OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 11:21:17 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Question regarding Papal Infallibility  (Read 8576 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,268



« on: July 29, 2009, 02:56:28 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have often wondered this very curious little item about papal infallibility that my Maronite priest pointed out to me about a year ago. Why did a council say that the Pope was infallible. Why didn't the Pope just declare it himself? What would he have to lose in doing so? After all, why would a council make it so if the Latins condemned conciliarism as a heresy?

Please don't mistake me. I do not have an ax to grind with Catholicism. I have just always wondered about this.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2009, 03:35:31 PM »

Maybe to add some more credibility to the doctrine. Anyway, I read somewhere (but unfortunately the source I read was in Italian) that the Pope at the time of the Council exercised some kind of psychological pressure on those cardinals who were about to vote against the dogma of Papal Infallibility (except for Dollinger and his folks, who in fact broke communion with Rome and founded the Old Catholic Church after the Council). Indeed he told them the words of Jesus to Peter "Peter, do you love me?" to every single of these cardinals, who found themselves about to be considered as traitors by the Pope. For this reason, this Council (which was represented almost exclusively by Italians, and only on a minor extent by Germans and other worldwide cardinals) was overwhelmed with supporters of Papal Infallibility, so that they would please the Pope! Unfortunately I can't verify the source (I just can't find the original text to quote it directly).
For reasons of clarity, RCs don't believe that the Pope invents new dogmas, but just that he is the only privileged interpreter of Tradition and as such he can define doctrines never defined before, since RCs think it's always been believed (maybe unconsciously as a "latent tradition"). This makes the role of Papal Infallibility as a sort of guarantee of the Catholic Faith, and even the ECs have validity only in function of their Papal signature (so they wouldn't be considered "useless", since they just demonstrate that the Pope was right because of his Infallibility). I know this sounds odd, but I think it works more or less like this!

Hope this helps (and also that I'm right in my conclusions)

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Jimmy
Maronite
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Maronite Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2009, 07:06:11 PM »

I never really thought about that until it was mentioned in another forum by a fellow Maronite.  It is interesting though that he couldn't just declare it himself.  But I would assume that the defense would be similar to how Alexander explained it.  It would be said that it is just a sign of the fact that it was believed by the whole of the Church.
Logged
NewOrtho
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (SLOWLY going towards Orthodoxy)
Posts: 53



« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2009, 12:48:52 AM »

This is slightly incorrect.  The Catholic Church believes that not only the Pope (speaking ex cathedra) but an Ecumenical Council, can further define doctrines, usually in light of controversies and heresies.  Also, because the doctrine may have been ambiguous in the past (from the Catholic perspective), it would make more sense for it to come from an Ecumenical Council, and not the Pope himself, which would not make sense from the outside looking in.

Wikipedia has a decent overview of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility


Maybe to add some more credibility to the doctrine. Anyway, I read somewhere (but unfortunately the source I read was in Italian) that the Pope at the time of the Council exercised some kind of psychological pressure on those cardinals who were about to vote against the dogma of Papal Infallibility (except for Dollinger and his folks, who in fact broke communion with Rome and founded the Old Catholic Church after the Council). Indeed he told them the words of Jesus to Peter "Peter, do you love me?" to every single of these cardinals, who found themselves about to be considered as traitors by the Pope. For this reason, this Council (which was represented almost exclusively by Italians, and only on a minor extent by Germans and other worldwide cardinals) was overwhelmed with supporters of Papal Infallibility, so that they would please the Pope! Unfortunately I can't verify the source (I just can't find the original text to quote it directly).
For reasons of clarity, RCs don't believe that the Pope invents new dogmas, but just that he is the only privileged interpreter of Tradition and as such he can define doctrines never defined before, since RCs think it's always been believed (maybe unconsciously as a "latent tradition"). This makes the role of Papal Infallibility as a sort of guarantee of the Catholic Faith, and even the ECs have validity only in function of their Papal signature (so they wouldn't be considered "useless", since they just demonstrate that the Pope was right because of his Infallibility). I know this sounds odd, but I think it works more or less like this!

Hope this helps (and also that I'm right in my conclusions)

In Christ,  Alex

Logged
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2009, 12:25:17 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have often wondered this very curious little item about papal infallibility that my Maronite priest pointed out to me about a year ago. Why did a council say that the Pope was infallible. Why didn't the Pope just declare it himself? What would he have to lose in doing so? After all, why would a council make it so if the Latins condemned conciliarism as a heresy?

Please don't mistake me. I do not have an ax to grind with Catholicism. I have just always wondered about this.

In Christ,
Andrew


Maybe for the same reasons there was a Vatican II -- why hold another Ecumenical Council when the Pope can just declare more dogma was a common criticism.

The Pope is not a dictator that just willy-nilly defines dogma. Even in those instances that the Pope has invoked his Ex Cathedra authority, it was after long conciliar discussion getting input from all the Bishops.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2009, 12:38:31 PM »

The problem is that the Vatican holds that an Ecumenical Council is Ecumenical only when the pope of Rome calls it and approves its decisions. So we are back to ex cathedra again.

This is slightly incorrect.  The Catholic Church believes that not only the Pope (speaking ex cathedra) but an Ecumenical Council, can further define doctrines, usually in light of controversies and heresies.  Also, because the doctrine may have been ambiguous in the past (from the Catholic perspective), it would make more sense for it to come from an Ecumenical Council, and not the Pope himself, which would not make sense from the outside looking in.

Wikipedia has a decent overview of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility


Maybe to add some more credibility to the doctrine. Anyway, I read somewhere (but unfortunately the source I read was in Italian) that the Pope at the time of the Council exercised some kind of psychological pressure on those cardinals who were about to vote against the dogma of Papal Infallibility (except for Dollinger and his folks, who in fact broke communion with Rome and founded the Old Catholic Church after the Council). Indeed he told them the words of Jesus to Peter "Peter, do you love me?" to every single of these cardinals, who found themselves about to be considered as traitors by the Pope. For this reason, this Council (which was represented almost exclusively by Italians, and only on a minor extent by Germans and other worldwide cardinals) was overwhelmed with supporters of Papal Infallibility, so that they would please the Pope! Unfortunately I can't verify the source (I just can't find the original text to quote it directly).
For reasons of clarity, RCs don't believe that the Pope invents new dogmas, but just that he is the only privileged interpreter of Tradition and as such he can define doctrines never defined before, since RCs think it's always been believed (maybe unconsciously as a "latent tradition"). This makes the role of Papal Infallibility as a sort of guarantee of the Catholic Faith, and even the ECs have validity only in function of their Papal signature (so they wouldn't be considered "useless", since they just demonstrate that the Pope was right because of his Infallibility). I know this sounds odd, but I think it works more or less like this!

Hope this helps (and also that I'm right in my conclusions)

In Christ,  Alex


Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have often wondered this very curious little item about papal infallibility that my Maronite priest pointed out to me about a year ago. Why did a council say that the Pope was infallible. Why didn't the Pope just declare it himself? What would he have to lose in doing so? After all, why would a council make it so if the Latins condemned conciliarism as a heresy?

Please don't mistake me. I do not have an ax to grind with Catholicism. I have just always wondered about this.

In Christ,
Andrew


Maybe for the same reasons there was a Vatican II -- why hold another Ecumenical Council when the Pope can just declare more dogma was a common criticism.

The Pope is not a dictator that just willy-nilly defines dogma. Even in those instances that the Pope has invoked his Ex Cathedra authority, it was after long conciliar discussion getting input from all the Bishops.

Can we get a list of those times he has "invoked his Ex Cathedra authority?"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2009, 01:37:03 PM »

The problem is that the Vatican holds that an Ecumenical Council is Ecumenical only when the pope of Rome calls it and approves its decisions. So we are back to ex cathedra again.
Not exactly. The requirement that the Pope call an Ecumenical Council is a canonical requirement not a theological one. As I'm sure you well know, the Emperors convened the first several Ecumenical Councils. The requirement that the Pope approve of the decrees and canons is more theological in nature, part of the Pope's commission to 'confirm the brethren'. This can be seen being exercised back in Constantinople I which wasn't considered Ecumenical for decades and even then, those canons that the Pope line vetoed (to borrow a phrase) were not listed among the official canons of the Council for at least several centuries.

Can we get a list of those times he has "invoked his Ex Cathedra authority?"
The problem is that Tradition is much more organic than that. When passing on doctrines, there is no tag for "this is from an Ecumenical Council", "this is from an Ex Cathedra statement", etc. We are taught what we must believe and the reasons behind such teachings, but unless one pours through the transcripts of the Ecumenical Councils and all the writings of the Popes, etc. one can't determine easily when a teaching first became binding on the faithful (though some are more prominent and easily knowable than others). I hope you understand that and that I didn't leave anything out.

Here are the Ex Cathedra statements that I am aware of:

Assumption: Pope Pius XII - Munificentissimus Deus (Nov. 1, 1950)
Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX - Ineffabilis Deus (Dec. 8, 1854)
Beatific Vision:  Pope Benedict XII - Benedictus Deus (1336)

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2009, 02:20:42 PM »

The problem is that the Vatican holds that an Ecumenical Council is Ecumenical only when the pope of Rome calls it and approves its decisions. So we are back to ex cathedra again.
Not exactly. The requirement that the Pope call an Ecumenical Council is a canonical requirement not a theological one. As I'm sure you well know, the Emperors convened the first several Ecumenical Councils. The requirement that the Pope approve of the decrees and canons is more theological in nature, part of the Pope's commission to 'confirm the brethren'. This can be seen being exercised back in Constantinople I which wasn't considered Ecumenical for decades and even then, those canons that the Pope line vetoed (to borrow a phrase) were not listed among the official canons of the Council for at least several centuries.

I'll have to dredge up Vatican II LG on the Vatican calling councils, but as to Constantinople I, I deal with the fallacies on that here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.0.html

Can we get a list of those times he has "invoked his Ex Cathedra authority?"
The problem is that Tradition is much more organic than that. When passing on doctrines, there is no tag for "this is from an Ecumenical Council", "this is from an Ex Cathedra statement", etc. We are taught what we must believe and the reasons behind such teachings, but unless one pours through the transcripts of the Ecumenical Councils and all the writings of the Popes, etc. one can't determine easily when a teaching first became binding on the faithful (though some are more prominent and easily knowable than others). I hope you understand that and that I didn't leave anything out.

Here are the Ex Cathedra statements that I am aware of:

Assumption: Pope Pius XII - Munificentissimus Deus (Nov. 1, 1950)
Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX - Ineffabilis Deus (Dec. 8, 1854)
Beatific Vision:  Pope Benedict XII - Benedictus Deus (1336)

The last issued to correct the other "infallible Pope," John XXII (or XX, like the list of Ecumenical Councils, the list of popes of the Vatican has been "revised" over time.  Development of doctrine I guess):
Quote
In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm

If he so declared, why was Benedictus Deus needed?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2009, 05:42:15 PM »

I'll have to dredge up Vatican II LG on the Vatican calling councils, but as to Constantinople I, I deal with the fallacies on that here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.0.html
Is there a particular point on that thread you're trying to make? The only thing I see related to Constantinople I was that it wasn't called by the Pope, which I already said is a current canonical requirement.


The last issued to correct the other "infallible Pope," John XXII (or XX, like the list of Ecumenical Councils, the list of popes of the Vatican has been "revised" over time.  Development of doctrine I guess):
Quote
In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm

If he so declared, why was Benedictus Deus needed?
Pope John XXII didn't officially declare anything. He left it to be debated by the current theologians. The proclamation by Pope Benedict XII defined the Beatific Vision and put an end to the debate. What you see written about: "Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision." is that of Pope John XXII's personal opinion and not his exercise of papal infallibility.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2009, 06:05:35 PM »

"This is slightly incorrect.  The Catholic Church believes that not only the Pope (speaking ex cathedra) but an Ecumenical Council, can further define doctrines, usually in light of controversies and heresies."

What you are saying here is slightly misleading. The only reason that an Ecumenical Council is regarded as infallible is because its status as an Ecumenical Council is decided on the basis of whether or not the Pope participated in it or confirmed its findings. Thus, the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council in the RC Tradition is nothing more than an extension of the infallibility of the Pope.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2009, 06:13:38 PM »

"Not exactly. The requirement that the Pope call an Ecumenical Council is a canonical requirement not a theological one. As I'm sure you well know, the Emperors convened the first several Ecumenical Councils. The requirement that the Pope approve of the decrees and canons is more theological in nature, part of the Pope's commission to 'confirm the brethren'. This can be seen being exercised back in Constantinople I which wasn't considered Ecumenical for decades and even then, those canons that the Pope line vetoed (to borrow a phrase) were not listed among the official canons of the Council for at least several centuries."

It is not the calling of the council by the Pope that is significant. It is the fact that his confirmation of the council is required for it to be regarded with ecumenical status. At this, the confirmation of the Pope is viewed as the defining quality that establishes a council as ecumenical. This is because the Pope is viewed as the representative, catholic, universal, ecumenical, and unitive principal in the Church, aside even from the College of the Bishops.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2009, 06:15:04 PM »

"This is slightly incorrect.  The Catholic Church believes that not only the Pope (speaking ex cathedra) but an Ecumenical Council, can further define doctrines, usually in light of controversies and heresies."

What you are saying here is slightly misleading. The only reason that an Ecumenical Council is regarded as infallible is because its status as an Ecumenical Council is decided on the basis of whether or not the Pope participated in it or confirmed its findings. Thus, the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council in the RC Tradition is nothing more than an extension of the infallibility of the Pope.
Actually, it is authoritative and infallible because it is an exercise of the Magisterium. An Ecumenical Council and an Ex Cathedra decree are both Extraordinary Forms of Magisterial Teaching.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2009, 06:35:43 PM »

"Actually, it is authoritative and infallible because it is an exercise of the Magisterium. An Ecumenical Council and an Ex Cathedra decree are both Extraordinary Forms of Magisterial Teaching."

I fail to see how the definitions of an Ecumenical Council are not a form of ex cathedra papal statements in RC ecclesiology.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 06:36:18 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2009, 01:50:23 PM »

I fail to see how the definitions of an Ecumenical Council are not a form of ex cathedra papal statements in RC ecclesiology.

Consider this analogy: In the United States, Congress can pass laws but those laws must be approved of by the President to take force. However, the President without Congress can enact laws on his own through presidential decrees, mandates, etc.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2009, 02:27:20 PM »

I fail to see how the definitions of an Ecumenical Council are not a form of ex cathedra papal statements in RC ecclesiology.

Consider this analogy: In the United States, Congress can pass laws but those laws must be approved of by the President to take force. However, the President without Congress can enact laws on his own through presidential decrees, mandates, etc.

False analogy, if not outright distortion of presidential powers.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2009, 02:33:31 PM »

I fail to see how the definitions of an Ecumenical Council are not a form of ex cathedra papal statements in RC ecclesiology.

Consider this analogy: In the United States, Congress can pass laws but those laws must be approved of by the President to take force. However, the President without Congress can enact laws on his own through presidential decrees, mandates, etc.

False analogy, if not outright distortion of presidential powers.

Imperfect, yes as all analogies are -- but far from false. deusveritasest wasn't understanding how an Ecumenical Council and an Ex Cathedra aren't the same thing and this analogy is meant to help that misunderstanding. And yes, the President has real, though in many ways limited, power to operate without Congress.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,093


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2009, 03:10:13 PM »

I fail to see how the definitions of an Ecumenical Council are not a form of ex cathedra papal statements in RC ecclesiology.

Consider this analogy: In the United States, Congress can pass laws but those laws must be approved of by the President to take force. However, the President without Congress can enact laws on his own through presidential decrees, mandates, etc. 

False analogy, if not outright distortion of presidential powers. 

Imperfect, yes as all analogies are -- but far from false. deusveritasest wasn't understanding how an Ecumenical Council and an Ex Cathedra aren't the same thing and this analogy is meant to help that misunderstanding. And yes, the President has real, though in many ways limited, power to operate without Congress.

And Congress has ways of enacting legislation that is against the President's wishes (i.e. over-riding a veto).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2009, 05:17:22 PM »

"Consider this analogy: In the United States, Congress can pass laws but those laws must be approved of by the President to take force. However, the President without Congress can enact laws on his own through presidential decrees, mandates, etc."

How is the approval of the findings of an Ecumenical Council by the Pope not an ex cathedra statement?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2009, 10:56:53 AM »

I fail to see how the definitions of an Ecumenical Council are not a form of ex cathedra papal statements in RC ecclesiology.

Consider this analogy: In the United States, Congress can pass laws but those laws must be approved of by the President to take force. However, the President without Congress can enact laws on his own through presidential decrees, mandates, etc. 

False analogy, if not outright distortion of presidential powers. 

Imperfect, yes as all analogies are -- but far from false. deusveritasest wasn't understanding how an Ecumenical Council and an Ex Cathedra aren't the same thing and this analogy is meant to help that misunderstanding. And yes, the President has real, though in many ways limited, power to operate without Congress.

And Congress has ways of enacting legislation that is against the President's wishes (i.e. over-riding a veto).

It was meant to be a g e n e r a l analogy and not to imply a 1-to-1 exact duplication.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2009, 11:01:42 AM »

How is the approval of the findings of an Ecumenical Council by the Pope not an ex cathedra statement?
While both involve the Pope, they are not the same thing. They are both part of the workings of the Magisterium, and both are extraordinary uses thereof. But, they are different. In one, the entire College of Bishops, with the Pope as their head, comes together in an extraordinary synod. In the other, the Pope, speaking in his capacity as head of the Universal Church and speaking for the Universal Church binds the Church to a particular doctrine. Hopefully that makes a little sense to you.


I have a question for you -- to your mind, what makes an Ecumenical Council binding on the Church?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2009, 12:15:19 PM »

I'll have to dredge up Vatican II LG on the Vatican calling councils, but as to Constantinople I, I deal with the fallacies on that here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.0.html
Is there a particular point on that thread you're trying to make? The only thing I see related to Constantinople I was that it wasn't called by the Pope, which I already said is a current canonical requirement.

Wasn't called, wasn't presided, wasn't confirmed by the Pope of Rome before it was recognized as ecumenical and in effect.  The Pope of Rome wasn't even represented, no bishop from the West attended: only bishops from Thessalonika etc. in Rome's patriarchate attended.  It was opened and presided by SS Meletios (to whom Rome had set up a rival patriarch) and Gregory (whom Rome was not in communion with).


The last issued to correct the other "infallible Pope," John XXII (or XX, like the list of Ecumenical Councils, the list of popes of the Vatican has been "revised" over time.  Development of doctrine I guess):
Quote
In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm

If he so declared, why was Benedictus Deus needed?
Pope John XXII didn't officially declare anything.

So of course you now claim.  But we still don't have that official list of when the pope speaks ex cathedra, nor an official definition of how to tell when he does. Vatican II explicitely enjoins the faithful to give the pope of Rome the same "assent of the will" when he doesn't speak infallibly.  So it isn't clear what "papal infallibility" clears up.


Quote
He left it to be debated by the current theologians. The proclamation by Pope Benedict XII defined the Beatific Vision and put an end to the debate. What you see written about: "Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision." is that of Pope John XXII's personal opinion and not his exercise of papal infallibility.

So the revisionists (and remember, John Roman numeral is a revision) say he withdrew it. Withdrew it how?  Do we have a record besides what Benedict XII said John said?  Btw, it is interesting because Benedictus Deus doesn't usually appear on the list of ex cathedra.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2009, 12:52:22 AM »

So of course you now claim.  But we still don't have that official list of when the pope speaks ex cathedra, nor an official definition of how to tell when he does. Vatican II explicitely enjoins the faithful to give the pope of Rome the same "assent of the will" when he doesn't speak infallibly.  So it isn't clear what "papal infallibility" clears up.

I believe that the definition was supposed to explicitly affirm that Gallicanism - i.e. a specific set of ideas about local church-local government-Vatican relations that was problematic in the 17-1800s - is heterodox.   No more, no less.   I don't think we'll ever see a "official list" of what's fallible and infallible.

Re: the OP - German Catholic Father Hermann Pottmeyer's book "Towards a Papacy in Communion" discusses the context behind Vatican I, its meaning, how it relates to councils and his opinions on how it relates to the Church's history, in depth.  It's a "popular" (i.e. shorter and unfootnoted) version of his other works on Vatican I and the Papacy - one of which was included in the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue a few years ago.  That work relied heavily on the official notes of Vatican I, which I don't think have been ever translated into English (and for all I know maybe never even printed).
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 12:59:10 AM by MarkosC » Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2009, 01:01:29 AM »

"While both involve the Pope, they are not the same thing. They are both part of the workings of the Magisterium, and both are extraordinary uses thereof. But, they are different. In one, the entire College of Bishops, with the Pope as their head, comes together in an extraordinary synod. In the other, the Pope, speaking in his capacity as head of the Universal Church and speaking for the Universal Church binds the Church to a particular doctrine. Hopefully that makes a little sense to you."

But isn't it the case sometimes that the Pope is not present in the Ecumenical Council and rather confirms it after the fact?

"I have a question for you -- to your mind, what makes an Ecumenical Council binding on the Church?"

The quality of a council being universal is not inherent to it. What makes a council a Universal Council is its confirmation by the Church at large. A council can be not a universal council in and of itself, but then receive universal status because of the Church's later acceptance of it. The First Council of Ephesus is a good example. In and of itself, the First Council of Ephesus only received recognition from the European and African churches. It thus lacked ecumenical status because it hadn't been recognized by the Asian section of the Church, which constituted a considerable amount. The First Council of Ephesus, is thus only an Ecumenical Council because of the Formula of Reunion of 433, when the Asian church accepted it and reunited with the African church.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2009, 02:03:37 AM »

REPLY to REPLY #22

In Orthodoxy, doctrine (matters of faith that must be believed) must also be confirmed by the subsequent Ecumenical Synod (Council).
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2009, 11:18:29 AM »



But isn't it the case sometimes that the Pope is not present in the Ecumenical Council and rather confirms it after the fact?


That is what I've been told by almost every single Catholic I've ever discussed this topic with.  It seems that Catholics aren't quite sure what the "true" belief is either on this issue. Wink

I've ALWAYS been told, and even prominent Catholics like Fr. Mitch Pacwa have stated a Council is Ecumenical because the Pope says it is! And yet we have a Catholic here saying that is not the Catholic understanding of the Pope "ratifying" a Council? I'm really confused?! Which is? I've got a CCC but I'm too lazy to go look it up right now. Cheesy

For me the big issue is what someone else posted, (I forgot who), that no one, even in the Catholic Church is sure exactly "when" the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra, or when he is speaking his opinion. (the document declaring barrier contraception a mortal sin for example is accepted by MOST as infallible, yet the Pope I don't believe ever used that phrase or said "this is ex cathedra"). I do not wish to turn this into a discussion about THAT issue, but it seems to be the most recent document which continues to be disputed WITHIN the Church as to it's infallibility. Most say it is, but others say it isn't for the very reason the document doesn't SAY it's infallible. So how is a Catholic to know?

One more, not so controversial example is modern CCC. When I read the intro to that book by Pope John Paul II, the language seems to be quite clear to me that he is declaring "this is official teaching on matters of faith"...and yet a number Catholics not only do not accept it as "infallible",  some do not even accept it as a legitimate "expression" of the Catholic faith. And yet, I read JPII's words and to me it sounds like he's saying "this book is infallible teaching"...even though he doesn't expressly use those exact words. So if the Pope isn't going to write "this document contains infallible dogma", then how do we know which is and which isn't? It seems it comes down to consensus, which is no different than the Orthodox model. (with the, what 2 exceptions where the Pope actually has declared something Ex Cathedra)


This is in no ways meant to be a put down of the Catholic Church, I love the Catholic Church, and frankly Papal infallibility is not that big an issue to me personally, it just seems to not be as universally understood/explained and accepted (with the exception of Ex Cathedra statements) than some people claim. And that just confuses me. I'm confused enough by MY Church's beliefs...let alone the Catholic Church's beliefs which are supposed to be more logical. Smiley

« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 11:20:35 AM by NorthernPines » Logged
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2009, 02:55:13 PM »

But isn't it the case sometimes that the Pope is not present in the Ecumenical Council and rather confirms it after the fact?
That's not the issue at hand -- the issue at hand is correcting your thought that the Catholic perspective is that an Ecumenical Council is merely a type of Papal Ex Cathedra statement, which it is not.


"I have a question for you -- to your mind, what makes an Ecumenical Council binding on the Church?"

The quality of a council being universal is not inherent to it. What makes a council a Universal Council is its confirmation by the Church at large. A council can be not a universal council in and of itself, but then receive universal status because of the Church's later acceptance of it. The First Council of Ephesus is a good example. In and of itself, the First Council of Ephesus only received recognition from the European and African churches. It thus lacked ecumenical status because it hadn't been recognized by the Asian section of the Church, which constituted a considerable amount. The First Council of Ephesus, is thus only an Ecumenical Council because of the Formula of Reunion of 433, when the Asian church accepted it and reunited with the African church.
What about the Council of Chalcedon, which thhe Oriental Orthodox have yet to accept?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2009, 03:05:16 PM »

I've ALWAYS been told, and even prominent Catholics like Fr. Mitch Pacwa have stated a Council is Ecumenical because the Pope says it is! And yet we have a Catholic here saying that is not the Catholic understanding of the Pope "ratifying" a Council? I'm really confused?! Which is? I've got a CCC but I'm too lazy to go look it up right now. Cheesy
I never said that the acceptance of a Council by the Pope isn't required, of course it is. What I'm arguing against is the idea that an Ecumenical Council is merely a form of Papal Ex Cathedra statement.


So how is a Catholic to know?
Like I said earlier, our faith isn't so rigid and legalistic as non-Catholics like to think. Through our catechesis and Liturgy a Catholic knows what is infallible and why said teaching is important, but what is sometimes fuzzy is exactly where the teaching was originally defined, we don't generally add in with the teaching sidenotes of the <this was from an Ecumenical Council; this one was from a Papal decree; this one is from the Ordinary Magisterium; etc.>.   If that makes sense to you.

One more, not so controversial example is modern CCC. When I read the intro to that book by Pope John Paul II, the language seems to be quite clear to me that he is declaring "this is official teaching on matters of faith"...and yet a number Catholics not only do not accept it as "infallible",  some do not even accept it as a legitimate "expression" of the Catholic faith. And yet, I read JPII's words and to me it sounds like he's saying "this book is infallible teaching"...even though he doesn't expressly use those exact words. So if the Pope isn't going to write "this document contains infallible dogma", then how do we know which is and which isn't? It seems it comes down to consensus, which is no different than the Orthodox model. (with the, what 2 exceptions where the Pope actually has declared something Ex Cathedra)
The CCC is not an infallible document. It is a "sure norm for teaching the Catholic faith", and as such it repeats the infallible teaching of the Church. Can you see the difference?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2009, 03:36:01 PM »

Wasn't called, wasn't presided, wasn't confirmed by the Pope of Rome before it was recognized as ecumenical and in effect.  The Pope of Rome wasn't even represented, no bishop from the West attended: only bishops from Thessalonika etc. in Rome's patriarchate attended.  It was opened and presided by SS Meletios (to whom Rome had set up a rival patriarch) and Gregory (whom Rome was not in communion with).
It wasn't recognized as Ecumenical until the Council of Chalcedon. And note that until the time of the Schism, when the Orthodox needed a historic revision to maintain the Patriarch of Constantinople's unlawful acts against the Catholic Church, all the Churches recognized only 27 canons of Chalcedon, not 28 (the Pope vetoed that one).

So of course you now claim.  But we still don't have that official list of when the pope speaks ex cathedra, nor an official definition of how to tell when he does. Vatican II explicitely enjoins the faithful to give the pope of Rome the same "assent of the will" when he doesn't speak infallibly.  So it isn't clear what "papal infallibility" clears up.
There is no such official list. The Catholic Church doesn't care so much to maintain pristine records as to how an infallible teaching is declared, whether by the Ordinary Magisterium, an Ecumenical Council, or Ex Cathedra. Once so declared, it enters the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.



So the revisionists (and remember, John Roman numeral is a revision) say he withdrew it. Withdrew it how?  Do we have a record besides what Benedict XII said John said?  Btw, it is interesting because Benedictus Deus doesn't usually appear on the list of ex cathedra.
You do realize that the issue with John XXI(XX) was old news by the time Pope John XXII was elected Pope. And withdrew what? His personal non-binding opinion -- he did that on his deathbed, when he said he had changed his thoughts of what he held before. None of which was binding on the Catholic Church -- you do realize that even Pope's can have private opinions.

Do you have a list of Ex Cathedra statements? Would you like to share it with us?

Please do not refer to the Roman Catholic Church as "the Church", such a descriptor is allowed only for the Orthodox Church on these forums.

Thanks!

-- Nebelpfade
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 04:28:23 PM by Nebelpfade » Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2009, 12:41:46 PM »


I never said that the acceptance of a Council by the Pope isn't required, of course it is. What I'm arguing against is the idea that an Ecumenical Council is merely a form of Papal Ex Cathedra statement.

Well, it is sort of a fine line though. If in the end what a Council says is true because the Pope says it's true, then indeed in "some sense" it is an extension of Ex Cathedra, since the Council is getting the stamp of a approval from the only one who can give it, no?

I DO see the line there you're distinguishing, but it is a fine one in my mind.


Quote
Like I said earlier, our faith isn't so rigid and legalistic as non-Catholics like to think. Through our catechesis and Liturgy a Catholic knows what is infallible and why said teaching is important, but what is sometimes fuzzy is exactly where the teaching was originally defined, we don't generally add in with the teaching sidenotes of the <this was from an Ecumenical Council; this one was from a Papal decree; this one is from the Ordinary Magisterium; etc.>.   If that makes sense to you.

it actually doesn't make sense to me...LOL!

In PRINCIPLE it makes sense, but I know and have talked to plenty of Catholics who are NOT sure what is and is not infallible dogma unless it's either, A.) from a Council, or B.) from an Ex Cathedra statement.

I realize you're saying the Catholic faith is more organic that it first appears, and I would agree. Trust me, I'm not anti-Catholic, anti-Western, anti-Pope, or anti-Augustinian at all. I pray the Rosary, read the Pope's writings and books, and find very little I actually disagree with in Catholic theology when understood through a western lens, (different ways of saying the same thing) but I still don't see the solid understanding of what is and is not infallible dogma that you say exists.




Quote
The CCC is not an infallible document. It is a "sure norm for teaching the Catholic faith", and as such it repeats the infallible teaching of the Church. Can you see the difference?

No I can't see the difference. Not because I cannot read, but because of the inconsistency of it's application. Again, the document on birth control doesn't say "this is infallible" and yet 99% of Catholics say it is. (and a few say it is NOT precisely because it DOESN'T say it's infallible) And yet, the language in the CCC to me, appears far stronger than the birth control document, and a majority of Catholics say that the CCC is NOT infallible teaching. (although I've heard some Catholics say that it IS)

I guess what I'm asking is this,

Does the Pope have to say "this is an ex Cathedra statement binding on all Catholics" for it to be Ex Cathedra?


I've been told, that the answer is NO! But if the answer is no, then how does anyone know what is and is not official dogma?

I've also been told that the answer is YES! So it seems Catholics are just as confused as us Orthodox...lol!

This is not to nitpick or bash Catholicism, so please don't think that's what I'm doing. My mother is Catholic, my neighbors are Catholic, and there are only a few minor issues that I don't accept in Catholic theology. I only ask this just to learn, because I've never really gotten a straight answer...or rather I have, and then gotten a contradictory answer from someone else. Smiley

Logged
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2009, 10:59:22 AM »

Well, it is sort of a fine line though. If in the end what a Council says is true because the Pope says it's true, then indeed in "some sense" it is an extension of Ex Cathedra, since the Council is getting the stamp of a approval from the only one who can give it, no?

I DO see the line there you're distinguishing, but it is a fine one in my mind.
Oh, how much of our faith is a fine line -- like the fine line of a single iota between orthodoxy and heresy (cf. homoousia/homoiousia).

But, it isn't in ""some sense" it is an extension of Ex Cathedra". There is only one gift of the charism of infallibility given by God to the Magisterium according to the Catholic Church. And this gift only extends to teachings of faith and morals. Discipline is not covered.

This gift can be exercised in three principle ways or modes. There is the Ordinary Magisterium, which is the day-to-day teachings of the Bishops united to their head the Pope. A primary example of this is evident in the writings of the Church Fathers. Or in the Liturgy.

Another mode of exercise of this infallibility is in an Ecumenical Council, when all the Bishops gather. And a third mode is when the Pope, speaking in the name of the Magisterium, proclaims some teaching that must be believed.

So in "some sense", all three modes are uses of the one infallibility.




it actually doesn't make sense to me...LOL!

In PRINCIPLE it makes sense, but I know and have talked to plenty of Catholics who are NOT sure what is and is not infallible dogma unless it's either, A.) from a Council, or B.) from an Ex Cathedra statement.

I realize you're saying the Catholic faith is more organic that it first appears, and I would agree. Trust me, I'm not anti-Catholic, anti-Western, anti-Pope, or anti-Augustinian at all. I pray the Rosary, read the Pope's writings and books, and find very little I actually disagree with in Catholic theology when understood through a western lens, (different ways of saying the same thing) but I still don't see the solid understanding of what is and is not infallible dogma that you say exists.
Let's not get into the discussion of how poorly catechized so many Catholics are today.




No I can't see the difference. Not because I cannot read, but because of the inconsistency of it's application. Again, the document on birth control doesn't say "this is infallible" and yet 99% of Catholics say it is. (and a few say it is NOT precisely because it DOESN'T say it's infallible) And yet, the language in the CCC to me, appears far stronger than the birth control document, and a majority of Catholics say that the CCC is NOT infallible teaching. (although I've heard some Catholics say that it IS)
The difference being that the Catechism is meant to be a tool to teach the faith. As such it echoes what the Catholic Church has infallibly taught throughout the ages. It also includes non-infallible discipline.

Try this analogy: I write a note that states -- Jesus is God. That note is not an infallible document because A) I do not have a charism for infallibility (you'll just have to take my word on that one Grin) and B) it was not intended as such. But, that statement is infallible, as we both now, because the Magisterium exercised its charism of infallibility at the First Council of Nicea. Thus the note echoes the Magisterium and teaches an infallible teaching.

As for Humanae Vitae (which I assume you are referencing), it is not an infallible document in the same sense as the note above. But, it is echoing the infallible teaching of the Magisterium. Thus, the teaching is infallible.


I guess what I'm asking is this,

Does the Pope have to say "this is an ex Cathedra statement binding on all Catholics" for it to be Ex Cathedra?


I've been told, that the answer is NO! But if the answer is no, then how does anyone know what is and is not official dogma?

I've also been told that the answer is YES! So it seems Catholics are just as confused as us Orthodox...lol!

This is not to nitpick or bash Catholicism, so please don't think that's what I'm doing. My mother is Catholic, my neighbors are Catholic, and there are only a few minor issues that I don't accept in Catholic theology. I only ask this just to learn, because I've never really gotten a straight answer...or rather I have, and then gotten a contradictory answer from someone else. Smiley
The Ex Cathedra statements take a very formal approach. The Pope will not walk down the hall and quickly blurt something to the janitor and intend for that to be an Ex Cathedra statement. To get a sense of the formality of a statement, let's look at the two undisputed Ex Cathedra statements:

Ineffabilis Deus -- Proclamation of the Immaculate Conception -- Pope Pius IX (December 8, 1854)
Quote
Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

Munificentissimus Deus -- Proclamation of the Assumption -- Pope Pius XII (November 1, 1950)
Quote
44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Notice the formality, the appeal to authority, the anathema that follows, etc.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #30 on: August 19, 2009, 12:04:08 PM »

Thank you for your explanations. I've pretty much heard most of what you said many times before, and in the end I still think the inconsistencies that I mentioned are too great. (and I wasn't talking about poorly catechized Catholics, but Catholics, even priests who would disagree as to things like Humanae Vitae (yes that was the document, but I can't remember all these Latin names...lol!)

I'm also very much aware of the language of the infallible definitions that have been made, and read them many times. As I said I "get" the dogmatic definitions, it's all these other things that I question. I guess my point was that if Humanae Vitae is infallible, then the CCC must be, because IMO the language in the CCC is much stronger and more formal than Humanae Vitae. (don't know if that makes sense) I've been given the exact explanation about Humanae Vitae that you gave, and yet there are Catholics, devout and even priests who say it is NOT infallible precisely because it doesn't claim to be. It's obvious the dogmatic definitions are infallible, but I just don't think it's clear when something else is or isn't.

Anyways I appreciate you trying to explain things, but I think I'm just not "getting it", and that's not your fault, but it is what it is. 

Thanks again.....
Logged
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #31 on: August 19, 2009, 07:27:32 PM »

Thank you for your explanations. I've pretty much heard most of what you said many times before, and in the end I still think the inconsistencies that I mentioned are too great. (and I wasn't talking about poorly catechized Catholics, but Catholics, even priests who would disagree as to things like Humanae Vitae (yes that was the document, but I can't remember all these Latin names...lol!)
Even Bishops have abandoned magisterial teaching on this. The most infamous was when the majority of Canadian Bishops voted to renounce Humanae Vitae. (as yet another proof that the Pope is not some dictator as many Orthodox have claimed, he did not take a bat to those Bishops head -- though many may have wished he had Grin)

It is also important to ask who is rejecting the teaching. Some groups and dissident Priests are no more Catholic and have no more claim to speak in the name of Catholicism than Joseph Smith is Orthodox and able to speak in the name of Orthodoxy. Some have gone so far that the Vatican had to publicly excommunicate some of them. Some have left the Catholic Church (thankfully, I might add!), but many still think they are actually good Catholics. (I get quite annoyed at these lukewarm and cafeteria Catholics)

Of those who aren't members of groups like Catholics for a Free Choice, which I condemn immediately, one can then go on to see why they are rejecting the teaching of the Catholic Church. Many reject this teaching because, as the old saying goes, they want to have their cake and eat it, too. Some truly are ignorant on the teaching of the Catholic Church.


I'm also very much aware of the language of the infallible definitions that have been made, and read them many times. As I said I "get" the dogmatic definitions, it's all these other things that I question. I guess my point was that if Humanae Vitae is infallible, then the CCC must be, because IMO the language in the CCC is much stronger and more formal than Humanae Vitae. (don't know if that makes sense) I've been given the exact explanation about Humanae Vitae that you gave, and yet there are Catholics, devout and even priests who say it is NOT infallible precisely because it doesn't claim to be. It's obvious the dogmatic definitions are infallible, but I just don't think it's clear when something else is or isn't.
Humanae Vitae is not a infallible document in the way that Ineffabilis Deus (decree on Immaculate Conception) is. This is because the Pope was not declaring something that wasn't officially declared before. The Ordinary Magisterium had already infallibly taught this, Humanae Vitae was merely re-presenting that teaching. To claim that its teaching can be rejected because its not Ex Cathedra is as illogical as saying Dies Domini's (document on the Lord's Day) teaching can be rejected because it's not Ex Cathedra. So should we all go to temple on Saturday -- Sunday is another teaching that is infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 07:28:48 PM by Athanasios » Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2009, 11:38:27 AM »

Quote

Humanae Vitae is not a infallible document in the way that Ineffabilis Deus (decree on Immaculate Conception) is. This is because the Pope was not declaring something that wasn't officially declared before. The Ordinary Magisterium had already infallibly taught this, Humanae Vitae was merely re-presenting that teaching.

Then why was there even a need for Humanae Vitae if everyone already knew it was infallible teaching? And why do so many Catholics (including priests) say the document itself is infallible?

Now, with Humanae Vitae I think I am beginning to see your point and how from the CATHOLIC perspective it makes sense. (which is what I'm trying to do here, see it through the Catholic lens)

But from a non-Roman Catholic POV it still doesn't make much sense to me.

 It was simply restating what everyone already knew was infallible teaching? Then when was it declared infallible teaching prior to Humanae Vitae? If it's simply a restating, then it must have been stated somewhere previously. (in my thought process) I've only ever heard from Catholics that it's infallible by consensus of the Church fathers. Is that right? Or was there some previous Council/document that clarified the issue?

Quote
To claim that its teaching can be rejected because its not Ex Cathedra is as illogical as saying Dies Domini's (document on the Lord's Day) teaching can be rejected because it's not Ex Cathedra. So should we all go to temple on Saturday -- Sunday is another teaching that is infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

It wouldn't be like that at all. The issue of Sunday worship was taught and declared at Nicea and other ancient Councils. Granted, it was taught a LONG time ago, but I don't see the comparison with Humanae Vitae at all, unless, a previous Church council (whether Ecumenical or local which became accepted as Ecumenical, ie: church binding) taught it? And I'm not limiting you to Eastern Councils at all, but the Western post Schism Councils as well. If that is the case, that the teaching can be documented by means other than Patristic consensus then that will answer the issue of Papal infallibility and when the Pope is and is not speaking infallibly for me with 100% satisfaction. And I'll finally "get it"! Cheesy

If it is judged as infallible because of Patristic Consensus (which I do not doubt) then East/West ecclessiology isn't really that far apart, as some would like to claim, and so I guess in the end that's the heart of my question. I only use Humanae Vitae because it's something in modern Church history and it is something that is questioned by Catholic priests and Bishops, and not just the poorly catechized. I realize the Church says they are "wrong", however one cannot use the excuse "they just didn't learn their religion" because obviously they did, even if they've seriously fallen away from it. (again from the Catholic POV)

So were the contents and teaching of Humanae Vitae taught by Council/documentation prior to it's writing, or is it infallible dogma based on Patristic/historic Concensus?

That's my question I guess, it just took me some time to get my thought process in order...lol!




« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 11:39:30 AM by NorthernPines » Logged
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2009, 08:47:44 PM »

Then why was there even a need for Humanae Vitae if everyone already knew it was infallible teaching? And why do so many Catholics (including priests) say the document itself is infallible?
Because of the onslaught against Catholic teaching ushered in by the sexual revolution of the 1960's, the Pope thought it necessary to restate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. But what was restated was infallible -- that is the document didn't proclaim infallibility because the teaching was already so. It would be like if Pope Benedict wrote a letter on the Immaculate Conception -- he can't proclaim an Ex Cathedra teaching because it's already been done on that subject -- he would just be reiterating it.


It was simply restating what everyone already knew was infallible teaching? Then when was it declared infallible teaching prior to Humanae Vitae? If it's simply a restating, then it must have been stated somewhere previously. (in my thought process) I've only ever heard from Catholics that it's infallible by consensus of the Church fathers. Is that right? Or was there some previous Council/document that clarified the issue?
It comes from the Ordinary Magisterium. The teaching and consensus of the Early Church Fathers is a prime example of the Ordinary Magisterium.


It wouldn't be like that at all. The issue of Sunday worship was taught and declared at Nicea and other ancient Councils. Granted, it was taught a LONG time ago, but I don't see the comparison with Humanae Vitae at all, unless, a previous Church council (whether Ecumenical or local which became accepted as Ecumenical, ie: church binding) taught it?
Yes, the canons mention Sunday and that Easter is on a particular Sunday and no kneeling on certain Sundays. But, in no Council will you find a declaration that a Saturday Sabbath and the third commandment is now fulfilled and obligated for Sunday Liturgy. This teaching comes from the Ordinary Magisterium.


If it is judged as infallible because of Patristic Consensus (which I do not doubt) then East/West ecclessiology isn't really that far apart, as some would like to claim, and so I guess in the end that's the heart of my question. I only use Humanae Vitae because it's something in modern Church history and it is something that is questioned by Catholic priests and Bishops, and not just the poorly catechized. I realize the Church says they are "wrong", however one cannot use the excuse "they just didn't learn their religion" because obviously they did, even if they've seriously fallen away from it. (again from the Catholic POV)
Yes, it is because of the Ordinary Magisterium of which the Patristic Consensus is a prime exemplar. However, in perhaps a slight contrast to the Eastern Orthodox view, which we view a definite period of the Early Church Fathers and hold that consensus in an extra special place, the Catholic Church believes that through the Ordinary Magisterium (which is guided by the Holy Spirit), we are continually gaining more understanding into the once delivered faith. So, we don't view the development of doctrine as absolutely stagnant ending with the close of the Patristic era, but it is still living and growing.


So were the contents and teaching of Humanae Vitae taught by Council/documentation prior to it's writing, or is it infallible dogma based on Patristic/historic Concensus?
Not by Council decree (though canon 1 of Nicea I can be interpreted in such a way), or papal proclamation, but by what you call "Patristic/historic Consensus" and which I term the Ordinary Magisterium.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,168


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2009, 03:09:52 AM »

Athanasios, one of the joys (and, it would not surprise me, one of the frustrations to you) of Orthodoxy is its almost complete lack of notion of infallibility in the human sense, apart from specified doctrinal canons, such as the one which defined the immutability of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, so that any alteration to this Creed would be quite rightly regarded as heresy.

While, of course, the Orthodox Church has drawn from the pronouncements of the seven Ecumenical Councils to clarify its doctrines, it may help you to realise (despite the protestations of some on this forum) that the consensus patrum as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned, is found in its purest and most succinct form in its liturgical and iconographic deposits. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The western church had begun to lose its sense of iconography since at least the eighth century AD; and who knows what liturgical integrity remained after the various upheavals such as the Reformation, and, particularly, the Second Vatican Council.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 03:11:12 AM by LBK » Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2009, 05:41:51 PM »


Not by Council decree (though canon 1 of Nicea I can be interpreted in such a way), or papal proclamation, but by what you call "Patristic/historic Consensus" and which I term the Ordinary Magisterium.


Athanasios, thank you for explaining! It's greatly appreciated. When I hear "magisterium" I have no clue as to what Catholics are talking about because it is strictly a Western expression. But I do understand Patristic/historic Consensus...Cheesy

I think the problem, so many problems between East and West comes down to this very issue, linguistic issues, terms and concepts...learning to "think like a Latin" or "think like a Greek"....we all have to be willing to put ourselves in the others shoes to truly understand each other. I know it's difficult, but I think if and when we ever do that, the healing of our rift will not be far behind.

Thanks again......
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2009, 10:12:22 PM »


Not by Council decree (though canon 1 of Nicea I can be interpreted in such a way), or papal proclamation, but by what you call "Patristic/historic Consensus" and which I term the Ordinary Magisterium.


Athanasios, thank you for explaining! It's greatly appreciated. When I hear "magisterium" I have no clue as to what Catholics are talking about because it is strictly a Western expression. But I do understand Patristic/historic Consensus...Cheesy

I think the problem, so many problems between East and West comes down to this very issue, linguistic issues, terms and concepts...learning to "think like a Latin" or "think like a Greek"....we all have to be willing to put ourselves in the others shoes to truly understand each other. I know it's difficult, but I think if and when we ever do that, the healing of our rift will not be far behind.

Thanks again......


Unfortunately, what most Catholics consider the "Ordinary Magisterium" as "rebellion toward the Pope".
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #37 on: September 01, 2009, 02:41:36 AM »

On the Catholic view toward ecumenical councils: I once heard a Catholic apologist on EWTN say that the Roman addition to the filioque might have been done badly, and the rest of the Church should have been better respected, but Rome still had the authority and whats done is done. I definitly couldn't see that in Church history: one church overriding a Council. Thats one reason I'm investigating Orthodoxy.
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2009, 06:22:50 AM »

Dear brother Andrew,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have often wondered this very curious little item about papal infallibility that my Maronite priest pointed out to me about a year ago. Why did a council say that the Pope was infallible. Why didn't the Pope just declare it himself? What would he have to lose in doing so? After all, why would a council make it so if the Latins condemned conciliarism as a heresy?

Please don't mistake me. I do not have an ax to grind with Catholicism. I have just always wondered about this.
Here are some facts about Vatican 1:

1) The original purpose of the Council was to combat the threat of modernism
2) The Council was initiated not by the Pope, but by the bishops.
3) In response, in December 1864, the Pope established a commission of 40 bishops (34 of whom were from the Latin Church) to discuss possible issues to be covered by such a council.
4) Only 8 bishops in the commission suggested the issue of infallibility.
5) The Pope did not even want to call the Council and it was not until June of 1867, upon the urging of several bishops, that the Pope finally announced the holding of a Council in a consistory of 500 bishops.
6) The consistory drafted a schema for the Council, and infallibility was not included on the agenda.
7) Word leaked to the secular press, and the Council was sensationalized all over the world as intending to pronounce that the Pope would be infallible in deposing secular rulers.
8 ) The Council Fathers were forced to respond by explicitly including infallibility on the agenda, to mollify the fears of the world governments.
9) Vatican 1 did not establish the doctrine of papal infallibility - it merely clarified it.  In fact, there were many misconceptions of the doctrine prior to it. Some of the misconceptions settled by Vatican 1 were:
a) The Pope is correct in everything he states;
b) The Pope can judge secular and political matters;
c) The Pope can never sin or fall into heresy;
d) It is the person who is Pope who is infallible.
e) The infallibility of the Pope is a different charism than the infallibility of the Church.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 06:24:03 AM by Mardukm » Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2009, 06:48:09 AM »

Dear brother Deusveritasest,

"This is slightly incorrect.  The Catholic Church believes that not only the Pope (speaking ex cathedra) but an Ecumenical Council, can further define doctrines, usually in light of controversies and heresies."

What you are saying here is slightly misleading. The only reason that an Ecumenical Council is regarded as infallible is because its status as an Ecumenical Council is decided on the basis of whether or not the Pope participated in it or confirmed its findings. Thus, the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council in the RC Tradition is nothing more than an extension of the infallibility of the Pope.
I don't know how you can claim that brother Athanasios is giving misleading information.  He is Catholic. You are not.  Shouldn't his explanation of Catholic teaching be more trustworthy than your own?  Should we listen to the cow tell about the horse, or the horse tell about the horse?

In any case, where do you get the idea that the infallibility of the Council is merely an extension of the infallibility of the Pope?  You may have heard of that misconception from some Latin or Orthodox apologists, but you couldn't have possibly gotten that from the magisterial documents of the Catholic Church.

Here are some things about the Catholic teaching on infallibility that you may not realize:

     The only thing inherently infallible in the Catholic Church is the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is defined as the teaching authority of God.  Wherever this Magisterium is exhibited - whether in the Church, in the body of bishops even while dispersed, in an Ecumenical Council, in Sacred Tradition, or in the Petrine office of the papacy - infallibility by definition and necessity exists.

NOTE: The title of the decree on papal infallibility was explicitly changed by the Vatican Council from "The Infallibility of the Pope" to "The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope."

     Infallibility is a Grace given by God for the upbuilding of the Body of Christ, the Church.  It is God's and God's alone to give.  The Church does not and cannot grant it to the Pope or an Ecumenical Council.  The Pope does not and cannot grant it to the Church or an Ecumenical Council.  An Ecumenical Council does not and cannot grant it to the Pope or the Church.  To repeat, it is God's and God's alone to give.

     Papal infallibility is not active nor exercised during an Ecumenical Council.  When an Ecumenical Council meets, the infallibility is a collegial infallibility - in other words, the Holy Spirit guides the whole body of bishops.  The Pope's confirmation is necessary not because he grants the Council its infallibility (since it is the Council as a whole that is infallible - i.e., guided by the Holy Spirit - and not just the Pope).  The Pope's confirmation is theologically necessary by virtue of Christ's command for unity, and it is canonically necessary by virtue of the fact that the Pope is the head bishop of the Council.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2009, 08:08:55 AM »

I once read a quote from cardinal Bellarmine:
"se il Papa dice che una cosa buona è cattiva, è cattiva, se il Papa dice che una cosa cattiva è buona, è buona, perché il Papa è più di Dio"
Translation: "if the Pope says that a good thing is bad, it's bad, if the Pope says that a bad thing is good, it's good, because the Pope is more then God". Is this quote true, or is it just an interpretation or summary of Bellarmine's thought by the site I read it in? Since it's an Orthodox source, I trust it, but don't know if that proves anything on the CONCEPTION the Catholic Church has of papal infallibility (or better, the conception some even authoritative Catholics had prior to Vatican I).

As for Papal Infallibility, I always had more or less the same opinion of it as Mardukm and Athanasios's when I was RC. That's in fact what I explicitly denied of Papal infallibility: I just don't think the Pope has any other role then that of Patriarch of the West, which is the power granted by the Ecumenical Councils too. When a Pope is in agreement with the rest of the Patriachates, he is Orthodox, when he doesn't, he is expressing a particular view which is not a part of the common depositum fidei and thus can't be considered Catholic and Ecumenical (which is what happened on occasion of the 1054 AD schism). As a whole, the Church IS infallible. The Ecumenical Councils are such because at least 4 patriarchates out of 5 have signed them, and a quasi-unanimity was reached by the hundreds of bishops assembled. Since the synod of 880 AD there was no similar occasion, except maybe for the Palamite Synod. And prior to that schism, there were other Patriarchs who didn't sign the Councils, but that didn't affect their validity (I say this in reference of Nestorius in the Synod of Ephesus and Dioscorus in the Synod of Chalcedon).

In Christ,   Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2009, 12:34:54 PM »

This teaching comes from the Ordinary Magisterium.

Pius IX was the first pope to use the term “Magisterium” in the sense that it is understood today, and the concept of the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” was officially established during Vatican I.
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2009, 04:12:10 AM »

Dear brother Mickey,

This teaching comes from the Ordinary Magisterium.

Pius IX was the first pope to use the term “Magisterium” in the sense that it is understood today, and the concept of the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” was officially established during Vatican I.
Magisterium is a Latin term that came into vogue in the Latin Church in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas.  Magisterium is defined as the "teaching authority of God." It has been exercised by the Church since the time of the Apostles.  All the Latins did was give it a name.

The terms "ordinary" and "immediate" are also ecclesiological terms peculiar to the Catholic Church, and I am not sure when those terms came into vogue.  "Ordinary" simply  means "inherent"; "immediate" means "directly from God."  The Catholic Church uses the term "Ordinary" to refer to many offices in the Catholic Church wherein a certain prerogative is inherent in the office - e.g. bishops, of whatever grade, Abbots of monasteries, vicars, administrators, etc.  "Immediate" is a descriptive used of only two offices in the Catholic Church - the universal Petrine office of the Pope, and the local episcopal office of the bishops, because these were divinely established by Christ or the Apostles.  In distinction, the offices of Patriarch and Metropolitan were established by canon law.  All these offices can be and are regulated by the Supreme authority of the Church, which is the collegial authority of the body of bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 04:13:50 AM by Mardukm » Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2009, 04:30:03 AM »

I once read a quote from cardinal Bellarmine:
"se il Papa dice che una cosa buona è cattiva, è cattiva, se il Papa dice che una cosa cattiva è buona, è buona, perché il Papa è più di Dio"
Translation: "if the Pope says that a good thing is bad, it's bad, if the Pope says that a bad thing is good, it's good, because the Pope is more then God". Is this quote true, or is it just an interpretation or summary of Bellarmine's thought by the site I read it in? Since it's an Orthodox source, I trust it, but don't know if that proves anything on the CONCEPTION the Catholic Church has of papal infallibility (or better, the conception some even authoritative Catholics had prior to Vatican I).
This view of Bellarmine's was rejected by the Council Fathers at Vatican 1.  Of course, Bellarmine also wrote that the Pope has no authority to endanger the Faith of the Church.

Quote from:
As for Papal Infallibility, I always had more or less the same opinion of it as Mardukm and Athanasios's when I was RC. That's in fact what I explicitly denied of Papal infallibility: I just don't think the Pope has any other role then that of Patriarch of the West, which is the power granted by the Ecumenical Councils too.
I suppose this would be true - if you paid attention to those Protestants who claim the Church began in the fourth century.  Patriarchal and metropolitan jurisdictions were a creation of the 4th century Church.  These smaller jurisdictions were modeled after the one established by Christ and the Apostles - a group with a coryphaeus.  Before the fourth century, there was one recognized head bishop of all the bishops of the world - the bishop of Rome.  For the proper governance of the Church, the Patriarchal and Metropolitan offices were established by Canon law in the fourth century by the Ecumenical Councils.

Quote from:
When a Pope is in agreement with the rest of the Patriachates, he is Orthodox, when he doesn't, he is expressing a particular view which is not a part of the common depositum fidei and thus can't be considered Catholic and Ecumenical
It goes both ways.  If the other Patriarchates are not in agreement with Rome, then their orthodoxy can be called into question.  That's the principle of Apostolic Canon 34. 

Quote from:
(which is what happened on occasion of the 1054 AD schism). As a whole, the Church IS infallible. The Ecumenical Councils are such because at least 4 patriarchates out of 5 have signed them, and a quasi-unanimity was reached by the hundreds of bishops assembled. Since the synod of 880 AD there was no similar occasion, except maybe for the Palamite Synod. And prior to that schism, there were other Patriarchs who didn't sign the Councils, but that didn't affect their validity (I say this in reference of Nestorius in the Synod of Ephesus and Dioscorus in the Synod of Chalcedon).
I believe there are some erroneous concepts here, but since this thread is not about Ecumenical Councils, but papal infallibility, then I'll hold off discussion on this matter.

Blessings
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2009, 07:05:07 AM »

You think this view is erroneous just because you think the Pope to be "essentially" different then the other bishops, i.e. that he has an order different by nature then the other bishops. If it were so, then the Orthodox Church couldn't have passed any documents at the First Council of Constantinople until the Pope ratified it? The fact that the Eastern Churches adopted the Creed of Nicaea as revised at Constantinople even before accepted it is a proof that the Eastern Christians  had no minimal knowledge of such a super-power in Papacy.
Peter made mistakes, and so do his successors. Gregory the Great, a Pope himself, clearly affirmed three coriphei who are equally "successors of Peter". I don't embrace the idea that if the four Patriarchates ALTOGETHER rebel to a decision of the Pope they must be heretic as you suggest. How could a single bishop be Orthodox and all the other be heretic? Is the pope the only true source of doctrine, and the other bishops are there only to repeat his words? Where is it written this in the Bible? The fact that Jesus ordered Peter "to confirm" the other apostles in the faith doesn't mean that he has super-powers, but that Peter has the TASK to do whatever is possible to preserve unity. Certainly, proclaiming doctrines on his own without an EC doesn't seem a way to confirm this faith and promote unity. As an example I ask you: why did Umberto da Silva Candica excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius on account of the Filioque clause, when now this very same word is not added to the Creed in its Greek form? Many of yours - even the Pope - claimed that the Filioque clause is a mistake in Greek but not in Latin. Then, what version of the Creed with Filioque did Uniates sing both in Latin and Greek at the Council of Florence? did they invent some new word for that kind of procession? if not, the Catholic church had imposed an heretic version of the Greek Creed to the Eastern Catholics at the act of Union, and thus both the Council and the Pope are fallible, if not heretic themselves.

In Christ,   Alex

PS: If Bellarmine's position was such a dangerous heresy, why is he still considered a saint? Shouldn't he be anathematized and thus cancelled from the lists of saints in the Roman Church?
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2009, 07:46:04 AM »

I meant "da Silva Candida" and not "da Silva Candica". Sorry for that LOL!
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2009, 08:22:44 AM »

All the Latins did was give it a name.

They like to make up names.  Grin

The terms "ordinary" and "immediate" are also ecclesiological terms peculiar to the Catholic Church, and I am not sure when those terms came into vogue.

Peculiar indeed! 


Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2009, 08:55:36 AM »

Dear brother Alexander,

You think this view is erroneous just because you think the Pope to be "essentially" different then the other bishops, i.e. that he has an order different by nature then the other bishops.
No. You think that only because EO polemicists have told you that, not because the Catholic Church teaches it.  In fact, the "nature" of the bishop of Rome is no different from that of other bishops - it is an office of teaching and of sanctification, just like the office of other bishops.  The only difference is that he has a greater range of responsibility for the Church than other bishops given to him by Christ as successor of St. Peter who also had that responsibility for the whole Church.  He exercises this responsibility for the entire Church collegially.  Individual bishops can also do this either in the exercise of their Ordinary Magisterium when they teach something definitively and unanimously (or at least in a morally unanimous manner) or in an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium formally in an Ecumenical Council.

Quote from:
If it were so, then the Orthodox Church couldn't have passed any documents at the First Coucil of Constantinople until the Pope ratified it? The fact that the Eastern Churches adopted the Creed of Nicaea as revised at Constantinople even before accepted it is a proof that the Eastern Christians  had no minimal knowledge of such a super-power in Papacy.
The dogmatic decrees of the Second Ecum Council were submitted to the Pope for ratification, so I don't know why you think it was done without the participation of the papacy.  The papacy does not have a "super-power."  That is just a myth perpetuated by anti-Catholics.

Quote from:
Peter made mistakes, and so do his successors.
Not when teaching formally to the entire Church.  Peter erred in practice, not in teaching.

Quote from:
Gregory the Great, a Pope himself, clearly affirmed three coriphei who are equally "successors of Peter".

No. He affirms that the Chair in Rome had the greatest dignity of the three.  In any body of bishops, there is always a head bishop.  Of the three, the head was the bishop of Rome.

Quote from:
I don't embrace the idea that if the four Patriarchates ALTOGETHER rebel to a decision of the Pope they must be heretic as you suggest.
I didn't say they "must" be heretic.  I stated that their orthodoxy is not secure unless it is confirmed by the bishop of Rome, which was considered the standard of orthodoxy in the early Church.

Quote from:
How could a single bishop be Orthodox and all the other be heretic? Is the pope the only true source of doctrine, and the other bishops are there only to repeat his words? Where is it written this in the Bible?
I don't know.  That's not what the dogma of papal infallibility states.  And that's not what I believe. Your arguments are straw men.

Quote from:
The fact that Jesus ordered Peter "to confirm" the other apostles in the faith doesn't mean that he has super-powers, but that Peter has the TASK to do whatever is possible to preserve unity.

Agreed.

Quote from:
Certainly, proclaiming doctrines on his own without an EC doesn't seem a way to confirm this faith and promote unity.

That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Again, another straw man.  You claimed earlier, "I always had more or less the same opinion of it as Mardukm and Athanasios's when I was RC." Obviously, whatever you believed is not what I believe.  I suspect we can come to an understanding on the issue, but you have to be willing to let go of the biased misrepresentations of the papacy that you have imbibed.

Quote from:
As an example I ask you: why did Umberto da Silva Candica excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius on account of the Filioque clause, when now this very same word is not added to the Creed in its Greek form?

The Pope was dead when Cardinal Humbert made his excommunication.  Humbert was only authorized to discuss the issue of unleavened Bread, Cerularius' claim to the title "Ecumenical," and the jurisdiction of Bulgaria.  Filioque was not a problem with the papacy, but with Humbert.

Quote from:
Many of yours - even the Pope - claimed that the Filioque clause is a mistake in Greek but not in Latin. Then, what version of the Creed with Filioque did Uniates sing both in Latin and Greek at the Council of Florence? did they invent some new word for that kind of procession? if not, the Catholic church had imposed an heretic version of the Greek Creed to the Eastern Catholics at the act of Union, and thus both the Council and the Pope are fallible, if not heretic themselves.
Who said that the Greeks were forced to recite the Creed with Filioque after Florence?  Just because there was a misunderstanding due to language doesn't mean there was heresy.  Infallibility does not make you omniscient. Roll Eyes

Quote from:
PS: If Bellarmine's position was such a dangerous heresy, why is he still considered a saint? Shouldn't he be anathematized and thus cancelled from the lists of saints in the Roman Church?
Who said it was a heresy?  You have quite an imagination. Grin

Blessings
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2009, 09:52:42 AM »

That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Again, another straw man.

Do you believe, at present, that the Pope of Rome could infallibly declare a doctrine, ex-cathedra, without the collegial input of the other bishops within the Roman communion?

Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2009, 10:03:07 AM »

Quote
Many of yours - even the Pope - claimed that the Filioque clause is a mistake in Greek but not in Latin. Then, what version of the Creed with Filioque did Uniates sing both in Latin and Greek at the Council of Florence? did they invent some new word for that kind of procession? if not, the Catholic church had imposed an heretic version of the Greek Creed to the Eastern Catholics at the act of Union, and thus both the Council and the Pope are fallible, if not heretic themselves.
Who said that the Greeks were forced to recite the Creed with Filioque after Florence?  Just because there was a misunderstanding due to language doesn't mean there was heresy.  Infallibility does not make you omniscient. Roll Eyes
Now I quote from "The history of the Council of Florence", written by Basil Popoff.
Quote
The opinions of the Bishops were written down. An extract was made from all these opinions, in which it was said : "We believe that the Holy Ghost is ever and essentially from the Father and the Son, ever and essentially proceeds from the Father through the Son." This definition was written down in three copies, one of which was taken by the Emperor, another by the Patriarch, and the third was presented to the Pope. But even the new confession drawn up by the Greeks was not entirely approved by the Latins. The Cardinals demanded that the words, " through the Son" should be omitted in the confession. The Greeks disputed a long while about this; but, at the desire of the Latins, were at last obliged to change these expressions. The confession was re-written, presented to the Pope, and approved by him. On the 8th of June, the confession was read in the presence of the Pope, in Greek and in Latin.
Ignorance of Greek means ignorance of the Holy Scriptures. How can we trust a pope who can't read the Bible and the Fathers of the Church in their original tongue?
Quote
Quote from:
As an example I ask you: why did Umberto da Silva Candica excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius on account of the Filioque clause, when now this very same word is not added to the Creed in its Greek form?

The Pope was dead when Cardinal Humbert made his excommunication.  Humbert was only authorized to discuss the issue of unleavened Bread, Cerularius' claim to the title "Ecumenical," and the jurisdiction of Bulgaria.  Filioque was not a problem with the papacy, but with Humbert.
If the next pope was aware of Humbert's error, he would have convoked a reunion council at the time, which he didn't.

On Bellarmine:
Quote
Quote
PS: If Bellarmine's position was such a dangerous heresy, why is he still considered a saint? Shouldn't he be anathematized and thus cancelled from the lists of saints in the Roman Church?
Who said it was a heresy?  You have quite an imagination. Grin

You wrote some posts ago:
Quote
This view of Bellarmine's was rejected by the Council Fathers at Vatican 1.
To me, a belief rejected is a belief condemned. A belief condemned is heresy, especially when his words invited to papolatry (thinking that the pope was "more then God" is clearly papolatry).

Quote
Quote
Peter made mistakes, and so do his successors.
Not when teaching formally to the entire Church.  Peter erred in practice, not in teaching.
In Latin theology, maybe, but not in Eastern theology where praxis and theology are just two faces of the same medal. When Peter sustained the NECESSITY of circumcision for conversion, he was putting circumcision as equally necessary as baptism in providing salvation and belonging to the church, thus making a theological error.

Quote
The dogmatic decrees of the Second Ecum Council were submitted to the Pope for ratification, so I don't know why you think it was done without the participation of the papacy.  The papacy does not have a "super-power."  That is just a myth perpetuated by anti-Catholics.

He was submitted the decrees for ratification as to every other patriarch. Still, he didn't accept the canon on the elevation of Constantinople as a Patriarchate immediately (Canon III). This decree was never ratified and largely ignored by Popes up to 1215 AD, long after the Schism.

Quote
Quote
You think this view is erroneous just because you think the Pope to be "essentially" different then the other bishops, i.e. that he has an order different by nature then the other bishops.
No. You think that only because EO polemicists have told you that, not because the Catholic Church teaches it.  In fact, the "nature" of the bishop of Rome is no different from that of other bishops - it is an office of teaching and of sanctification, just like the office of other bishops.  The only difference is that he has a greater range of responsibility for the Church than other bishops given to him by Christ as successor of St. Peter who also had that responsibility for the whole Church.  He exercises this responsibility for the entire Church collegially.  Individual bishops can also do this either in the exercise of their Ordinary Magisterium when they teach something definitively and unanimously (or at least in a morally unanimous manner) or in an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium formally in an Ecumenical Council.

No. YOU think that I believe that because of others. I believe it myself... not because I think this is official doctrine, but because it's implied in a certain attitude by Popes. St. Gregory the Great said that even his own successors would have been precursors of Antichrist if they dared to claim a super-authority over the others in the episcopal order. This occured many times in the past, but its peak occured in Vatican I.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2009, 11:05:52 AM »

Ignorance of Greek means ignorance of the Holy Scriptures. How can we trust a pope who can't read the Bible and the Fathers of the Church in their original tongue?
And how can we trust Patriarchs who don't understand Latin and go around making unfounded claims that the Latins were teaching heresy on filioque?  If you want to have a discussion on filioque, go for it.  But not in this thread, please.

Quote from:
Quote from: Mardukm
Quote from: Alexanderof Bergamo
As an example I ask you: why did Umberto da Silva Candica excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius on account of the Filioque clause, when now this very same word is not added to the Creed in its Greek form?

The Pope was dead when Cardinal Humbert made his excommunication.  Humbert was only authorized to discuss the issue of unleavened Bread, Cerularius' claim to the title "Ecumenical," and the jurisdiction of Bulgaria.  Filioque was not a problem with the papacy, but with Humbert.
If the next pope was aware of Humbert's error, he would have convoked a reunion council at the time, which he didn't.
Were the Easterns interested at the time?  Why didn't they ask for one to be convoked?  Seems to me both sides were at fault.

Quote from:
To me, a belief rejected is a belief condemned. A belief condemned is heresy, especially when his words invited to papolatry (thinking that the pope was "more then God" is clearly papolatry)
I don't know if what you claim he stated was actually stated by him.  It could be an invention of polemicists for all I know.  I do know that the Fathers of Vatican 1 had discussed the idea that everything the Pope teaches is infallible, and they rejected it as an erroneous understanding of papal infallibility.  They did not condemn it as heresy.  Besides, as stated, Bellarmine also taught that the Pope has no authority to endanger the Faith.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Peter made mistakes, and so do his successors.
Not when teaching formally to the entire Church.  Peter erred in practice, not in teaching.
In Latin theology, maybe, but not in Eastern theology where praxis and theology are just two faces of the same medal. When Peter sustained the NECESSITY of circumcision for conversion, he was putting circumcision as equally necessary as baptism in providing salvation and belonging to the church, thus making a theological error.
You'd better read Scripture again.  Peter never taught the necessity of circumcision for conversion.  All he did was fail to eat with the Gentiles.  And St. Paul should speak, having actually circumcised Timothy so as not to give offense to the Jews!

Quote from:
Quote from:
The dogmatic decrees of the Second Ecum Council were submitted to the Pope for ratification, so I don't know why you think it was done without the participation of the papacy.  The papacy does not have a "super-power."  That is just a myth perpetuated by anti-Catholics.
He was submitted the decrees for ratification as to every other patriarch.
So what?  You claimed the Pope did not have any participation.  And the facts refute your claim.

Quote from:
Still, he didn't accept the canon on the elevation of Constantinople as a Patriarchate immediately (Canon III).
So what?  It just demonstrates that the Pope was more willing to preserve the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, while the Easterns were more willing to give in to the whims of the Emperor.

Quote from:
This decree was never ratified and largely ignored by Popes up to 1215 AD, long after the Schism.
Actually, it was accepted in 869 A.D. by Rome, because by that time, the Easterns finally gave up the idea that they were second just because they were the "New Rome." They finally came around to Rome's (and Alexandria's) correct understanding that the major Churches obtained their honor and prerogatives from their apostolic establishment, not merely because of geopolitical status.

Quote
Quote
Quote
You think this view is erroneous just because you think the Pope to be "essentially" different then the other bishops, i.e. that he has an order different by nature then the other bishops.
No. You think that only because EO polemicists have told you that, not because the Catholic Church teaches it.  In fact, the "nature" of the bishop of Rome is no different from that of other bishops - it is an office of teaching and of sanctification, just like the office of other bishops.  The only difference is that he has a greater range of responsibility for the Church than other bishops given to him by Christ as successor of St. Peter who also had that responsibility for the whole Church.  He exercises this responsibility for the entire Church collegially.  Individual bishops can also do this either in the exercise of their Ordinary Magisterium when they teach something definitively and unanimously (or at least in a morally unanimous manner) or in an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium formally in an Ecumenical Council.
No. YOU think that I believe that because of others. I believe it myself... not because I think this is official doctrine, but because it's implied in a certain attitude by Popes. St. Gregory the Great said that even his own successors would have been precursors of Antichrist if they dared to claim a super-authority over the others in the episcopal order. This occured many times in the past, but its peak occured in Vatican I.
Vatican 1 made it quite plain and clear that the authority of the Pope cannot stand in the way of the authority of the bishop in his local see.  So whatever fears Pope St. Gregory the Great had does not apply to Vatican 1, no matter how much the papacy is misrepresented by its detractors.

Blessings
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2009, 11:40:30 AM »

Vatican 1 made it quite plain and clear that the authority of the Pope cannot stand in the way of the authority of the bishop in his local see. 

Not everyone at Vatican 1 was so convinced as you are.  Wink
« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 11:40:50 AM by Mickey » Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2009, 11:51:56 AM »

Dear brother Mickey,

Vatican 1 made it quite plain and clear that the authority of the Pope cannot stand in the way of the authority of the bishop in his local see. 

Not everyone at Vatican 1 was so convinced as you are.  Wink
Smiley If everyone at Vatican 1 was not convinced, I wonder how the following ever made it into the Decree:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my borthers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.
Paragraph 5, Decree on Papal Primacy

This paragraph, which was added to the original draft by the efforts of not only the Minority Party, but also many in the Majority Party at Vatican 1, is often overlooked by Catholic and Orthodox polemicists alike.  A few months ago, while debating a monarchial papist over at CAF, I pointed out to him that the Pope cannot override the authority of a bishop in his local diocese, and that this is what Vatican 1 stated.  I was surprised (as it seemed to me he was a knowledgeable Catholic) that he asked me where Vatican 1 said this!

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2009, 12:20:41 PM »

If everyone at Vatican 1 was not convinced, I wonder how the following ever made it into the Decree:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my borthers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.
Paragraph 5, Decree on Papal Primacy

What does "far from standing in the way" actually mean?  Why does it not say that the Pope of Rome may not interfere in the episcopal jurisdiction of another bishop?  This language is vague. Can the Pope of Rome declare a new doctrine, speaking ex-cathedra, without collegiality?  What does paragaph 5 mean in relation to this section from LUMEN GENTIUM:


“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.”

~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25

I also offer this quote from one of the bishops at Vatican 1:

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor the Tradition of the Fathers nor the witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert un-debated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it".
Bishop Francois Le Courtier

« Last Edit: September 30, 2009, 12:27:41 PM by Mickey » Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #54 on: October 01, 2009, 06:57:45 AM »

Dear brother Mickey,

If everyone at Vatican 1 was not convinced, I wonder how the following ever made it into the Decree:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my borthers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.
Paragraph 5, Decree on Papal Primacy

What does "far from standing in the way" actually mean?  Why does it not say that the Pope of Rome may not interfere in the episcopal jurisdiction of another bishop?  This language is vague.
Look up what "interfere" means in an English dictionary, and compare it with the phrase "standing in the way." Is English your first language?  If so, why do you think it is vague?

Quote from:
Can the Pope of Rome declare a new doctrine, speaking ex-cathedra, without collegiality?  What does paragaph 5 mean in relation to this section from LUMEN GENTIUM:
“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.”

The Church also teaches the exact same “submission of mind and will” to the Ordinary Magisterium of the bishops of the Church.  I don’t know how you can claim “no collegiality” from this quote.

 
Quote from:
I also offer this quote from one of the bishops at Vatican 1:

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor the Tradition of the Fathers nor the witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert un-debated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it".
Bishop Francois Le Courtier
Do you know how many hundreds of folio pages actually exist in the official records of Vatican 1?  This claim is simply false.  All the speeches of the Minority bishops are recorded for anyone willing to see.  There was full debate, and freedom was had by all the bishops.  Interestingly, the creation of the commission on postulations was instigated by one of the Minority Party, Bishop Hefele, not "imposed from above." The Commissions themselves had to guard against the extremes of both the Minority and Majority.  What you probably don’t realize is that there were many in the Majority Party who likewise did not completely agree with the Definitions of V1, as they felt it restricted the Pope too much (lucky for us!). But not one bishop caused a schism after the Definitions were passed.  And no “un-debated paragraphs” were inserted in the text of the Decrees, but merely one line in the text of the Decree on the Primacy, which was: “or that he has only the principal part, but not the full plenitude of the supreme power.”  In short, this was the jaundiced and sensationalist report of one bishop of the Minority Party, who was in fact the most vocal opponent among the Minority.  There were actually less than a handful (literally) of bishops who even complained that there was no freedom at the Council (among the 700 who attended, nearly 200 being of the Minority Party). Of course, it is incumbent upon polemicists to exaggerate the matter and make it appear as though this was the general feeling of most of the bishops who attended. 

And, btw, I don't know who gave that translation of the bishop's words, but it's different from my own source.  The last line of that quote should be: "See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our head."

Blessings
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #55 on: October 01, 2009, 07:40:56 AM »

200 bishops versus 500... this is not a low percentage, its... let's do some maths... some 28.5% of bishops contrary to the definitions. Wow... what a large majority that 71.5% of corrupted bishops, mainly from Italy and from the Gesuit Order LOL! And how strange that the highly accultured German and English bishops invoked a further restriction of Papal authority, understanding how risky it was for the authenticity of the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact that the bishops didn't leave the RCC is due to necessity, and not to approval of its decision. Leaving the RCC would have meant losing the ministry, and the few who did it (the Old Catholics) had no sufficient power to contrast the Vatican authority.

Now, I've got a little question for the RCs on this forum. I read that the First Vatican Council has never been 'closed' before the Second Vatican Council. Doesn't this affect the validity of the Council itself? If the single sessions of it had been voted, but the decrees of the Council after his suspension had never been finally approved, were the RCs still bound to believe in Papal Infallibility? In other words: is in the RCC a specific dogma binding even before the end of a council, i.e. in the same moment of its approval by the bishops during the Council? I ask this because in the Orthodox Church - I think - an official definition becomes effective with the final approval of the decrees of the Ecumenical Council (that is its signature by the bishops and the proclamation of the Horos), but not prior to it. I wonder if, for example, the simple approval of Pope Pius IX in the bull Pastor Aeternus was sufficient per se, because in that case there would be a redundancy, having the Pope affirming his own authority before the decrees of the Council were finally approved.

Thanks in advance for your answers and contributions.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #56 on: October 01, 2009, 08:51:43 AM »

200 bishops versus 500... this is not a low percentage, its... let's do some maths... some 28.5% of bishops contrary to the definitions. Wow... what a large majority that 71.5% of corrupted bishops, mainly from Italy and from the Gesuit Order LOL! And how strange that the highly accultured German and English bishops invoked a further restriction of Papal authority, understanding how risky it was for the authenticity of the Roman Catholic Church.
That's a bit dishonest, brother Alexander.  Those numbers do not represent "bishops contrary to the definitions." In truth, there were NO bishops that were contrary to the definitions, as proven by the fact that no episcopal schism resulted from the definitions.  Those numbers represent the estimates at the beginning of the Council.  The numbers I gave was an unoffical estimate given by one of the bishops.  A roll call on January 6, 1870, counted 750 bishops. By April 24, the number was reduced to 677 due to illness, death, and approved leaves.  At the July 13 voting, there were 451 placet, 62 placet juxta modem, 88 non placet.  76 had left; of those 76, 50 were deliberate abstentions. More debate occured, two emendations were adopted, and at the final July 18 voting, there were 533 placet, 2 non placet, and the rest were abstentions.

Quote from:
The fact that the bishops didn't leave the RCC is due to necessity, and not to approval of its decision. Leaving the RCC would have meant losing the ministry, and the few who did it (the Old Catholics) had no sufficient power to contrast the Vatican authority.
Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.

Quote from:
Now, I've got a little question for the RCs on this forum. I read that the First Vatican Council has never been 'closed' before the Second Vatican Council. Doesn't this affect the validity of the Council itself? If the single sessions of it had been voted, but the decrees of the Council after his suspension had never been finally approved, were the RCs still bound to believe in Papal Infallibility? In other words: is in the RCC a specific dogma binding even before the end of a council, i.e. in the same moment of its approval by the bishops during the Council? I ask this because in the Orthodox Church - I think - an official definition becomes effective with the final approval of the decrees of the Ecumenical Council (that is its signature by the bishops and the proclamation of the Horos), but not prior to it. I wonder if, for example, the simple approval of Pope Pius IX in the bull Pastor Aeternus was sufficient per se, because in that case there would be a redundancy, having the Pope affirming his own authority before the decrees of the Council were finally approved.
The First Vatican Council was indeed officially closed.  But it is recognized that not all the matters that were intended to be discussed and voted on had the opportunity to be presented at Council due to its premature closing.  As noted in an earlier post, that the papal prerogatives were basically the only things that made it to the floor (which was not even on the original agenda to begin with), was really due to the disturbances caused by the secular and anti-Catholic media around the world on the issue of the papal prerogatives.  The issue, in short, was forced, but not by the Pope, as many non-Catholic polemicists like to pretend.

Blessings
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #57 on: October 01, 2009, 09:45:07 AM »

Don't see dishonesty and polemics everywhere, I'm just trying to understand how it turned out. I consider that cases such as the bishops of the Minority Party were well aware of the motivations of their oppositions, since I read in full the objections (vehemently accused of heresy and protestantism) of one of the conciliar fathers, bishop Strossmayer, and it's clear that he strongly opposed the positions held at the Council.
Quote
Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.
Everything of what I wrote is MY personal opinion, and I think I'll keep it. Anyway, I think that the Orientals still believed that being under the Pope is more necessary then confessing orthodoxy, as many other bishops at the council did. Afterall, being in union with the Pope means having many advantages, and by that I mean power and money. Come here and see how much welfare have all RC priests in Italy - where Catholicism is partially maintained by the State - and you'll understand how important it could be to stay Catholic, compromising one's faith. RC priests in Italy receive money from the Vatican, a part of which directly comes from the pockets of those who - like my family - prefer giving money to the Church then to the State even if they don't approve of the conduct of the Church. I'm referring specifically to a tax named "8 per mille" through which all citizens have the choice to give the money either to the RCC, to a little series of sects and religions (Orthodoxy is not in the list, while Jehovah's Witnesses are, for example) or to the State. The RC Church has had so much influence in Europe that abandoning it would have meant losing power, money and all the benefits that came with it. Now Italy is one of the last countries where Catholicism is official religion by Constitution, but until the last century Catholic prelates had as much authority in the people's minds as a mayor, if not greater. So I clearly believe that the Vatican I was passed by this will to preserve power, and not for the sake of the Catholic Faith.

I know I'll sound rude, but you just can't understand this well if you don't live in a country where the decisional presence of Catholicism is FORCED even on other Christians, atheists and non-Christians. Here the power - not only as authority, but also as corruption and welfare - of the Roman pontiff and his fellows is so vivid that it can't even be doubted.

Forgive,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #58 on: October 01, 2009, 09:47:20 AM »

LOL! If I stand in your way, you can go around me. It is vague.
Is English your first language?

The Church also teaches the exact same “submission of mind and will” to the Ordinary Magisterium of the bishops of the Church. 

I am familiar with the Orthodox concept of obedience to one's spiritual father.  But where is the info for submission of mind and will to the bishop?
 
This claim is simply false. 
You are mistaken.

In shortThere were actually less than a handful (literally) of bishops who even complained that there was no freedom at the Council (among the 700 who attended, nearly 200 being of the Minority Party).  

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.


The collection of written protests against the dogma of papal infallibility shows how strong was the opposition to it. Sixty-one members wrote that the proposed dogma should be withdrawn and some gave decisive dogmatic and canonic reasons for this; fourteen said that the subject required further investigation; others regarded the proposed dogma as a self-contradictory innovation likely to lead to schism; only 56 were more or less in favour of it.
(The Vatican dogma)



« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 09:48:28 AM by Mickey » Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #59 on: October 01, 2009, 09:51:59 AM »

And, btw, I don't know who gave that translation of the bishop's words, but it's different from my own source.  The last line of that quote should be: "See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our head."
That is from a different quote from the same bishop. And it is very telling of the confusion and dissent that was prevalent at the "council". 
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2009, 09:56:12 AM »

Those numbers represent the estimates at the beginning of the Council. 

Yeah. By the time it ended, many who had been opposed were silenced.  Grin
« Last Edit: October 01, 2009, 09:56:35 AM by Mickey » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2009, 10:01:39 AM »

200 bishops versus 500... this is not a low percentage, its... let's do some maths... some 28.5% of bishops contrary to the definitions. Wow... what a large majority that 71.5% of corrupted bishops, mainly from Italy and from the Gesuit Order LOL! And how strange that the highly accultured German and English bishops invoked a further restriction of Papal authority, understanding how risky it was for the authenticity of the Roman Catholic Church.
That's a bit dishonest, brother Alexander.  Those numbers do not represent "bishops contrary to the definitions." In truth, there were NO bishops that were contrary to the definitions, as proven by the fact that no episcopal schism resulted from the definitions.  Those numbers represent the estimates at the beginning of the Council.  The numbers I gave was an unoffical estimate given by one of the bishops.  A roll call on January 6, 1870, counted 750 bishops. By April 24, the number was reduced to 677 due to illness, death, and approved leaves.  At the July 13 voting, there were 451 placet, 62 placet juxta modem, 88 non placet.  76 had left; of those 76, 50 were deliberate abstentions. More debate occured, two emendations were adopted, and at the final July 18 voting, there were 533 placet, 2 non placet, and the rest were abstentions.

Quote from:
The fact that the bishops didn't leave the RCC is due to necessity, and not to approval of its decision. Leaving the RCC would have meant losing the ministry, and the few who did it (the Old Catholics) had no sufficient power to contrast the Vatican authority.
Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.

Quote from:
Now, I've got a little question for the RCs on this forum. I read that the First Vatican Council has never been 'closed' before the Second Vatican Council. Doesn't this affect the validity of the Council itself? If the single sessions of it had been voted, but the decrees of the Council after his suspension had never been finally approved, were the RCs still bound to believe in Papal Infallibility? In other words: is in the RCC a specific dogma binding even before the end of a council, i.e. in the same moment of its approval by the bishops during the Council? I ask this because in the Orthodox Church - I think - an official definition becomes effective with the final approval of the decrees of the Ecumenical Council (that is its signature by the bishops and the proclamation of the Horos), but not prior to it. I wonder if, for example, the simple approval of Pope Pius IX in the bull Pastor Aeternus was sufficient per se, because in that case there would be a redundancy, having the Pope affirming his own authority before the decrees of the Council were finally approved.
The First Vatican Council was indeed officially closed.  But it is recognized that not all the matters that were intended to be discussed and voted on had the opportunity to be presented at Council due to its premature closing.  As noted in an earlier post, that the papal prerogatives were basically the only things that made it to the floor (which was not even on the original agenda to begin with), was really due to the disturbances caused by the secular and anti-Catholic media around the world on the issue of the papal prerogatives.  The issue, in short, was forced, but not by the Pope, as many non-Catholic polemicists like to pretend.

Blessings

Prematurely closed. LOL.  Vatican I wasn't officially closed until you were about to open Vatican II.  As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander," and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.

IIRC, a number of bishops walked out.  And the only "father" of Vatican I whom the Vatican has canonized, the confessor to the Spanish royal family (what was his stance on the Spanish Inquisition?) stated that he had never heard such heresy as had been uttered in the Council.  I presume he meant those opposed to the Vatican's latest invention.

The Easterners and the Orientals could have returned to the Church.  Indeed many did, and were martyred for it. "And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.' 1) Old Catholic Union, 2) which countries are you talking about, as I don't know of any.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #62 on: October 01, 2009, 10:06:59 AM »

As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander," and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.

Yes. The Keenan Catechism called it "a protestant invention".
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #63 on: October 02, 2009, 06:02:55 AM »

Dear brother Alexander,

Don't see dishonesty and polemics everywhere, I'm just trying to understand how it turned out. I consider that cases such as the bishops of the Minority Party were well aware of the motivations of their oppositions, since I read in full the objections (vehemently accused of heresy and protestantism) of one of the conciliar fathers, bishop Strossmayer, and it's clear that he strongly opposed the positions held at the Council.
Forgive me for presuming polemics on your part.  With respect to bishop Strossmayer, it should be noted that 1) the reservations he made that caused him to be accused of "heresy" and "protestantism" by many of the bishops were actually eventually accepted by the Council; 2) there was a vehemently anti-Council letter that was falsely attributed to him after the Council, a letter which was proven to be a forgery, but which still remained in circulation as late as 1928 in Egypt.  I have little doubt your sources are still citing that forgery as genuine.

Quote
Quote
Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.
Everything of what I wrote is MY personal opinion, and I think I'll keep it. Anyway, I think that the Orientals still believed that being under the Pope is more necessary then confessing orthodoxy, as many other bishops at the council did. Afterall, being in union with the Pope means having many advantages, and by that I mean power and money. Come here and see how much welfare have all RC priests in Italy...So I clearly believe that the Vatican I was passed by this will to preserve power, and not for the sake of the Catholic Faith.
So because the people are willing to support the Church, you interpret that to mean that Catholic priests and bishops are just money-hungry demagogues? I admit I don't understand.

Quote from:
I know I'll sound rude, but you just can't understand this well if you don't live in a country where the decisional presence of Catholicism is FORCED even on other Christians, atheists and non-Christians. Here the power - not only as authority, but also as corruption and welfare - of the Roman pontiff and his fellows is so vivid that it can't even be doubted.
Oh, you mean the same kind of national decisional presence that the Russian Orthodox Church practices.  OK.  So I guess that makes the Eastern Orthodox in general less true, according to your standard, correct?

Quote from:
Forgive,   Alex
There's nothing to forgive, brother.  But I do expect you to not be hypocritical in your judgment of the Catholic Church (see my previous paragraph).

Blessings
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #64 on: October 02, 2009, 06:14:15 AM »

LOL! If I stand in your way, you can go around me. It is vague.
Is English your first language?
So if the Pope is really not standing in the way (according to your principle of "vagueness"), then you really have no basis for a complaint, do you?

Quote from:
The Church also teaches the exact same “submission of mind and will” to the Ordinary Magisterium of the bishops of the Church. 

I am familiar with the Orthodox concept of obedience to one's spiritual father.  But where is the info for submission of mind and will to the bishop?
I'm not sure I understand the question.  Are you asking for info from EO teaching, or CC teaching?
 
Quote from:
This claim is simply false. 
You are mistaken.
Based on the claim of a handful of bishops?  Where's your proof aside from that hearsay?

Quote from:
In shortThere were actually less than a handful (literally) of bishops who even complained that there was no freedom at the Council (among the 700 who attended, nearly 200 being of the Minority Party).  

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.

The collection of written protests against the dogma of papal infallibility shows how strong was the opposition to it. Sixty-one members wrote that the proposed dogma should be withdrawn and some gave decisive dogmatic and canonic reasons for this; fourteen said that the subject required further investigation; others regarded the proposed dogma as a self-contradictory innovation likely to lead to schism; only 56 were more or less in favour of it.
(The Vatican dogma)
So out of a roll call of 750 bishops, 135 did not wish for it to be discussed.  And because it was indeed discussed, then this means there was no freedom at the Council. RIIIIIGHT. Roll Eyes

Blessings
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #65 on: October 02, 2009, 06:16:24 AM »

And, btw, I don't know who gave that translation of the bishop's words, but it's different from my own source.  The last line of that quote should be: "See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our head."
That is from a different quote from the same bishop. And it is very telling of the confusion and dissent that was prevalent at the "council". 
So you call on a "confused" bishop as your witness.  OK.  laugh

Blessings
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #66 on: October 02, 2009, 06:17:35 AM »

Those numbers represent the estimates at the beginning of the Council. 

Yeah. By the time it ended, many who had been opposed were silenced.  Grin
By the Truth and by their conscience.  angel

Blessings
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #67 on: October 02, 2009, 06:20:34 AM »

As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander," and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.

Yes. The Keenan Catechism called it "a protestant invention".
You've seen enough of these debates, brother Mickey.  I'm sure you are aware that non-Catholics love to give caricatures of Catholic teachings.  The doctrine on papal infallibility was also the subject of these inventive caricatures.

Blessings
Logged
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #68 on: October 02, 2009, 06:55:14 AM »

Prematurely closed. LOL.  Vatican I wasn't officially closed until you were about to open Vatican II.
 
Do you know what a prorogation is?  That's what happened with Vatican 1.  All the sessions were officially closed.  There was intention of re-opening it at some future date, and many expected it to be re-opened within a year, actually.  When V2 came to the fore, there was discussion of either re-opening V1, or calling a new Council entirely.  It was decided that an entirely new one be convened.  V1 had already been officially closed since 1870.  What happened before V2 was not a matter of closing V1, but of opening a new Council.

Quote from:
As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander,"

I know.  The caricatures non-Catholics have of papal infallibility are indeed slanderous.

Quote from:
and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.
So what?

Quote from:
IIRC, a number of bishops walked out.  And the only "father" of Vatican I whom the Vatican has canonized, the confessor to the Spanish royal family (what was his stance on the Spanish Inquisition?) stated that he had never heard such heresy as had been uttered in the Council.  I presume he meant those opposed to the Vatican's latest invention.
I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote from:
Quote from:
The Easterners and the Orientals could have returned to the Church.
 
Indeed many did, and were martyred for it.

Really?  Can you be more specific?  There were also many Catholics who were persecuted and martyred during this period in history.

Quote from:
"And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.' 1) Old Catholic Union, 2) which countries are you talking about, as I don't know of any.
  France, England and the U.S. to name a few.  I'm not sure what "the Old Catholic Union" signifies in relation to this topic. They had no bishops so they were not Churches.  To repeat, no bishops caused a schism due to V1.

Blessings
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #69 on: October 02, 2009, 07:21:06 AM »

[qu
Dear brother Alexander,

Don't see dishonesty and polemics everywhere, I'm just trying to understand how it turned out. I consider that cases such as the bishops of the Minority Party were well aware of the motivations of their oppositions, since I read in full the objections (vehemently accused of heresy and protestantism) of one of the conciliar fathers, bishop Strossmayer, and it's clear that he strongly opposed the positions held at the Council.
Forgive me for presuming polemics on your part.  With respect to bishop Strossmayer, it should be noted that 1) the reservations he made that caused him to be accused of "heresy" and "protestantism" by many of the bishops were actually eventually accepted by the Council; 2) there was a vehemently anti-Council letter that was falsely attributed to him after the Council, a letter which was proven to be a forgery, but which still remained in circulation as late as 1928 in Egypt.  I have little doubt your sources are still citing that forgery as genuine.

Quote
Quote
Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.
Everything of what I wrote is MY personal opinion, and I think I'll keep it. Anyway, I think that the Orientals still believed that being under the Pope is more necessary then confessing orthodoxy, as many other bishops at the council did. Afterall, being in union with the Pope means having many advantages, and by that I mean power and money. Come here and see how much welfare have all RC priests in Italy...So I clearly believe that the Vatican I was passed by this will to preserve power, and not for the sake of the Catholic Faith.
So because the people are willing to support the Church, you interpret that to mean that Catholic priests and bishops are just money-hungry demagogues? I admit I don't understand.

Quote from:
I know I'll sound rude, but you just can't understand this well if you don't live in a country where the decisional presence of Catholicism is FORCED even on other Christians, atheists and non-Christians. Here the power - not only as authority, but also as corruption and welfare - of the Roman pontiff and his fellows is so vivid that it can't even be doubted.
Oh, you mean the same kind of national decisional presence that the Russian Orthodox Church practices.  OK.  So I guess that makes the Eastern Orthodox in general less true, according to your standard, correct?

Quote from:
Forgive,   Alex
There's nothing to forgive, brother.  But I do expect you to not be hypocritical in your judgment of the Catholic Church (see my previous paragraph).

Blessings

I'm not citing the letter. I'm quoting directly from the transcription of his discourse during the Council, with the inclusion of the insults from the Majority Party, as you call it. None of the points he makes based on Patristics and Bible have been completely ignored and followed by insults.
I am not accusing all priests and bishops to be "money-hungry demagogues", but since I personally know of an atheist parish priest who stays a Catholic minister for the money (I even heard him blame God's name), and I have seen many priests who insist in demanding money over money to the parishoners saying there's no money enough, and then you can see them travelling around in their ultra-modern car, I can say for experience that too many Catholic priests in Italy are there only for personal interests, or because they take the Catholic Church for a charitable institution and not as a religion. I know this is disgusting, and I also know it's not the same in all parts of the Catholic communion... but I'm sure that the Italian church is heavily deprived, and since afterall Italy is the country where the RCC is based, I know that her attitude will affect soon or later all the Roman communion.

Hatred for corruption, hypocrisy and selfishness in the Italian Church is what made me abandon it as soon as possible. Lots of people are living the churches here out of disgust. Many are even denying God because they can't stand such a corruption. I don't think the RC dogma of Papal Infallibility has been that useful and positive to the Roman Church, afterall.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2009, 08:19:32 AM »

Dear brother Alexander,

I'm not citing the letter. I'm quoting directly from the transcription of his discourse during the Council, with the inclusion of the insults from the Majority Party, as you call it. None of the points he makes based on Patristics and Bible have been completely ignored and followed by insults.
I know English is not your first language.  In your last sentence above, did you mean "NOT ALL of the points he makes...have been completely ignored and followed by insults"?

To be perfectly clear, for those who may have not read the discourse, the big "scene" (as it was popularly known at the Council), was during the general session on the Constitution on the Catholic Faith (not the sessions regarding the papal prerogatives).  The proposed document contained a statement that blamed Protestantism for all the maladies of modernism, including atheism.  Bishop Strossmayer suggested that this statement should be removed, and launched into a "defense" of Protestants (though not a defense of Protestantism) which basically stated that he knew many that were genuine Christians.  This drew accusations of heresy and Protestantism from Council members.  It should be noted Strossmayer may well not have been cognizant of the actual tension between Catholics and Protestants in Western countries.  The next day in session, another bishop repeated the same points that Strossmayer had made, but heads had already cooled by then, and there were no objections.  Strossmayer's suggestions carried the day and the offensive statement about Protestants was removed.

Quote from:
I am not accusing all priests and bishops to be "money-hungry demagogues", but since I personally know of an atheist parish priest who stays a Catholic minister for the money (I even heard him blame God's name), and I have seen many priests who insist in demanding money over money to the parishoners saying there's no money enough, and then you can see them travelling around in their ultra-modern car, I can say for experience that too many Catholic priests in Italy are there only for personal interests, or because they take the Catholic Church for a charitable institution and not as a religion. I know this is disgusting, and I also know it's not the same in all parts of the Catholic communion... but I'm sure that the Italian church is heavily deprived, and since afterall Italy is the country where the RCC is based, I know that her attitude will affect soon or later all the Roman communion.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but in the Catholic Church, there are secular priests, and religious priests.  Secular priests are not required to profess a vow of poverty, but I seriously doubt any make enough money to have an "ultra-modern" car.  Do you know for sure that the car was bought by the priest, and not donated by an appreciative benefactor?  In any case, religious priests cannot own property.  If they were seen in an "ultra-modern" car, it would be the property of the Church, not the priest.  In any case, what do you mean by "ultra-modern" car?  Do you mean the modern fuel-efficient, or hybrid cars?  In any case, there are too many factors to consider, and I don't think you really have a right to judge the whole Church based on your mere perception of a few. 

Btw, here in the U.S., churches have what is known as "tax-exempt" status.  This means (partly) that if someone donates to a church, one can have one's taxes to the government reduced by that amount.  This seems to be the same as what you stated occurs in Italy, but I don't see how one can use that fact to judge the Church.

Quote from:
Hatred for corruption, hypocrisy and selfishness in the Italian Church is what made me abandon it as soon as possible. Lots of people are living the churches here out of disgust. Many are even denying God because they can't stand such a corruption. I don't think the RC dogma of Papal Infallibility has been that useful and positive to the Roman Church, afterall.
So you think the dogma of papal infallibility is supposed to prevent people from sinning?  And your rationale is that if people of a Church sin, then that means the Church isn't the true Church? If that's the case, I don't know why you think the EOC is the true Church.  Don't you know that the country that has the highest abortion rate in the world is Orthodox Russia?  Are you going to judge the Eastern Orthodox Church by that fact?  If you're judging the Catholic Church based on the supposed failure of its leadership to impose a Christian lifestyle, why won't you do the same with the EOC?  I can understand that you detest corruption, but your arguments should not lead to hypocrisy.

Blessings
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #71 on: October 02, 2009, 09:46:49 AM »

So if the Pope is really not standing in the way (according to your principle of "vagueness"), then you really have no basis for a complaint, do you?

You have never answered my question. Is your Pope able to declare an "infallible" doctrine without collegial approval?

Are you asking for info from EO teaching, or CC teaching?

What have you got?
 
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #72 on: October 02, 2009, 09:49:14 AM »

So out of a roll call of 750 bishops, 135 did not wish for it to be discussed.  And because it was indeed discussed, then this means there was no freedom at the Council.

There is plenty of discourse from the unhappy bishops who were silenced. But you have seen it already.  Wink
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #73 on: October 02, 2009, 09:50:32 AM »

So you call on a "confused" bishop as your witness. 

This is your rebuttal? LOL!  laugh
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #74 on: October 02, 2009, 09:55:31 AM »

By the Truth and by their conscience.

By Pope Pius IX and the ultramontanes.  Grin


Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #75 on: October 02, 2009, 09:57:07 AM »

The doctrine on papal infallibility was also the subject of these inventive caricatures.

I do not believe that the Keenan Catechism was invented by the protestants.  Roll Eyes
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #76 on: October 02, 2009, 10:21:42 AM »

The doctrine on papal infallibility was also the subject of these inventive caricatures.

I do not believe that the Keenan Catechism was invented by the protestants.  Roll Eyes
LOL
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #77 on: October 02, 2009, 10:45:26 AM »

Quote
So you think the dogma of papal infallibility is supposed to prevent people from sinning?  And your rationale is that if people of a Church sin, then that means the Church isn't the true Church? If that's the case, I don't know why you think the EOC is the true Church.  Don't you know that the country that has the highest abortion rate in the world is Orthodox Russia?  Are you going to judge the Eastern Orthodox Church by that fact?  If you're judging the Catholic Church based on the supposed failure of its leadership to impose a Christian lifestyle, why won't you do the same with the EOC?  I can understand that you detest corruption, but your arguments should not lead to hypocrisy.
I could never say such a stupid thing. Of course, I was just advancing the opinion that "maybe" the purpose of proclaiming Papal infallibility (i.e. stopping the advance or relativism in its various forms within the Church) hasn't been reached, since you can still find Catholic voices contrary to the the decisions of the Infallible Pope, such as pro-choice Catholics, and are Catholics who refute to accept that limbo has never been an official dogma of the Catholic Church. In other words, while the approach of the Orthodox Church is to SHOW the unbroken tradition - and not to define anything new - since the last 1000 years at least, the RCC is still adding new doctrines - including Papal infallibility - which are the result of speculations. This way, your church has opened a breach for relativism, because few doctrines are easier to be accepted then tons. When you look at the doctrines officially declared in the last millennium by the Catholic Church you can find:
Filioque
Papal Primacy
Transubstantiation
Purgatory
Papal Infallibility
Immaculate Conception
Assumption

All these doctrines outnumber the only three doctrines established by the first Seven Councils common to Orthodoxy, i.e. Holy Trinity, dyophysism and veneration of icons. Also, the necessity of the latest Latin doctrines isn't so essential. The Filioque in the Greek text (according to the Pope's words) is useless and even erroneous, so it could have been avoided introducing a more accurate translation of the Greek Creed. Papal Primacy as a "primus inter pares" or as a "corypheus" was already a doctrine of the church (according to RC theology) long before its declaration. Transubstantiation, while accurete as it might be, was menaced by no real contrary theological solution (a "real presence" would have been more then sufficient). Purgatory, as long as you witness prayers for the dead, is a doubtful and even useless doctrine: prayers for the dead were never doubted by Christians except by some pre-protestant sects (the Waldenians for example) of little interest before the rise of Protestantism. Papal Infallibility, once established Papal primacy, was of no use, because the Magisterium was already held as infallible in itself. Immaculate Conception is just a "Latin" definition, since its concepts are foreign to the other half of Catholicism (the Easteners) who can easily accept its conclusions (that Mary was always all-immaculate) but not its premises (that she was thus created by God). Finally, the Assumption is even more useless, since a feast of that name already existed in the liturgical tradition of the Latin Church.
In other words, what I mean is that you (=Catholics) claim Papal infallibility to be necessary, but everything the authority of the Pope has brought is a list of minor doctrines of no use and which made more divisions with their legalistic definitions then their simple affirmation by Tradition. I don't understand how the ministry of the Pope can be seen as an instrument of union, once seen its effects.

Quote
I know English is not your first language.  In your last sentence above, did you mean "NOT ALL of the points he makes...have been completely ignored and followed by insults"?

To be perfectly clear, for those who may have not read the discourse, the big "scene" (as it was popularly known at the Council), was during the general session on the Constitution on the Catholic Faith (not the sessions regarding the papal prerogatives).  The proposed document contained a statement that blamed Protestantism for all the maladies of modernism, including atheism.  Bishop Strossmayer suggested that this statement should be removed, and launched into a "defense" of Protestants (though not a defense of Protestantism) which basically stated that he knew many that were genuine Christians.  This drew accusations of heresy and Protestantism from Council members.  It should be noted Strossmayer may well not have been cognizant of the actual tension between Catholics and Protestants in Western countries.  The next day in session, another bishop repeated the same points that Strossmayer had made, but heads had already cooled by then, and there were no objections.  Strossmayer's suggestions carried the day and the offensive statement about Protestants was removed.
You got the meaning, but I read Strossmayer's discourse and (except for the innuendo of the other bishops) there was no reference of Protestantism at all. The issue analysed was Papal infallibility. At this point, anyway, I might think that many bishops insulted Strossmayer on the base of his previous assertions on Protestantism, too.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #78 on: October 02, 2009, 01:27:29 PM »

Prematurely closed. LOL.  Vatican I wasn't officially closed until you were about to open Vatican II.
 
Do you know what a prorogation is?  That's what happened with Vatican 1.  All the sessions were officially closed.  There was intention of re-opening it at some future date, and many expected it to be re-opened within a year, actually.  When V2 came to the fore, there was discussion of either re-opening V1, or calling a new Council entirely.  It was decided that an entirely new one be convened.  V1 had already been officially closed since 1870.  What happened before V2 was not a matter of closing V1, but of opening a new Council.

So the closing of VI was as vague as the dogma it invented.  How nice.

As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander,"

I know.  The caricatures non-Catholics have of papal infallibility are indeed slanderous.

And the explanations that Ultramontane apologists have offered are indeed laughable.

and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.
So what?

So the fact that the leading scholar of the Vatican on dogma had to revampt his compendium of the same shows how novel the invented dogma was.

IIRC, a number of bishops walked out.  And the only "father" of Vatican I whom the Vatican has canonized, the confessor to the Spanish royal family (what was his stance on the Spanish Inquisition?) stated that he had never heard such heresy as had been uttered in the Council.  I presume he meant those opposed to the Vatican's latest invention.
I'm not sure what your point is.

That the rosey portrayal you are offering on the "consensus" of Vatican I is what we at the University of Chicago would call the residue of the gastrointestinal workings of the male bovine.

The Easterners and the Orientals could have returned to the Church.
 
Indeed many did, and were martyred for it.

Really?  Can you be more specific?
 

Why, of course I can: for example St. Maksym Sandovych.
http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/lemkos/maksym.htm

We have dealt with this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358
Quote
In the 1890s, 145 years after Orthodoxy had ceased to exist in the Carpathians, a 'return to Orthodoxy' movement began, reaching a high point in the 1920s. Many Greek Catholics who became Orthodox were arrested for treason and a few were even executed by the government, with the Talerhof Concentration Camp5 and Martyr-Priest Maxim Sandovich's death in 1914 being the best known incidents...
Quote
Currently, Orthodox believers are outraged at the impending construction of a new Roman and Greek Catholic cathedral complex in the vicinity of the Orthodox cathedral. So, they announced they would erect another church of their own in downtown Uzhgorod, right in front of the original Greek Catholic cathedral, tit-for-tat. The new church will be consecrated after St. Alexei Kabalyuk, a Rusyn Orthodox hero. Kabalyuk was born into a Greek Catholic family but converted to Orthodoxy, became a priest and played a major role in reviving Orthodoxy in Transcarpathia in the early 20th century. On the eve of WWI, Kabalyuk was jailed, and later was a major leader of the Carpathian Orthodox until his death in 1947....

I thought I had posted somewhere about the Romanians in submission and the Transylvanian Memorandum, a result where the Union of Three Nations and Edict of Turda (1568, the one in 1366 ordered the expulsion or extermination of the "schismatic Vlachs." The Vatican's census of Transylvania in 1332 showed over 90% of the population was "schismatic Vlachs" i.e. Orthodox Romanians) where the the Calvinists, Lutherans, Unitarians had official standing, but the Romanians in submission were just "tolerated":  In 1892 the Romanians in Transylvania, led by those in submission to Rome, petitioned Emperor-King Franz Josef in the Transylvanian Memorandum to stop the persecution, disenfranchizement and Magyarization of all Romanians in Transyvania (submitted or Orthodox). Franz Josef sent it to Budapest, who tried its signers for "the treason of homeland betral" in Cluj (i.e. on Romanian soil) and sentenced them, including those in submission to the Vatican, to long prison terms. Many lived on to take part in the assembly of Alba Iulia, Transylvania (also where the church you are speaking for came into being) which proclaimed reunion with the rest of Romania. Communist Hungary responded by trying to reconquer Transylvania.  The Romanian Orthodox were confined to one bishop (Sibiu/Hermanstadt: the fact that it was a German Free city had a role in the possibility of the Orthodox having a bishop) in Transylvania.  That was only just before Vatican I, and only because the policy of extermination and suppression hadn't put a dent in the Romanian Orthodox population, and an independent Romanian Orthodox Kingdom was forming on the southern border.


Quote
There were also many Catholics who were persecuted and martyred during this period in history.

There were many followers of the Vatican who were persecuting and making martyrs of the Orthodox in this period in history.
"And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.'
1) Old Catholic Union, 2) which countries are you talking about, as I don't know of any.
France, England and the U.S. to name a few. 

Oh, you mean countries where the temporal sword a la Unam Sanctam was not in the employ of the spiritual sword of the Vatican, to force submission. How more convenient did the Lefebrists find it?


Quote
I'm not sure what "the Old Catholic Union" signifies in relation to this topic. They had no bishops so they were not Churches.  To repeat, no bishops caused a schism due to V1.

Then maybe you can explain why the Vatican recognizes the Old Catholic orders?
http://www.churchofthebeatitudes.org/id8.html
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 01:29:12 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #79 on: October 03, 2009, 05:49:15 AM »

The priests, faithful and theologians who built the Old Catholic Church have found their movement in a valid apostolic succession under the archbishopric of Utrecht, which was a sort of "sui iuris" church since they had their own Chapter for the election of bishops and archbishops without the consent of the Pope. After they began to protect the Jansenists escaping from persecution in France, the Pope excommunicated the Archbishop of Utrecht, and the local church entered into schism during the 18th century. It is from this episcopal line that the Old Catholics have received their episcopal orders in a way even the Roman Catholic Church couldn't put in doubt.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #80 on: October 14, 2012, 05:40:21 PM »

Here are the Ex Cathedra statements that I am aware of:

Assumption: Pope Pius XII - Munificentissimus Deus (Nov. 1, 1950)
Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX - Ineffabilis Deus (Dec. 8, 1854)
Beatific Vision:  Pope Benedict XII - Benedictus Deus (1336)

There is a controversy whether Unam Sanctam is an ex cathedra statement. This bull, proclaimed by Boniface VIII in 1302, contains the following statement.

Quote
Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. [...] Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other. [...] Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

The wording of the definition is not very different from the one of Ineffabilis Deus:

Quote
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Some progressive Roman Catholic theologians say that Unam Sanctam does not fit the ex cathedra requirements because it was written out of anger towards King Philip le Bel of France!
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
Tags: Papal Infallibility 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.366 seconds with 108 queries.