.

What would you do in a situation like the Arian crisis?

[Αριστοκλής]

What would you do in a situation like the Arian crisis?

That's your rebuttal?   

[GiC]

What would you do in a situation like the Arian crisis in which almost every Bishop fell to heresy?

Including Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but the situation was ultimately rectified by an Oecumenical Synod.

[Papist]

That's your rebuttal?   

My point is that all the Bishops went wrong. No synod can remove them from their see if they all go wrong because the Bishops make up the synods and councils. concilarisim does not provide any more protection for the faith than does the Catholic model.

[Αριστοκλής]

Duh. I think I would like an answer.

So what? It's not a question that's germaine to the topic to me; I'm not a bishop and do not pretend that I am even here; I don't know what you mean by "like Arianism" - please define better.
Fact is, you have no rebuttal and think this ploy of yours will counter my post. Doesn't work that way.
Duh...

[Αριστοκλής]

My point is that all the Bishops went wrong. No synod can remove them from their see if they all go wrong because the Bishops make up the synods and councils. concilarisim does not provide any more protection for the faith than does the Catholic model.

NO, all the bishops did not err and it was resolved, as posted above, in council, as per the Catholic model...our model, not the neo-papist one.

[Papist]

So what? It's not a question that's germaine to the topic to me; I'm not a bishop and do not pretend that I am even here; I don't know what you mean by "like Arianism" - please define better.
Fact is, you have no rebuttal and think this ploy of yours will counter my post. Doesn't work that way.
Duh...

Dude, if all the bishops fall into heresy, like they did during the Arian crisis, then a council cannot stop them because the Bishops are the members of the synods and councils. My point is that Eastern Orthodox conciliarism is no safer or surer a protection of orthodoxy than the Catholic model. I apoligize for the "duh" by the way. I was joking about the "duh" but it appears rude in print.
Many Blessings in Christ

[Papist]

NO, all the bishops did not err and it was resolved, as posted above, in council, as per the Catholic model...our model, not the neo-papist one.

Ok, all but like three.

[Αριστοκλής]

Dude, if all the bishops fall into heresy, like they did during the Arian crisis, then a council cannot stop them because the Bishops are the members of the synods and councils. My point is that Eastern Orthodox conciliarism is no safer or surer a protection of orthodoxy than the Catholic model. I apoligize for the "duh" by the way. I was joking about the "duh" but it appears rude in print.
Many Blessings in Christ

Well, Dude, "all" but the "three" seemed to reach the Truth, as promised by Him, in council. And Eastern Orthodoxy IS the Katholic model, just not Rome's now.
See my signature...

[dantxny]

It was more than "like three" bishops that kept the Orthodox faith.  Where are you getting your facts from?  Also, I'd suggest you to study Orthodox ecclesiolgy before debating such topics as there hasn't really been a time when the Orthodox Catholic model hasn't worked and you are continually misunderstanding the way the Orthodox Church operates.  It is as though you are reading a Greek or Hebrew Document, but you refuse to read it without applying Latin grammer rules.  Therefore, you are only reading a skewed example.  If you really want to know about Orthodoxy, then we can suggest some books, otherwise.

[minasoliman]

I thought it was all but 318?

[Salpy]

"What would you do in a situation like the Arian crisis in which almost every Bishop fell to heresy?"

You'd rely on the Coptic Pope of Alexandria to remain steadfast in the faith (while being exiled four times) and to eventually straighten things out.   

What was that saying?  "St. Athanasius against the world," or something like that.  I can't recall it in Latin. 

Not that I am saying the Coptic Pope or any OO patriarch is infallible.  We don't believe in all that.  However, the Arian crises did not completely disappear the day after the First Ecumenical Council.  Powerful people still held to Arianism and St. Athanasius was being exiled every time he turned around.  From what I recall, I think he resolved it by getting some of the more moderate Arians, who were opposed to Nicea more on the grounds of language than substance, to sign agreements of common understanding, or something like that.  This worked to isolate the more hardcore Arians, who eventually died out.  Someone correct me if I have the facts wrong.  I'm not that good at history.

I guess this goes to show that God can use bishops and patriarchs to preserve the faith, but not in the way that the RC's necessarily see it.  St. Athanasius never made any proclamations about the faith outside of what was agreed at Nicea.  However, he did more than any other bishop to preserve the faith during that period of time.

[minasoliman]

"What would you do in a situation like the Arian crisis in which almost every Bishop fell to heresy?"

You'd rely on the Coptic Pope of Alexandria to remain steadfast in the faith (while being exiled four times) and to eventually straighten things out.   

What was that saying?  "St. Athanasius against the world," or something like that.  I can't recall it in Latin. 

Not that I am saying the Coptic Pope or any OO patriarch is infallible.  We don't believe in all that.  However, the Arian crises did not completely disappear the day after the First Ecumenical Council.  Powerful people still held to Arianism and St. Athanasius was being exiled every time he turned around.  From what I recall, I think he resolved it by getting some of the more moderate Arians, who were opposed to Nicea more on the grounds of language than substance, to sign agreements of common understanding, or something like that.  This worked to isolate the more hardcore Arians, who eventually died out.  Someone correct me if I have the facts wrong.  I'm not that good at history.

I guess this goes to show that God can use bishops and patriarchs to preserve the faith, but not in the way that the RC's necessarily see it.  St. Athanasius never made any proclamations about the faith outside of what was agreed at Nicea.  However, he did more than any other bishop to preserve the faith during that period of time.

True that...another AWESOME saint...

St. Athanasius Contra Mundum they called him.

"Abba Athanasius, the whole world is against you!"

"Then I am against the whole world."

God bless.

Mina

[Papist]

It was more than "like three" bishops that kept the Orthodox faith.  Where are you getting your facts from?  Also, I'd suggest you to study Orthodox ecclesiolgy before debating such topics as there hasn't really been a time when the Orthodox Catholic model hasn't worked and you are continually misunderstanding the way the Orthodox Church operates.  It is as though you are reading a Greek or Hebrew Document, but you refuse to read it without applying Latin grammer rules.  Therefore, you are only reading a skewed example.  If you really want to know about Orthodoxy, then we can suggest some books, otherwise.

The Eastern Orthodox model does not work right now. Issues like "toll houses", old vs. new calendar, ecumenism, the use of birth control, the validity of non-Eastern Orthodox sacraments all appear to be issues that your current "conciliar" model cannot resolve. Just look at what happened at the Catholic and Orthodox theological dialogue in September. The representatives all agreed on a statement concerning the nature of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, except of course, our lovable brethren from the Russian Orthodox Church.

[scamandrius]

The Eastern Orthodox model does not work right now. Issues like "toll houses", old vs. new calendar, ecumenism, the use of birth control, the validity of non-Eastern Orthodox sacraments all appear to be issues that your current "conciliar" model cannot resolve.

So one man in absolute authority would correct this?  The problem is not with the conciliarity of the church, but you have to remember that recent history and the recent perseuction of the Orthodox faithful (in the Eastern Bloc and in Turkey) have essentially created a chasm between Orthodox of various jurisdictions.  It is only with the recent rise of freedom for the Orthodox churches in these countries that we have begun to tackle these questions and perhaps resolve them.  I agree an ecumenical council is long overdue but the faith has not been compromised.  Bishops arguing over which calendar is canonical is a long shot from the sparring matches going on in Catholicism where "theologians" and hierarchs are debating about the virgin-birth, the resurrection as to whether those are real events.  I'd much rather be a part of a church which has two calendars than one which cannot agree within itself about the nature of the Trinity!

Scamandrius

[Αριστοκλής]

The Eastern Orthodox model does not work right now. Issues like "toll houses", old vs. new calendar, ecumenism, the use of birth control, the validity of non-Eastern Orthodox sacraments all appear to be issues that your current "conciliar" model cannot resolve. Just look at what happened at the Catholic and Orthodox theological dialogue in September. The representatives all agreed on a statement concerning the nature of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, except of course, our lovable brethren from the Russian Orthodox Church.

Milarkey. Nothing in your response denotes the Church "model", as you call it, not working. You don't know enough about the Orthodox Catholic Church for your opinion to matter, and not withstanding the fact that the Church of Rome used to be Orthodox.
Care to point out exactly when we ceased to be "Catholic" or when we changed?

Oh, and I've got another for you...did you know we do have a Pope who is not in Rome or Constantinople?


These crazy "theological dialogues" seem to be something our (both of us) bishops do as part of their jobs. Only internet debaters fret over them.

[dantxny]

The Eastern Orthodox model does not work right now. Issues like "toll houses", old vs. new calendar, ecumenism, the use of birth control, the validity of non-Eastern Orthodox sacraments all appear to be issues that your current "conciliar" model cannot resolve. Just look at what happened at the Catholic and Orthodox theological dialogue in September. The representatives all agreed on a statement concerning the nature of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, except of course, our lovable brethren from the Russian Orthodox Church.

Dear Papist,
I'm so glad that you decided to quote my post when you clearly did not read it.  Again, let me repeat myself since you did not understand the first time.  You are failing to understand the Orthodox model because you refuse to look at it.  Rather, you are analyzing it under a false system.  Therefore, I can see how you have arrived at such conclusions, although they may be faulty.  So, again I kindly ask that you do some actual research on how the Orthodox Church operates and actually listen to the debates before you casually cast in your opinions.

[MarkosC]

When I was taking RCIA class before I decided on joining the Orthodox Church, we received a handout titled Church Levels of Teaching Authority. There were three listed as infallible: Ex Cathedra statements by the Pope, Ecumenical Councils, and Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Only the first two are listed in the category of Extraordinary Magisterium however, with the third listed as Ordinary Magisterium.

My question is about the first two. If papal infallibity has always existed, what is the purpose of having ecumenical councils? If the pope is infallible, why did it take a council (Vatican I) to declare this as such? The council would be infallible, so wouldn't that make it above papal infallibility if the council was the one to bestow that power?

Can any Catholics here help me to understand this better? Or any Orthodox for that matter. I'm not trying to start any arguments, just trying to understand a viewpoint better.

Thanks for any input.

First, according to the Catholic viewpoint, infallibility is bestowed by God, not the council.   Like other theological truths (e.g. "mother of God" and the Nicene Creed) it is not made up by the council, but the council works to affirm what is already given by God.   

As for "why have councils when you have an infallible pope", I'd suggest reading Paragraphs 874-896 of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p4.htm.  That should explain these things. 

Read that with the following quote in mind.  It's written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2000 book "The Spirit of the Liturgy".

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the Liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. 

I'm no expert on these things, but I hope this has been helpful.  Feel free to ask further questions and I'll give a shot at answering them.

[Papist]

I thought it was all but 318?

The Arian crisis occured after the council of Nicea which condemned the Arian heresy.

[Papist]

Dear Papist,
I'm so glad that you decided to quote my post when you clearly did not read it.  Again, let me repeat myself since you did not understand the first time.  You are failing to understand the Orthodox model because you refuse to look at it.  Rather, you are analyzing it under a false system.  Therefore, I can see how you have arrived at such conclusions, although they may be faulty.  So, again I kindly ask that you do some actual research on how the Orthodox Church operates and actually listen to the debates before you casually cast in your opinions.

Nice tactic. I make a good point so you just say that I don't know what I am talking about so you can avoid the issue.

[Papist]

Milarkey. Nothing in your response denotes the Church "model", as you call it, not working. You don't know enough about the Orthodox Catholic Church for your opinion to matter, and not withstanding the fact that the Church of Rome used to be Orthodox.
Care to point out exactly when we ceased to be "Catholic" or when we changed?

Oh, and I've got another for you...did you know we do have a Pope who is not in Rome or Constantinople?


These crazy "theological dialogues" seem to be something our (both of us) bishops do as part of their jobs. Only internet debaters fret over them.

First of all, the Church of Rome has always been orthodox, unlike the Eastern patriarchites which have all been in heresy regarding the Trinity or the hypostatic union at one point or another. We have just never been Eastern Orthodox.
You changed when you dropped the early Christian Model of devlopment of doctrine. You changed when you stoped recognizing the authority of Rome. You changed when you rejected western Sacraments as valid sacraments. You changed when you became ossified, unlike the early Church.
And yes, I know that you don't have Pope.  That is one of the points of contention, remember. Rather you have an Ecumenical Patriarch, which is pretty much a meaningless title that carries no real authority. Basicly it exists so that His Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch can where nice close.

[Papist]

So one man in absolute authority would correct this?  The problem is not with the conciliarity of the church, but you have to remember that recent history and the recent perseuction of the Orthodox faithful (in the Eastern Bloc and in Turkey) have essentially created a chasm between Orthodox of various jurisdictions.  It is only with the recent rise of freedom for the Orthodox churches in these countries that we have begun to tackle these questions and perhaps resolve them.  I agree an ecumenical council is long overdue but the faith has not been compromised.  Bishops arguing over which calendar is canonical is a long shot from the sparring matches going on in Catholicism where "theologians" and hierarchs are debating about the virgin-birth, the resurrection as to whether those are real events.  I'd much rather be a part of a church which has two calendars than one which cannot agree within itself about the nature of the Trinity!

Scamandrius

LOL. You guys are so funny. You actually think that there is real debate in Catholicism over whether or not the ressurrection and virgin bith occured? Wow, you really don't know anything about Catholicism. Those matters are already setteled because they are matters of faith. The Church already has an official teaching on those matters. Theologians can argue about them all they want but we can still point out what is the official teaching of the Church. You guys, on the other hand, have no way of determining what is the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches on the matters mentioned above.
BTW, even if you guys called an ecumenical council, I know exactly what would happen. There would be arguing through the next hundred years about whether or not it was a true ecumenical council. No doubt, the Russian Orthodox Church would find a way to object and call the council too liberal.

[Fr. George]

The Eastern Orthodox model does not work right now. Issues like "toll houses", old vs. new calendar, ecumenism, the use of birth control, the validity of non-Eastern Orthodox sacraments all appear to be issues that your current "conciliar" model cannot resolve. Just look at what happened at the Catholic and Orthodox theological dialogue in September. The representatives all agreed on a statement concerning the nature of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, except of course, our lovable brethren from the Russian Orthodox Church.

Well, since "toll houses," real- versus pseudo-ecumenism, and the calendar are non-dogmatic issues we don't force consensus... As for the "validity" of non-Orthodox Sacraments: the question is faulty since we don't think of sacraments in valid and invalid categories, and since in the eyes of the Church no sacrament occurs outside of the boundaries of the Church - the only question is regarding the reception of people into the church, and does their reception perfect the acts performed when they weren't Orthodox...
We have consensus on dogmatic issues - the most important thing.  Your point may have been "good," but it was not entirely germane to the conversation.  I will echo the sentiments of the other posters - when you get a clue about what you're talking about in Orthodox ecclesiology and dogmatic theology, re-enter the discussion.

[Fr. George]

First of all, the Church of Rome has always been orthodox, unlike the Eastern patriarchites which have all been in heresy regarding the Trinity or the hypostatic union at one point or another. We have just never been Eastern Orthodox.   

Pope Honorius - condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which you guys accept.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

You changed when you dropped the early Christian Model of devlopment of doctrine. You changed when you stoped recognizing the authority of Rome. You changed when you rejected western Sacraments as valid sacraments. You changed when you became ossified, unlike the early Church. 

Please define authority of Rome.  Western Sacraments ceased being "valid" in your definition when you broke from the Church.  Please let me know how you think we became ossified (and don't define the word for me... I took my Latin).

And yes, I know that you don't have Pope.  That is one of the points of contention, remember. Rather you have an Ecumenical Patriarch, which is pretty much a meaningless title that carries no real authority. Basicly it exists so that His Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch can where nice close. 

The CLOTHES that the Ecumenical Patriarch wears are the same as the clothes that the Pope of Alexandria wears, are the same as the clothes that the Patriarch of Moscow wears, etc.  Next, your statement "you don't have a Pope... you have an Ecumenical Patriarch" is faulty - again, learn our ecclesiology before you put your foot in your mouth about our Church.  Your uninformed rhetoric is tiresome.

[Fr. George]

LOL. You guys are so funny. You actually think that there is real debate in Catholicism over whether or not the ressurrection and virgin bith occured? Wow, you really don't know anything about Catholicism. Those matters are already setteled because they are matters of faith. The Church already has an official teaching on those matters. Theologians can argue about them all they want but we can still point out what is the official teaching of the Church. You guys, on the other hand, have no way of determining what is the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches on the matters mentioned above.

C'mon dude - Bible, fathers, councils - they give us what we need when it comes to the questions you mentioned above (i.e. virgin birth and resurrection).  Give me a break.  I find it interesting that you're unwilling to actually learn about your opponent before engaging them in debate.

BTW, even if you guys called an ecumenical council, I know exactly what would happen. There would be arguing through the next hundred years about whether or not it was a true ecumenical council. No doubt, the Russian Orthodox Church would find a way to object and call the council too liberal.

Well, since you don't know about the CLOTHES that the bishops wear, or the way in which they would interact in an Ecumenical Council, I sincerely doubt you "know" what would happen.

Oh, and just because two brothers fight doesn't mean it's not a united household on the important matters.  The EP commemorates the MP and vice-versa - the communion of the Church is the sign of dogmatic and eschatological unity... It is the important thing, and they're united on that front (And they also seem to be united that Pope Benedict doesn't belong in that communion... go figure!  Must be getting something right!).

[SouthSerb99]

The CLOTHES that the Ecumenical Patriarch wears are the same as the clothes that the Pope of Alexandria wears, are the same as the clothes that the Patriarch of Moscow wears, etc. 

Oh darn, and all this time I thought he was doing it for the free Kalamata olives. 

[Fr. George]

Oh darn, and all this time I thought he was doing it for the free Kalamata olives. 

He'd have to ask the Archbishop of Athens for those olives... But I'll send some from my family's farm to him if he wants (they're the best in the world.  ever.  really.)

[SouthSerb99]

He'd have to ask the Archbishop of Athens for those olives... But I'll send some from my family's farm to him if he wants (they're the best in the world.  ever.  really.)

Implicit in the 28th Canon of Chalcedon is the recognition that the EP gets all the free olives he wants (or needs).  No need to ask the Archbishop of Athens. 

Now, I've hijacked the discussion enough... carry on with the real stuff. lol

[minasoliman]

I don't know what the big deal is.  It's quite simple to look at it.  The foundation behind Papal infallibility is St. Peter.  Such a foundation is weak since one doesn't consider Antioch in the picture.

There is also a difference in interpretation between our churches on the verse of the "rock of the Church."  To RC's, it's Peter, and to Orthodox, it's faith.  This requires reading of the ancient Holy Fathers.

When one sees the model of the ancient Church history, and the model of the Bible, councils were set to decide, and not a unanimous decision by St. Peter.  St. Peter was there to conduct and to reach that conclusion that the whole council reached.

God bless.

Mina

[montalban]

What would you do in a situation like the Arian crisis?

What did they do? The Emperor (not the Pope) called an Ecumenical council

[montalban]

I don't know what the big deal is.  It's quite simple to look at it.  The foundation behind Papal infallibility is St. Peter.  Such a foundation is weak since one doesn't consider Antioch in the picture.

There is also a difference in interpretation between our churches on the verse of the "rock of the Church."  To RC's, it's Peter, and to Orthodox, it's faith.  This requires reading of the ancient Holy Fathers.

When one sees the model of the ancient Church history, and the model of the Bible, councils were set to decide, and not a unanimous decision by St. Peter.  St. Peter was there to conduct and to reach that conclusion that the whole council reached.

God bless.

Mina

I accept that Peter is the Rock. But not exclusively so. In an interpretation such as we have on theosis, we can all be 'like the rock'. Peter is simply the archetype used in discussing this.

Even a Pope, Leo the Great stated that Rome’s position was based on the Apostles Peter and Paul, and that these two Apostles were equal in power.


“I. Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles.
The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is
recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of
gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, was made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood. These are they who promoted thee to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter's holy See thou didst attain a wider sway. by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although thou weft increased by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea, yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.
VII. No Distinction Must Be Drawn Between the Merits of the Two.
And over this band, dearly-beloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers' excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God's Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God's Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles' merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.

Leo “Sermon LXXXII”. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).) quoted at
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-214.htm#P4043_1035305 (see Appendix for extensive quote).

Paul is the rock. And all the Apostles (to extend the analogy) are the foundation stones of the Church...
Ephesians 2: 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

[Papist]

Well, since "toll houses," real- versus pseudo-ecumenism, and the calendar are non-dogmatic issues we don't force consensus... As for the "validity" of non-Orthodox Sacraments: the question is faulty since we don't think of sacraments in valid and invalid categories, and since in the eyes of the Church no sacrament occurs outside of the boundaries of the Church - the only question is regarding the reception of people into the church, and does their reception perfect the acts performed when they weren't Orthodox...
We have consensus on dogmatic issues - the most important thing.  Your point may have been "good," but it was not entirely germane to the conversation.  I will echo the sentiments of the other posters - when you get a clue about what you're talking about in Orthodox ecclesiology and dogmatic theology, re-enter the discussion.

Is being this rude something you have to practice?

[Papist]

What did they do? The Emperor (not the Pope) called an Ecumenical council

I guess no one here knows anything about the Arian CRISIS. The CRISIS happened after the council of Nicea when almost all of the Church fell to the Arian heresy.

[ozgeorge]

Is being this rude something you have to practice?

Do stop playing the victim.
You stated in this thread which exists on an Orthodox Board:

Rather you have an Ecumenical Patriarch, which is pretty much a meaningless title that carries no real authority. Basicly it exists so that His Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch can where nice close.

So please don't boo-hoo about others being "rude" ......
By the way it's spelled: "wear nice clothes".

[Papist]

Do stop playing the victim.
You stated in this thread which exists on an Orthodox Board:So please don't boo-hoo about others being "rude" ......
By the way it's spelled: "wear nice clothes".

More of that Eastern Charity. I tell you. It makes everyone want to convert.

[Papist]

You know what. I am gonna end this before it goes any further. I don't appreciate rudeness but I am sorry for any part I played in this nonsense.
Many Blessings in Christ

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Papal Infallibility vs Ecumenical Councils