OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 07:20:29 PM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Pope Paradox  (Read 801 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« on: September 13, 2009, 10:40:33 AM »

The Pope is theologically infallible.
If the Pope says that he is not, based on his infallibility, he is correct.
Which means, since he is correct, that he really is fallible.
His statement about being fallible is true, then he may be infallible.
But he said that he is fallible, which in the case of it not being true, he is fallible.

This can go on forever. Roll Eyes

Did any Pope ever said anything against Papal Infallibility? What will happen if any will? Tongue
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2009, 11:39:49 AM »

Did any Pope ever said anything against Papal Infallibility? What will happen if any will? Tongue

Some examples of Popes who believed that Popes could teach heresy...

Pope Innocent III:

 “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Sermo 4)

Pope Pius IX:

“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

 Pope Adrian VI:

 “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (died 1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908).*

 Pope Adrian II:

 “We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offence which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.
Source

 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2009, 05:19:03 PM »

The Pope is theologically infallible.
If the Pope says that he is not, based on his infallibility, he is correct.
Which means, since he is correct, that he really is fallible.
His statement about being fallible is true, then he may be infallible.
But he said that he is fallible, which in the case of it not being true, he is fallible.

This can go on forever. Roll Eyes

Did any Pope ever said anything against Papal Infallibility? What will happen if any will? Tongue

The Ultramontanists will employ Jesuitry to explain it away.

The fact remains that trying to identify when he speaks "ex cathedra" resembles trying to nail jello.  Before 1870 they explain away all sorts of corners of dogma that the "supeme pontiffs" have, well, cornered themselves in.


Pope Leo III banned the filioque, and nailed the Creed in its Orthodox form on St. Peter's and St. Paul's outside the wall.  Pope Leo IX sends his cardinal to force the Orthodox to recite the filioque.

The whole mess of the Cadaver Synod, which, as I've recently pointed out, involved the issue of the Eighth Ecumenical Council.
Looking through Dvornik, I came across this:
Quote
At all events, Formosus upheld the legitimacy of Photius' rehabilitation by John VIII and by the Council of 879-80, so that the ordinations made by Photius under his patriarchate were not only valid, but also licit and there was no reason for reconsidering them.
p. 254
http://books.google.com/books?id=X_A8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=john%20viii&f=false

This has major implications.



Formosus was dug up and deposed by his successor, who was deposed by his successor and Formosus exonerated, but then his successor dug Formosus up again and deposed him etc.

With all the alternating depositions post mortem, a major question was that they considered the deposed's ordinations and other acts void.

Now the problem is that the Vatican now considers Constantinople IV 869 an Ecumenical Council.  But Formosus evidently (with John VIII) considered Constantinople IV 879, valid, which voided 869.  With Formus' acts voided, 869 would be valid; whenever Formosus was exonerated, 879 was valid. Hence we have a string of pope contradicting themselves ex cathedra on who sat on the cathedra, and hence which was an Ecumenicl Council, and hence a matter of faith and morals which Vatican I claims the pope can never deviate.

Btw, it's been discussed before.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3699.msg48962.html#msg48962
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14726.msg212667.html#msg212667





Then there is the whole Pope Honorius, who was a heretic (the Ultramontanists never tire of trying to split hairs over that one, but that great supporter of the Orthodox, the old "Catholic Encyclopedia" says it best:
Quote
It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned


The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.

Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the emperor, but was restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council condemned him, but that he substituted "Honorius" for "Theodorus" in the Acts. This theory has frequently been shown to be untenable.

Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecumenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox (true enough; but, in a definition of faith, surely the words are of primary importance); the council judged Honorius by his words, and condemned him simply as a Monothelite; Leo II accepted and confirmed the condemnation by the council, but, in doing so, he carefully defined in what sense the condemnation was to be understood. These views of Hefele's, which he put forth with edifying modesty and submission as the best explanation he could give of what had previously seemed to him a formidable difficulty, have had a surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Vatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment (so Jungmann and many controversialists).
btw
Chapman, J. (1910). Pope Honorius I. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved September 13, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

The discovery of the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum made Honorius rehabilitation impossible for Pastor Aeternas.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09215c.htm
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

it can go on and on and on

Not totally on point, but fun nonetheless is Pope Pius II forbidding mass to be said for Pope Alexander VI because "It is blasphemous to pray for the damned."  Wrong there too.

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2009, 06:11:57 PM »

Quote
Furthermore, there is no list of infallible papal statements (only a list of criteria which may apply to an unspecified number of proclamations),
http://orthodoxanswers.org/catholicorthodoxdebate2.asp

nailed it.
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
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2009, 06:52:44 PM »

Don't they say that he has to be speaking "ex cathedra" to be infallible? I'm not really sure how he does this, but that's what i've always heard.
Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,069



« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2009, 06:58:48 PM »

Fr. Anastasios has a wonderful article posted on this website entitled "The Vatican Dogma" by Sergei Bulgakov.  If you go to the top of the screen there should be a link called "Articles".  On my computer you have to click the link once and let it take you to another page and then you have to click it again to get to the actual articles.  Anyway, it explains Papal Infallibility quite well.  After reading it, my sympathies for Rome quickly disappeared. 
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 06:59:33 PM by Seth84 » Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
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 #6 on: September 13, 2009, 08:43:47 PM »

Fr. Anastasios has a wonderful article posted on this website entitled "The Vatican Dogma" by Sergei Bulgakov.  If you go to the top of the screen there should be a link called "Articles".  On my computer you have to click the link once and let it take you to another page and then you have to click it again to get to the actual articles.  Anyway, it explains Papal Infallibility quite well.  After reading it, my sympathies for Rome quickly disappeared. 

I have Fr. Bulgakov's book titled "The Vatican Dogma" and it's a very compelling piece against the validity of Vatican I and later Catholic denials of the validity of the Councils of Constance and Basel. Whither his arguments are objective is debatable. Regardless, I think even most Roman Catholics disagree with Ultramontanist declaration of the Pope's position as an authority of the Church as it clearly understood by the Council of Vatican II. Part of my problem with Orthodox apologetics is that often they are against a Roman Catholic Church that simply does exist anymore if ever. To argue that the Roman Church has a long history and not all of that history illumines an 'inspired' Church of God seems to be very compelling to Roman Catholic converts from Rome who have been poorly catechized into a unique/specific Roman Catholic identity. I feel like everything else is a bit like window dressing.

For those who want to understand a 'comtemporary' presentation of Western Ecclesiology by Pope Benedict XVI you need look no further than the first chapter of Church, Ecumenism, & Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology.
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.”
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.059 seconds with 34 queries.