Topic: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?

[orthonorm]

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.

Oh that folks who have an opinion on the Bible would read it. Thank you for mentioning this.

Onanism is an imprecise and thankfully rarely used word nowadays.

[orthonorm]

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.

Not that you don't realize this, but this most likely cart-horse. NFP requires actual communication, honesty, thoughtfulness in an area of inter-personal relations where it is often most lacking.

I can only imagine a couple with that degree of rapport about their sex life would have a rather healthy intimacy in most other areas of their relationship.

I know of three Catholic couples who practice NFP. All have wonderful marriages and families (all are also Pius X Catholics).

FWIW.

[stanley123]

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

[ChristusDominus]

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Abstinence when the wife is fertile rather than any day of the week as long as she is on contraceptives. I can't be any more blunt than that. Also, wouldn't you agree that most contraceptives take a toll on a woman's body and health within time? So how is that being open to life? Might as well take up smoking as well. I do think we have to look at the whole spectrum.

[stanley123]

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Abstinence when the wife is fertile rather than any day of the week as long as she is on contraceptives. I can't be any more blunt than that. Also, wouldn't you agree that most contraceptives take a toll on a woman's body and health within time? So how is that being open to life? Might as well take up smoking as well. I do think we have to look at the whole spectrum.

So it is more than just the intent of the couple to prevent conception.

[ChristusDominus]

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Abstinence when the wife is fertile rather than any day of the week as long as she is on contraceptives. I can't be any more blunt than that. Also, wouldn't you agree that most contraceptives take a toll on a woman's body and health within time? So how is that being open to life? Might as well take up smoking as well. I do think we have to look at the whole spectrum.

So it is more than just the intent of the couple to prevent conception.

I am sure your priest can explain it thouroughly.

[PeterTheAleut]

Let me repeat this.  We're already discussing artificial contraception on another thread (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29748.0.html).  Let's not drive this thread off topic by discussing the subject here as well.

[elijahmaria]

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

The answer to this is very important because it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.  I ask that it be published here and then I will refrain from any other comment on birth control in this thread, please.

1. There is no! precept in the Catholic Church against continence in marriage, meaning that there is nothing in Catholic morality that precludes a couple from deciding not to engage in conjugal lovemaking, sex.

2.  And in the inverse, according to the unitive principle of the sacrament of marriage, there is no precept against the couple having intercourse, conjugal lovemaking, at OTHER periods from the fertile period.

3.  Openness to life NECESSARILY involves the act of conjugal sex.  IF you are not engaging in the sex act, you cannot be accused of being closed off to life.

4. It is possible to not want children at all ever, and in general terms, that would be a sinful intent in marriage HOWEVER, if the health of man or wife precludes children without grave risk to all, then the Church will permit marriage even for those who cannot bear children, knowing in her wisdom that God provides in strange ways.

5. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, has none of these complexities of human interaction and relationship, provides for sex-on-demand, has NO ascetic value at all in the life of the couple, and allows for sexual intercourse that is patently, expressly and intently closed to life.

6. NFP does not allow for sexual intercourse that is patently closed off to the possibility of life.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Dear Mary, Papist and Wyatt:

I had not read the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until yesterday when Mary posted a link to them. Heretofore I had relied on secondary sources like Metropolitan Kallistos and Father Schmemann. I now realize, to my great discomfort, that my secondary sources were very kind to the Roman Catholic Church in their discussion of our long history together and our ecclesiastic and doctrinal differences. I will tell you also that I had a habit of approaching our differences with certain liberality, primarily by emphasizing our similarities but also by de-emphasizing our differences. However, having read even a short segment of the Acta of the First Ecumenical Council, I must tell you that I am most disillusioned by the supreme arrogance, intemperate language, and propaganda masquerading as facts that I found. I am citing the decisions of Session Four: 18 July 1870 in order to give you an idea of how much I had read to arrive at my impressions. Please be assured that I came into this with an irenic state of mind and now I am disappointed, disillusioned and frankly also angry. That said, I will withdraw from the arena as it is not good for my soul to be involved in such disputations.

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.

   1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37] ,
          * in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption,
          * determined to build a church
          * in which,
                o as in the house of the living God,
          * all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one
                o faith and
                o charity.
   2. Therefore, before he was glorified,
          * he besought his Father,
                o not for the apostles only,
                o but also for those who were to believe in him through their word,
            that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38] .
   3. So then,
          * just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
          * even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
          * in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
   4. In order, then, that
          * the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
          * by the union of the clergy,
          * the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
                o faith and
                o communion,
          * he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
          * instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
          * their visible foundation.
   5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
   6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
          * we judge it necessary,
                o with the approbation of the sacred council, and
                o for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
          * to propound the doctrine concerning the
               1. institution,
               2. permanence and
               3. nature
          * of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
          * upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
   7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
   8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

   1. We teach and declare that,
          * according to the gospel evidence,
          * a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
          * was immediately and directly
                o promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
                o conferred on him by Christ the lord.
      [PROMISED]
   2. It was to Simon alone,
          * to whom he had already said
                o You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
      that the Lord,
          * after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
      spoke these words:
          * Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
          * And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
      [CONFERRED]
   3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
          * after his resurrection,
      confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
          * Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
   4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
   5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
   6. Therefore,
          * if anyone says that
                o blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
                o it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

   1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .

   2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .

   3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .

   4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .

   5. Therefore,
          * if anyone says that
                o it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
                o the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

   1. And so,
          * supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
          * adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
                o the Roman pontiffs and of
                o general councils,
          * we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
          * which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
                o the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
                o the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
                      + the prince of the apostles,
                      + true vicar of Christ,
                      + head of the whole church and
                      + father and teacher of all christian people.
                o To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
                      + tend,
                      + rule and govern
                      + the universal church.
      All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

   2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
          * by divine ordinance,
          * the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
          * this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
                o episcopal and
                o immediate.
          * Both clergy and faithful,
                o of whatever rite and dignity,
                o both singly and collectively,
          * are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
                o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
                o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

   3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

   4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

   5. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

   6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

   7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
          * this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
          * it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

   8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
          * he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
          * in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
          * The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
          * nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
          * they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

   9. So, then,
          * if anyone says that
                o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
                      + not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
                      + not only in matters of
                            # faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
                            # discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
                o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
                o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

   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]

      [Holy See]
   3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

      [Custom]
   4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

      [Holy See]
   5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
          * sometimes by
                o summoning ecumenical councils or
                o consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
                o special synods, sometimes by
                o taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
          * defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with
                o sacred scripture and
                o the apostolic traditions.

   6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
          *
          * not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
          * but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
      Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
          * embraced by all the venerable fathers and
          * reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
      for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

   7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

   8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

   9. Therefore,
          * faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
          * to the glory of God our saviour,
          * for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
          * for the salvation of the christian people,
          * with the approval of the sacred council,
          * we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

                o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
                      + that is, when,
                           1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
                           2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
                           3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
                o he possesses,
                      + by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
                o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
                o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

      So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

[BoredMeeting]

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.

And practicing NFP shows that they are not open to life; my point exactly.

[Papist]

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.

And practicing NFP shows that they are not open to life; my point exactly.

No, using NFP with the intention of never having Children is when its not open to life.
The big deal with Artificial birth control is that it is not in conformity with the nature of sex. The nature of sex is such that when a person has sex during a fertile period, the possibility of pregnancy exists. NFP does not violate this natural law principle.

[Papist]

Dear Mary, Papist and Wyatt:

I had not read the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until yesterday when Mary posted a link to them. Heretofore I had relied on secondary sources like Metropolitan Kallistos and Father Schmemann. I now realize, to my great discomfort, that my secondary sources were very kind to the Roman Catholic Church in their discussion of our long history together and our ecclesiastic and doctrinal differences. I will tell you also that I had a habit of approaching our differences with certain liberality, primarily by emphasizing our similarities but also by de-emphasizing our differences. However, having read even a short segment of the Acta of the First Ecumenical Council, I must tell you that I am most disillusioned by the supreme arrogance, intemperate language, and propaganda masquerading as facts that I found. I am citing the decisions of Session Four: 18 July 1870 in order to give you an idea of how much I had read to arrive at my impressions. Please be assured that I came into this with an irenic state of mind and now I am disappointed, disillusioned and frankly also angry. That said, I will withdraw from the arena as it is not good for my soul to be involved in such disputations.

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.

   1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37] ,
          * in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption,
          * determined to build a church
          * in which,
                o as in the house of the living God,
          * all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one
                o faith and
                o charity.
   2. Therefore, before he was glorified,
          * he besought his Father,
                o not for the apostles only,
                o but also for those who were to believe in him through their word,
            that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38] .
   3. So then,
          * just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
          * even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
          * in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
   4. In order, then, that
          * the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
          * by the union of the clergy,
          * the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
                o faith and
                o communion,
          * he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
          * instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
          * their visible foundation.
   5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
   6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
          * we judge it necessary,
                o with the approbation of the sacred council, and
                o for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
          * to propound the doctrine concerning the
               1. institution,
               2. permanence and
               3. nature
          * of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
          * upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
   7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
   8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

   1. We teach and declare that,
          * according to the gospel evidence,
          * a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
          * was immediately and directly
                o promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
                o conferred on him by Christ the lord.
      [PROMISED]
   2. It was to Simon alone,
          * to whom he had already said
                o You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
      that the Lord,
          * after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
      spoke these words:
          * Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
          * And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
      [CONFERRED]
   3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
          * after his resurrection,
      confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
          * Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
   4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
   5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
   6. Therefore,
          * if anyone says that
                o blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
                o it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

   1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .

   2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .

   3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .

   4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .

   5. Therefore,
          * if anyone says that
                o it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
                o the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

   1. And so,
          * supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
          * adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
                o the Roman pontiffs and of
                o general councils,
          * we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
          * which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
                o the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
                o the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
                      + the prince of the apostles,
                      + true vicar of Christ,
                      + head of the whole church and
                      + father and teacher of all christian people.
                o To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
                      + tend,
                      + rule and govern
                      + the universal church.
      All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

   2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
          * by divine ordinance,
          * the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
          * this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
                o episcopal and
                o immediate.
          * Both clergy and faithful,
                o of whatever rite and dignity,
                o both singly and collectively,
          * are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
                o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
                o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

   3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

   4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

   5. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

   6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

   7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
          * this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
          * it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

   8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
          * he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
          * in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
          * The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
          * nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
          * they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

   9. So, then,
          * if anyone says that
                o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
                      + not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
                      + not only in matters of
                            # faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
                            # discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
                o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
                o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

   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]

      [Holy See]
   3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

      [Custom]
   4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

      [Holy See]
   5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
          * sometimes by
                o summoning ecumenical councils or
                o consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
                o special synods, sometimes by
                o taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
          * defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with
                o sacred scripture and
                o the apostolic traditions.

   6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
          *
          * not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
          * but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
      Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
          * embraced by all the venerable fathers and
          * reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
      for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

   7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

   8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

   9. Therefore,
          * faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
          * to the glory of God our saviour,
          * for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
          * for the salvation of the christian people,
          * with the approval of the sacred council,
          * we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

                o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
                      + that is, when,
                           1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
                           2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
                           3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
                o he possesses,
                      + by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
                o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
                o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

      So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Are you saying that you are upset about what the council says? Or how other read it?

[ialmisry]

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.

Not that you don't realize this, but this most likely cart-horse. NFP requires actual communication, honesty, thoughtfulness in an area of inter-personal relations where it is often most lacking.

I can only imagine a couple with that degree of rapport about their sex life would have a rather healthy intimacy in most other areas of their relationship.

I know of three Catholic couples who practice NFP. All have wonderful marriages and families (all are also Pius X Catholics).

FWIW.

comments here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29748.msg472312/topicseen.html#msg472312

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Dear Mary, Papist and Wyatt:

I had not read the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until yesterday when Mary posted a link to them. Heretofore I had relied on secondary sources like Metropolitan Kallistos and Father Schmemann. I now realize, to my great discomfort, that my secondary sources were very kind to the Roman Catholic Church in their discussion of our long history together and our ecclesiastic and doctrinal differences. I will tell you also that I had a habit of approaching our differences with certain liberality, primarily by emphasizing our similarities but also by de-emphasizing our differences. However, having read even a short segment of the Acta of the First Ecumenical Council, I must tell you that I am most disillusioned by the supreme arrogance, intemperate language, and propaganda masquerading as facts that I found. I am citing the decisions of Session Four: 18 July 1870 in order to give you an idea of how much I had read to arrive at my impressions. Please be assured that I came into this with an irenic state of mind and now I am disappointed, disillusioned and frankly also angry. That said, I will withdraw from the arena as it is not good for my soul to be involved in such disputations.

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.

   1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37] ,
          * in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption,
          * determined to build a church
          * in which,
                o as in the house of the living God,
          * all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one
                o faith and
                o charity.
   2. Therefore, before he was glorified,
          * he besought his Father,
                o not for the apostles only,
                o but also for those who were to believe in him through their word,
            that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38] .
   3. So then,
          * just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
          * even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
          * in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
   4. In order, then, that
          * the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
          * by the union of the clergy,
          * the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
                o faith and
                o communion,
          * he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
          * instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
          * their visible foundation.
   5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
   6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
          * we judge it necessary,
                o with the approbation of the sacred council, and
                o for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
          * to propound the doctrine concerning the
               1. institution,
               2. permanence and
               3. nature
          * of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
          * upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
   7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
   8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

   1. We teach and declare that,
          * according to the gospel evidence,
          * a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
          * was immediately and directly
                o promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
                o conferred on him by Christ the lord.
      [PROMISED]
   2. It was to Simon alone,
          * to whom he had already said
                o You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
      that the Lord,
          * after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
      spoke these words:
          * Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
          * And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
      [CONFERRED]
   3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
          * after his resurrection,
      confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
          * Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
   4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
   5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
   6. Therefore,
          * if anyone says that
                o blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
                o it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

   1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .

   2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .

   3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .

   4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .

   5. Therefore,
          * if anyone says that
                o it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
                o the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

   1. And so,
          * supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
          * adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
                o the Roman pontiffs and of
                o general councils,
          * we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
          * which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
                o the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
                o the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
                      + the prince of the apostles,
                      + true vicar of Christ,
                      + head of the whole church and
                      + father and teacher of all christian people.
                o To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
                      + tend,
                      + rule and govern
                      + the universal church.
      All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

   2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
          * by divine ordinance,
          * the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
          * this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
                o episcopal and
                o immediate.
          * Both clergy and faithful,
                o of whatever rite and dignity,
                o both singly and collectively,
          * are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
                o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
                o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

   3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

   4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

   5. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

   6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

   7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
          * this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
          * it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

   8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
          * he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
          * in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
          * The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
          * nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
          * they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

   9. So, then,
          * if anyone says that
                o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
                      + not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
                      + not only in matters of
                            # faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
                            # discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
                o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
                o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

   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]

      [Holy See]
   3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

      [Custom]
   4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

      [Holy See]
   5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
          * sometimes by
                o summoning ecumenical councils or
                o consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
                o special synods, sometimes by
                o taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
          * defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with
                o sacred scripture and
                o the apostolic traditions.

   6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
          *
          * not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
          * but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
      Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
          * embraced by all the venerable fathers and
          * reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
      for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

   7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

   8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

   9. Therefore,
          * faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
          * to the glory of God our saviour,
          * for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
          * for the salvation of the christian people,
          * with the approval of the sacred council,
          * we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

                o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
                      + that is, when,
                           1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
                           2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
                           3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
                o he possesses,
                      + by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
                o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
                o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

      So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Are you saying that you are upset about what the council says? Or how other read it?

I am indeed upset with the decree--not only its conclusions but its logic and its tone. I cannot be upset with how others interpret it--well, may be a little frustrated, but I will attribute that to my inability to effect good communication.

[Papist]

Dear Mary, Papist and Wyatt:

I had not read the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until yesterday when Mary posted a link to them. Heretofore I had relied on secondary sources like Metropolitan Kallistos and Father Schmemann. I now realize, to my great discomfort, that my secondary sources were very kind to the Roman Catholic Church in their discussion of our long history together and our ecclesiastic and doctrinal differences. I will tell you also that I had a habit of approaching our differences with certain liberality, primarily by emphasizing our similarities but also by de-emphasizing our differences. However, having read even a short segment of the Acta of the First Ecumenical Council, I must tell you that I am most disillusioned by the supreme arrogance, intemperate language, and propaganda masquerading as facts that I found. I am citing the decisions of Session Four: 18 July 1870 in order to give you an idea of how much I had read to arrive at my impressions. Please be assured that I came into this with an irenic state of mind and now I am disappointed, disillusioned and frankly also angry. That said, I will withdraw from the arena as it is not good for my soul to be involved in such disputations.

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.

   1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37] ,
          * in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption,
          * determined to build a church
          * in which,
                o as in the house of the living God,
          * all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one
                o faith and
                o charity.
   2. Therefore, before he was glorified,
          * he besought his Father,
                o not for the apostles only,
                o but also for those who were to believe in him through their word,
            that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38] .
   3. So then,
          * just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
          * even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
          * in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
   4. In order, then, that
          * the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
          * by the union of the clergy,
          * the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
                o faith and
                o communion,
          * he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
          * instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
          * their visible foundation.
   5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
   6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
          * we judge it necessary,
                o with the approbation of the sacred council, and
                o for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
          * to propound the doctrine concerning the
               1. institution,
               2. permanence and
               3. nature
          * of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
          * upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
   7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
   8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

   1. We teach and declare that,
          * according to the gospel evidence,
          * a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
          * was immediately and directly
                o promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
                o conferred on him by Christ the lord.
      [PROMISED]
   2. It was to Simon alone,
          * to whom he had already said
                o You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
      that the Lord,
          * after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
      spoke these words:
          * Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
          * And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
      [CONFERRED]
   3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
          * after his resurrection,
      confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
          * Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
   4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
   5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
   6. Therefore,
          * if anyone says that
                o blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
                o it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

   1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .

   2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .

   3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .

   4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .

   5. Therefore,
          * if anyone says that
                o it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
                o the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

   1. And so,
          * supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
          * adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
                o the Roman pontiffs and of
                o general councils,
          * we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
          * which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
                o the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
                o the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
                      + the prince of the apostles,
                      + true vicar of Christ,
                      + head of the whole church and
                      + father and teacher of all christian people.
                o To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
                      + tend,
                      + rule and govern
                      + the universal church.
      All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

   2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
          * by divine ordinance,
          * the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
          * this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
                o episcopal and
                o immediate.
          * Both clergy and faithful,
                o of whatever rite and dignity,
                o both singly and collectively,
          * are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
                o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
                o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

   3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

   4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

   5. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

   6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

   7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
          * this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
          * it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

   8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
          * he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
          * in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
          * The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
          * nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
          * they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

   9. So, then,
          * if anyone says that
                o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
                      + not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
                      + not only in matters of
                            # faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
                            # discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
                o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
                o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
            let him be anathema.

Return to Table of Contents

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

   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]

      [Holy See]
   3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

      [Custom]
   4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

      [Holy See]
   5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
          * sometimes by
                o summoning ecumenical councils or
                o consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
                o special synods, sometimes by
                o taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
          * defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with
                o sacred scripture and
                o the apostolic traditions.

   6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
          *
          * not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
          * but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
      Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
          * embraced by all the venerable fathers and
          * reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
      for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

   7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

   8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

   9. Therefore,
          * faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
          * to the glory of God our saviour,
          * for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
          * for the salvation of the christian people,
          * with the approval of the sacred council,
          * we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

                o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
                      + that is, when,
                           1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
                           2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
                           3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
                o he possesses,
                      + by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
                o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
                o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

      So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Are you saying that you are upset about what the council says? Or how other read it?

I am indeed upset with the decree--not only its conclusions but its logic and its tone. I cannot be upset with how others interpret it--well, may be a little frustrated, but I will attribute that to my inability to effect good communication.

So particular statements frustrate you? Are you willing to discuss them or is that not a good idea?

[elijahmaria]

Dear Mary, Papist and Wyatt:

I had not read the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until yesterday when Mary posted a link to them. Heretofore I had relied on secondary sources like Metropolitan Kallistos and Father Schmemann. I now realize, to my great discomfort, that my secondary sources were very kind to the Roman Catholic Church in their discussion of our long history together and our ecclesiastic and doctrinal differences. I will tell you also that I had a habit of approaching our differences with certain liberality, primarily by emphasizing our similarities but also by de-emphasizing our differences. However, having read even a short segment of the Acta of the First Ecumenical Council, I must tell you that I am most disillusioned by the supreme arrogance, intemperate language, and propaganda masquerading as facts that I found. I am citing the decisions of Session Four: 18 July 1870 in order to give you an idea of how much I had read to arrive at my impressions. Please be assured that I came into this with an irenic state of mind and now I am disappointed, disillusioned and frankly also angry. That said, I will withdraw from the arena as it is not good for my soul to be involved in such disputations.

Dear Chance,

   I hate to tell you but I swear off these disputations at least twice a day!!

Understand that I am not pointing just at you with the following.  It is meant to tell you something about me and how I view the world I live in:  Growing up Catholic in country that is infused with a dominant protestant weltenstaang, I am accustomed to being told that the Catholic Church is arrogant, meaning, of course, that Catholics are arrogant.  So I don't ever take that perception to heart without examining the source and the substance.

That being said, I have come to value your interest in Catholic and Orthodox interaction and I am sorry that you have had such a sour experience with some of the proceedings of our First Vatican Council.  I had similar difficulties with it many years ago, though I was inclined, by trust and in faith, to accept both primacy and infallibility.  Nonetheless some of the formal language of the Church, in all ages in fact, can be off-putting.

So if you would rather not discuss, I surely would understand.

For future reference and IF you have time and interest:

1. The official relatio [explanation] of infallibility was commissioned to Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser.  It has been translated with commentary by Father James T. O'Connor and is called The Gift of Infallibility.  It is published by Ignatius Press.

I found this text and commentary to be very helpful to me in putting the entire First Vatican in perspective in terms of the theological issues and concerns addressed by the Council.

2.  There is a history of papal primacy published in 1966 [Michael Glasser imprint of Liturgical Press], by Father Klaus Schatz SJ, called Papal Primacy. From Its Origins to the Present.

It is an excellent and brief history that I also found to be of great assistance in finding a comfort level with formal ecclesial and theological language at various stages of our history, both shared and at variance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So I will simply close by repeating that I am sorry that you are distressed and angry, and I do not in any way hold that against you or feel that you are lesser in any way for having this response.  I am happy to have you as a correspondent and honest brother in Christ!

Mary

[ialmisry]

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

The answer to this is very important because it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.  I ask that it be published here and then I will refrain from any other comment on birth control in this thread, please.

1. There is no! precept in the Catholic Church against continence in marriage, meaning that there is nothing in Catholic morality that precludes a couple from deciding not to engage in conjugal lovemaking, sex.

2.  And in the inverse, according to the unitive principle of the sacrament of marriage, there is no precept against the couple having intercourse, conjugal lovemaking, at OTHER periods from the fertile period.

3.  Openness to life NECESSARILY involves the act of conjugal sex.  IF you are not engaging in the sex act, you cannot be accused of being closed off to life.

4. It is possible to not want children at all ever, and in general terms, that would be a sinful intent in marriage HOWEVER, if the health of man or wife precludes children without grave risk to all, then the Church will permit marriage even for those who cannot bear children, knowing in her wisdom that God provides in strange ways.

5. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, has none of these complexities of human interaction and relationship, provides for sex-on-demand, has NO ascetic value at all in the life of the couple, and allows for sexual intercourse that is patently, expressly and intently closed to life.

6. NFP does not allow for sexual intercourse that is patently closed off to the possibility of life.

answered here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29748.msg472365/topicseen.html#msg472365

[BoredMeeting]

No, using NFP with the intention of never having Children is when its not open to life.

So intent is the deciding factor then?

The nature of sex is such that when a person has sex during a fertile period, the possibility of pregnancy exists. NFP does not violate this natural law principle.

So a couple using contraception during a non-fertile period would then be acceptable?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Dear Mary, Papist and Wyatt:

I had not read the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until yesterday when Mary posted a link to them. Heretofore I had relied on secondary sources like Metropolitan Kallistos and Father Schmemann. I now realize, to my great discomfort, that my secondary sources were very kind to the Roman Catholic Church in their discussion of our long history together and our ecclesiastic and doctrinal differences. I will tell you also that I had a habit of approaching our differences with certain liberality, primarily by emphasizing our similarities but also by de-emphasizing our differences. However, having read even a short segment of the Acta of the First Ecumenical Council, I must tell you that I am most disillusioned by the supreme arrogance, intemperate language, and propaganda masquerading as facts that I found. I am citing the decisions of Session Four: 18 July 1870 in order to give you an idea of how much I had read to arrive at my impressions. Please be assured that I came into this with an irenic state of mind and now I am disappointed, disillusioned and frankly also angry. That said, I will withdraw from the arena as it is not good for my soul to be involved in such disputations.

Dear Chance,

   I hate to tell you but I swear off these disputations at least twice a day!!

Understand that I am not pointing just at you with the following.  It is meant to tell you something about me and how I view the world I live in:  Growing up Catholic in country that is infused with a dominant protestant weltenstaang, I am accustomed to being told that the Catholic Church is arrogant, meaning, of course, that Catholics are arrogant.  So I don't ever take that perception to heart without examining the source and the substance.

That being said, I have come to value your interest in Catholic and Orthodox interaction and I am sorry that you have had such a sour experience with some of the proceedings of our First Vatican Council.  I had similar difficulties with it many years ago, though I was inclined, by trust and in faith, to accept both primacy and infallibility.  Nonetheless some of the formal language of the Church, in all ages in fact, can be off-putting.

So if you would rather not discuss, I surely would understand.

For future reference and IF you have time and interest:

1. The official relatio [explanation] of infallibility was commissioned to Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser.  It has been translated with commentary by Father James T. O'Connor and is called The Gift of Infallibility.  It is published by Ignatius Press.

I found this text and commentary to be very helpful to me in putting the entire First Vatican in perspective in terms of the theological issues and concerns addressed by the Council.

2.  There is a history of papal primacy published in 1966 [Michael Glasser imprint of Liturgical Press], by Father Klaus Schatz SJ, called Papal Primacy. From Its Origins to the Present.

It is an excellent and brief history that I also found to be of great assistance in finding a comfort level with formal ecclesial and theological language at various stages of our history, both shared and at variance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So I will simply close by repeating that I am sorry that you are distressed and angry, and I do not in any way hold that against you or feel that you are lesser in any way for having this response.  I am happy to have you as a correspondent and honest brother in Christ!

Mary

Thank you Mary. I have a strong feeling that you, Papist and others who bravely defending your Church must know deep inside yourselves that having to rely on apologia and explanations after the fact is at best a rear guard action. I have a feeling that Vatican II and commentary that accompanied it were in fact attempts to wear down the sharp edges--as you said, to find "a comfort level with formal ecclesial and theological language." Furthermore, I can see that some day in the future a formulation will be crafted to substantially alter the decrees of Vatican I, while saving face. We see parallels in the law, where there are many dead and outdated laws on the books but we carry on still in a lawful fashion.

[Iconodule]

Please don't refer to Vatican I as "the First Ecumenical Council."

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Please don't refer to Vatican I as "the First Ecumenical Council."

Clearly a mistake on my part. Will not happen again unless I lose my marbles, in which case I do not guarantee anything.

[Papist]

Dear Mary, Papist and Wyatt:

I had not read the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until yesterday when Mary posted a link to them. Heretofore I had relied on secondary sources like Metropolitan Kallistos and Father Schmemann. I now realize, to my great discomfort, that my secondary sources were very kind to the Roman Catholic Church in their discussion of our long history together and our ecclesiastic and doctrinal differences. I will tell you also that I had a habit of approaching our differences with certain liberality, primarily by emphasizing our similarities but also by de-emphasizing our differences. However, having read even a short segment of the Acta of the First Ecumenical Council, I must tell you that I am most disillusioned by the supreme arrogance, intemperate language, and propaganda masquerading as facts that I found. I am citing the decisions of Session Four: 18 July 1870 in order to give you an idea of how much I had read to arrive at my impressions. Please be assured that I came into this with an irenic state of mind and now I am disappointed, disillusioned and frankly also angry. That said, I will withdraw from the arena as it is not good for my soul to be involved in such disputations.

Dear Chance,

   I hate to tell you but I swear off these disputations at least twice a day!!

Understand that I am not pointing just at you with the following.  It is meant to tell you something about me and how I view the world I live in:  Growing up Catholic in country that is infused with a dominant protestant weltenstaang, I am accustomed to being told that the Catholic Church is arrogant, meaning, of course, that Catholics are arrogant.  So I don't ever take that perception to heart without examining the source and the substance.

That being said, I have come to value your interest in Catholic and Orthodox interaction and I am sorry that you have had such a sour experience with some of the proceedings of our First Vatican Council.  I had similar difficulties with it many years ago, though I was inclined, by trust and in faith, to accept both primacy and infallibility.  Nonetheless some of the formal language of the Church, in all ages in fact, can be off-putting.

So if you would rather not discuss, I surely would understand.

For future reference and IF you have time and interest:

1. The official relatio [explanation] of infallibility was commissioned to Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser.  It has been translated with commentary by Father James T. O'Connor and is called The Gift of Infallibility.  It is published by Ignatius Press.

I found this text and commentary to be very helpful to me in putting the entire First Vatican in perspective in terms of the theological issues and concerns addressed by the Council.

2.  There is a history of papal primacy published in 1966 [Michael Glasser imprint of Liturgical Press], by Father Klaus Schatz SJ, called Papal Primacy. From Its Origins to the Present.

It is an excellent and brief history that I also found to be of great assistance in finding a comfort level with formal ecclesial and theological language at various stages of our history, both shared and at variance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So I will simply close by repeating that I am sorry that you are distressed and angry, and I do not in any way hold that against you or feel that you are lesser in any way for having this response.  I am happy to have you as a correspondent and honest brother in Christ!

Mary

Thank you Mary. I have a strong feeling that you, Papist and others who bravely defending your Church must know deep inside yourselves that having to rely on apologia and explanations after the fact is at best a rear guard action. I have a feeling that Vatican II and commentary that accompanied it were in fact attempts to wear down the sharp edges--as you said, to find "a comfort level with formal ecclesial and theological language." Furthermore, I can see that some day in the future a formulation will be crafted to substantially alter the decrees of Vatican I, while saving face. We see parallels in the law, where there are many dead and outdated laws on the books but we carry on still in a lawful fashion.

When I read what the Fathers say about Rome, I realize that I have nothing to worry about.

[ialmisry]

Thank you Mary. I have a strong feeling that you, Papist and others who bravely defending your Church must know deep inside yourselves that having to rely on apologia and explanations after the fact is at best a rear guard action. I have a feeling that Vatican II and commentary that accompanied it were in fact attempts to wear down the sharp edges--as you said, to find "a comfort level with formal ecclesial and theological language." Furthermore, I can see that some day in the future a formulation will be crafted to substantially alter the decrees of Vatican I, while saving face. We see parallels in the law, where there are many dead and outdated laws on the books but we carry on still in a lawful fashion.

When I read what the Fathers say about Rome, I realize that I have nothing to worry about.

Neither do we:

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows....The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith.  But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome...has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.  Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod

Definition of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council

The holy council said:  After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters...to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations 343of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul....we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.  We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers.  Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.

The Sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council Against the Monothelites

In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees...As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy...and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy.  In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved.  Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle; if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.

The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church Near What is Called Dicymbala to Enforce the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Many years to the Emperor!  Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor!  Many years to the Orthodox King!  Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace!  Many years to Constantine, a second Martian!  Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius!  Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian!  Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith!  O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!  O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!...To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!...To all heretics, anathema!  To all who side with heretics, anathema!

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

Acclamation of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent

Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council

And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak.  Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius,...also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will.

Letter of the Seventh Ecumenical Council to the Emperor and Empress

Just for starters.

[Papist]

^
Once again, your ultra-simplistic approach to apolgetics always puts me to sleep.

[ChristusDominus]

^
Once again, your ultra-simplistic approach to apolgetics always puts me to sleep.

[Wyatt]

^
Once again, your ultra-simplistic approach to apolgetics always puts me to sleep.

ROFLCOPTER

[ialmisry]

^
Once again, your ultra-simplistic approach to apolgetics always puts me to sleep.

Since you are evidently speechless, I take it that you do not talk in your sleep.

It also explains how you dream up a lot of your "evidence" for the Vatican.

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

[synLeszka]

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of Christ's command to speak "no,no, yes, yes" is fulfilled by your devout defense of modern American hedonism and the secularist statusquo.

[ialmisry]

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of Christ's command to speak "no,no, yes, yes" is fulfilled by your devout defense of modern American hedonism and the secularist statusquo.

Care to back that scurilous accusation with some quotes?

[synLeszka]

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of Christ's command to speak "no,no, yes, yes" is fulfilled by your devout defense of modern American hedonism and the secularist statusquo.

Care to back that scurilous accusation with some quotes?

Examine your own conscience, you are intelligent enough to do that to yourself.

[ialmisry]

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of Christ's command to speak "no,no, yes, yes" is fulfilled by your devout defense of modern American hedonism and the secularist statusquo.

Care to back that scurilous accusation with some quotes?

Examine your own conscience, you are intelligent enough to do that to yourself.

In other words, you have no evidence to back your accusations.
I don't answer for your conscience.

[elijahmaria]

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of Christ's command to speak "no,no, yes, yes" is fulfilled by your devout defense of modern American hedonism and the secularist statusquo.

Care to back that scurilous accusation with some quotes?

Examine your own conscience, you are intelligent enough to do that to yourself.

May I please make a suggestion to the Catholics on this Forum, this section in particular.

When you have something to say that is truthful about the Catholic Church or Catholic teaching say it...say it as many times as you like or feel the need.

But don't react or respond to some of the chatter that goes on because to respond to it detracts from the truth that is yours to tell.

It is more than obvious that the chatter also gets under your skin and you react rather than respond and then that too detracts from the points that are yours to make.

Do all within your power to make your points and defend your points and support your points without getting distracted by disconnected assertions that only appear to have cogency to the matter at hand, in other words do not argue.

In this way you can better serve the truth. 

Mary

[stanley123]

^
Once again, your ultra-simplistic approach to apolgetics always puts me to sleep.

If I am reading it correctly,  the interesting question that Ialmisry has brought up relates to the excommunication and anathematisation of Pope Honorius I as a heretic forty years after his death.  Although the declaration of anathema was given as an argument against papal infallibility in Vatican I, but according to the counterargument he was not speaking ex cathedra and was more guilty of negligence than heresy. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3301&CFID=50970295&CFTOKEN=27205757

[Schultz]

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of Christ's command to speak "no,no, yes, yes" is fulfilled by your devout defense of modern American hedonism and the secularist statusquo.

Because, of course, only those dirty, filthy Americans would be crude and lustful enough to stoop to the level of artificial birth control (I can only assume this is what you are implying); righteous and upstanding Europeans would never stoop to such levels of debauchery.

[ialmisry]

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of Christ's command to speak "no,no, yes, yes" is fulfilled by your devout defense of modern American hedonism and the secularist statusquo.

Care to back that scurilous accusation with some quotes?

Examine your own conscience, you are intelligent enough to do that to yourself.

May I please make a suggestion to the Catholics on this Forum, this section in particular.

When you have something to say that is truthful about the Catholic Church or Catholic teaching say it...say it as many times as you like or feel the need.

But don't react or respond to some of the chatter that goes on because to respond to it detracts from the truth that is yours to tell.

It is more than obvious that the chatter also gets under your skin and you react rather than respond and then that too detracts from the points that are yours to make.

Do all within your power to make your points and defend your points and support your points without getting distracted by disconnected assertions that only appear to have cogency to the matter at hand, in other words do not argue.

In this way you can better serve the truth. 

Yes. Preaching to the choir always serves truth best.

[ialmisry]

I know that the simple Truth does not match your love for casuitry and jesuistry, but I will stick to the simplicity of the Gospel, which makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of Christ's command to speak "no,no, yes, yes" is fulfilled by your devout defense of modern American hedonism and the secularist statusquo.

Because, of course, only those dirty, filthy Americans would be crude and lustful enough to stoop to the level of artificial birth control (I can only assume this is what you are implying); righteous and upstanding Europeans would never stoop to such levels of debauchery.

Not that this has anything to do with you or what you posted, but then again I have no idea what specifically synLeszka's post is refering to:

In 2009, the U.K. Government joined Holland and other European nations in encouraging teens to masturbate at least daily. An orgasm was defined as a right in its health pamphlet. This was done in response to data and experience from the other EU member states to reduce teen pregnancy and STIs (STDs), and to promote healthy habits.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=8072314&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation#cite_ref-26

AFAIK, schools in the US, even in Chicago, cannot distribute such pamphlets (though I have seen such "literature" being distributed outside school, countered by pro-life material).

[ialmisry]

^
Once again, your ultra-simplistic approach to apolgetics always puts me to sleep.

If I am reading it correctly,  the interesting question that Ialmisry has brought up relates to the excommunication and anathematisation of Pope Honorius I as a heretic forty years after his death.  Although the declaration of anathema was given as an argument against papal infallibility in Vatican I, but according to the counterargument he was not speaking ex cathedra and was more guilty of negligence than heresy. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3301&CFID=50970295&CFTOKEN=27205757

This might better be pursued on this thread
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29933.msg473188.html#msg473188

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Dear Mary, Papist and Wyatt:

I had not read the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until yesterday when Mary posted a link to them. Heretofore I had relied on secondary sources like Metropolitan Kallistos and Father Schmemann. I now realize, to my great discomfort, that my secondary sources were very kind to the Roman Catholic Church in their discussion of our long history together and our ecclesiastic and doctrinal differences. I will tell you also that I had a habit of approaching our differences with certain liberality, primarily by emphasizing our similarities but also by de-emphasizing our differences. However, having read even a short segment of the Acta of the First Ecumenical Council, I must tell you that I am most disillusioned by the supreme arrogance, intemperate language, and propaganda masquerading as facts that I found. I am citing the decisions of Session Four: 18 July 1870 in order to give you an idea of how much I had read to arrive at my impressions. Please be assured that I came into this with an irenic state of mind and now I am disappointed, disillusioned and frankly also angry. That said, I will withdraw from the arena as it is not good for my soul to be involved in such disputations.

Dear Chance,

   I hate to tell you but I swear off these disputations at least twice a day!!

Understand that I am not pointing just at you with the following.  It is meant to tell you something about me and how I view the world I live in:  Growing up Catholic in country that is infused with a dominant protestant weltenstaang, I am accustomed to being told that the Catholic Church is arrogant, meaning, of course, that Catholics are arrogant.  So I don't ever take that perception to heart without examining the source and the substance.

That being said, I have come to value your interest in Catholic and Orthodox interaction and I am sorry that you have had such a sour experience with some of the proceedings of our First Vatican Council.  I had similar difficulties with it many years ago, though I was inclined, by trust and in faith, to accept both primacy and infallibility.  Nonetheless some of the formal language of the Church, in all ages in fact, can be off-putting.

So if you would rather not discuss, I surely would understand.

For future reference and IF you have time and interest:

1. The official relatio [explanation] of infallibility was commissioned to Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser.  It has been translated with commentary by Father James T. O'Connor and is called The Gift of Infallibility.  It is published by Ignatius Press.

I found this text and commentary to be very helpful to me in putting the entire First Vatican in perspective in terms of the theological issues and concerns addressed by the Council.

2.  There is a history of papal primacy published in 1966 [Michael Glasser imprint of Liturgical Press], by Father Klaus Schatz SJ, called Papal Primacy. From Its Origins to the Present.

It is an excellent and brief history that I also found to be of great assistance in finding a comfort level with formal ecclesial and theological language at various stages of our history, both shared and at variance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So I will simply close by repeating that I am sorry that you are distressed and angry, and I do not in any way hold that against you or feel that you are lesser in any way for having this response.  I am happy to have you as a correspondent and honest brother in Christ!

Mary

Thank you Mary. I have a strong feeling that you, Papist and others who bravely defending your Church must know deep inside yourselves that having to rely on apologia and explanations after the fact is at best a rear guard action. I have a feeling that Vatican II and commentary that accompanied it were in fact attempts to wear down the sharp edges--as you said, to find "a comfort level with formal ecclesial and theological language." Furthermore, I can see that some day in the future a formulation will be crafted to substantially alter the decrees of Vatican I, while saving face. We see parallels in the law, where there are many dead and outdated laws on the books but we carry on still in a lawful fashion.

When I read what the Fathers say about Rome, I realize that I have nothing to worry about.

Dear Papist--I did give you an out but you are apparently rejecting it. Here is what I mean: I think it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to redefine herself so that she looks more like the church alluded to in Apostolic canon 34, that is, a confederation of conciliar churches (in North America, those would be the Church in Canada, in the United States, in Mexico, etc.). This approach is closer to the apostolic model and had been argued off and on in the Roman Church. The Bishop of Rome would still be the first among equals, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the convener and presiding officer of any pan-Catholic council. By emphasizing the positives, the Roman Church can finally get rid of innovations that are hurtful to the unity of of the Body of Christ and, in the process, earn the respect and admiration of the rest of the Christian world. Admittedly this is the Orthodox model but our Church is called "orthodox" for a good reason and we do provide an out for y'all to dig yourselves out of the hole that you have dug. Instead, you seem determined to dig even deeper. It just does not make sense, especially because the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy would actually be enhanced; she would regain her earned status as the leader of the Christian churches, just as it was in the early centuries when Rome was the beacon of Orthodoxy, of fidelity to Holy Tradition.

[elijahmaria]

Dear Papist--I did give you an out but you are apparently rejecting it. Here is what I mean: I think it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to redefine herself so that she looks more like the church alluded to in Apostolic canon 34, that is, a confederation of conciliar churches (in North America, those would be the Church in Canada, in the United States, in Mexico, etc.). This approach is closer to the apostolic model and had been argued off and on in the Roman Church. The Bishop of Rome would still be the first among equals, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the convener and presiding officer of any pan-Catholic council. By emphasizing the positives, the Roman Church can finally get rid of innovations that are hurtful to the unity of of the Body of Christ and, in the process, earn the respect and admiration of the rest of the Christian world. Admittedly this is the Orthodox model but our Church is called "orthodox" for a good reason and we do provide an out for y'all to dig yourselves out of the hole that you have dug. Instead, you seem determined to dig even deeper. It just does not make sense, especially because the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy would actually be enhanced; she would regain her earned status as the leader of the Christian churches, just as it was in the early centuries when Rome was the beacon of Orthodoxy, of fidelity to Holy Tradition.

If you read canon law, she is much closer to that than the excesses of her critics allow.  There is an entire hierarchy of due process that makes what you call for a reality de jure and de facto.  The history of that slow process from the time of the schismatic period to the present has yet to be written but you have nothing to offer by way of "a way out."    We are already there and have been there, only you appear to be too blinded by the need to judge negatively, to observe that as fact.

Mary

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Second Chance,

Dear Papist--I did give you an out but you are apparently rejecting it. Here is what I mean: I think it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to redefine herself so that she looks more like the church alluded to in Apostolic canon 34, that is, a confederation of conciliar churches (in North America, those would be the Church in Canada, in the United States, in Mexico, etc.). This approach is closer to the apostolic model and had been argued off and on in the Roman Church. The Bishop of Rome would still be the first among equals, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the convener and presiding officer of any pan-Catholic council. By emphasizing the positives, the Roman Church can finally get rid of innovations that are hurtful to the unity of of the Body of Christ and, in the process, earn the respect and admiration of the rest of the Christian world. Admittedly this is the Orthodox model but our Church is called "orthodox" for a good reason and we do provide an out for y'all to dig yourselves out of the hole that you have dug. Instead, you seem determined to dig even deeper. It just does not make sense, especially because the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy would actually be enhanced; she would regain her earned status as the leader of the Christian churches, just as it was in the early centuries when Rome was the beacon of Orthodoxy, of fidelity to Holy Tradition.

Could you explain the “out” that you mentioned in your first sentence, or give a link to the post where you mentioned it (to save you the trouble of repeating yourself)? Thanks.

Personally, I feel many non-Catholics and Catholics misinterpret V1. I don’t feel the Catholic Church has to redefine herself to be acceptable to Orthodox with regards to the papal dogmas.  I do think both Catholics and Orthodox need to study V1 more closely (not just the texts, but the background debates and commentaries by the Fathers at V1) and more honestly do understand what V1 intended by its statements on the papacy. Such a study will bear the fruit of understanding that V1 was not as heterodox as Orthodox imagine.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Dear Papist--I did give you an out but you are apparently rejecting it. Here is what I mean: I think it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to redefine herself so that she looks more like the church alluded to in Apostolic canon 34, that is, a confederation of conciliar churches (in North America, those would be the Church in Canada, in the United States, in Mexico, etc.). This approach is closer to the apostolic model and had been argued off and on in the Roman Church. The Bishop of Rome would still be the first among equals, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the convener and presiding officer of any pan-Catholic council. By emphasizing the positives, the Roman Church can finally get rid of innovations that are hurtful to the unity of of the Body of Christ and, in the process, earn the respect and admiration of the rest of the Christian world. Admittedly this is the Orthodox model but our Church is called "orthodox" for a good reason and we do provide an out for y'all to dig yourselves out of the hole that you have dug. Instead, you seem determined to dig even deeper. It just does not make sense, especially because the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy would actually be enhanced; she would regain her earned status as the leader of the Christian churches, just as it was in the early centuries when Rome was the beacon of Orthodoxy, of fidelity to Holy Tradition.

If you read canon law, she is much closer to that than the excesses of her critics allow.  There is an entire hierarchy of due process that makes what you call for a reality de jure and de facto.  The history of that slow process from the time of the schismatic period to the present has yet to be written but you have nothing to offer by way of "a way out."    We are already there and have been there, only you appear to be too blinded by the need to judge negatively, to observe that as fact.

Mary

I am sorry Mary but, as you earlier said, I am honestly conveying my thought. When I claim that y'all have made a super-bishop out of the Pope, it is not an emotion but what I think is a correct description of him. When I critique Papal Supremacy and Infallibility and urge y'all to be like the Church that once was (the ecclesiology that the Orthodox Church has preserved), I am saying so with due consideration. Let us cut to the chase: are you a confederation of Autocephalous Churches or are you one Church that is organized with reference to only one bishop? If the Pope is no longer the point of reference for all of your bishops, if he is less than supreme, if he is not infallible, then I am wrong and am motivated by the desire to be negative. I honestly don't think so, dear Mary. On the contrary, my motivation is for us all to work to truly unite the Body.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Dear brother Second Chance,

Dear Papist--I did give you an out but you are apparently rejecting it. Here is what I mean: I think it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to redefine herself so that she looks more like the church alluded to in Apostolic canon 34, that is, a confederation of conciliar churches (in North America, those would be the Church in Canada, in the United States, in Mexico, etc.). This approach is closer to the apostolic model and had been argued off and on in the Roman Church. The Bishop of Rome would still be the first among equals, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the convener and presiding officer of any pan-Catholic council. By emphasizing the positives, the Roman Church can finally get rid of innovations that are hurtful to the unity of of the Body of Christ and, in the process, earn the respect and admiration of the rest of the Christian world. Admittedly this is the Orthodox model but our Church is called "orthodox" for a good reason and we do provide an out for y'all to dig yourselves out of the hole that you have dug. Instead, you seem determined to dig even deeper. It just does not make sense, especially because the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy would actually be enhanced; she would regain her earned status as the leader of the Christian churches, just as it was in the early centuries when Rome was the beacon of Orthodoxy, of fidelity to Holy Tradition.

Could you explain the “out” that you mentioned in your first sentence, or give a link to the post where you mentioned it (to save you the trouble of repeating yourself)? Thanks.

Personally, I feel many non-Catholics and Catholics misinterpret V1. I don’t feel the Catholic Church has to redefine herself to be acceptable to Orthodox with regards to the papal dogmas.  I do think both Catholics and Orthodox need to study V1 more closely (not just the texts, but the background debates and commentaries by the Fathers at V1) and more honestly do understand what V1 intended by its statements on the papacy. Such a study will bear the fruit of understanding that V1 was not as heterodox as Orthodox imagine.

Blessings,
Marduk

When I wrote "Furthermore, I can see that some day in the future a formulation will be crafted to substantially alter the decrees of Vatican I, while saving face. We see parallels in the law, where there are many dead and outdated laws on the books but we carry on still in a lawful fashion." Regarding Vatican I, I do think that the text of the decrees  matter more than any after-the fact commentary.

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Second Chance,

When I wrote "Furthermore, I can see that some day in the future a formulation will be crafted to substantially alter the decrees of Vatican I, while saving face. We see parallels in the law, where there are many dead and outdated laws on the books but we carry on still in a lawful fashion." Regarding Vatican I, I do think that the text of the decrees  matter more than any after-the fact commentary.

How could the commentaries of the Fathers at the Council be considered "after=the=fact?"

Blessings

[ialmisry]

Dear brother Second Chance,

Dear Papist--I did give you an out but you are apparently rejecting it. Here is what I mean: I think it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to redefine herself so that she looks more like the church alluded to in Apostolic canon 34, that is, a confederation of conciliar churches (in North America, those would be the Church in Canada, in the United States, in Mexico, etc.). This approach is closer to the apostolic model and had been argued off and on in the Roman Church. The Bishop of Rome would still be the first among equals, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the convener and presiding officer of any pan-Catholic council. By emphasizing the positives, the Roman Church can finally get rid of innovations that are hurtful to the unity of of the Body of Christ and, in the process, earn the respect and admiration of the rest of the Christian world. Admittedly this is the Orthodox model but our Church is called "orthodox" for a good reason and we do provide an out for y'all to dig yourselves out of the hole that you have dug. Instead, you seem determined to dig even deeper. It just does not make sense, especially because the dignity and moral authority of the Papacy would actually be enhanced; she would regain her earned status as the leader of the Christian churches, just as it was in the early centuries when Rome was the beacon of Orthodoxy, of fidelity to Holy Tradition.

Could you explain the “out” that you mentioned in your first sentence, or give a link to the post where you mentioned it (to save you the trouble of repeating yourself)? Thanks.

Personally, I feel many non-Catholics and Catholics misinterpret V1.

I'm tackling how the Vatican defined itself in VI here,
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29953.msg473611.html#msg473611
where I have brought up that Pastor Aeternus, saying that the pope of Rome can make dogmatic statements on his own authority of his office, nonetheless claims the "appropobation of the sacred council" is pronounciling its dogma of the papacy.

I don’t feel the Catholic Church has to redefine herself to be acceptable to Orthodox with regards to the papal dogmas.

The Orthodox are the Catholic Church.

I remember when the Vatican dropped the title "Patriarch of the West," oddly since that was the only title beyond bishop of Rome and Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province that we accept, since the Orthodox have not redefined the Catholic Church. On Relevant Radio, a conversative Apostolate of the Vatican, recognized by the "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" as a media outlet, the talk was about the Orthodox complaints that "well, they will just have to get used to it."  No, we can just shake the dust off our sandals. If not at Ravenna, maybe at Cyprus (isn't that where the next plenary session of the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" supposed to be?)

I do think both Catholics and Orthodox need to study V1 more closely (not just the texts, but the background debates and commentaries by the Fathers at V1) and more honestly do understand what V1 intended by its statements on the papacy. Such a study will bear the fruit of understanding that V1 was not as heterodox as Orthodox imagine.

We'll see on the other thread
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29953.0.html

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Dear brother Second Chance,

When I wrote "Furthermore, I can see that some day in the future a formulation will be crafted to substantially alter the decrees of Vatican I, while saving face. We see parallels in the law, where there are many dead and outdated laws on the books but we carry on still in a lawful fashion." Regarding Vatican I, I do think that the text of the decrees  matter more than any after-the fact commentary.

How could the commentaries of the Fathers at the Council be considered "after=the=fact?"

Blessings

Hello brother Mardukm! I apologize for my inexactitude. Of course the comments of the Fathers at the Council would be relevant, both pro and con. However, the text is what it is and there does not seem areas of inexactitude in the language that is used (assuming that the translation that I used--from an RC source--is correct). So we have a situation where speeches were made, understandings occurred, and perhaps there were even some caveats that would allow opponents to live with the final decrees. None of these detract from the plain meaning of the words used in the decrees. Certainly, all of these factors are useful, as are the later (after the fact) understandings and explanations. I simply can not agree that anything can change the essential components of the decrees or substantially change their meanings.