OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 27, 2014, 07:36:40 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?  (Read 23852 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #360 on: September 12, 2010, 01:28:11 AM »

Humanae Vitae (Human Life) was an encyclical of Pope Paul VI. An encyclical is not Ex Cathedra, yet many consider the Pope's words to be prophetic. I think that many Catholics and other Christians would truly benefit form this encyclical. Whether a Catholic adheres to Humanae Vitae or not is another issue. Yet, many (in their own personal opinons) consider this encyclical to be prophetic.

It's a bit of a dead duck in the water and generally ignored by Catholics.   The US Conference of Catholic Bishops estimate that 2% to 3% of married Catholics use NFP and the remainder use methods of contraception considered gravely sinful and condemned by their Church.
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #361 on: September 12, 2010, 01:42:39 AM »

Humanae Vitae (Human Life) was an encyclical of Pope Paul VI. An encyclical is not Ex Cathedra, yet many consider the Pope's words to be prophetic. I think that many Catholics and other Christians would truly benefit form this encyclical. Whether a Catholic adheres to Humanae Vitae or not is another issue. Yet, many (in their own personal opinons) consider this encyclical to be prophetic.

It's a bit of a dead duck in the water and generally ignored by Catholics.   The US Conference of Catholic Bishops estimate that 2% to 3% of married Catholics use NFP and the remainder use methods of contraception considered gravely sinful and condemned by their Church.
I actually wish it were Ex Cathedra. Another thing, I actually thought that Orthodox Christians had a stricter adhereness to tradition concerning this matter.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).


http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #362 on: September 12, 2010, 02:06:38 AM »

[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

Quote
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Two issues here of course, contraception through drugs and abortion through tight binding.

Quote
Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

Saint Augustine covers several points here but I notice he condemns NFP since intercourse is often timed using NFP techniques when conception is not possible and in this way couples are pursing their intent of obstructing procreation but enjoying sex, something seen by Augustine as pure lust..
« Last Edit: September 12, 2010, 02:08:23 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #363 on: September 12, 2010, 02:23:20 AM »


I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.
Arians saw "new doctrines" at Nicea. The OO's saw "new doctrines" being introduced at Chalcedon. Nestorians saw "new doctrines"  at Ephesus.

Actually, Chalcedon wasn't exactly "new doctrine" from an OO perspective. It was more so a blending of orthodoxy and Nestorianism, neither of which were terribly new doctrines at that point.

Anyway, what is your point?
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
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: 38,171



« Reply #364 on: September 12, 2010, 07:44:42 AM »

Humanae Vitae (Human Life) was an encyclical of Pope Paul VI. An encyclical is not Ex Cathedra, yet many consider the Pope's words to be prophetic. I think that many Catholics and other Christians would truly benefit form this encyclical. Whether a Catholic adheres to Humanae Vitae or not is another issue. Yet, many (in their own personal opinons) consider this encyclical to be prophetic.

It's a bit of a dead duck in the water and generally ignored by Catholics.   The US Conference of Catholic Bishops estimate that 2% to 3% of married Catholics use NFP and the remainder use methods of contraception considered gravely sinful and condemned by their Church.
I actually wish it were Ex Cathedra. Another thing, I actually thought that Orthodox Christians had a stricter adhereness to tradition concerning this matter.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).


http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

This is alwasy interesting:
Quote
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis.  The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman.  That is not what Onan did.  He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.

Quote
Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
So we resort to the argument from silence....

You missed some quotes:
Quote
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).
Seems Lactanius wouldn't care much for NFP.

Quote
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

This use of castration as a support of HV is interesting, as I've never come across someone using castration as a form of birth control on themselves.  There were various pagan and gnostic reasons for it, none directly as some form of castration.

Btw, on St. Clement, he evidently agreed with the theory of humunculus, the idea that semsn had a person in it, so spilling seed would be starving a person already here, i.e. abortion. Such, as we now know, is not the case. If it were, every father would be a man who devours his children, with the constant reabsortion that goes on without ejaculation. Serious reprecussions for the celibates like Lactanius and Jerome.
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
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: 38,171



« Reply #365 on: September 12, 2010, 07:49:40 AM »

[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods, and far, far better than coitus interruptus. The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

When used to conceived, it's success rate is also very high.
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
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: 38,171



« Reply #366 on: September 12, 2010, 08:40:41 AM »

All of these particular statements are true to this day, and the language of the dogmatic constitution elevating the status of primacy and infallibility uphold my assertion.

So I have no idea
I am afraid that is true. freedom is slavery.

Enslavement to God is freedom!!  The only true freedom possible.

That I may be enslaved to Christ the King!
Yes, that is true (my name means "Slave of Christ"), but that has nothing to do with the Curia of "truth."

It is rather amusing to watch Winston Cardinal Smith at work, but it can make you dizzy.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #367 on: September 12, 2010, 08:47:14 AM »

[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods,


The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #368 on: September 12, 2010, 09:20:44 AM »

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


Assuming your figure is correct, what's 2% of a billion? Another big number? Like 20,000,000?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
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: 38,171



« Reply #369 on: September 12, 2010, 09:22:29 AM »

[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods,


The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?

oddly enough, the vast majority of those using NFP are not subject to the Vatican.  I know plenty of Orthodox and Protestants (and I've heard of non-Christians) who use it (or so they say: I don't check).
A small study which included a small number it seems of Evangelicals
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193
« Last Edit: September 12, 2010, 09:26:24 AM 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #370 on: September 12, 2010, 09:51:23 AM »

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


Assuming your figure is correct, what's 2% of a billion? Another big number? Like 20,000,000?

Please see message 14 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25065.msg389501.html#msg389501
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #371 on: September 12, 2010, 10:06:00 AM »

oddly enough, the vast majority of those using NFP are not subject to the Vatican.  I know plenty of Orthodox and Protestants (and I've heard of non-Christians) who use it (or so they say: I don't check).
A small study which included a small number it seems of Evangelicals
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193

Not sure how much I would go with what this woman is contending:

The converse side of what she is claiming is that couples not using NFP as their form of contraception

- have a high divorce rate;
- experience less happy marriages;
- are les happy and less satisfied in their everyday lives;
- have considerably less marital relations;
- share a deeper intimacy with spouse than those who contracept;
- realize a shallower  level of communication with spouse;
- have relatively smaller families with fewer children;
- are appreciably less religious and attend church less often;
- incorporate prayer less in their daily lives;
- do no rely strongly on the teachings of the Church, the Bible and Almighty God;
- are personally less happy;
- do not have strong traditional, social, and moral views;
- preserve the family unit less responsibly than the other groups;.
- are ikely to have had an abortion;
- are likely to have cohabitated;
- are likely to work full time;
- are likely to be supportive of and to engage in sex outside of marriage;
_____________________

I must say, with 30 years of pastoral experience, than many of these factors do NOT apply to Orthodox married couples using birth control.  We must form a unique subset in society?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #372 on: September 12, 2010, 10:15:05 AM »

We just do not have the flexibility to performed the necessary mental gymnastics.

This is abundantly clear to us. 

Another difficult concept to play with:

When it is said that the pope can speak without the bishops, what that MEANS is that if the bishops in the Church today, for example, all said that women could be ordained, then the Pope, speaking with the voice of the universal Church for all time could say "No!" and be speaking authoritatively with the bishops of yesterday, and without the bishops of today.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #373 on: September 12, 2010, 10:15:05 AM »

This document and letter should address your questions Father Ambrose.  Wyatt and Papist are not wrong in taking exception to Orthodox interpretations of the doctrines in question.

There really doesn't need to be much more said than is said in these documents.  There's no real point in saying much else in any event.

M.



I must say, I am not that shocked to see that a catechism actually declared that the Pope is not infallible before infallibility was defined. Before the Immaculate Conception was defined there were people who believed it and people who didn't, and that is fully acceptable before something is dogmatically defined. I know that is strange to Eastern Orthodoxy but that is the way it works for us.

[

Yes, Wyatt, you have a point, and one we as Orthodox often forget.

1.  The Orthodox receive their faith through the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.  Up until the Bull Munificentissimus Deus Catholics were quite entitled to deny that Mary the Mother of God was assumed into heaven, just as they had been able to deny she was immaculately conceived.  Ditto for the Pope's infallibility - until 1870 nobody really knew if he were infallible or not.

The two most egregious errors here are:

1. There is no great divide or rupture between the font of sacred Tradition and the Magesterial charge to go and make disciples [teaching the people of all nations].  So your first premises are false and so your conclusions cannot help but be spurious.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

Quote
1. From her very beginning, the Church has professed faith in the Lord, crucified and risen, and has gathered the fundamental contents of her belief into certain formulas. The central event of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, expressed first in simple formulas and subsequently in formulas that were more developed,1 made it possible to give life to that uninterrupted proclamation of faith, in which the Church has handed on both what had been received from the lips of Christ and from his works, as well as what had been learned "at the prompting of the Holy Spirit."2

The same New Testament is the singular witness of the first profession proclaimed by the disciples immediately after the events of Easter: "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve."3

2. In the course of the centuries, from this unchangeable nucleus testifying to Jesus as Son of God and as Lord, symbols witnessing to the unity of the faith and to the communion of the churches came to be developed. In these, the fundamental truths which every believer is required to know and to profess were gathered together. Thus, before receiving Baptism, the catechumen must make his profession of faith. The Fathers too, coming together in Councils to respond to historical challenges that required a more complete presentation of the truths of the faith or a defense of the orthodoxy of those truths, formulated new creeds which occupy "a special place in the Church's life"4 up to the present day. The diversity of these symbols expresses the richness of the one faith; none of them is superseded or nullified by subsequent professions of faith formulated in response to later historical circumstances.

3. Christ's promise to bestow the Holy Spirit, who "will guide you into all truth," constantly sustains the Church on her way.5 Thus, in the course of her history, certain truths have been defined as having been acquired though the Holy Spirit's assistance and are therefore perceptible stages in the realization of the original promise. Other truths, however, have to be understood still more deeply before full possession can be attained of what God, in his mystery of love, wished to reveal to men for their salvation.6

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. The idea that there are "non-codified" magisterial teachings from the sacred font of Tradition that need not be believed for any reason, is a false assertion about the Catholic Church's teaching source, which is the same as her teaching authority, Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

Quote
1) first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the "infallible Magisterium" and the "fallible Magisterium".

In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the <depositum fide>), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly "defined" by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council. Whenever the Bishops dispersed in their individual Dioceses in communion with the Successor of Peter teach a truth to be held in a definitive way (cf. <Lumen gentium>, n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope's <ex cathedra> Magisterium or that of a Council.
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #374 on: September 12, 2010, 10:19:01 AM »

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


Assuming your figure is correct, what's 2% of a billion? Another big number? Like 20,000,000?

Please see message 14 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25065.msg389501.html#msg389501

I don't see have it's relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion isn't how widespread the use. The conclusion is those 20-30 million-ish people have a better success rate than a separate group. I'm arguing the statistic,  not the validity.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #375 on: September 12, 2010, 10:26:07 AM »


As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

Well I am not sure how you can sit there and say they don't understand what you've written here because their Church teaches the same thing....precisely the same thing.

What happens is that the Catholic Church says that ALL of the doctrine that Orthodoxy denies that the Catholic Church confirms is truth and is found in Tradition.

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all.  Some will grant the filioque is not heretical.  Others will call it the arch heresy.   Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on and on and there are no two people in a day who give me the same list, and sometimes if I am around them long enough the list changes.

So if I believe in development of doctrine in the same language that you've offered it here and I understand what my Church doctrine means and its genesis AND I can distinguish doctrine from discipline, mutable from immutable...do you really think I can take Orthodoxy's multitude of characterizations of the heretical Roman seriously?   

I take it seriously because it keeps us from being in communion...absolutely!!  That is quite serious.

But do I feel spiritually challenged or threatened by the kinds of things I encounter here?  Does my understanding of Catholic doctrine waiver?  Not in the least.

In fact, watching the false and misleading characterizations of my faith serves to strengthen it far more than had I just stayed in a Catholic Cocoon. 

So that keeps me from having a real problem but it does nothing to advance the efforts to find a way out of schism.

Mary

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #376 on: September 12, 2010, 11:28:48 AM »


It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all. 


We are seeing this now come under the microscope.  Thanks to the Greek insistence at Belgrade 2006, Ravenna 2007 and Cyprus 2009 that there exists a "global protos" in Orthodoxy (the Patriarch of Constantinople) and a "universal Bishop" (the Pope of Rome) in the future combined Catholic-Orthodox Church the matter now cannot be left on the back burner.  Russia especially strenuously denies these Greek contentions.  It will be intriguing to see what is said at Vienna this month.

I recall that Russia spent 3 years preparing a document which, inter alia, speaks against any form of universal primacy and this was distributed to all delegates on Cyprus last year.  But it has been kept successfully embargoed.  Let us hope that Vienna will see its release.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #377 on: September 12, 2010, 11:31:54 AM »


Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on


I hope that in my parish they are all better educated than to make these issues of such importance as the Orthodox whom you know.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #378 on: September 12, 2010, 11:37:14 AM »

[
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Both of our Churches quite ignore this and allow married men to waste their seed and enjoy vain ejaculations into the vagina during the periods when the wife cannot conceive.

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods,


The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Quote
The success rate of marriages, however, that use it over other methods, is also far, far higher.

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


That conclusion is reached because the study that you cite endlessly is faulty.  That has been pointed out to you endlessly in other venues, yet you continue to use it.  It does not matter who did the survey or for whom, which is your general response to any criticism.  A rather weak response indeed. 

What matters is that the survey is very limited in its population N in that it surveys a very very narrow range of people in their child bearing years.  The 2-3 percent figure measures newly married couples...doh!...many of whom are seeking to have children and have no real perceived need...yet....to be using NFP to conceive.   There are other considerations of the survey as well but there's no real point in spending more time on it.

Oh well...have fun!!

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #379 on: September 12, 2010, 12:13:19 PM »

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


That conclusion is reached because the study that you cite endlessly is faulty.  That has been pointed out to you endlessly in other venues, yet you continue to use it.


Mary, you are verging on deceiving forum members because you have been informed a number of times that the statistics come from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) -from the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #380 on: September 12, 2010, 02:44:21 PM »

Given that a mere 2-3% of married Catholics use NFP I am not sure how that conclusion is reached?


That conclusion is reached because the study that you cite endlessly is faulty.  That has been pointed out to you endlessly in other venues, yet you continue to use it.


Mary, you are verging on deceiving forum members because you have been informed a number of times that the statistics come from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) -from the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for NFP and the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.


I think I just said that you focus on who did the survey for whom, rather than on the contents of the survey and how the manipulation of the data and the population N and source has direct impact on the percentage that you wave about.

So no, I am not deceiving you or anyone else.  I am looking at the data and seeing is limits.

And furthermore a valid and moral precept observed in the breach is no less a valid and moral precept.

I would expect you to know that axiomatically as a priest and a monk.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,438


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #381 on: September 13, 2010, 01:06:00 PM »

.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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: 38,171



« Reply #382 on: September 13, 2010, 02:10:30 PM »


As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

Well I am not sure how you can sit there and say they don't understand what you've written here because their Church teaches the same thing....precisely the same thing.

What happens is that the Catholic Church says that ALL of the doctrine that Orthodoxy denies that the Catholic Church confirms is truth and is found in Tradition.

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all.  Some will grant the filioque is not heretical.  Others will call it the arch heresy.   Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on and on and there are no two people in a day who give me the same list, and sometimes if I am around them long enough the list changes.
Funny, we get the same malleable list of what are ex cathedra statements.

Quote
So if I believe in development of doctrine in the same language that you've offered it here and I understand what my Church doctrine means and its genesis AND I can distinguish doctrine from discipline, mutable from immutable...do you really think I can take Orthodoxy's multitude of characterizations of the heretical Roman seriously?

I take it seriously because it keeps us from being in communion...absolutely!!  That is quite serious.

But do I feel spiritually challenged or threatened by the kinds of things I encounter here?  Does my understanding of Catholic doctrine waiver?  Not in the least.

In fact, watching the false and misleading characterizations of my faith serves to strengthen it far more than had I just stayed in a Catholic Cocoon.


Quote
  So that keeps me from having a real problem but it does nothing to advance the efforts to find a way out of schism.
The door is open. If you don't want to walk through it, that's your decision.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,013



« Reply #383 on: September 13, 2010, 02:56:55 PM »

.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.

Of course it is indeed a heretical position. That is what we see when we read the dogma stated as "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

It is precisely because he is the Roman Pontiff that he can speak ex cathedra. Notice that this definition does not say that the Pope is infallible when he enunciates a doctrine that all have believed from the Apostles on; it says "he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church."  I do not care is he does it many times, once or at no time. It is this "heretical monstrosity" as you call it that is at issue. Y'all have defined the Bishop of Rome to have special authority above any other bishop; y'all have declared him to have universal jurisdiction contra anything in the Holy Scriptures, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers; indeed, the Holy Tradition that we all adhered to over 7-8 centuries (at least); y'all have come up with this illogical "authority" of being somehow infallible as if the Bishop of Rome is not mortal. What next, will you declare him to be sinless? Because you do in fact say that when he speaks ex cathedra (that is as the Bishop of Rome).
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 02:57:41 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,438


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #384 on: September 13, 2010, 03:22:06 PM »

.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.

Of course it is indeed a heretical position. That is what we see when we read the dogma stated as "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

It is precisely because he is the Roman Pontiff that he can speak ex cathedra. Notice that this definition does not say that the Pope is infallible when he enunciates a doctrine that all have believed from the Apostles on; it says "he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church."  I do not care is he does it many times, once or at no time. It is this "heretical monstrosity" as you call it that is at issue. Y'all have defined the Bishop of Rome to have special authority above any other bishop; y'all have declared him to have universal jurisdiction contra anything in the Holy Scriptures, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers; indeed, the Holy Tradition that we all adhered to over 7-8 centuries (at least); y'all have come up with this illogical "authority" of being somehow infallible as if the Bishop of Rome is not mortal. What next, will you declare him to be sinless? Because you do in fact say that when he speaks ex cathedra (that is as the Bishop of Rome).

Keep beating that straw man.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #385 on: September 13, 2010, 04:08:18 PM »

.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.

Of course it is indeed a heretical position. That is what we see when we read the dogma stated as "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

It is precisely because he is the Roman Pontiff that he can speak ex cathedra. Notice that this definition does not say that the Pope is infallible when he enunciates a doctrine that all have believed from the Apostles on; it says "he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church."  I do not care is he does it many times, once or at no time. It is this "heretical monstrosity" as you call it that is at issue. Y'all have defined the Bishop of Rome to have special authority above any other bishop; y'all have declared him to have universal jurisdiction contra anything in the Holy Scriptures, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers; indeed, the Holy Tradition that we all adhered to over 7-8 centuries (at least); y'all have come up with this illogical "authority" of being somehow infallible as if the Bishop of Rome is not mortal. What next, will you declare him to be sinless? Because you do in fact say that when he speaks ex cathedra (that is as the Bishop of Rome).


You really ought to hear some of us when we read things like this and say to you that these assertions make no sense in terms of the reality and meaning of the doctrine. 

You are in error in your understanding.

I know that is tough to believe because you are so deeply convinced that you cannot be.

But as a Catholic who does know a little bit about the meaning of Catholic doctrine, I am telling you that you are out in left field with this paragraph.  You certainly may stay there.  I hope not all Orthodox believers decide to stay with you, but one never knows.

If you want to know how crazy it all is pick up ANY Orthodox text and in it you will find something about how Orthodoxy is not like the Catholic Church in this or that...always a comparison of some kind, and very often not recognizable to Catholics as Catholic teaching.

You NEVER find that in Catholic theology and spiritual texts unless there is some explicit intent to discuss the eastern confessions.  It says something when it becomes clear that the Catholic never needs to identify him or herself by comparison with Orthodoxy.

For most of them you don't exist except as an oddity...and so you are going to stand here and tell me that you know better than the rest of us what we believe, or can tell us the meaning of texts better than our own pastors and teachers?

I don't think so.

M.

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #386 on: September 13, 2010, 11:04:01 PM »


.In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries.

I believe you are confusing infallibility with clairvoyance or omniscience!


Btw, I see that nobody wishes to answer my question:

Is it no longer taught that the Pope is infallible in his office and his person?

« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 11:05:05 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #387 on: September 14, 2010, 12:36:26 AM »

The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Openness to life has nothing to do with the failure rate of the method. It has to do with the intent of the married couple, which is why it is still possible to use NFP as contraception (and thus sinfully) if the couple uses NFP for the purpose of preventing ever having children.
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: 38,171



« Reply #388 on: September 14, 2010, 03:05:59 AM »

The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

Openness to life has nothing to do with the failure rate of the method. It has to do with the intent of the married couple, which is why it is still possible to use NFP as contraception (and thus sinfully) if the couple uses NFP for the purpose of preventing ever having children.

What if they intend to have children some day, and just never get around to it?  Your Humane Vitae specifically says:
Quote
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

So it would seem that a single instance of intercourse with no intent to conceive (i.e. your NFP) is just as bad as repeated intercourse that never gets around to aiming to conceive.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #389 on: September 14, 2010, 03:46:05 AM »


.In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries.

I believe you are confusing infallibility with clairvoyance or omniscience!


Btw, I see that nobody wishes to answer my question:

Is it no longer taught that the Pope is infallible in his office and his person?



Never did teach that, Father.  You need to consult the acta of the first Vatican Council:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #390 on: September 14, 2010, 03:47:11 AM »


I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.
Arians saw "new doctrines" at Nicea. The OO's saw "new doctrines" being introduced at Chalcedon. Nestorians saw "new doctrines"  at Ephesus.

Actually, Chalcedon wasn't exactly "new doctrine" from an OO perspective. It was more so a blending of orthodoxy and Nestorianism, neither of which were terribly new doctrines at that point.

Anyway, what is your point?

At that, a number of Nestorians interpreted what came forth at Ephesus I as essentially a revival of Apollinarianism, and as such even that was not entirely "new doctrine" from their perspective.

And from what I can tell, some of the Arians interpreted the doctrine of Nicaea I as essentially Sabellian.

So...?
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 #391 on: September 14, 2010, 03:47:12 AM »


As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.

This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

Well I am not sure how you can sit there and say they don't understand what you've written here because their Church teaches the same thing....precisely the same thing.

What happens is that the Catholic Church says that ALL of the doctrine that Orthodoxy denies that the Catholic Church confirms is truth and is found in Tradition.

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all.  Some will grant the filioque is not heretical.  Others will call it the arch heresy.   Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on and on and there are no two people in a day who give me the same list, and sometimes if I am around them long enough the list changes.

So if I believe in development of doctrine in the same language that you've offered it here and I understand what my Church doctrine means and its genesis AND I can distinguish doctrine from discipline, mutable from immutable...do you really think I can take Orthodoxy's multitude of characterizations of the heretical Roman seriously?   

I take it seriously because it keeps us from being in communion...absolutely!!  That is quite serious.

But do I feel spiritually challenged or threatened by the kinds of things I encounter here?  Does my understanding of Catholic doctrine waiver?  Not in the least.

In fact, watching the false and misleading characterizations of my faith serves to strengthen it far more than had I just stayed in a Catholic Cocoon. 

So that keeps me from having a real problem but it does nothing to advance the efforts to find a way out of schism.

Mary



So what is meant by "doctrinal development" then? Are you telling me that it is not taught that the Church has the authority to define new doctrines which it understands to be true?
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #392 on: September 14, 2010, 08:03:41 AM »

Infallibility was given to Saint Peter by Jesus Christ and, in his person, to his successors.

The teaching of Saint Peter, as given through the august lips of the Supreme Pontiff and the Successor of Saint Peter Pope Pius X.

Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.

54 Q. What, then, is the dignity of the Pope?
A. The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful.

55 Q. Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A. The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.

56 Q. How is it that the Pope is infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible because of the promise of Jesus Christ, and of the unfailing assistance of the Holy Ghost.

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.

58 Q. What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A. He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.

59 Q. Why has God granted to the Pope the gift of infallibility?
A. God has granted the Pope the gift of infallibility in order that we all may be sure and certain of the truths which the Church teaches.

60 Q. When was it defined that the Pope is infallible?
A. That the Pope is infallible was defined by the Church in the [First] Vatican Council; and should anyone presume to contradict this definition he would be a heretic and excommunicated.

61 Q. In defining that the Pope is infallible, has the Church put forward a new truth of faith?
A. No, in defining that the Pope is infallible the Church has not put forward a new truth of faith; but to oppose new errors she has simply defined that the infallibility of the Pope, already contained in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, is a truth revealed by God, and therefore to be believed as a dogma or article of faith.



http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #393 on: September 14, 2010, 11:14:27 AM »

Infallibility was given to Saint Peter by Jesus Christ and, in his person, to his successors.

"In his person," in other words, means in St. Peter's person, does it not? Whenever I first read this that was the meaning that I took from it. In other words, the Pope derives his infallibility from the person of St. Peter, or to put it another way, by virtue of St. Peter. Maybe I am off-base but that is how I first read this.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #394 on: September 14, 2010, 11:52:53 AM »


As I have mentioned in the past, I would have a very hard time believing that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was exactly the same pre-Nicea as it was and is post-Nicea. Indeed, groups like the Oneness Pentecostals reject the notion of God as a Trinity simply because it wasn't explicitly defined prior to 325 A.D. They, too, believe that we "invented" a doctrine when in actuality all the Church did was clarify and develop the understanding of a truth that already exists.
This is a really difficult charge to answer for EOs. If you read the second century Fathers, they certainly did not have as developed an understanding of the Trinity as is presented in the Council of Nicea.

I don't think either of you are understanding the Eastern Christian perspective. It seems that you are confusing doctrines and doctrinal formularies. We believe that the doctrine that is expressed by the Constantinopolitan formulary has always been the doctrine of the Church. That doesn't mean that we believe that it was always understood in the same formulaic manner. At that, it would be ridiculous to try to assert that. We fully recognize that doctrinal formularies can develop, as you do. The real difference is that we see you as actually introducing new doctrines, whereas we do not think it appropriate to do so.

Well I am not sure how you can sit there and say they don't understand what you've written here because their Church teaches the same thing....precisely the same thing.

What happens is that the Catholic Church says that ALL of the doctrine that Orthodoxy denies that the Catholic Church confirms is truth and is found in Tradition.

It's interesting to me because as I go person by person interacting with Orthodox faithful, I get a different list of things that they believe are heterodox.  Some will accept primacy...conditionally.  Some will not at all.  Some will grant the filioque is not heretical.  Others will call it the arch heresy.   Some will tell me that the Catholic Church fails on the issue of leavened or unleavened bread, or divorce, or condoms, or hell-spawn liturgy, or priestly buggery...the lists go on and on and there are no two people in a day who give me the same list, and sometimes if I am around them long enough the list changes.

So if I believe in development of doctrine in the same language that you've offered it here and I understand what my Church doctrine means and its genesis AND I can distinguish doctrine from discipline, mutable from immutable...do you really think I can take Orthodoxy's multitude of characterizations of the heretical Roman seriously?   

I take it seriously because it keeps us from being in communion...absolutely!!  That is quite serious.

But do I feel spiritually challenged or threatened by the kinds of things I encounter here?  Does my understanding of Catholic doctrine waiver?  Not in the least.

In fact, watching the false and misleading characterizations of my faith serves to strengthen it far more than had I just stayed in a Catholic Cocoon. 

So that keeps me from having a real problem but it does nothing to advance the efforts to find a way out of schism.

Mary



So what is meant by "doctrinal development" then? Are you telling me that it is not taught that the Church has the authority to define new doctrines which it understands to be true?

Doctrinal development in the Catholic Church does NOT mean that the Church has the authority to define any new truths of revelation.  Our understanding may change but the truths of the faith may not be contradicted by any new expression of the SAME apostolic truth.  We distinguish between doctrine and discipline.  The Christological and Trinitarian truths are the core or heart of the faith and all else falls into some supportive category. 

There are also varying degrees of certitude with which we can say that something is a doctrinal truth.  As the Vatican document I referenced pointed out, infallibility simply gives us a guideline for the degree of certitude with which we may profess any given truth.

All truths of revelation, mediated by Scripture and Tradition, must be believed but there ways in which we are asked to believe various truths.    They are not the same in magnitude.

To the core truths and their strongest supporting truths we are called to believe in faith...or assent de fide.

To other truths we are called to assent with religious assent, simply because they have come down through the minor traditions of the Church, her saints and doctors, some of her councils and synods.

To many other truths, such as the words of our teachers, the bishops, some conciliar acts or canons, the pope, we are called to give intellectual assent and assent of the will, which means to think about these things in light of Scripture and Tradition and see where there might be some truth in the ideas or instructions given.  It means that we are called not to fight so against these teachings so that we would enter into schism with the Body.
============

This is all very rough but in most of the chatter that goes on in this venue and among Orthodox internally there is absolutely no knowledge of such things.    They have no meaning to you in terms of helping you ascribe meaning to Church teachings...to gain the minds of the fathers of the Church.  So you all ascribe whatever meaning you've heard others describe in talk or in text...and you never question it and when Catholics tell you that you are mistaken you attack them verbally...sometimes physically.

It's a stupid mess.  I hate it.

Perhaps our bishops together can sort it out.

There are days when it is difficult to keep caring one way or the other.  My time here has not helped much, and I doubt that what I say has made any difference other than to confirm in my readers the sure belief that there is just one more Catholic nut-case in the world. 

But, there are brother and sister Catholics who think the same thing because we don't see eye to eye, so I guess it is better to speak and get spit on than not to speak at all.

At least that is a shared experience between us as Catholic and Orthodox.

M.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #395 on: September 14, 2010, 11:52:54 AM »

His detractors picked at the King of the Jews in much the same way, Father, that you pick away at the Catholic Church....never bothering in the least to deal with meaning or consider anything but superficial truths, only happy to rabble rouse and inflame with sly accusations, appealing to base sense and fear. 

Yours is a bitter victory, so enjoy it while the taste of it is still sweet in your mouth.

M.


Infallibility was given to Saint Peter by Jesus Christ and, in his person, to his successors.

The teaching of Saint Peter, as given through the august lips of the Supreme Pontiff and the Successor of Saint Peter Pope Pius X.

Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.

54 Q. What, then, is the dignity of the Pope?
A. The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful.

55 Q. Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A. The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.

56 Q. How is it that the Pope is infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible because of the promise of Jesus Christ, and of the unfailing assistance of the Holy Ghost.

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.

58 Q. What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A. He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.

59 Q. Why has God granted to the Pope the gift of infallibility?
A. God has granted the Pope the gift of infallibility in order that we all may be sure and certain of the truths which the Church teaches.

60 Q. When was it defined that the Pope is infallible?
A. That the Pope is infallible was defined by the Church in the [First] Vatican Council; and should anyone presume to contradict this definition he would be a heretic and excommunicated.

61 Q. In defining that the Pope is infallible, has the Church put forward a new truth of faith?
A. No, in defining that the Pope is infallible the Church has not put forward a new truth of faith; but to oppose new errors she has simply defined that the infallibility of the Pope, already contained in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, is a truth revealed by God, and therefore to be believed as a dogma or article of faith.



http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #396 on: September 14, 2010, 12:12:10 PM »

Infallibility was given to Saint Peter by Jesus Christ and, in his person, to his successors.

"In his person," in other words, means in St. Peter's person, does it not? Whenever I first read this that was the meaning that I took from it. In other words, the Pope derives his infallibility from the person of St. Peter, or to put it another way, by virtue of St. Peter. Maybe I am off-base but that is how I first read this.

Yes.  All it indicates is that the protection of the Holy Spirit is something passed from the Person of Christ to the person of Peter, to the person of the Successors of Peter.

It has been phrased like that because there have been those who have said that it is something that is inherent to the chair of Peter, or to the papal office...to the non-personal markers of the Petrine See, in other words.

But the grace of the Holy Spirit is not Majick-Paste that sticks Wallpaper Grace to a thingie.

The grace of the Holy Spirit works in the Church through the PERSONS of the Church, through from Christ to the Apostles, to Peter, to the disciples, to the faithful...and on through history.

It is to keep grace from becoming totemic.

Mary
Logged

BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 722



« Reply #397 on: September 14, 2010, 04:27:14 PM »

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods

The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

I came to the same conclusion some time ago; if NFP is more effective than other methods as is often claimed, then it makes their claim that they are being "open to life" into a bald-faced lie.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #398 on: September 14, 2010, 05:50:19 PM »

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods

The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

I came to the same conclusion some time ago; if NFP is more effective than other methods as is often claimed, then it makes their claim that they are being "open to life" into a bald-faced lie.
Yes, it is a bald-faced lie.

The Couple to Couple League founded by devout Catholics John and Sheila Kippley to propagate the Vatican's teaching of the NFP method of birth control emphasises that NFP has a much better rate of prevention of pregnancies than condoms. They use it as a selling point for NFP.

Catholic apologists like to fudge the fact that the small number of Catholics using NFP are using it to avoid conceiving and they pretend that these Catholics are using it just to determine the times when they can have sex and create babies.

www.ccli.org/

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

Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #399 on: September 14, 2010, 05:53:53 PM »

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods

The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

I came to the same conclusion some time ago; if NFP is more effective than other methods as is often claimed, then it makes their claim that they are being "open to life" into a bald-faced lie.

There is another way of looking at it:

NFP can be used:

1. To never have children, IF one can manage to practice it without fail.

2. To space children, when health issues or material circumstance demands prudence in reproduction.

3. To aid in conception for fertile couples who may have some difficulty conceiving.

IF a Catholic uses it to satisfy No. 1 above, they are sinning and must confess and work toward being fully open to new life in their family.

IF a Catholic uses it to satisfy No. 2 then they are remaining within the right order of married life, where the precept is that one does not have intercourse without being open to life during conjugal lovemaking.

IF the Catholic uses it to satisfy No. 3 then they are a joy to their families, the Church and the Holy Trinity.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The difference between NFP and other forms of artificial birth control sanctioned by the Russian bishops is that when the Catholic practices NFP there is chastity and continence at work in the marriage.  Both of those are virtuous behaviors. 

There is no sex for a time during the woman's cycle, which is fine because being open to life does not call for sex-on-demand in marriage.  It does not demand that the only time one has intercourse is to procreate.  In that sense St. John Chrysostom had a certain influence.  One may have intercourse to foster unitive loving and intimacy in marriage.  The Church encourages the period of continence be used as a time for spiritual union and growth in prayer and mutual awareness of the primary goal of each spouse which is the sanctification and salvation of the other spouse!!

Obviously when one uses other forms of birth control, there is sex that is specifically engaged to NOT be open to life even though one knows that some methods are not as effective as others.  HOWEVER, one also knows that the proper use of certain barrier methods in combination are just as effective as NFP.

In the sex-on-demand mode there is no ascetic dimension to the conjugal life of the couple as well as a questionable use of the marriage bed that is absolutely, in intent and in fact, closed to the potential of new life in the family.

Now you can either be in denial or not.  Means little to me how you conduct your lives.  But Orthodoxy falls very short in the eyes of the world when they preach asceticism and then mock the Catholic who actually practices it.

In Christ,

Mary

Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #400 on: September 14, 2010, 05:53:53 PM »

Doctrinal development in the Catholic Church does NOT mean that the Church has the authority to define any new truths of revelation.  Our understanding may change but the truths of the faith may not be contradicted by any new expression of the SAME apostolic truth.

It would seem that you are operating on a bit of a false dilemma here, as it seems you are assuming that any defined doctrine would either be the same Apostolic doctrine or a contradiction of it. I don't think that's the case and I'm not asking about either category. I'm asking about certain doctrines which appear to neither be in the Apostolic deposit nor that contradict it. So, do you think that the Church has the authority to define such doctrines?
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,013



« Reply #401 on: September 14, 2010, 06:28:19 PM »

.......... (Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
.......... (A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
 
Nice try Father Ambrose, but not even ultramontanists believe that Pope in himself is infallible. It would be heresy to declare so.
In fact Pastor Aeternus excludes the possibility of the Pope being in himself infallible:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

Notice the infallibility is not derived from the Pope himself, but is rather the result of his Apostolic authority, when he speaks ex cathedra, and by virtue the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter. This is a far cry from the Pope being infallible in himself. Thus the catechism that you site is accurate and in harmony with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

This is a difference without meaning. If Father Ambrose claims that the Pope by himself is infallible, he is saying the same thing as Pastor Aeternus. After all, the Pope is the "Supreme Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ." We are not talking about the Bishop of Pittsburgh or the Archbishop of Napoli here. We are talking about the super special charisma that is bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, making him able to be infallible when, blah, blah, blah.. Come on now Papist, quit splitting hairs here and admit the obvious. Pace and out.
No there is a difference, a major difference. If the Pope were infallible in himself, then he could go around, willy nilly, proclaiming everything he wanted to as dogma. In fact, if the Pope were infallible in himself, he could always accurately predict the outcomes of lotteries. Further, he would not need divine protection for his infallibility. The Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility safeguards tradition. The ugly characiture is a heretical monstrosity.

Of course it is indeed a heretical position. That is what we see when we read the dogma stated as "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility." - Pastor Aeternus

It is precisely because he is the Roman Pontiff that he can speak ex cathedra. Notice that this definition does not say that the Pope is infallible when he enunciates a doctrine that all have believed from the Apostles on; it says "he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church."  I do not care is he does it many times, once or at no time. It is this "heretical monstrosity" as you call it that is at issue. Y'all have defined the Bishop of Rome to have special authority above any other bishop; y'all have declared him to have universal jurisdiction contra anything in the Holy Scriptures, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers; indeed, the Holy Tradition that we all adhered to over 7-8 centuries (at least); y'all have come up with this illogical "authority" of being somehow infallible as if the Bishop of Rome is not mortal. What next, will you declare him to be sinless? Because you do in fact say that when he speaks ex cathedra (that is as the Bishop of Rome).


You really ought to hear some of us when we read things like this and say to you that these assertions make no sense in terms of the reality and meaning of the doctrine.  

You are in error in your understanding.

I know that is tough to believe because you are so deeply convinced that you cannot be.

But as a Catholic who does know a little bit about the meaning of Catholic doctrine, I am telling you that you are out in left field with this paragraph.  You certainly may stay there.  I hope not all Orthodox believers decide to stay with you, but one never knows.

If you want to know how crazy it all is pick up ANY Orthodox text and in it you will find something about how Orthodoxy is not like the Catholic Church in this or that...always a comparison of some kind, and very often not recognizable to Catholics as Catholic teaching.

You NEVER find that in Catholic theology and spiritual texts unless there is some explicit intent to discuss the eastern confessions.  It says something when it becomes clear that the Catholic never needs to identify him or herself by comparison with Orthodoxy.

For most of them you don't exist except as an oddity...and so you are going to stand here and tell me that you know better than the rest of us what we believe, or can tell us the meaning of texts better than our own pastors and teachers?

I don't think so.

M.



Dear Mary--You seem to be going off on a tangent here. Let's get back on track. In a subsequent post, you referred to the First Vatican Council. Thank you for the link. It has the usual whereas's and then comes the dogma on Papal Infallibility. One or two of the whereas's caught my eye. It says:

"1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.

    * This holy see has always maintained this,
    * the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
    * the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

[councils]

2. So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

    * The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:

    * "The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]

Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:

    * "The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church." [58] "

OK now, would you agree that claims are not the same as factual statements? I mean that this passage claims that ecumenical councils have declared the super-bishop character of the Papacy (I am obviously paraphrasing). Yet when it gives the three examples, we find that they are not objectively true ecumenical councils, let alone one of the first seven. Here is what the Wiki says (please correct my source if it is wrong, but I would appreciate hearing the why instead tautologies). (I have also bolded the relevant sections)

Fourth Council of Constantinople: "The Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) was the 8th Catholic Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople from October 5, 869 to February 28, 870. It included 102 bishops, 3 papal legates, and 4 patriarchs. The Council met in 10 sessions from October 869 to February 870 and issued 27 canons.

The council was called by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian and Pope Adrian II. It deposed Photios, a layman who had been appointed as Patriarch of Constantinople, and reinstated his predecessor Ignatius.

The Council also reaffirmed the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea in support of icons and holy images and required the image of Christ to have veneration equal with that of the gospel book.

A later council, the Greek Fourth Council of Constantinople, was held after Photios had been reinstated on order of the Emperor. Today, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the council in 869–870 as "Constantinople IV", while the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize the councils in 879–880 as "Constantinople IV" and revere Photios as a saint. At the time that these councils were being held, this division was not yet clear.[4]  These two councils represent a break between East and West. The previous seven ecumenical councils are recognized as ecumenical and authoritative by both Greek-literate Eastern Christians and Latin-literate Western Christians. This division led eventually to the East-West Schism of 1054."

The second council of Lyons: "Wishing to end the Great Schism that divided the Eastern Orthodox churches from the Catholic Church, Gregory X had sent an embassy to Michael VIII Palaeologus, who had reconquered Constantinople, putting an end to the remnants of the Latin Empire in the East, and he asked Latin despots in the East to curb their ambitions. Eastern dignitaries arrived at Lyon on 24 June presenting a letter from the Emperor. On 29 June (the Feast of Peter and Paul, patronal feast of the popes), Gregory celebrated a Mass  in St John's Church, where both sides took part. The Greeks read the Nicene Creed, with the Western addition of the Filioque clause sung three times. The council was seemingly a success, but did not provide a lasting solution to the schism; the Emperor was anxious to heal the schism, but the Eastern clergy proved to be obstinate. Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople abdicated, and was replaced by John Bekkos, a convert to the cause of union. In spite of a sustained campaign by Bekkos to defend the union intellectually, and vigorous and brutal repression of opponents by Michael, the vast majority of Byzantine Christians remained implacably opposed to union with the Latin "heretics". Michael's death in December 1282 put an end to the union of Lyons. His son and successor Andronicus II repudiated the union, and Bekkos was forced to abdicate, being eventually exiled and imprisoned until his death in 1297. He is to this day reviled by many in the Eastern Church as a traitor to Orthodoxy."

The Council of Florence: "The Council transferred to Ferrara in 1438 and to Florence  in 1439 had meanwhile successfully negotiated reunification with several Eastern Churches, reaching agreements on such matters as papal primacy, purgatory, and the word "Filioque" added in the West to the Nicene Creed. The most important of these unions, that with the Eastern Orthodox Church, though accepted by all but one of the Greek bishops at the Council, was rejected by popular sentiment and came to a complete end with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The Council also declared the Basel group heretics and excommunicated them; and the superiority of the Pope over the Councils was affirmed in the bull Etsi non dubitemus of 20 April 1441."

So, what we see here is a specious claim by the First Vatican Council regarding the ecumenicity of these councils that were not acknowledged to be ecumenical by the Orthodox Churches at the time of the First Vatican Council. The premises are evidently wrong, therefore the conclusion must be false. This whole Papal supremacy and infallibility turns out to be nothing but the doings of a part of the Church (I am being very liberal here and risk being a proponent of the branch theory), a matter of power politics, self-aggrandizement and a mockery of Christ teaching that the first will be last while the last will be first.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 06:33:37 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #402 on: September 14, 2010, 08:50:12 PM »

So, what we see here is a specious claim by the First Vatican Council regarding the ecumenicity of these councils that were not acknowledged to be ecumenical by the Orthodox Churches at the time of the First Vatican Council.

This kind of issue is well above my pay grade, and I am sure it is being discussed among our clergy-scholars and monastics, or will be at some time.

If I were to take a W.A.G. at it, I'd say that the key to the Church's use of the texts is because the text and context at that time appeared to be sincere and the statements made with good will in good faith.   One would not expect the same response once Photios hardened the schism, and a denial of the statements would naturally be suspect under the circumstances.

These are precisely the kinds of things that need to be discussed by our hierarchs or those historians whom they delegate to do the leg-work.  And there's more good work being done in this period all the time.  I expect it to become harder and harder to lay the entire weight of the blame for the schism at the feet of the western Catholics.

Which Orthodox bishop was it who said that being Orthodox meant never having to say your are sorry?  I expect that is an important element in the self-perception of many Orthodox faithful.   It is my experience in any event.

Mary
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #403 on: September 15, 2010, 12:14:50 AM »

In fact NFP has a far better "success" rate, with all the moral implications, than most barrier methods

The failure rate for NFP (unwanted pregnancies) is 1%.  The failure rate for condoms is 7%.      Condoms are more open to life than NFP.

I came to the same conclusion some time ago; if NFP is more effective than other methods as is often claimed, then it makes their claim that they are being "open to life" into a bald-faced lie.

Wrong...because failure rate has nothing to do with openness to life. The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 12:15:10 AM by Wyatt » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,226


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #404 on: September 15, 2010, 12:32:55 AM »

Aren't we already discussing ABC and NFP on another thread?
Logged
Tags: cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   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 0.232 seconds with 73 queries.