OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 02:07:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Can Views on Infallibility Be Merged?  (Read 15343 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« on: December 28, 2010, 12:28:56 AM »

Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

The view presented by First Vatican Council is that the Pope, in his capacity as Dean of the College of Bishops, has the authority to dogmatically define what the teaching of the magisterium is on a given issue. In this view, the Pope may not introduce a dogma which is new. He may only define a dogma which the magisterium already holds. In these instances, the definition is infallible, not because of anything inhering in the Pope, but because the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is infallible.
 
The Orthodox view on infallibility has tended to be that a view is gradually recognized as infallible when it is accepted by the whole Church. As a westerner, a problem with that seems to me to be that the Orthodox have no problem recognizing Ephesus and Chalcedon as infallible and ecumenical over the objections of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. If the issue is simply "gradual acceptance" I can't think of any reason why the OOC and ACE's objections shouldn't count, except that the EOC is bigger than them. But if this is all there is to it, it would of course run in to the problem that the RCC dwarfs the EOC.

Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 12:29:40 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2010, 12:36:10 AM »

The infallibility of the pope was a teaching that was not held by the magisterium of your church at the time when it was dogmatized.  The infallibility of the pope is proof that a Pope can and does create new dogma, regardless of what the majority of the church has believed and taught.  The Orthodox will never accept the belief that a man can be infallible.  We aren't fans of blasphemy.   
Logged

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

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2010, 12:42:56 AM »

The Pope's authority to make dogmatic definitions was defined by the First Council of the Vatican, not any Pope.

The Catholic Church does not and never has taught that any man is infallible. Arguing that it does is like saying that the Supreme Court is part of the legislative branch.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 12:43:49 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2010, 12:52:46 AM »

I strongly encourage you to read this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39:the-vatican-dogma&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2

Logged

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

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2010, 12:59:21 AM »

Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

The view presented by First Vatican Council is that the Pope, in his capacity as Dean of the College of Bishops, has the authority to dogmatically define what the teaching of the magisterium is on a given issue. In this view, the Pope may not introduce a dogma which is new. He may only define a dogma which the magisterium already holds. In these instances, the definition is infallible, not because of anything inhering in the Pope, but because the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is infallible.
 
The Orthodox view on infallibility has tended to be that a view is gradually recognized as infallible when it is accepted by the whole Church. As a westerner, a problem with that seems to me to be that the Orthodox have no problem recognizing Ephesus and Chalcedon as infallible and ecumenical over the objections of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. If the issue is simply "gradual acceptance" I can't think of any reason why the OOC and ACE's objections shouldn't count, except that the EOC is bigger than them. But if this is all there is to it, it would of course run in to the problem that the RCC dwarfs the EOC.

Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?


Two things.....

1) You misunderstand the Orthodox position on the infallibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with size or majorities.

2) If the infallibility of the pope is only an expression of the teachings of the Magisterium, why go to the pains to point of that definitions by the pope are, "of themselves, and not by consent of the church, irreformable."?
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2010, 01:09:06 AM »

Quote
Two things.....

1) You misunderstand the Orthodox position on the infallibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with size or majorities.

2) If the infallibility of the pope is only an expression of the teachings of the Magisterium, why go to the pains to point of that definitions by the pope are, "of themselves, and not by consent of the church, irreformable."?

On 1.) It isn't really clear how the Orthodox feel the infallibility of the Church plays out. I was merely examining some ways it might play out in the actual world.

On 2.) The Pope's authority is one to end disputes. He can offer a final dogmatic definition of what a magisterial doctrine states. But he cannot innovate a new doctrine. The Orthodox tend to fear that the Popes will use this to rule by decree, but I don't think there is much by way of evidence for this since Vatican I.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 01:13:10 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2010, 01:21:38 AM »

The Pope's authority to make dogmatic definitions was defined by the First Council of the Vatican, not any Pope.

The Catholic Church does not and never has taught that any man is infallible. Arguing that it does is like saying that the Supreme Court is part of the legislative branch.

I think what the Orthodox would have problems with is the Pope changing the meaning of certain dogmas into a heretical view of what the EO already have and then saying that it is infallible even if it were to contradict what x+ years of T(t)radition says.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2010, 01:24:17 AM »

The Popes have issued two dogmatic definitions: Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus. The first defines the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The easterners might have a bit of nitpicking to do on "Immaculate Conception", because of the different emphases on Original Sin in west and east, but in substance what it means is the same: Mary lived her whole life without sin. The second defined the assumption of Mary.

I can't see why the Orthodox would feel either of these are heretical.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 01:25:20 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2010, 01:27:54 AM »

The Popes have issued two dogmatic definitions: Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus. The first defines the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The easterners might have a bit of nitpicking to do on "Immaculate Conception", because of the different emphases on Original Sin in west and east, but in substance what it means is the same: Mary lived her whole life without sin. The second defined the assumption of Mary.

I can't see why the Orthodox would feel either of these are heretical.

I think it is along the lines of stopping it before it starts. In other words, the Orthodox are afraid that the Pope would change the meanings of certain dogmas so much that they would not fit into the traditions of the Church and thus do not even want to venture into that realm of probable possibility.

But I am by no means an Orthodox apologist, so I could be wrong here.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2010, 01:34:39 AM »

Oh, I misunderstood what tense you were using there. Yes, I agree that is what the Orthodox tend to think.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2010, 01:38:57 AM »

Oh, I misunderstood what tense you were using there. Yes, I agree that is what the Orthodox tend to think.

Oh, look we agree on something... could this be the first step to reuniting?

Although at times I wish the EO would just have a Bishop of Rome and lose the baggage (in other words, let bygones be bygones, cut our losses, etc.) I do truly wish to see the two reunited, but given the current attitudes of many EO I do not see that happening in my lifetime.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Clancy Boy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 113


« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2010, 02:54:36 AM »

The Popes have issued two dogmatic definitions: Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus. The first defines the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The easterners might have a bit of nitpicking to do on "Immaculate Conception", because of the different emphases on Original Sin in west and east, but in substance what it means is the same: Mary lived her whole life without sin. The second defined the assumption of Mary.

I can't see why the Orthodox would feel either of these are heretical.

That's not really the point though, is it. 
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2010, 03:15:22 AM »

Yea, I misunderstood what he was saying at the time.

If the Orthodox fear what the Pope might do in the future there isn't much to be said. On that issue I don't think it really has anything to do with the infallibility of dogmatic definition - the Orthodox were freaked out about union long before Vatican I. It's just general fear and mistrust of the west (given the behavior of the latins at times, not wholly unjustified)
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 03:15:54 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2010, 12:21:53 PM »

There is, of course, no single theory of ecclesial infallibility in the Catholic Church.  This was true at Vatican I and is equally true today.  While generalizations are always dangerous, I think it is accurate to say that most Catholic theologians today teach what might be called a minimalist position:  when by either conciliar or papal action, the Church solemnly defines dogma, God will protect the Church from imposing serious error.  There is no guarantee that the dogmatic definition is the best definition possible; hence the Church remains free to re-formulate its dogmas in order to render them more adequate to the truth to which they witness.  I refer to Avery Cardinal Dulles's article "Moderate Infallibilism," A Church to Believe In, pp. 133-148. 

The Catholic position on papal infallibility is often presented as asserting the total independence of the Pope from the Church, and certainly the Vatican I formulation on papal infallbiility, which sought to exclude the error of Gallicanism, can be reasonably interpreted in this way.  But this does not mean that "reception" has no place in the Catholic Church's understanding of dogma.  While it is true that Catholic theologians have emphasized formal criteria when determining the magisterial authority of conciliar and papal dogmas, it is not true that only formal and canonical criteria matter. Speaking of papal dogmatic definitions, Lumen gentium (25) states: "To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith."

What happens if the assent is indeed found wanting? What happens if a dogmatic definition is not received by the whole Church as faithfully speaking the truth of Christ? Avery Cardinal Dulles has suggested that were the Church to refuse her assent, then this can only mean that the Pope had failed to meet all necessary conditions for an authentic ex cathedra pronouncement:

Quote
It would not be proper to regard the pope as a mere mouthpiece for voicing what had previously been explicitly agreed to by the whole Church. As supreme pastor and teacher he has a special responsibility and charism for doctrine. But … it seems evident that definitions, if they authentically correspond to the charism of the papal office, will find an echo in the faith of the Church and will therefore evoke assent, at least eventually. If in a given instance the assent of the Church were evidently not forthcoming, this could be interpreted as a signal that the pope had perhaps exceeded his competence and that some necessary condition for an infallible act had not been fulfilled. (A Church to Believe In, p. 139)

Bishop B. C. Butler agrees: "It follows, of course, though Vatican II does not say so, that if a definition failed in the end to enjoy such a `reception' on the part of the Church, this would prove that the definition had not in fact met the stringent requirements for an ex cathedra pronouncement."

Catholic theology, in other words, does in fact acknowledge the necessity of "reception" in confirming the authenticity of dogmatic definitions. This element is rarely mentioned in apologetic and internet debates, for obvious reasons. Though the cited passage from Lumen gentium is speaking of papal definitions, it is clearly relevant, I believe, to the question of conciliar ecumenicity and conciliar dogmatic definitions.  This is why the Catholic participants in the Catholic/Orthodox dialogue could agree with the following paragraphs in the Ravenna Statement: 

Quote
37. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a Council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole - by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.

38. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops' decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an "institution" whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an "event", a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

The Catholic position on dogmatic infallibility is actually more nuanced and interesting than is often presented in apologetic debates.
Logged

Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2010, 02:02:21 PM »

I'm not sure we should be willing to give that much to the Orthodox. A statement is not true or false based on whether a certain number of bishops concede to it. The Orthodox concern for conciliar acceptance seems to me to at times tend towards special pleading. They aren't too torn up by the conciliar acceptance of the Assyrian Church of the East or the Oriental Orthodox Churches when labelling Ephesus and Chalcedon as ecumenical councils, and Pope Saint Gelasius I was not dependent upon the conciliar acceptance of Constantinople in condemning monophysitism. The Roman Pontiffs have always reserved for themselves the final right to declare and define what the Church has taught. In 1054, Michael I Cerularius had no right to harangue Pope Leo IX on the issue of unleavened bread in the eucharist and then refuse to meet with his legate. It was the proper authority of Leo as Roman Pontiff to declare and define the teaching of the magisterium on the issue of unleavened bread.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 02:29:48 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2010, 03:35:53 PM »

What is missing here, of course, is any kind of clarity on how one determines whether or not "reception" has occurred.

I point out, for example, on the Orthodox side it has taken nearly 2000 years for the Church to receive the current teaching prescribing certain forms of artificial birth control.  Obviously for 2000 years or thereabouts the strong teaching against any form of birth control was clearly an error.  Would bishops of the 15th century in Orthodoxy have taken kindly to the idea that their moral truth would someday been assessed as an error?  Would the people have leaped on the idea and stopped confessing the times when they used the artificial methods available to them at that time?

There is a certain bottomless boggyness in this business of "reception"

There is, of course, no single theory of ecclesial infallibility in the Catholic Church.  This was true at Vatican I and is equally true today.  While generalizations are always dangerous, I think it is accurate to say that most Catholic theologians today teach what might be called a minimalist position:  when by either conciliar or papal action, the Church solemnly defines dogma, God will protect the Church from imposing serious error.  There is no guarantee that the dogmatic definition is the best definition possible; hence the Church remains free to re-formulate its dogmas in order to render them more adequate to the truth to which they witness.  I refer to Avery Cardinal Dulles's article "Moderate Infallibilism," A Church to Believe In, pp. 133-148. 

The Catholic position on papal infallibility is often presented as asserting the total independence of the Pope from the Church, and certainly the Vatican I formulation on papal infallbiility, which sought to exclude the error of Gallicanism, can be reasonably interpreted in this way.  But this does not mean that "reception" has no place in the Catholic Church's understanding of dogma.  While it is true that Catholic theologians have emphasized formal criteria when determining the magisterial authority of conciliar and papal dogmas, it is not true that only formal and canonical criteria matter. Speaking of papal dogmatic definitions, Lumen gentium (25) states: "To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith."

What happens if the assent is indeed found wanting? What happens if a dogmatic definition is not received by the whole Church as faithfully speaking the truth of Christ? Avery Cardinal Dulles has suggested that were the Church to refuse her assent, then this can only mean that the Pope had failed to meet all necessary conditions for an authentic ex cathedra pronouncement:

Quote
It would not be proper to regard the pope as a mere mouthpiece for voicing what had previously been explicitly agreed to by the whole Church. As supreme pastor and teacher he has a special responsibility and charism for doctrine. But … it seems evident that definitions, if they authentically correspond to the charism of the papal office, will find an echo in the faith of the Church and will therefore evoke assent, at least eventually. If in a given instance the assent of the Church were evidently not forthcoming, this could be interpreted as a signal that the pope had perhaps exceeded his competence and that some necessary condition for an infallible act had not been fulfilled. (A Church to Believe In, p. 139)

Bishop B. C. Butler agrees: "It follows, of course, though Vatican II does not say so, that if a definition failed in the end to enjoy such a `reception' on the part of the Church, this would prove that the definition had not in fact met the stringent requirements for an ex cathedra pronouncement."

Catholic theology, in other words, does in fact acknowledge the necessity of "reception" in confirming the authenticity of dogmatic definitions. This element is rarely mentioned in apologetic and internet debates, for obvious reasons. Though the cited passage from Lumen gentium is speaking of papal definitions, it is clearly relevant, I believe, to the question of conciliar ecumenicity and conciliar dogmatic definitions.  This is why the Catholic participants in the Catholic/Orthodox dialogue could agree with the following paragraphs in the Ravenna Statement: 

Quote
37. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a Council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole - by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.

38. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops' decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an "institution" whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an "event", a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

The Catholic position on dogmatic infallibility is actually more nuanced and interesting than is often presented in apologetic debates.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2010, 04:45:06 PM »

Speaking of papal dogmatic definitions, Lumen gentium (25) states: "To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith."

What happens if the assent is indeed found wanting? What happens if a dogmatic definition is not received by the whole Church as faithfully speaking the truth of Christ? Avery Cardinal Dulles has suggested that were the Church to refuse her assent, then this can only mean that the Pope had failed to meet all necessary conditions for an authentic ex cathedra pronouncement:

Quote
It would not be proper to regard the pope as a mere mouthpiece for voicing what had previously been explicitly agreed to by the whole Church. As supreme pastor and teacher he has a special responsibility and charism for doctrine. But … it seems evident that definitions, if they authentically correspond to the charism of the papal office, will find an echo in the faith of the Church and will therefore evoke assent, at least eventually. If in a given instance the assent of the Church were evidently not forthcoming, this could be interpreted as a signal that the pope had perhaps exceeded his competence and that some necessary condition for an infallible act had not been fulfilled. (A Church to Believe In, p. 139)

Bishop B. C. Butler agrees: "It follows, of course, though Vatican II does not say so, that if a definition failed in the end to enjoy such a `reception' on the part of the Church, this would prove that the definition had not in fact met the stringent requirements for an ex cathedra pronouncement."
Dulles' and Butler's comments are the best responses to the problems caused by the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser and the decree Pastor Aeternus that I have seen, but I am not sure if they are sufficient to overcome the difficulties caused by the theory proposed at Vatican I.  Now I say this because, as Gasser, the head of the Deputation de Fide, put it:  the Pope is not separated, "even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent," and then Gasser goes on to say - much like the bishops at Vatican II in the document Lumen Gentium - that whenever the pope defines something the consent of the Church will automatically follow that act of definition.  But if that consent does not follow, I do not believe - based either upon what was said in the Relatio or in Pastor Aeternus - that one can hold that the pope's definition is somehow non-infallible and non-binding because the consent of the Church is lacking, since ecclesial consent is not a cause of infallibility that is "either antecedent or consequent" to the papal definition.

Be that as it may, I still commend Butler and Dulles for their attempts to rescue the theory of papal infallibility.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 04:53:46 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2010, 05:33:19 PM »

Since the Church teaches that the infallibility of the magisterium is ensured through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, presumably the consent of the Church to a dogmatic definition of the Pope would be ensured by the same.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2010, 05:35:05 PM »

What is missing here, of course, is any kind of clarity on how one determines whether or not "reception" has occurred.

I point out, for example, on the Orthodox side it has taken nearly 2000 years for the Church to receive the current teaching prescribing certain forms of artificial birth control.  Obviously for 2000 years or thereabouts the strong teaching against any form of birth control was clearly an error.  Would bishops of the 15th century in Orthodoxy have taken kindly to the idea that their moral truth would someday been assessed as an error?  Would the people have leaped on the idea and stopped confessing the times when they used the artificial methods available to them at that time?
You tell us: the same "evidence" that you depend on to condemen "ABC" so called, also unequivocally condemn "NFP" so called, as well.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2010, 05:45:06 PM »

That would only rather strengthen the point vis a vis the muddy nature of 'reception', no?
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2010, 05:49:21 PM »


This is very telling, John.

Father Sergei's theology, in general, is held out by self-identified conservative Orthodox believers as a 20th century exemplar of how NOT to be Orthodox.

And yet you would hold him up as an exemplar of wisdom with regard to his knowledge and understanding of the Roman Church.   

And yet still, his knowledge of the Roman Church and the papacy is about as twisted as his knowledge and understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas....or the Wisdom books of the Old Testament...which led him nearly into heresy and at least into heterodox thinking within Orthodoxy.

And this is who you would follow over the cliff against the papal Church...

That's dumb.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2010, 05:49:21 PM »

There is no comparison necessary.  Don't duck the issue.

The prescribed Orthodox use of artificial birth control is essentially an innovation of the 20th century. 

It is an excellent example of so-called "reception" of doctrine waiting nearly 2000 years for what now appears to be a universal reception....It is now universally received, is it not?

Mary

What is missing here, of course, is any kind of clarity on how one determines whether or not "reception" has occurred.

I point out, for example, on the Orthodox side it has taken nearly 2000 years for the Church to receive the current teaching prescribing certain forms of artificial birth control.  Obviously for 2000 years or thereabouts the strong teaching against any form of birth control was clearly an error.  Would bishops of the 15th century in Orthodoxy have taken kindly to the idea that their moral truth would someday been assessed as an error?  Would the people have leaped on the idea and stopped confessing the times when they used the artificial methods available to them at that time?
You tell us: the same "evidence" that you depend on to condemen "ABC" so called, also unequivocally condemn "NFP" so called, as well.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2010, 07:16:02 PM »

Since the Church teaches that the infallibility of the magisterium is ensured through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, presumably the consent of the Church to a dogmatic definition of the Pope would be ensured by the same.
The "definition" (i.e., Pastor Aeternus) itself muddies things up considerably, because what happens if the consent of the Church does not follow?  According to Gasser the consent of the Church, or lack thereof, has no impact on the infallibility of the definition.  It is all well and good to say that the consent of the Church would always follow, but that really is an evasive answer, or - to be more blunt - no answer at all.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 07:33:02 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2010, 07:46:47 PM »

Since the Church teaches that the infallibility of the magisterium is ensured through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, presumably the consent of the Church to a dogmatic definition of the Pope would be ensured by the same.
The "definition" itself muddies things up considerably, because what happens if the consent of the Church does not follow?  According to Gasser the consent of the Church, or lack thereof, has no effect on the infallibility of the definition.  It is all well and good to say that the consent of the Church would always follow, but that really is an evasive answer, or - to be more blunt - no answer at all.

The definition does not come forth without episcopal consent already in place.  The consent of the faithful follows as they are taught by their shepherds to understand the truth contained in the definition.  And one always needs to remind that the Church is not a raw democratic form of one man, one vote.    I don't believe patristic consensus is "calculated" that way either.  And clearly, given the Orthodox moral teaching on prescribed artificial contraception, and the undercurrent of clergy and lay resistance to this innovation, the whole process is a foggy-bottom, IF you predicate Truth on majority rule.


Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2010, 07:54:13 PM »

There is no comparison necessary.  Don't duck the issue.
Haven't ducked anything. The position of the Orthodox Church now remains the same that it was 2000 years ago.  Some, like the Fathers that you claim for your support for Humanae Vitae (which cites no patristics, as it can't), reject sex for anything but procreation.  That you limit yourselves to those Fathers is your problem, not ours.
Quote
The prescribed Orthodox use of artificial birth control is essentially an innovation of the 20th century.

No, but the Vatican's embrace of so called natural birth control (which the Fathers that you depend on condemn as "an outrage against nature"),e,r "natural famiily planning" is essentially an innovation of the 19th century Roman penitentiary.

THe "modern" distinction between contraception and abortifacient is the ancient distinction.

Quote
t is an excellent example of so-called "reception" of doctrine waiting nearly 2000 years for what now appears to be a universal reception....It is now universally received, is it not?
It wasn't universally received then, it is not universally received now. Just as the view of sex being limited to only procreation, basically reducing couples to nothing more than flesh and blood artificial insemination 'bots (read St. Clement on that, and not just the quotes you lift out of context to support your novel views) wasn't universally received then, and it is not universally received now.

The IC would be an excellent example of reception of doctrine, were it not for the fact that it didn't appear until over a millenium after the purported event, and it was vociferously fought as an innovation when it reared its head.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 07:54:38 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2010, 08:04:40 PM »

Since the Church teaches that the infallibility of the magisterium is ensured through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, presumably the consent of the Church to a dogmatic definition of the Pope would be ensured by the same.
The "definition" (i.e., Pastor Aeternus) itself muddies things up considerably, because what happens if the consent of the Church does not follow?  According to Gasser the consent of the Church, or lack thereof, has no impact on the infallibility of the definition.  It is all well and good to say that the consent of the Church would always follow, but that really is an evasive answer, or - to be more blunt - no answer at all.

The basis of infallibility is the belief that the Holy Spirit is intervening in the world to prevent the magisterium from teaching error.

To accept the idea that the Holy Spirit would protect the magisterium from teaching error, but not to accept the idea that the Holy Spirit would protect the faithful from rejecting an infallible definition strikes me as rather silly.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2010, 08:07:51 PM »

Since the Church teaches that the infallibility of the magisterium is ensured through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, presumably the consent of the Church to a dogmatic definition of the Pope would be ensured by the same.
The "definition" itself muddies things up considerably, because what happens if the consent of the Church does not follow?  According to Gasser the consent of the Church, or lack thereof, has no effect on the infallibility of the definition.  It is all well and good to say that the consent of the Church would always follow, but that really is an evasive answer, or - to be more blunt - no answer at all.

The definition does not come forth without episcopal consent already in place.

Can you quote Pastor Aeternus on that? Because we can (and have already on this read IIRC) quote the contrary from Pastor Aeternus.

Quote
The consent of the faithful follows as they are taught by their shepherds to understand the truth contained in the definition.

LOL. The implied consent to the ministry of truth.

Quote
And one always needs to remind that the Church is not a raw democratic form of one man, one vote. 

Sure it is. The pope is one man, and he has one vote. And that's the only vote that counts.

Quote
I don't believe patristic consensus is "calculated" that way either.

By what the present pope says, if it contradicts his predecessors? No, it doesn't.

Quote
And clearly, given the Orthodox moral teaching on prescribed artificial contraception, and the undercurrent of clergy and lay resistance to this innovation,
You mean those who wish to impose their opinions on everyone?  They've tried to do that for centuries, on a host of topics, but hasn't succeeded. For instance, mandated clerical celibacy.

Quote
the whole process is a foggy-bottom, IF you predicate Truth on majority rule.
You meant it is connected with the US State Department?
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/foggy_bottom.htm
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2010, 09:08:48 PM »

Since the Church teaches that the infallibility of the magisterium is ensured through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, presumably the consent of the Church to a dogmatic definition of the Pope would be ensured by the same.
The "definition" (i.e., Pastor Aeternus) itself muddies things up considerably, because what happens if the consent of the Church does not follow?  According to Gasser the consent of the Church, or lack thereof, has no impact on the infallibility of the definition.  It is all well and good to say that the consent of the Church would always follow, but that really is an evasive answer, or - to be more blunt - no answer at all.

Perhaps Cardinal Dulles's commentary on the Vatican I assertion that the dogmatic definitions of "the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable" may be of interest:

Quote
Vatican I firmly rejected one condition which the Gallicans had regarded as necessary for infallibility, namely, the consent of the whole Church.  This is the meaning of the famous phrase ex sese, non ex consensu Ecclesiae (DS 3074).  The Council here denies that the reason for the irreformability of papal definitions is the consent of the Church; it did not deny that the consent of the Church will be present or even that such consent is necessary as a condition for recognizing an authentic exercise of the infallible magisterium.

In other words, the consent of the Church is not the source of an irreformable dogmatic definition.  If this were the case, neither Pope nor Ecumenical Council would be able to authoritatively define doctrine in the name of Christ and his Church.  The consent of the Church is not the source of irreformable dogma--the Holy Spirit is.  On the other hand, the acceptance by the Church of dogmatic definition (whether papal or conciliar) may properly be seen as confirmation of the authenticity of that definition.  Or as Fr Francis Sullivan puts the matter:  "If one asks: how can we have infallible certitude that all the conditions required for an infallible definition are present in any particular case?--I would reply: the evidence of this which itself enjoys infalliblility is the reception of the defined dogma in the faith-consciousness of the Church. Subsequent reception does not confer infallibility on the act of the magisterium, but it provides infallible confirmation of the fact that an infallible definition has taken place" (Magisterium, p. 111). 

When one wades into Catholic theological literature (as opposed to apologetic literature) one quickly discovers that the relationship between infallible dogma and ecclesial consent is much contested.  A wooden, fundamentalist reading of Vatican I may lead one to believe that reception is irrelevant; but many Catholic theologians would argue that it is not.  A Catholic is always permitted to ask, "Has this dogmatic definition actually been received and embraced by the Faithful?"  And if it has not, then he may ask, "Have all the conditions for an authentic and binding infallible definition have been fulfilled in reality?" 

At this point, are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches light years apart, as is often supposed? 
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2010, 09:11:06 PM »

Since the Church teaches that the infallibility of the magisterium is ensured through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, presumably the consent of the Church to a dogmatic definition of the Pope would be ensured by the same.
The "definition" (i.e., Pastor Aeternus) itself muddies things up considerably, because what happens if the consent of the Church does not follow?  According to Gasser the consent of the Church, or lack thereof, has no impact on the infallibility of the definition.  It is all well and good to say that the consent of the Church would always follow, but that really is an evasive answer, or - to be more blunt - no answer at all.

Perhaps Cardinal Dulles's commentary on the Vatican I assertion that the dogmatic definitions of "the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable" may be of interest:

Quote
Vatican I firmly rejected one condition which the Gallicans had regarded as necessary for infallibility, namely, the consent of the whole Church.  This is the meaning of the famous phrase ex sese, non ex consensu Ecclesiae (DS 3074).  The Council here denies that the reason for the irreformability of papal definitions is the consent of the Church; it did not deny that the consent of the Church will be present or even that such consent is necessary as a condition for recognizing an authentic exercise of the infallible magisterium.

In other words, the consent of the Church is not the source of an irreformable dogmatic definition.  If this were the case, neither Pope nor Ecumenical Council would be able to authoritatively define doctrine in the name of Christ and his Church.  The consent of the Church is not the source of irreformable dogma--the Holy Spirit is.  On the other hand, the acceptance by the Church of dogmatic definition (whether papal or conciliar) may properly be seen as confirmation of the authenticity of that definition.  Or as Fr Francis Sullivan puts the matter:  "If one asks: how can we have infallible certitude that all the conditions required for an infallible definition are present in any particular case?--I would reply: the evidence of this which itself enjoys infalliblility is the reception of the defined dogma in the faith-consciousness of the Church. Subsequent reception does not confer infallibility on the act of the magisterium, but it provides infallible confirmation of the fact that an infallible definition has taken place" (Magisterium, p. 111). 

When one wades into Catholic theological literature (as opposed to apologetic literature) one quickly discovers that the relationship between infallible dogma and ecclesial consent is much contested.  A wooden, fundamentalist reading of Vatican I may lead one to believe that reception is irrelevant; but many Catholic theologians would argue that it is not.  A Catholic is always permitted to ask, "Has this dogmatic definition actually been received and embraced by the Faithful?"  And if it has not, then he may ask, "Have all the conditions for an authentic and binding infallible definition have been fulfilled in reality?" 

At this point, are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches light years apart, as is often supposed? 
Thank you for the post.  Alas it is not has helpful as I would like, because I hold that the consent of the whole Church, which is an expression of sobornicity, is necessary for the teaching of a council to be God-inspired.

I do find it interesting that the more the Roman Church tries to "define" doctrine in order to bring clarity it actually appears to muddy the waters even more.  Cheesy

The Roman bishop and his curia should take to heart St. Hilary's comment in his treatise on the trinity and remain silent more often.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 09:13:21 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2010, 09:14:47 PM »

At this point, are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches light years apart, as is often supposed? 
I do not know if the two sides are light years apart, but I do not believe that the Eastern Orthodox will ever accept the idea that the bishop of Rome can issue infallible declarations.

That is just my opinion of course.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2010, 09:50:40 PM »

You believe the consent of the whole Church is necessary?

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church. At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 09:51:22 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2010, 09:53:31 PM »

You believe the consent of the whole Church is necessary?
Yes, I do, because I believe that Catholicity involves the whole Church and not just one bishop.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 28, 2010, 09:55:29 PM »

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church. At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.
Of course I believe that there have been ecumenical councils, and the way that I know a council is ecumenical is by its commemoration in the liturgy of the Church.  Whether or not a council is God-inspired is not determined by some form of juridical act of a particular bishop; instead, it is established through the worship and veneration of the council in question by the Church at prayer.  The rule of prayer is the rule of belief.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 09:56:01 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2010, 09:56:30 PM »

Thank you for the post.  Alas it is not has helpful as I would like, because I hold that the consent of the whole Church, which is an expression of sobornicity, is necessary for the teaching of a council to be God-inspired.

That, I know, is one Orthodox point of view, but it is not the only Orthodox point of view.  Compare, e.g., the view of Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis:

Quote
The acceptance a posteriori of the decisions of a synod by the entire body of the Church is not altoglether irrelevant to the ecumenical character of the synod.  However, such an acceptance should be considered the external proof of ecumenicity, that is, as its result and not its cause.  That is to say, if a synod happens to be inherently infallible, because of the decisions of the holy Fathers assembled in the Holy Spirit, then it is necessary that it be obligatory for the conscience of the faithful, in which case this external fact persuades us that the synod was truly infallible.  This, however, does not mean that the acceptance a posteriori is a constitutive and internal element of the ecumenicity of the synod but rather its unavoidable consequence and result. (The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, p. 226)

If ratification by the Church is understood as a constitutive element of an Ecumenical Council, then the very notion of the Ecumenical Council is undone, says Harkianakis:  "With such an understanding, the Ecumenical Synod could not be regarded as speaking in the Holy Spirit, but would become a kind of experiment, through which it would seek to ascertain how the people of God react afterwards to those decisions taken by that Ecumenical Synod" (p. 234).  He then goes on to note that "the Ecumenical Synods do not speak simply as the authoritative voice of the Church, but they anathematise a priori all those who do not accept their ethico-doctrinal decisions" (p. 235).  Clearly the council fathers did not understand their decisions as probationary, pending the approval of the wider Church.  They dared to speak a dogmatic word in the name of the Holy Spirit.

But I do not mean to insert myself into an inter-Orthodox debate but only to note the convergence of thinking between one school of Catholic theology (represented by Dulles and Sullivan) and one school of Orthodox theology (represented by Androutsos and Harkianakis).   
Logged

Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2010, 09:58:16 PM »

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church. At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.
Of course I believe that there have been ecumenical councils, and the way that I know a council is ecumenical is by its commemoration in the liturgy of the Church.  Whether or not a council is God-inspired is not determined by some form of juridical act of a particular bishop; instead, it is established through the worship and veneration of the council in question by the Church at prayer.  The rule of prayer is the rule of belief.

Did the Nestorian Bishops of China commemorate the rulings of The Third Council of Constantinople in their liturgy, do you think?

A council is ecumenical if the full teaching authority of the magisterium is present within it. The easterners who say that it requires the consent of the "whole" Church just artificially limit "The Church" to the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. If it's applied to the whole Church in reality (Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, the Churches flung all over Eurasia and Africa that Rome and Constantinople had no contact with) it becomes clear how absurdly impossible it makes the task of summoning an ecumenical council.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 10:02:44 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2010, 10:03:05 PM »

There is a role for the hierarchy and the laity in insuring the proclamation of the Orthodox faith, and that is the beauty of the Eastern tradition, because it does not try to reduce the faith to the opinion of one man.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 10:03:31 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2010, 10:04:44 PM »

That isn't an answer.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2010, 10:06:29 PM »

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church. At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.
Of course I believe that there have been ecumenical councils, and the way that I know a council is ecumenical is by its commemoration in the liturgy of the Church.  Whether or not a council is God-inspired is not determined by some form of juridical act of a particular bishop; instead, it is established through the worship and veneration of the council in question by the Church at prayer.  The rule of prayer is the rule of belief.
Did the Nestorian Bishops of China commemorate the rulings of The Third Council of Constantinople in their liturgy, do you think?

A council is ecumenical if the full teaching authority of the magisterium is present within it. The easterners who say that it requires the consent of the "whole" Church just artificially limit "The Church" to the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. If it's applied to the whole Church in reality (Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, the Churches flung all over Eurasia and Africa that Rome and Constantinople had no contact with) it becomes clear how absurdly impossible it makes the task of summoning an ecumenical council.
The Nestorians and Miaphysites broke communion over the councils they rejected, but since I venerate all seven ecumenical councils it must be pretty clear that I am neither Nestorian nor Miaphysite.

Now with that out of the way:  When three men claimed to be pope during the 14th and 15th century how did the all powerful papacy insure unity?  Isn't it true to say that the papacy itself became the cause of disunity throughout the West?

Alas, having a single bishop with universal powers does not insure unity.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 10:07:03 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2010, 10:07:55 PM »

That isn't an answer.
It is an answer, but it is just an answer that you do not like, because it is an answer that excludes the necessity of a super bishop to run everything.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2010, 10:24:51 PM »

Quote
The Nestorians and Miaphysites broke communion over the councils they rejected, but since I venerate all seven ecumenical councils it must be pretty clear that I am neither Nestorian nor Miaphysite.Now with that out of the way:  When three men claimed to be pope during the 14th and 15th century how did the all powerful papacy insure unity?  Isn't it true to say that the papacy itself became the cause of disunity throughout the West?Alas, having a single bishop with universal powers does not insure unity.

And the Eastern Orthodox broke communion over the west's custom of using unleavened bread in the mass. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are schismatics, just as the Assyrian Church of the East is.

The answer to your question is the Council of Constance, the 15th ecumenical council of the universal church.

Quote
It is an answer, but it is just an answer that you do not like, because it is an answer that excludes the necessity of a super bishop to run everything.

No, it's not an answer because it expresses no discernable view on the matter of any kind. It's deliberately cryptic nonsense.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 10:26:09 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2010, 11:26:24 PM »

It is telling, isn't it?  Oh well.  I am not as smart as you are.  I know this.  I hope that explains my dumb posts.  But just to be clear, I don't hold up Sergei as an examplar of wisdom nor do I hold him up as *the* authority on Papism.  I'm sorry that you felt the need to declare my supposed beliefs without having consulted me first.  These passionate discussions are not good for my soul. 

John




This is very telling, John.

Father Sergei's theology, in general, is held out by self-identified conservative Orthodox believers as a 20th century exemplar of how NOT to be Orthodox.

And yet you would hold him up as an exemplar of wisdom with regard to his knowledge and understanding of the Roman Church.   

And yet still, his knowledge of the Roman Church and the papacy is about as twisted as his knowledge and understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas....or the Wisdom books of the Old Testament...which led him nearly into heresy and at least into heterodox thinking within Orthodoxy.

And this is who you would follow over the cliff against the papal Church...

That's dumb.

M.
Logged

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

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2010, 11:50:46 PM »

There is a role for the hierarchy and the laity in insuring the proclamation of the Orthodox faith, and that is the beauty of the Eastern tradition, because it does not try to reduce the faith to the opinion of one man.  Cheesy

Unless that one man happens to disagree with you  laugh laugh laugh
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2010, 11:59:34 PM »

There is a role for the hierarchy and the laity in insuring the proclamation of the Orthodox faith, and that is the beauty of the Eastern tradition, because it does not try to reduce the faith to the opinion of one man.  Cheesy
Nope, just to one liturgical tradition to the exclusion of all others. In light of the rejection of Chalcedon by the OO's, and Ephesus by the the Assyrians, your argument really holds no water.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2010, 12:00:55 AM »

Todd,
If you think that Rome is in error, and that the Eastern Orthodox are not, why are you "in communion with Rome" (I actually think you are out of communion with Rome) and not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2010, 12:12:24 AM »

Thank you for the post.  Alas it is not has helpful as I would like, because I hold that the consent of the whole Church, which is an expression of sobornicity, is necessary for the teaching of a council to be God-inspired.

I do find it interesting that the more the Roman Church tries to "define" doctrine in order to bring clarity it actually appears to muddy the waters even more.  Cheesy

The Roman bishop and his curia should take to heart St. Hilary's comment in his treatise on the trinity and remain silent more often.
LOL. Spot on as ever, Apotheoun.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2010, 12:21:12 AM »

You believe the consent of the whole Church is necessary?

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church.

Every single one has.

Quote
At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.
Having rejected Ephesus, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confessed the Orthodox Faith remained in, or rather remained, the Church. What the Nestorians did after the left with their consent and all, is of no consequence.  Which is why, after the Vatican betrayed Constantinople I, Rome's consent means nothing anymore to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confesses the Orthodox Faith either.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #46 on: December 29, 2010, 12:24:27 AM »

You believe the consent of the whole Church is necessary?

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church.

Every single one has.

Quote
At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.
Having rejected Ephesus, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confessed the Orthodox Faith remained in, or rather remained, the Church. What the Nestorians did after the left with their consent and all, is of no consequence.  Which is why, after the Vatican betrayed Constantinople I, Rome's consent means nothing anymore to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confesses the Orthodox Faith either.
Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #47 on: December 29, 2010, 12:34:36 AM »

Thank you for the post.  Alas it is not has helpful as I would like, because I hold that the consent of the whole Church, which is an expression of sobornicity, is necessary for the teaching of a council to be God-inspired.

That, I know, is one Orthodox point of view, but it is not the only Orthodox point of view.  Compare, e.g., the view of Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis:

Quote
The acceptance a posteriori of the decisions of a synod by the entire body of the Church is not altoglether irrelevant to the ecumenical character of the synod.  However, such an acceptance should be considered the external proof of ecumenicity, that is, as its result and not its cause.  That is to say, if a synod happens to be inherently infallible, because of the decisions of the holy Fathers assembled in the Holy Spirit, then it is necessary that it be obligatory for the conscience of the faithful, in which case this external fact persuades us that the synod was truly infallible.  This, however, does not mean that the acceptance a posteriori is a constitutive and internal element of the ecumenicity of the synod but rather its unavoidable consequence and result. (The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, p. 226)

If ratification by the Church is understood as a constitutive element of an Ecumenical Council, then the very notion of the Ecumenical Council is undone, says Harkianakis:  "With such an understanding, the Ecumenical Synod could not be regarded as speaking in the Holy Spirit, but would become a kind of experiment, through which it would seek to ascertain how the people of God react afterwards to those decisions taken by that Ecumenical Synod" (p. 234).  He then goes on to note that "the Ecumenical Synods do not speak simply as the authoritative voice of the Church, but they anathematise a priori all those who do not accept their ethico-doctrinal decisions" (p. 235).  Clearly the council fathers did not understand their decisions as probationary, pending the approval of the wider Church.  They dared to speak a dogmatic word in the name of the Holy Spirit.

But I do not mean to insert myself into an inter-Orthodox debate but only to note the convergence of thinking between one school of Catholic theology (represented by Dulles and Sullivan) and one school of Orthodox theology (represented by Androutsos and Harkianakis).   

Arb. Sylianos begs one question after another. He doesn't explain why to doubt the Gospel Truth.

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #48 on: December 29, 2010, 12:39:56 AM »

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church. At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.
Of course I believe that there have been ecumenical councils, and the way that I know a council is ecumenical is by its commemoration in the liturgy of the Church.  Whether or not a council is God-inspired is not determined by some form of juridical act of a particular bishop; instead, it is established through the worship and veneration of the council in question by the Church at prayer.  The rule of prayer is the rule of belief.

Did the Nestorian Bishops of China commemorate the rulings of The Third Council of Constantinople in their liturgy, do you think?

I think not. Why should we care?

Quote
A council is ecumenical if the full teaching authority of the magisterium is present within it.

The institution of the "magisterium" was created long after the last Ecumenical Council.

Quote
The easterners who say that it requires the consent of the "whole" Church just artificially limit "The Church" to the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

It is neither artificial, nor do we include the "Roman Catholic Church" i.e. the Vatican.

Quote
If it's applied to the whole Church in reality (Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, the Churches flung all over Eurasia and Africa that Rome and Constantinople had no contact with) it becomes clear how absurdly impossible it makes the task of summoning an ecumenical council.
Constantinople I not only had only a limited number of bishops and only from alongside the central border of the Empire, but also had the most saints in attendence. And wrote the Ecumenical Creed.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #49 on: December 29, 2010, 12:40:11 AM »

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.

The Assyrian Church of the East & the Oriental Orthodox have valid apostolic succession and the seven sacraments. Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical. That they are schismatic shouldn't matter. The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 12:42:25 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 29, 2010, 12:54:35 AM »

Oh dear...I didn't mean you are dumb.   I meant touting Father Sergei as any kind of expert on the papal Church is a dumb thing to do...That hardly makes you dumb.   You are much smarter than I am in many ways so let's not compare or I'll feel very badly at the end of the day... Smiley    Besides I like the word "dumb"...it is rather an innocent thing, in my dictionary.  Lost, distracted, slightly off base...dopey...dopey's good...I am dopey more often than not.

So am I too far gone with this to find out what it is you DO think?

M.

It is telling, isn't it?  Oh well.  I am not as smart as you are.  I know this.  I hope that explains my dumb posts.  But just to be clear, I don't hold up Sergei as an examplar of wisdom nor do I hold him up as *the* authority on Papism.  I'm sorry that you felt the need to declare my supposed beliefs without having consulted me first.  These passionate discussions are not good for my soul. 

John




This is very telling, John.

Father Sergei's theology, in general, is held out by self-identified conservative Orthodox believers as a 20th century exemplar of how NOT to be Orthodox.

And yet you would hold him up as an exemplar of wisdom with regard to his knowledge and understanding of the Roman Church.   

And yet still, his knowledge of the Roman Church and the papacy is about as twisted as his knowledge and understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas....or the Wisdom books of the Old Testament...which led him nearly into heresy and at least into heterodox thinking within Orthodoxy.

And this is who you would follow over the cliff against the papal Church...

That's dumb.

M.
Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 29, 2010, 01:03:08 AM »

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

In fact, none of us knows.  If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary.  The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith. 
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2010, 01:04:45 AM »

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

In fact, none of us knows.  If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary.  The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith. 
Agreed, but the Catholic system seems more internally consistent.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #53 on: December 29, 2010, 01:25:49 AM »

Quote
The Nestorians and Miaphysites broke communion over the councils they rejected, but since I venerate all seven ecumenical councils it must be pretty clear that I am neither Nestorian nor Miaphysite.Now with that out of the way:  When three men claimed to be pope during the 14th and 15th century how did the all powerful papacy insure unity?  Isn't it true to say that the papacy itself became the cause of disunity throughout the West?Alas, having a single bishop with universal powers does not insure unity.

And the Eastern Orthodox broke communion over the west's custom of using unleavened bread in the mass. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are schismatics, just as the Assyrian Church of the East is.

The Vatican was struck from the diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church when it obeyed the German rulers rather than the Ecumenical fathers and inserted the filioque, and the Vatican has been in schism and heresy ever since. That predated the Normans suppressing the use of leavened bread.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches remained the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Vatican continued to induce schisms from them by the sword.

Quote
The answer to your question is the Council of Constance, the 15th ecumenical council of the universal church.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church held no such Council.

The Vatican, Avignon and Pisa got involved in a council at Constance, but since the "supreme pontiffs" claimed that the supreme pontiff alone could call councils, alone could validate their decress, and the demise of the tiara dissolved any council in process, Constance couldn't have solved the problem that the Patriarchate of the West had painted itself into, a fact confirmed when the Council of Siena was called as the Council of Constance-which installed the pope Martin V-required, but Martin didn't follow through with the terms of the Council (Constance) which installed him. Later the Vatican denounced Siena as heretical. But when you're a supreme pontiff who speaks infallibly, you can deny what your predecessors have done, as long as your successors do not disagree.
Quote
It is an answer, but it is just an answer that you do not like, because it is an answer that excludes the necessity of a super bishop to run everything.
No, it's not an answer because it expresses no discernable view on the matter of any kind. It's deliberately cryptic nonsense.
Nothing cryptic about it at all. Now how the Vatican accepts Constance but rejects Siena, that's a mystery.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #54 on: December 29, 2010, 01:45:53 AM »

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.

The Assyrian Church of the East & the Oriental Orthodox have valid apostolic succession and the seven sacraments. Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical.

You are squeezing the Vatican's apples to try to get Orthodox orange juice.

The Orthodox Church has not validated the apostolic succession of the Assyrian Church of the East, nor its seven sacraments (btw, the seven they have are not the same as ours). I'm aware that you all like to split hairs over alleged valid but illicit orders and such, but we don't waste time on such things.  So no, under the receptionist view we don't waste speculation on those the Ecumenical Councils have defined outside of the Church.

Quote
That they are schismatic shouldn't matter.


For the Vatican it doesn't. In fact you will commune with them. But since the Vatican is in schism and heresy, its actions with others in schism and heresy are of no concern of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confesses the Orthodox Faith.

Quote
The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.
LOL. Yes, we have nothing better to do than to keep up with the Vatican.

The Ecumenical Councils are universally received, which ipso facto makes the receivers members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 29, 2010, 01:46:17 AM »


Arb. Sylianos begs one question after another. He doesn't explain why to doubt the Gospel Truth.

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Your biblical citation proves nothing, of course.  Who are the sheep?  How do they know they are the true sheep and not all those other "Christian" sheep who are equally convinced they too are rightly hearing the voice of their shepherd?  

But returning to Harkanakis:  his central argument is that the receptionist theory of Khomiakov is a 19th century Slavic invention and does not represent the classic Orthodox understanding.  I suggest you read his book.  Also see Perry Robinson's discussion:  Against Khomiakov.  
Logged

Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #56 on: December 29, 2010, 01:58:06 AM »

The argument begs the question. I could use the same fallacy to "prove" that the Eastern Orthodox are in the wrong because they do not adhere to the "universally accepted" 8th-21st councils. The ecumenical councils are not universally accepted, the Orthodox 'acceptance' theory of infallible magisterium is extremely shoddy.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 02:04:20 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #57 on: December 29, 2010, 02:51:18 AM »


Arb. Sylianos begs one question after another. He doesn't explain why to doubt the Gospel Truth.

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Your biblical citation proves nothing, of course.  Who are the sheep?  How do they know they are the true sheep and not all those other "Christian" sheep who are equally convinced they too are rightly hearing the voice of their shepherd?
 
Is this a confession that you do not hear His voice?

Quote
But returning to Harkanakis:  his central argument is that the receptionist theory of Khomiakov is a 19th century Slavic invention and does not represent the classic Orthodox understanding.  I suggest you read his book.  Also see Perry Robinson's discussion:  Against Khomiakov.  
Abp. Stylianos was one of the troika that came to America when the Phanar sacked Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory, and gave us Abp. Spyridon. During the inspectiion tour, he boasted that his life accomplishment was establishing Hellenism (not Orthodoxy, mind you, but Hellenism) in Australia. He also revealed, so I've been told, that he said he doesn't speak English with an Australian accent because he doesn't have much use for English in Australia.  That he would dismiss sometihing slavic doesn't suprise me, nor does it interest me.

I can, and have, read the history of the reception of the First Three Councils. The Third tried to minimize making any statement, beyond deposing Nestorius.  The Second only claimed to repeat the First.  The exact Acts and Degrees of the First do not survive. Doesn't fit Abp. Stylianos' ideas, nor does he seem to even try to distinquish the assurance of the iconoclast council of Hieria or Constantinople IV (869) from the assurance of the Fathers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #58 on: December 29, 2010, 02:52:24 AM »

The argument begs the question. I could use the same fallacy to "prove" that the Eastern Orthodox are in the wrong because they do not adhere to the "universally accepted" 8th-21st councils. The ecumenical councils are not universally accepted, the Orthodox 'acceptance' theory of infallible magisterium is extremely shoddy.
Then accept Anglican orders.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #59 on: December 29, 2010, 03:27:42 AM »

Anglican Orders are not accepted because the Edwardine Ordinals introduced by Thomas Cranmer removed key references to the sacramental nature of the Priesthood and thus corrupted the nature of the Sacrament of Ordination as practiced in the Anglican Communion. It isn't simply because the Anglican Communion went in to schism with the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 03:27:59 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 29, 2010, 03:29:56 AM »

Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

The view presented by First Vatican Council is that the Pope, in his capacity as Dean of the College of Bishops, has the authority to dogmatically define what the teaching of the magisterium is on a given issue. In this view, the Pope may not introduce a dogma which is new. He may only define a dogma which the magisterium already holds. In these instances, the definition is infallible, not because of anything inhering in the Pope, but because the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is infallible.

So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered.  So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome?   Huh
 

The Orthodox view on infallibility has tended to be that a view is gradually recognized as infallible when it is accepted by the whole Church. As a westerner, a problem with that seems to me to be that the Orthodox have no problem recognizing Ephesus and Chalcedon as infallible and ecumenical over the objections of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?).  The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO.  As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.


If the issue is simply "gradual acceptance" I can't think of any reason why the OOC and ACE's objections shouldn't count, except that the EOC is bigger than them. But if this is all there is to it, it would of course run in to the problem that the RCC dwarfs the EOC.

Just as the knights dwarfed the former Orthodox peasants (and their subsequent descendants) who became Eastern Catholic under the sword.  You're the one who brought up size - no EO put the OO or ACOE to sword to accept Chalcedon.  The ACOE were decimated by Genghis Khan.  Why has Rome become so strong and the OO become so weak since gee whiz, being infallible is like being the 800 lb guerilla in a room with dwarves.  Didn't Paul say that the strong ought to carry the burdens of the weak (Romans 15:1-2)?

Quote
We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves.  Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification.

How would infallibility (e.g. Pope of Rome) carry the weak (e.g. EO, OO) given how the weak, already weakened by oppression, are under siege by the strong?


Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?

No; however, great temptations have befallen the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs and your dream may come true, some day; as long as I don't live to see it....

When compared to the Roman Catholic Church, both the EO and OO appear weak from the RCC POV.  Because the OO have been decimated and out of communion for 15 Centuries, the EO's relationship to the OO is not close; however, that is not an indication that the EO are "stronger" than the OO since both pray for the Unity of the Faith in their respective Divine Liturgy.  Of course, Rome would want to be united with everyone.   Wink
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 03:40:32 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #61 on: December 29, 2010, 10:11:05 AM »

Anglican Orders are not accepted because the Edwardine Ordinals introduced by Thomas Cranmer removed key references to the sacramental nature of the Priesthood and thus corrupted the nature of the Sacrament of Ordination as practiced in the Anglican Communion. It isn't simply because the Anglican Communion went in to schism with the Catholic Church.
The Orders in the church of England have been in schism from the Catholic Church ever since it followed the Vatican into schism.  That happened long before King Edward and Abp. Cramner.

I am aware what defects the Vatican claims in Anglican orders.  I am also aware that it doesn't like that the Orthodox Church looks at the Vatican's orders in the same way.  You claim that the Anglicans changed the Faith.  We agree on that. The Vatican also changed the Faith, misonstruing the priesthood as flowing from the pontifex maximus and personal property which adheres to the recepriant (which he can take with him into schism) which puts you into the same boat, as long as you persist in your schism and heresy.

Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.

Hopefully we'll make this official enough that even the Vatican's magisterium will have no question on the matter:
Should the "Great and Holy Council" anthematize Vatican/restore Orth. Rome?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.0.html
Vatican/Ultramontanist responses:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30234.0.html
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 29, 2010, 10:42:55 AM »


Abp. Stylianos was one of the troika that came to America when the Phanar sacked Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory, and gave us Abp. Spyridon. During the inspectiion tour, he boasted that his life accomplishment was establishing Hellenism (not Orthodoxy, mind you, but Hellenism) in Australia. He also revealed, so I've been told, that he said he doesn't speak English with an Australian accent because he doesn't have much use for English in Australia.  That he would dismiss sometihing slavic doesn't suprise me, nor does it interest me.

  Smiley  A shining example of the One True Orthodox Church in action...well...at least one or two of them in this case.  Smiley

He's made all of your Catholic points in one thoughtless little brush-off. 
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #63 on: December 29, 2010, 11:31:25 AM »


Abp. Stylianos was one of the troika that came to America when the Phanar sacked Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory, and gave us Abp. Spyridon. During the inspectiion tour, he boasted that his life accomplishment was establishing Hellenism (not Orthodoxy, mind you, but Hellenism) in Australia. He also revealed, so I've been told, that he said he doesn't speak English with an Australian accent because he doesn't have much use for English in Australia.  That he would dismiss sometihing slavic doesn't suprise me, nor does it interest me.

  Smiley  A shining example of the One True Orthodox Church in action...well...at least one or two of them in this case.  Smiley

He's made all of your Catholic points in one thoughtless little brush-off. 

I don't know all about Abp. Stylianos, beyond his Phanariotism, so if you do I'll defer to your assessment of him.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #64 on: December 29, 2010, 01:47:26 PM »

Quote from: SolEX01
So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered.  So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome?   Huh

It's never been acceptable to contradict the Pope of Rome on a matter of Church doctrine or canon law, once Rome has handed down a decision.

The conduct of Saint Clement I, Saint Victor I, Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, Saint Leo I, and Saint Gregory I, while it may have been conciliar in style makes clear that in substance they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine, and fit to make rulings for the whole church, regardless of jurisdiction.

Quote from: SolEX01
As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?).  The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO.  As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.

You're referring to the Chaldean Catholic Church, I believe.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Orders in the church of England have been in schism from the Catholic Church ever since it followed the Vatican into schism.  That happened long before King Edward and Abp. Cramner.

I am aware what defects the Vatican claims in Anglican orders.  I am also aware that it doesn't like that the Orthodox Church looks at the Vatican's orders in the same way.  You claim that the Anglicans changed the Faith.  We agree on that. The Vatican also changed the Faith, misonstruing the priesthood as flowing from the pontifex maximus and personal property which adheres to the recepriant (which he can take with him into schism) which puts you into the same boat, as long as you persist in your schism and heresy.

The view that schism invalidates apostolic succession is called the donatist heresy.

And the Vatican did not change the faith. There is no evidence from the first millenium that the authority of Rome could be contradicted once it had made an official decision, and much evidence to the contrary. Roman Pontiffs regularly interfered in the affairs of Churches outside their own jurisdiction and passed down judgments on the Orthodoxy of other Patriarchs, as, for example, when Pope Saint Gelasius I instructed that the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople should be struck from the diptychs for his embrace of monophysitism. Acacius' successor, Patriarch Euphemius, and Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I both protested, but the Pontiff's ruling was firm, and they were compelled to obey.

Prior to Patriarch Photios, there is no evidence in the history of the Church that it was acceptable to contradict Papal authority. Indeed, the closest thing the easterners came come up with, the posthumous anathema placed on Pope Honorius I, is condemning him for failing to exercise his authority because he did not excommunicate the monothelite patriarchs of the east.

Quote from: ialmisry
Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "Magisterium" simply refers to the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church most assuredly did not come in to being only a few centuries ago, and the Orthodox have most certainly always held the teaching authority of the Church to be infallible.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 01:56:55 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 29, 2010, 02:13:45 PM »

Quote from: SolEX01
So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered.  So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome?   Huh

It's never been acceptable to contradict the Pope of Rome on a matter of Church doctrine or canon law, once Rome has handed down a decision.

Which Church doctrine or canon law led to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor when the Christian world remained unified, albeit tenuously?

The conduct of Saint Clement I, Saint Victor I, Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, Saint Leo I, and Saint Gregory I, while it may have been conciliar in style makes clear that in substance they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine.

You're playing armchair theologian with the Holy Fathers of the pre-1054 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - can you cite where any of those you listed made the claim that "they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine?"

Quote from: SolEX01
As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?).  The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO.  As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.

You're referring to the Chaldean Catholic Church, I believe.

You're correct ... because of their near-extinction, all those Chaldean / ACOE Churches are essentially the same and they would logically flock to Rome who has more "geopolitical" strength as a sovereign nation not a member of EU or NATO (but is a member of the UN).

There is no evidence from the first millenium that the authority of Rome could be contradicted once it had made an official decision, and much evidence to the contrary. Roman Pontiffs regularly interfered in the affairs of Churches outside their own jurisdiction and passed down judgments on the Orthodoxy of other Patriarchs, as, for example, when Pope Saint Gelasius I instructed that the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople should be struck from the diptychs for the East's embrace of monophysitism.

Do the Roman Catholics have Diptychs today?  I saw the Vatican's Christmas Mass on TV and I didn't see anyone reading Diptychs (well, other than the Deacon who asked for blessings for Pope Benedict XVI, a one Hierarch Diptych, but I digress) - with 201 Cardinals and thousands and thousands of worldwide Bishops, I guess there wasn't enough time to list them all.   Roll Eyes  When Archbishop O'Brien performs Mass, does He read the Diptychs of His suffragan Bishops or even His own predecessors, living and deceased (there aren't that many - 15, I believe)?  
 
Prior to Patriarch Photios, there is no evidence in the history of the Church that it was acceptable to contradict Papal authority. Indeed, the closest thing the easterners came come up with, the posthumous anathema placed on Pope Honorius I, is condemning him for failing to exercise his authority because he did not excommunicate the monothelite patriarchs of the east.

The monothelite patriarchs excommunicated themselves by not accepting Chalcedon; however, the West accepted Charlemagne as Emperor because He could defend and protect the Holy See from those Byzantines, Muslims and other "enemies" of the Faith.   Wink

Quote from: ialmisry
Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "Magisterium" simply refers to the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church most assuredly did not come in to being only a few centuries ago, and the Orthodox have most certainly always held the teaching authority of the Church to be infallible.

Vatican I vs. the Council of Nicaea - I'm sure a thread exists that compares/contrasts those 2 Councils?   Huh
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 02:26:29 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #66 on: December 29, 2010, 02:49:20 PM »

Quote from: SolEx01
Which Church doctrine or canon law led to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor when the Christian world remained unified, albeit tenuously?

The Pope was the ruler of the city of Rome as well as a official of the Church. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope in that (political) capacity, and acclaimed Imperator by the Roman people. The people of Rome have the right to choose their own Emperor.

Quote from: SolEx01
You're playing armchair theologian with the Holy Fathers of the pre-1054 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - can you cite where any of those you listed made the claim that "they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine?"

Their actions speak to it. They were regularly interfering in the ecclesiastical and doctrinal affairs of Churches outside of their own Patriarchate, and expecting to be obeyed. They were, until Photios.

For example, from a letter of Pope Julius to the east:

"It behooved you, beloved, to come hither [to Rome], and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this... O beloved!...For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus...And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you. "

Or when Pope Celestine wrote to the Bishops of Illyricum:

"We especially are bound to have care for all, to whom Christ imposed the necessity of dealing with all, in the holy apostle Peter, when He gave him the keys for opening and shutting... "

Or in the words of Philip, Papal Legate to the Council of Ephesus:

"Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church... to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who up to this very age ever lives and judges in his successors. "

Quote from: SolEX01
Do the Roman Catholics have Diptychs today?  I saw the Vatican's Christmas Mass on TV and I didn't see anyone reading Diptychs (well, other than the Deacon who asked for blessings for Pope Benedict XVI, a one Hierarch Diptych, but I digress) - with 201 Cardinals and thousands and thousands of worldwide Bishops, I guess there wasn't enough time to list them all.   Roll Eyes  When Archbishop O'Brien performs Mass, does He read the Diptychs of His suffragan Bishops or even His own predecessors, living and deceased (there aren't that many - 15, I believe)?

Pope Saint Gelasius I was ordering that the name of Acacius be struck from the diptychs in Constantinople. To my knowledge it has never been the custom to keep diptychs in Rome.

Quote from: SolEx01
The monothelite patriarchs excommunicated themselves by not accepting Chalcedon; however, the West accepted Charlemagne as Emperor because He could defend and protect the Holy See from those Byzantines, Muslims and other "enemies" of the Faith.   Wink

Charlemagne did not need to be an enemy of the Byzantines. He proposed to marry Empress Irene in fact, and she was friendly to the idea, but the people rose up and overthrew her when faced with the prospect that she might wed a 'barbarian' Frank.

What happened in 1204 was a horrific event which was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Innocent III, but I remind you that at the outset of the Crusades, the west was most eager to come to the aid and defense of their eastern brothers, after Manzikert threatened the destruction of the Empire. The memory of the Crusades is painful, for obvious reasons, and the East is not wrong to resent what was later done at the hands of those false crusaders who betrayed the trust placed in them, both by the people of the east and the pontiffs of Rome, but the west did not hate the east from the time of Charlemagne. The Genoese ships, sent by the Pope, who defied the fleet of Mehmed II to rush supplies to the last defenders of Constantinople under the Ethnomartyr Constantine XI did not hate the east.

Quote from: SolEX01
Vatican I vs. the Council of Nicaea - I'm sure a thread exists that compares/contrasts those 2 Councils?   Huh

Plainly the west understands the magisterium differently from the east, but I don't know what he means with regards to the idea that the magisterium as such is a new creation. The church, west and east, has always asserted itself to hold infallible teaching authority of some form or another.



« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 03:00:20 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #67 on: December 29, 2010, 03:18:56 PM »

Quote from: SolEx01
Which Church doctrine or canon law led to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor when the Christian world remained unified, albeit tenuously?

The Pope was the ruler of the city of Rome as well as a official of the Church. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope in that (political) capacity, and acclaimed Imperator by the Roman people. The people of Rome have the right to choose their own Emperor.

The Pope became the de facto secular ruler of Rome from when the Western Roman Empire ended in 476 to when Charlemagne was crowned in 800?   Huh

You say that the people of Rome had the right to choose their own Emperor; however, only those Cardinals under age 80 can vote for a Papal Successor and not the residents of the Vatican nor the residents of Rome of whom the Pope is still Bishop.  Maybe I need to read up on the Lateran Treaty....

Quote from: SolEx01
You're playing armchair theologian with the Holy Fathers of the pre-1054 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - can you cite where any of those you listed made the claim that "they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine?"

Their actions speak to it. They were regularly interfering in the ecclesiastical and doctrinal affairs of Churches outside of their own Patriarchate, and expecting to be obeyed. They were, until Photios.

For example, from a letter of Pope Julius to the east:

"It behooved you, beloved, to come hither [to Rome], and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this... O beloved!...For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus...And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you. "

Or when Pope Celestine wrote to the Bishops of Illyricum:

"We especially are bound to have care for all, to whom Christ imposed the necessity of dealing with all, in the holy apostle Peter, when He gave him the keys for opening and shutting... "

Or in the words of Philip, Papal Legate to the Council of Ephesus:

"Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church... to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who up to this very age ever lives and judges in his successors. "

Are these citations from CCEL or elsewhere?   Huh

Quote from: SolEX01
Do the Roman Catholics have Diptychs today?  I saw the Vatican's Christmas Mass on TV and I didn't see anyone reading Diptychs (well, other than the Deacon who asked for blessings for Pope Benedict XVI, a one Hierarch Diptych, but I digress) - with 201 Cardinals and thousands and thousands of worldwide Bishops, I guess there wasn't enough time to list them all.   Roll Eyes  When Archbishop O'Brien performs Mass, does He read the Diptychs of His suffragan Bishops or even His own predecessors, living and deceased (there aren't that many - 15, I believe)?

Pope Saint Gelasius I was ordering that the name of Acacius be struck from the diptychs in Constantinople. To my knowledge it has never been the custom to keep diptychs in Rome.

Unless that Diptych contains one Hierarch; the Pope of Rome.  So if the custom of Rome has been to not keep Diptychs, why would Rome order someone to be struck from the Diptychs other than because they can?  

Quote from: SolEx01
The monothelite patriarchs excommunicated themselves by not accepting Chalcedon; however, the West accepted Charlemagne as Emperor because He could defend and protect the Holy See from those Byzantines, Muslims and other "enemies" of the Faith.   Wink

Charlemagne did not need to be an enemy of the Byzantines. He proposed to marry Empress Irene in fact, and she was friendly to the idea, but the people rose up and overthrew her when faced with the prospect that she might wed a 'barbarian' Frank.

Understand that "barbarians" of all stripes and Muslims were laying siege to the walls of Constantinople for a number of Centuries.  Just as the people used to select their own Pope (which they no longer can), the residents of Constantinople exercised the right to reject husbands of their Empresses.

What happened in 1204 was a horrific event which was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Innocent III, but I remind you that at the outset of the Crusades, the west was most eager to come to the aid and defense of their eastern brothers, after Manzikert threatened the destruction of the Empire. The memory of the Crusades is painful, for obvious reasons, and the East is not wrong to resent what was later done, but the west did not hate the east from the time of Charlemagne.

I just use Charlemagne to demonstrate an "infant" infallibility in that the Pope of Rome took it upon Himself to anoint Charlemagne just as the Old Testament Kings of Israel were anointed (or Christ was anointed by John the Baptist).
 
Quote from: SolEX01
Vatican I vs. the Council of Nicaea - I'm sure a thread exists that compares/contrasts those 2 Councils?   Huh

Plainly the west understands the magisterium differently from the east, but I don't know what he means with regards to the idea that the magisterium as such is a new creation. The church, west and east, has always asserted itself to hold infallible teaching authority of some form or another.

Infallibility excludes oikonomia (Economy).  If a teaching is absolute, there is no "wiggle room."  Example with the Samaritan Woman, Jesus could have personally stoned her to death; however, He exercised Economy and She became a Saint.  Infallibility and Magisterium express the view of, "take it or leave it" and many have chosen to "leave it" (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) rather than "take it" (e.g yielding one's desires to the request of a Higher Authority).  A perfect example is remarriage of civilly divorced Catholics since the Magisterium does not allow civilly divorced Catholics to remarry in the Catholic Church without obtaining an annulment.  If the Magisterium wished to emulate civil courts, they could grant spiritual divorces in a prompt manner and allow divorcees the freedom to remarry in the Catholic Church (whether it's one or two or 100 more times is of no consequence).  Just because 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches handle the granting of spiritual divorce in 14 different ways does not mean that the Orthodox or the Magisterium have it right (or wrong) - no one is perfect but Christ allowed Divorce as a form of Economy to eliminate a roadblock from one's salvation.  Yet, the infallible Magisterium keeps the roadblock to spiritual divorce in place, why?

The Church is infallible; however, man is not infallible and ultimately men are part of the Church.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 03:40:25 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #68 on: December 29, 2010, 04:29:05 PM »

Quote from: SolEX01
So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered.  So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome?   Huh

It's never been acceptable to contradict the Pope of Rome on a matter of Church doctrine or canon law, once Rome has handed down a decision.

Only if Rome is exposing Orthoodxy. But then it is the Orthodoxy, not Rome, that is determinative.

Quote
The conduct of Saint Clement I, Saint Victor I, Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, Saint Leo I, and Saint Gregory I, while it may have been conciliar in style makes clear that in substance they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine, and fit to make rulings for the whole church, regardless of jurisdiction.
what they thought or felt is of interest only to themselves.

St. Clement I taught the same Orthodox ecclesiology that St. Ignatius I did.

St. Victor I was "rebuked" by the entire Church.

Between SS. Victor and Innoncent I we might mention that Rome recognized Paulinus, and not St. Meletius, as Patriarch of Antioch. Antioch, and the rest of the East, held fast to St. Meletius, who opened the Second Ecumenical Council, which chose, over Rome's objection, his successor St. Flavian.

St. Innocent I was right, but ignored even by the Ultramontanist Jerome.

St. Gelasius I: you meant the False Decretals?

St. Leo wanted the Council of Chalcedon to adopt his Tome as its definition. Not only did the Fathers write their own definition, but they accepted the Tome only after it had been examined for Orthodoxy by a committee of a hundred fathers.  St. Leo whines to the empress that even his own suffragans acknowledged canon 28.

St. Gregory I complained about the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" and rejected any claims to a "universal bishop." But Constantinople kept the title, and the Vatican latter promoted the pope as "universal bishop," i.e. "the highest authority in Church on canon law and doctrine, and fit to make rulings for the whole church, regardless of jurisdiction."

Quote from: SolEX01
As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?).  The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO.  As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.
You're referring to the Chaldean Catholic Church, I believe.
Your communion agreement with them makes you one as far as we are concerned.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Orders in the church of England have been in schism from the Catholic Church ever since it followed the Vatican into schism.  That happened long before King Edward and Abp. Cramner.

I am aware what defects the Vatican claims in Anglican orders.  I am also aware that it doesn't like that the Orthodox Church looks at the Vatican's orders in the same way.  You claim that the Anglicans changed the Faith.  We agree on that. The Vatican also changed the Faith, misonstruing the priesthood as flowing from the pontifex maximus and personal property which adheres to the recepriant (which he can take with him into schism) which puts you into the same boat, as long as you persist in your schism and heresy.
The view that schism invalidates apostolic succession is called the donatist heresy.
No, its called the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, as taught, for example by St. Cyprian. The Donatists held that apostasy, even if repented from, invalidated the apostolic succession of the lapsi.

Quote
And the Vatican did not change the faith.

 Roll Eyes
Quote
There is no evidence from the first millenium that the authority of Rome could be contradicted once it had made an official decision,
I've cited several above, which could be multiplied.

Quote
and much evidence to the contrary.


Often claimed, never provided.

Quote
Roman Pontiffs regularly interfered in the affairs of Churches outside their own jurisdiction and passed down judgments on the Orthodoxy of other Patriarchs, as, for example, when Pope Saint Gelasius I instructed that the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople should be struck from the diptychs for his embrace of monophysitism. Acacius' successor, Patriarch Euphemius, and Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I both protested, but the Pontiff's ruling was firm, and they were compelled to obey.
When Pope Gelasius I died in 496 , the Acacian schism continued for two decades more:
Quote
Then John Talaia, exiled from Alexandria, arrived at Rome and gave a further account of what was happening in the East. The pope wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome to explain his conduct (Epp. iii et iv, ibid., pp. 239-241). The legates who brought these letters to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed, then forced to receive Communion from Acacius in a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other Monophysites named in the diptychs. The pope, having heard of this from the Acoemeti (akoimetoi, sleepless) monks at Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates, deposed and excommunicated Acacius (Epp. vi, vii, viii, ibid., 243 sq.). Acacius retorted by striking Felix's name from his diptychs. Thus began the Acacian schism that lasted thirty-five years (484-519). The Acoemeti monks alone at Constantinople stayed in communion with the Holy See; Acacius put their abbot, Cyril, in prison. Acacius himself died in schism in 489. His successor, Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489-90), tried to reconcile himself with the pope, but refused to give up communion with Monophysites and to omit Acacius's name in his diptychs. Zeno died in 491; his successor, Anastasius I (491-518), began by keeping the policy of the Henoticon, but gradually went over to complete Monophysitism. Euphemius (490-496), patriarch after Flavitus, again tried to heal the schism, restored the pope's name to his diptychs, denounced Peter Mongus, and accepted Chalcedon; but his efforts came to nothing, since he, too, refused to remove the names of Acacius and Flavitas from the diptychs (see Euphemius of Consstantinople). Gelasius I (492-96) succeeded Felix II at Rome and maintained the same attitude, denouncing absolutely the Henoticon and any other compromise with the heretics. Eventually, when the Emporer Anastasius died (518), the schism was healed. His successor, Justin I (518-27), was a Catholic; he at once sought reunion with Rome. John II, the patriarch (518-20), was also willing to heal the schism. In answer to their petitions, Pope Hormisdas (514-23) sent his famous formula. This was then signed by the emperor, the patriarch, and all the bishops at the capital. On Easter day, 24 March, 519, the union was restored. Monophysite bishops were deposed or fled, and the empire was once more Catholic, till the troubles broke out again under Justinian I (527-65).
The bishops of the capital signed, but the bishops outside refused. The archbishop of Thessalnoica, then in Rome's patriarchate, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two and stomped on it. The troubles were Justinian holding the Fifth Ecumenical Council over the strenous objections of Pope Vigilius, whom the Council struck from the diptychs, until he accpepted its decrees.

Quote
Prior to Patriarch Photios, there is no evidence in the history of the Church that it was acceptable to contradict Papal authority.


Quote
Words of theirs [the bishops throughout the world] are extant, sharply rebuking [Pope]Victor .
http://rosecreekvillage.com/shammah/archives/111

Quote
Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp
The Fathers gathered at Constantinople in 381 to write the Creed.  381 falls between 343 and 398. And St. John, St. Basil and others received ordination from St. Meletius.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council met over the Pope of Rome's objection, and struck him from the diptychs.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius.

We can go on.
 
Quote
Indeed, the closest thing the easterners came come up with, the posthumous anathema placed on Pope Honorius I, is condemning him for failing to exercise his authority because he did not excommunicate the monothelite patriarchs of the east.
Sort of shows the "petrine ministry" of strengthening the brethren is nought if it strengthens heresy as well.

Quote from: ialmisry
Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "Magisterium" simply refers to the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church most assuredly did not come in to being only a few centuries ago, and the Orthodox have most certainly always held the teaching authority of the Church to be infallible.
We also continue to hold that as part of the Church, not a part of the Church.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 04:31:17 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #69 on: December 29, 2010, 04:37:20 PM »

Quote
The Pope became the de facto secular ruler of Rome from when the Western Roman Empire ended in 476 to when Charlemagne was crowned in 800?   Huh

Overtime the Pope had become the secular ruler of Rome, yes. This is because he was the last imperial official still remaining in the city, more or less.

Quote
You say that the people of Rome had the right to choose their own Emperor; however, only those Cardinals under age 80 can vote for a Papal Successor and not the residents of the Vatican nor the residents of Rome of whom the Pope is still Bishop.  Maybe I need to read up on the Lateran Treaty....

The particular means by which a Pope is elected are not dogmatically defined, but currently yes it is the procedure that members of the College of Cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to elect the Pope.

Quote
Are these citations from CCEL or elsewhere?   Huh

By CCEL do you mean 'Christian Classics Ethereal Library'? The quotes are from Keys Over the Christian World by Scott Butler and John Collorafi

Quote
Unless that Diptych contains one Hierarch; the Pope of Rome.  So if the custom of Rome has been to not keep Diptychs, why would Rome order someone to be struck from the Diptychs other than because they can?

Patriarch Acacius had been a proponent of the monothelite heresy.

Quote
Understand that "barbarians" of all stripes and Muslims were laying siege to the walls of Constantinople for a number of Centuries.  Just as the people used to select their own Pope (which they no longer can), the residents of Constantinople exercised the right to reject husbands of their Empresses.

That's fine, I do not mind that Irene did not marry Charlemagne. I am just pointing out that the west was not bent on being an enemy of the east.

Quote
I just use Charlemagne to demonstrate an "infant" infallibility in that the Pope of Rome took it upon Himself to anoint Charlemagne just as the Old Testament Kings of Israel were anointed (or Christ was anointed by John the Baptist).

The infallibility the Roman Pontiffs purport themselves to have is with relation to dogmatic definitions of Church teaching. Infallibility did not bear on the coronation of Charlemagne, that was simply from the Pope's political role as ruler of the City of Rome.
 
Quote
Infallibility excludes oikonomia (Economy).  If a teaching is absolute, there is no "wiggle room."  Example with the Samaritan Woman, Jesus could have personally stoned her to death; however, He exercised Economy and She became a Saint.  Infallibility and Magisterium express the view of, "take it or leave it" and many have chosen to "leave it" (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) rather than "take it" (e.g yielding one's desires to the request of a Higher Authority).  A perfect example is remarriage of civilly divorced Catholics since the Magisterium does not allow civilly divorced Catholics to remarry in the Catholic Church without obtaining an annulment.  If the Magisterium wished to emulate civil courts, they could grant spiritual divorces in a prompt manner and allow divorcees the freedom to remarry in the Catholic Church (whether it's one or two or 100 more times is of no consequence).  Just because 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches handle the granting of spiritual divorce in 14 different ways does not mean that the Orthodox or the Magisterium have it right (or wrong) - no one is perfect but Christ allowed Divorce as a form of Economy to eliminate a roadblock from one's salvation.  Yet, the infallible Magisterium keeps the roadblock to spiritual divorce in place, why?

The Church is infallible; however, man is not infallible and ultimately men are part of the Church.

The only agency which is infallible, of course, is the Holy Spirit. The dispute between the west and east is the way in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is operating in the Church. It's an oversimplification of the western view to say that they simply hold that a 'man' is infallible.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #70 on: December 29, 2010, 04:53:50 PM »

Quote
The Pope became the de facto secular ruler of Rome from when the Western Roman Empire ended in 476 to when Charlemagne was crowned in 800?   Huh

Overtime the Pope had become the secular ruler of Rome, yes. This is because he was the last imperial official still remaining in the city, more or less.

When did the Bishop of Rome suddenly become an imperial official after the Edict of Milan was enacted?

Quote
You say that the people of Rome had the right to choose their own Emperor; however, only those Cardinals under age 80 can vote for a Papal Successor and not the residents of the Vatican nor the residents of Rome of whom the Pope is still Bishop.  Maybe I need to read up on the Lateran Treaty....

The particular means by which a Pope is elected are not dogmatically defined, but currently yes it is the procedure that members of the College of Cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to elect the Pope.

Recent Popes in the last 100 years have defined how a Papal Election should occur.  Aren't such pronouncements "outside" of Church teaching?

Quote
Are these citations from CCEL or elsewhere?   Huh

By CCEL do you mean 'Christian Classics Ethereal Library'? The quotes are from Keys Over the Christian World by Scott Butler and John Collorafi

Thank you for the clarification.   Smiley

Quote
Unless that Diptych contains one Hierarch; the Pope of Rome.  So if the custom of Rome has been to not keep Diptychs, why would Rome order someone to be struck from the Diptychs other than because they can?

Patriarch Acacius had been a proponent of the monothelite heresy.

Isa just described how a Monastery in Constantinople remained in Communion with the Holy See in the period where Constantinople was striking Rome from the Diptychs.

Quote
Understand that "barbarians" of all stripes and Muslims were laying siege to the walls of Constantinople for a number of Centuries.  Just as the people used to select their own Pope (which they no longer can), the residents of Constantinople exercised the right to reject husbands of their Empresses.

That's fine, I do not mind that Irene did not marry Charlemagne. I am just pointing out that the west was not bent on being an enemy of the east.

I read how differences between West and East were described as "creative tension" but they remained in agreement until 1054.

Quote
I just use Charlemagne to demonstrate an "infant" infallibility in that the Pope of Rome took it upon Himself to anoint Charlemagne just as the Old Testament Kings of Israel were anointed (or Christ was anointed by John the Baptist).

The infallibility the Roman Pontiffs purport themselves to have is with relation to dogmatic definitions of Church teaching. Infallibility did not bear on the coronation of Charlemagne, that was simply from the Pope's political role as ruler of the City of Rome.

But the Apostles and their successors didn't consecrate Roman Consuls nor Pilate's replacement, at least before the Edict of Milan.  Did the Emperor Constantine grant the Bishop of Rome secular political (Imperial) status or did the Bishop of Rome assume that mantle after 450? 476? some other date?

Quote
Infallibility excludes oikonomia (Economy).  If a teaching is absolute, there is no "wiggle room."  Example with the Samaritan Woman, Jesus could have personally stoned her to death; however, He exercised Economy and She became a Saint.  Infallibility and Magisterium express the view of, "take it or leave it" and many have chosen to "leave it" (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) rather than "take it" (e.g yielding one's desires to the request of a Higher Authority).  A perfect example is remarriage of civilly divorced Catholics since the Magisterium does not allow civilly divorced Catholics to remarry in the Catholic Church without obtaining an annulment.  If the Magisterium wished to emulate civil courts, they could grant spiritual divorces in a prompt manner and allow divorcees the freedom to remarry in the Catholic Church (whether it's one or two or 100 more times is of no consequence).  Just because 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches handle the granting of spiritual divorce in 14 different ways does not mean that the Orthodox or the Magisterium have it right (or wrong) - no one is perfect but Christ allowed Divorce as a form of Economy to eliminate a roadblock from one's salvation.  Yet, the infallible Magisterium keeps the roadblock to spiritual divorce in place, why?

The Church is infallible; however, man is not infallible and ultimately men are part of the Church.

The only agency which is infallible, of course, is the Holy Spirit. The dispute between the west and east is the way in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is operating in the Church. It's an oversimplification of the western view to say that they simply hold that a 'man' is infallible.

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 04:56:31 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #71 on: December 29, 2010, 05:17:50 PM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #72 on: December 29, 2010, 05:24:12 PM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.
That's the problem: how could a bishop consecrate his superior?
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #73 on: December 29, 2010, 06:14:00 PM »



Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Popes have issued two dogmatic definitions: Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus. The first defines the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The easterners might have a bit of nitpicking to do on "Immaculate Conception", because of the different emphases on Original Sin in west and east, but in substance what it means is the same: Mary lived her whole life without sin. The second defined the assumption of Mary.

I can't see why the Orthodox would feel either of these are heretical.

Indeed the Immaculate Conception as defined in the language, rhetoric and practice of the Roman Catholic Church is not in line with similar teachings of the various jurisdictions of Orthodox, and is rightfully declared heretical by Orthodox standards.

But you bring up a more interesting point, in if Orthodox acknowledge the organizational/structural concept of Papal/Clerical Infallibility in the Roman tradition which we can see from Orthodox history is quite foreign across the board.  Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Archbishops are discredited and unseated quite often in our mutual histories for various theological, geopolitical and even economic reasons.  Clearly the Orthodox does not support the automatic dogmatic Infallibility of our hierarchical clergy because we have a long history of disputing with these very leaders.  This is inherent to the logistical structure of the Orthodox, into more individualized and regionalized jurisdictions and authorities, where as the Roman Catholic hierarchy has been strictly enforced for centuries.  Even the Patriarchs have not traditionally been allowed the kinds of unilateral authority and decision-making that Popes in Rome have had.  Further, specifically in regards to legalistic and economic situations such as taxes and landownership the Orthodox Church has NEVER in its history in any of its jurisdictions been as tightly centralized as the Roman tradition, but then again, that is the cultural/political legacy and influence of the Roman/Western mind of business sense and logical efficiency which has often been foreign to the Eastern perspective epitomized in Orthodoxy.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #74 on: December 29, 2010, 06:18:00 PM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not. In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

In practice of course the Bishop of Rome is always elected from among the College of Cardinals.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #75 on: December 29, 2010, 06:27:27 PM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.
That's the problem: how could a bishop consecrate his superior?

Because the Pope is still merely a bishop. So he is ordained with the same holy orders of any other bishop. The difference is the administrative position he holds in the Church. As 'administrative' head, he has special privileges privy to the office.

The 'infallibility' then isn't because he's Pope. It's because he has the last word.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,206


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 29, 2010, 06:38:27 PM »

Regarding the equality of Bishops, while I have not personally witnessed a Papal Mass except for television I have had the privilege to attend a Liturgy celebrated by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Several things struck me with respect to the issue of episcopal equality.

The first that there was none of the special event 'buzz' that seems to permeate a Papal appearance; the every Sunday grandeur of our Divine Liturgy was sufficient for the event. The presence of the Patriarch did not make the Liturgy seem more solemn or grand than a regular Liturgy. The second was that, unlike the Pope, the Patriarch wore no vestment or highly visible insignia that differentiated him from his fellow Bishops in attendance. The third was humorous and I am sorry if my Greek brothers take a little bit of offence, but as a Slav, I leaned over to my wife and whispered that they should have hired some priests from the Moscow Patriarchate to be the Masters of Ceremony as the whole thing seemed rather unorganized to me. Nevertheless, it was a remarkable and moving occasion.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 06:39:19 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #77 on: December 29, 2010, 06:41:38 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
More later, but quick note for the moment:

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not. In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

In practice of course the Bishop of Rome is always elected from among the College of Cardinals.

True, but after election and anointing, the Metropolitan Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has a Supreme jurisdictional authority across the Roman Catholic world, and can unilaterally make many decisions, not necessarily theologically but definitely logistically, economically, politically.  I think the comparative histories of Orthodox regions and Roman Catholic regions is telling to how these differences arose.  The Orthodox tend to come from regions or largely authoritarian political leadership who operate in tandem with the Church, but who dominate legal and economic affairs such as clergy authority, land-ownership and revinue collection/distribution.  In Orthodox, the political governments have had a large autonomy in making these kinds of decisions, relegating most theological and religious authority to the Church, where as the Roman Catholic Churches, both at the national and region levels, have often carried much more significant political and economic functions and authorities than in the East.  Essentially, the Roman Church needed more authority invested in its clergy because its clergy were inherently invested more political and economic authority than their eastern, Orthodox counterparts.  The Alexandrian Patriarchate is an epitomizing example of this void in political and economic authority.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #78 on: December 29, 2010, 07:09:46 PM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not.

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

Quote
In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

this new creature, a charism not confered by sacrement, rather guts the episcopate. the vatican is trying to deny the fact that is setting another order above the episcopate.

but then you guys claim that a muslim or jewish atheist can baptize.

Quote
In practice of course the Bishop of Rome is always elected from among the College of Cardinals.
Yes, another indication of the creation of the Vatican papacy in the second, not the first, millenium.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 07:10:46 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #79 on: December 29, 2010, 07:18:53 PM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman

But I'm not; I'm proposing a scenario where the Holy Spirit guides the College of Cardinals at their conclave to elect me, a non-RC layman, to replace Pope Benedict XVI.

who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church".

I would automatically be in Communion with Rome just by being elected Pope?   Huh

You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.

After I have apostatized from Orthodoxy or would the Holy Spirit have done that for me?  After all, I could refuse and continue my life as an Orthodox layman....   angel

Isa has said it best and Thomist has yet to clarify ... How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #80 on: December 29, 2010, 08:03:28 PM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman

But I'm not; I'm proposing a scenario where the Holy Spirit guides the College of Cardinals at their conclave to elect me, a non-RC layman, to replace Pope Benedict XVI.

Can not happen, unless you're a Catholic.

An athiest/muslim/jew/hindu/buddhist/schismatic-Christian can't be Pope anymore than and athiest/muslim/jew/hindu/buddhist/schismatic-Christian can be ordained an Orthodox priest.

who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church".

I would automatically be in Communion with Rome just by being elected Pope?   Huh

You would have to be Catholic, and by being Catholic you'd be in communion with Rome.

You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.

After I have apostatized from Orthodoxy or would the Holy Spirit have done that for me?  After all, I could refuse and continue my life as an Orthodox layman....   angel

No. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You're either in the Church (as the Catholics see it), or you're not.

Isa has said it best and Thomist has yet to clarify ... How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

I have answered it, but you're attempting to force a scenario that can't and won't work.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #81 on: December 29, 2010, 09:34:22 PM »

I have answered it, but you're attempting to force a scenario that can't and won't work.

Is it the infallibility of the Holy Spirit which prevents my scenario from occurring or is it the College of Cardinals (or an Orthodox Holy Synod) who would ignore the Holy Spirit suggesting a non-Roman Catholic for the Papacy (or likewise a non-Orthodox Christian as the next Orthodox Patriarch)?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #82 on: December 29, 2010, 11:03:08 PM »

I have answered it, but you're attempting to force a scenario that can't and won't work.

Is it the infallibility of the Holy Spirit which prevents my scenario from occurring or is it the College of Cardinals (or an Orthodox Holy Synod) who would ignore the Holy Spirit suggesting a non-Roman Catholic for the Papacy (or likewise a non-Orthodox Christian as the next Orthodox Patriarch)?

It isn't about the Holy Spirit's abilities, just as it isn't about the person who is the Pope.

(if the Roman Catholic Church is THE Church of Christ, then...)

Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.

To select someone outside the Church (if somehow theoretically possible) would require that person to enter the Church (be baptized and chrismated) and then given Holy Orders. Only a valid Catholic blessed as a Bishop can be a Pope, i.e Hold the position as "Head of the Church".
Logged


I'm going to need this.
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #83 on: December 29, 2010, 11:08:45 PM »


Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.


Apparently you can elect a non-American to be president...  Grin

I have answered it, but you're attempting to force a scenario that can't and won't work.

Is it the infallibility of the Holy Spirit which prevents my scenario from occurring or is it the College of Cardinals (or an Orthodox Holy Synod) who would ignore the Holy Spirit suggesting a non-Roman Catholic for the Papacy (or likewise a non-Orthodox Christian as the next Orthodox Patriarch)?

It isn't about the Holy Spirit's abilities, just as it isn't about the person who is the Pope.

(if the Roman Catholic Church is THE Church of Christ, then...)

Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.

To select someone outside the Church (if somehow theoretically possible) would require that person to enter the Church (be baptized and chrismated) and then given Holy Orders. Only a valid Catholic blessed as a Bishop can be a Pope, i.e Hold the position as "Head of the Church".

I thought that there was one Pope who had actually been excommunicated before he was made Pope...
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #84 on: December 29, 2010, 11:17:30 PM »


Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.


Apparently you can elect a non-American to be president...  Grin

LOL. I KNEW someone would say that!  Cheesy

I thought that there was one Pope who had actually been excommunicated before he was made Pope...

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have a name? If it happened, they would have had to reenter the Church prior to assuming the position (STS).
Logged


I'm going to need this.
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #85 on: December 29, 2010, 11:19:57 PM »


Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.


Apparently you can elect a non-American to be president...  Grin

LOL. I KNEW someone would say that!  Cheesy

I thought that there was one Pope who had actually been excommunicated before he was made Pope...

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have a name? If it happened, they would have had to reenter the Church prior to assuming the position (STS).

 Cheesy

I have no name, but I thought I remembered reading of such as of late, and I don't recall if he did officially re-enter the Church or not... IDK
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #86 on: December 29, 2010, 11:36:45 PM »


Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.


Apparently you can elect a non-American to be president...  Grin

LOL. I KNEW someone would say that!  Cheesy

I thought that there was one Pope who had actually been excommunicated before he was made Pope...

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have a name? If it happened, they would have had to reenter the Church prior to assuming the position (STS).

 Cheesy

I have no name, but I thought I remembered reading of such as of late, and I don't recall if he did officially re-enter the Church or not... IDK
You are thinking about "Pope" Formosus"
Quote
As early as 872 he had been a candidate for the papal see, so that John possibly viewed him in the light of an opponent. On the flight of Formosus and the other papal officials, John convened a synod, 19 April, which ordered the fugitives to return to Rome. As they refused to obey this injunction, they were condemned by a second synod on 30 June. Against Formosus, should he fail to return, sentence of excommunication and deposition were pronounced by the first synod, the charges being that, impelled by ambition, he had aspired to the Archbishopric of Bulgaria and the Chair of Peter, had opposed the emperor and had deserted his diocese without papal permission. It follows from this that John saw in Formosus a rival whom he gravely suspected. The second synod of 30 June, after several new accusations had been brought against Formosus (e.g. that he had despoiled the cloisters in Rome, had performed the divine service in spite of the interdict, had conspired with certain iniquitous men and women for the destruction of the papal see), excluded him from the ranks of the clergy. Such charges, made against a man who was religious, moral, ascetic, and intellectual can only be referred to party spirit.
The condemnation of Formosus and the others was announced to the emperor and the Synod of Ponthion in July. In 878 John himself came to France, and the deposition of Formosus, who appeared in person, was confirmed at the synod of Troyes. According to the acts of the synod, which are however of doubtful authenticity, the sentence of excommunication against Formosus was withdrawn, after he had promised on oath never to return to Rome or exercise his priestly functions......Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber. In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter's. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen's synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion. Against these decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him.
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06139b.htm


Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: December 29, 2010, 11:39:30 PM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.
That's the problem: how could a bishop consecrate his superior?

He would be consecrated before he assumes the chair.

You know...all hierarchies have it...sequencing...
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #88 on: December 29, 2010, 11:39:30 PM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not.

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

Quote
In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

this new creature, a charism not confered by sacrement, rather guts the episcopate. the vatican is trying to deny the fact that is setting another order above the episcopate.


It is not another order at all.    There are no orders above the level of bishop.

Is the Patriarch another order...simply because you say it is not?
Logged

dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #89 on: December 29, 2010, 11:42:04 PM »


Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.


Apparently you can elect a non-American to be president...  Grin

LOL. I KNEW someone would say that!  Cheesy

I thought that there was one Pope who had actually been excommunicated before he was made Pope...

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have a name? If it happened, they would have had to reenter the Church prior to assuming the position (STS).

 Cheesy

I have no name, but I thought I remembered reading of such as of late, and I don't recall if he did officially re-enter the Church or not... IDK
You are thinking about "Pope" Formosus"
Quote
As early as 872 he had been a candidate for the papal see, so that John possibly viewed him in the light of an opponent. On the flight of Formosus and the other papal officials, John convened a synod, 19 April, which ordered the fugitives to return to Rome. As they refused to obey this injunction, they were condemned by a second synod on 30 June. Against Formosus, should he fail to return, sentence of excommunication and deposition were pronounced by the first synod, the charges being that, impelled by ambition, he had aspired to the Archbishopric of Bulgaria and the Chair of Peter, had opposed the emperor and had deserted his diocese without papal permission. It follows from this that John saw in Formosus a rival whom he gravely suspected. The second synod of 30 June, after several new accusations had been brought against Formosus (e.g. that he had despoiled the cloisters in Rome, had performed the divine service in spite of the interdict, had conspired with certain iniquitous men and women for the destruction of the papal see), excluded him from the ranks of the clergy. Such charges, made against a man who was religious, moral, ascetic, and intellectual can only be referred to party spirit.
The condemnation of Formosus and the others was announced to the emperor and the Synod of Ponthion in July. In 878 John himself came to France, and the deposition of Formosus, who appeared in person, was confirmed at the synod of Troyes. According to the acts of the synod, which are however of doubtful authenticity, the sentence of excommunication against Formosus was withdrawn, after he had promised on oath never to return to Rome or exercise his priestly functions......Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber. In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter's. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen's synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion. Against these decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him.
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06139b.htm




I remember this story (as bizarre as it is). But the name does not sound familiar to the person I was thinking of, also I thought it was a bit more recent (after 1054 but before the 1500 perhaps?) I could be wrong and just dreamed the whole thing, wouldn't be the first time...
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,404



WWW
« Reply #90 on: December 29, 2010, 11:49:53 PM »

I remember this story (as bizarre as it is). But the name does not sound familiar to the person I was thinking of, also I thought it was a bit more recent (after 1054 but before the 1500 perhaps?) I could be wrong and just dreamed the whole thing, wouldn't be the first time...

Well, Roman Catholics don't really like talking about popes from the 11th century til the 15th (especially during the 14th century).  Too much weirdness going on.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #91 on: December 29, 2010, 11:51:01 PM »

I remember this story (as bizarre as it is). But the name does not sound familiar to the person I was thinking of, also I thought it was a bit more recent (after 1054 but before the 1500 perhaps?) I could be wrong and just dreamed the whole thing, wouldn't be the first time...

Well, Roman Catholics don't really like talking about popes from the 11th century til the 15th (especially during the 14th century).  Too much weirdness going on.

LOL, too true... Cool
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #92 on: December 29, 2010, 11:55:12 PM »

I remember this story (as bizarre as it is). But the name does not sound familiar to the person I was thinking of, also I thought it was a bit more recent (after 1054 but before the 1500 perhaps?) I could be wrong and just dreamed the whole thing, wouldn't be the first time...

Well, Roman Catholics don't really like talking about popes from the 11th century til the 15th (especially during the 14th century).  Too much weirdness going on.

LOL
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #93 on: December 30, 2010, 12:56:50 AM »

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

In fact, none of us knows.  If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary.  The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith. 
I agree.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #94 on: December 30, 2010, 01:00:10 AM »

How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

There is no consecration of a pope...eh?...There is no consecration of a pope...eh?

There is an election of a pope...eh?....There is an election of a pope...eh?

The pope assumes the Chair of Peter...eh?...The pope assumes the Chair of Peter?

good grief....

Thank God there are at least some Orthodox bishop who have a clue.
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,865


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #95 on: December 30, 2010, 01:11:12 AM »

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

In fact, none of us knows.  If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary.  The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith. 
Agreed, but the Catholic system seems more internally consistent.

I have to agree to a certain extent that there is indeed consistency and organization in the Roman Catholic system.  That the Pope of Rome can convene councils in an efficient manner is very laudable.  But consistency does not mean that Petrine primacy is true.  The ancient church shockingly received her consistency from imperial authorities when convening councils and regulating behavior of bishops.  It would seem that the occupation of "infallibility" in those times was not the Pope of Rome, but rather the emperor of Rome/Constantinople.

Someone else mentioned taking the last word on a council.  If that was a definition of infallibility, the Pope of Rome, or even St. Peter himself, did not have the last word.  In the council of Jerusalem convened by the Apostles, St. James had the last word.  The council of Nicea, it seemed that St. Alexander had the last word.  In Ephesus, St. Cyril had the last word.

The other question of infallibility is right doctrine.  Well, in that case, many people can be considered infallible.  St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazienzen, etc.  These people expressed infallibility in doctrines.

Then I'm reading here the idea that conciliarity is an important prerequisite of the Pope's infallibility, i.e. the Pope isn't infallible unless the council agrees.  But then what is the point of papal or Petrine infallibility?  That seems to confuse me.  I'm sure the East would agree that the Pope of Rome can take an authoritative role in a council, but if his infallibility depends no the council's bishops, wouldn't the idea of papal infallibility be pointless?

The structure seems consistent and well-organized, but the theological reasoning behind it actually confuses me and seems rather inconsistent in itself.  I guess the question is, what really is "infallibility"?  Why does it fall on a single person in addition to the councils?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 01:13:14 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #96 on: December 30, 2010, 01:56:07 AM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not.

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

Quote
In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

this new creature, a charism not confered by sacrement, rather guts the episcopate. the vatican is trying to deny the fact that is setting another order above the episcopate.


It is not another order at all.    There are no orders above the level of bishop.

Is the Patriarch another order...simply because you say it is not?

The Orthodox Patriarchs are simply Bishops - no additional "charisms" are imparted to them.

His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said the following in a 1997 interview:

Quote
In identifying the Orthodox Church as the Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ through His Holy Apostles, we by no means circumscribe or limit the kingdom of God. We know well the words of the Lord, that the Spirit blows where he will, and we acknowledge that the power, mercy and love of God are well beyond our comprehension.

By elevating the Roman Catholic Papacy, are one Bishop's ex cathedra statements an attempt to circumscribe or limit the kingdom of God?   Huh  We've already discussed birth control and divorce in other threads ... Christ said one thing about Divorce; however, Rome teaches a totally different doctrine on Divorce just because they have the power to do so without taking into account mercy and love of God....
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #97 on: December 30, 2010, 03:52:13 AM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.
That's the problem: how could a bishop consecrate his superior?

He would be consecrated before he assumes the chair.

You know...all hierarchies have it...sequencing...
"And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better." Heb. 7:7.

You got it all contradicted there in Sistine Chapel.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #98 on: December 30, 2010, 04:08:35 AM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not.

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

Quote
In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

this new creature, a charism not confered by sacrement, rather guts the episcopate. the vatican is trying to deny the fact that is setting another order above the episcopate.


It is not another order at all.    There are no orders above the level of bishop.

that's right. No matter what Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I & II say to the contrairy.



Quote
Is the Patriarch another order...simply because you say it is not?

Even you do not make any claims of charism for your patriarchs, except your pope, epitomized by the ban on your rivals hiearchs in Alexandria taking the traditional title.

Since your supreme pontiff magically gets his charism of infallibility by sitting his seat on the cathedra of the Roman see (or Avignon, or Pisa...), why any need for apostolic hands on his head?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #99 on: December 30, 2010, 04:16:31 AM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.
That's the problem: how could a bishop consecrate his superior?

He would be consecrated before he assumes the chair.

You know...all hierarchies have it...sequencing...
"And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better." Heb. 7:7.

You got it all contradicted there in Sistine Chapel.

In looking closer at Hebrews 7:7, the footnotes in the NAB Bible cited on the USCCB website seem to create doubt regarding how the lesser are blessed by the greater:

Quote
6 [7] A lesser person is blessed by a greater: though this sounds like a principle, there are some examples in the Old Testament that do not support it (cf 2 Sam 14:22; Job 31:20). The author may intend it as a statement of a liturgical rule.

Job 31:20 (NKJV)

Quote
If the weak did not bless me, And if their shoulders were not warmed with the fleece of my lambs;

Chapter 31 sets forth Job's integrity but we need verse 19 to put verse 20 in the proper context:

Quote
If I have neglected the naked as he was perishing and did not clothe him;

Verses 22 and 23 describe the consequences of those actions....

2 Samuel 14:22 (NKJV)

Quote
Then Joab fell to the ground on his face and bowed himself and blessed the King, And Joab said, "Today your servant knows that I have found favor in your sight, my lord king, because the king has fulfilled his servant's request."

In this passage, Absalom was being recalled from exile even though Absalom was not allowed to live in the palace nor see his father's face (Footnotes on page 370 of the Orthodox Study Bible).  Joab was obeying King David's commands (Joab was the lesser and King David was the greater ... making the point ... Cardinals are the lesser and the Pope is the greater, hmmmm).

USCCB = United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (sorry)  angel
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 04:30:45 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #100 on: December 30, 2010, 04:16:45 AM »

How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

There is no consecration of a pope...eh?...There is no consecration of a pope...eh?

There is an election of a pope...eh?....There is an election of a pope...eh?

The pope assumes the Chair of Peter...eh?...The pope assumes the Chair of Peter?

good grief....

Thank God there are at least some Orthodox bishop who have a clue.
Indeed.


Holding to the Apostolic succession, we only recognize charisms conferred through the laying of hands on the candidates, not one coming from the elected sitting his seat on a chair.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #101 on: December 30, 2010, 04:19:22 AM »

How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

There is no consecration of a pope...eh?...There is no consecration of a pope...eh?

There is an election of a pope...eh?....There is an election of a pope...eh?

The pope assumes the Chair of Peter...eh?...The pope assumes the Chair of Peter?

good grief....

Thank God there are at least some Orthodox bishop who have a clue.

Anyone we know besides the ones cited by Isa in the above icon?   Huh
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 04:23:02 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #102 on: December 30, 2010, 04:28:01 AM »

OK, so I propose the following scenario.  If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.
That's the problem: how could a bishop consecrate his superior?

He would be consecrated before he assumes the chair.

You know...all hierarchies have it...sequencing...
"And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better." Heb. 7:7.

You got it all contradicted there in Sistine Chapel.

The footnotes in the NAB Bible cited on the USCCB website seem to create doubt regarding how the lesser are blessed by the greater:

Quote
6 [7] A lesser person is blessed by a greater: though this sounds like a principle, there are some examples in the Old Testament that do not support it (cf 2 Sam 14:22; Job 31:20). The author may intend it as a statement of a liturgical rule.

2 Samuel 14:22 (NKJV)

Quote
Then Joab fell to the ground on his face and bowed himself and blessed the King, And Joab said, "Today your servant knows that I have found favor in your sight, my lord king, because the king has fulfilled his servant's request."

In this passage, Absalom was being recalled from exile even though Absalom was not allowed to live in the palace nor see his father's face (Footnotes on page 370 of the Orthodox Study Bible).  Joab was obeying King David's commands (Joab was the lesser and King David was the greater ... making the point ... Cardinals are the lesser and the Pope is the greater, hmmmm).

USCCB = United States Council of Catholic Bishops
hmmmmm indeed.

Odd that they went to the OT for a "contradiction," when they could have refered to St. John baptizing Christ. But then, the Gospel is quite clear how much in essence it was a contradiction, or rather a fulfillment, so that the order of Aaron in St. John (as shown by the opening of St. Luke: on that, note that St. Luke begins both his gospel and his book of Acts with a succession, involving the casting of lots to reveal God's will) might return its priesthood to Melchizedek Who instituted.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #103 on: December 30, 2010, 04:34:18 AM »

There is no comparison necessary.  Don't duck the issue.

The prescribed Orthodox use of artificial birth control is essentially an innovation of the 20th century. 

It is an excellent example of so-called "reception" of doctrine waiting nearly 2000 years for what now appears to be a universal reception....It is now universally received, is it not?

I am sure you are not unaware that neither the Roman Catholic nor Orthodox teaching on contraception is an "innovation" of the 20th century.  I am sure you are aware that we have so little from the Fathers on this matter that we cannot really say we have a broad patristic consensus.

The little that we do have is ignored by both our Churches, namely:

1.  Every act of sexual intercourse must be performed with the INTENTION of conception
2.  Every act of sexual intercourse must have the PHYSICAL  POSSIBILITY of conception.

In accord with (2) the Fathers did not allow intercourse for women past childbearing, for husbands and wives with physical disabilities which prevent conception, etc.

If you wish to check the extreme paucity of reliable patristic teaching as regards contraception simply locate the many Catholic Answers articles on the topic.  The patristic quotes are far from convincing and are often right off topic.

When you speak of ducking the issue I often smile because the Roman Catholic Church ducks the teaching of the Ancients.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #104 on: December 30, 2010, 04:34:38 AM »

How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

There is no consecration of a pope...eh?...There is no consecration of a pope...eh?

There is an election of a pope...eh?....There is an election of a pope...eh?

The pope assumes the Chair of Peter...eh?...The pope assumes the Chair of Peter?

good grief....

Thank God there are at least some Orthodox bishop who have a clue.

Anyone we know besides the ones cited by Isa in the above icon?   Huh
Even the Vatican's best friend, the EP, has his moments
Quote
the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos’s blunt speech at Georgetown University on October 21, 1997, with its allusion to “the continually increasing divergence” and “ontological difference” between the two churches
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #105 on: December 30, 2010, 04:35:10 AM »

hmmmmm indeed.

Odd that they went to the OT for a "contradiction," when they could have refered to St. John baptizing Christ. But then, the Gospel is quite clear how much in essence it was a contradiction, or rather a fulfillment, so that the order of Aaron in St. John (as shown by the opening of St. Luke: on that, note that St. Luke begins both his gospel and his book of Acts with a succession, involving the casting of lots to reveal God's will) might return its priesthood to Melchizedek Who instituted.

The author of the NAB footnotes for Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek lives forever since He has no beginning nor end ... perhaps what the Papacy aspires to except, unfortunately, that humans are mortal.   Sad
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #106 on: December 30, 2010, 04:36:12 AM »

There is no comparison necessary.  Don't duck the issue.

The prescribed Orthodox use of artificial birth control is essentially an innovation of the 20th century. 

It is an excellent example of so-called "reception" of doctrine waiting nearly 2000 years for what now appears to be a universal reception....It is now universally received, is it not?

I am sure you are not unaware that neither the Roman Catholic nor Orthodox teaching on contraception is an "innovation" of the 20th century.  I am sure you are aware that we have so little from the Fathers on this matter that we cannot really say we have a broad patristic consensus.

The little that we do have is ignored by both our Churches, namely:

1.  Every act of sexual intercourse must be performed with the INTENTION of conception
2.  Every act of sexual intercourse must have the PHYSICAL  POSSIBILITY of conception.

In accord with (2) the Fathers did not allow intercourse for women past childbearing, for husbands and wives with physical disabilities which prevent conception, etc.

If you wish to check the extreme paucity of reliable patristic teaching as regards contraception simply locate the many Catholic Answers articles on the topic.  The patristic quotes are far from convincing and are often right off topic.

When you speak of ducking the issue I often smile because the Roman Catholic Church ducks the teaching of the Ancients.
...by making too much out of too litttle.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #107 on: December 30, 2010, 04:36:25 AM »

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

In fact, none of us knows.  If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary.  The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith. 
Agreed, but the Catholic system seems more internally consistent.

I have to agree to a certain extent that there is indeed consistency and organization in the Roman Catholic system.  That the Pope of Rome can convene councils in an efficient manner is very laudable.  But consistency does not mean that Petrine primacy is true.  The ancient church shockingly received her consistency from imperial authorities when convening councils and regulating behavior of bishops.  It would seem that the occupation of "infallibility" in those times was not the Pope of Rome, but rather the emperor of Rome/Constantinople.

Someone else mentioned taking the last word on a council.  If that was a definition of infallibility, the Pope of Rome, or even St. Peter himself, did not have the last word.  In the council of Jerusalem convened by the Apostles, St. James had the last word.  The council of Nicea, it seemed that St. Alexander had the last word.  In Ephesus, St. Cyril had the last word.

The other question of infallibility is right doctrine.  Well, in that case, many people can be considered infallible.  St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazienzen, etc.  These people expressed infallibility in doctrines.

Then I'm reading here the idea that conciliarity is an important prerequisite of the Pope's infallibility, i.e. the Pope isn't infallible unless the council agrees.  But then what is the point of papal or Petrine infallibility?  That seems to confuse me.  I'm sure the East would agree that the Pope of Rome can take an authoritative role in a council, but if his infallibility depends no the council's bishops, wouldn't the idea of papal infallibility be pointless?

The structure seems consistent and well-organized, but the theological reasoning behind it actually confuses me and seems rather inconsistent in itself.  I guess the question is, what really is "infallibility"?  Why does it fall on a single person in addition to the councils?

The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.

Ialmis, you said that Pastor Aeternus says otherwise. Can you quote the specific passage to which you are referring?

It was mentioned that Catholics don't like to discuss the Papacy between the 11th and 14th centuries. I presume that what is being referred to is the western schism, though I do not know for sure. I am happy to discuss the Western Schism, if someone would like to raise a particular theological issue with regards to it. Or, if it's any other issue, whatever it is that's in question.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 04:38:22 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,094


WWW
« Reply #108 on: December 30, 2010, 04:39:43 AM »

How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

There is no consecration of a pope...eh?...There is no consecration of a pope...eh?

There is an election of a pope...eh?....There is an election of a pope...eh?

The pope assumes the Chair of Peter...eh?...The pope assumes the Chair of Peter?

good grief....

Thank God there are at least some Orthodox bishop who have a clue.

Anyone we know besides the ones cited by Isa in the above icon?   Huh
Even the Vatican's best friend, the EP, has his moments
Quote
the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos’s blunt speech at Georgetown University on October 21, 1997, with its allusion to “the continually increasing divergence” and “ontological difference” between the two churches
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b

That was 13+ years ago.  I don't know if His All Holiness still feels the same way given recent interactions between the EP and Pope Benedict; Met. Methodios recently had an audience with Pope Benedict during an interfaith trip to Rome and Istanbul with the Archbishop of Worcester, MA (Huh).  That visit was displayed in the Orthodox Observer.

Time for bed....   Smiley
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #109 on: December 30, 2010, 07:43:57 AM »


The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.
.

Things have changed.  It used to be the teaching that infallibility was a personal charism of the Pope by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of Saint Peter.  "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not..."

If the current teaching is that infallibility "does not inhere in the Pope specifically" you may need to substantiate that with some documentation.

You may understand why the ability of Catholicism to change its teachings rather quickly in only a few decades raises anxieties for the Orthodox.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #110 on: December 30, 2010, 10:07:11 AM »


The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.
.

Things have changed.  It used to be the teaching that infallibility was a personal charism of the Pope by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of Saint Peter.  "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not..."

If the current teaching is that infallibility "does not inhere in the Pope specifically" you may need to substantiate that with some documentation.

You may understand why the ability of Catholicism to change its teachings rather quickly in only a few decades raises anxieties for the Orthodox.

That may be the biggest difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholics have the "development of doctrine," which allows their teaching to change. This makes things incredibly difficult for purposes of dialogue.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 30, 2010, 10:30:25 AM »


The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.
.

Things have changed.  It used to be the teaching that infallibility was a personal charism of the Pope by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of Saint Peter.  "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not..."

If the current teaching is that infallibility "does not inhere in the Pope specifically" you may need to substantiate that with some documentation.

You may understand why the ability of Catholicism to change its teachings rather quickly in only a few decades raises anxieties for the Orthodox.

That may be the biggest difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholics have the "development of doctrine," which allows their teaching to change. This makes things incredibly difficult for purposes of dialogue.

It's pretty hard to keep up with the dialogue in these threads when you guys keep high-fiving each other over how wrong the Roman Catholic Church is.

Even Isa is lax on the super-quote department.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #112 on: December 30, 2010, 11:24:42 AM »

You believe the consent of the whole Church is necessary?

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church.

Every single one has.

Quote
At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.
Having rejected Ephesus, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confessed the Orthodox Faith remained in, or rather remained, the Church. What the Nestorians did after the left with their consent and all, is of no consequence.  Which is why, after the Vatican betrayed Constantinople I, Rome's consent means nothing anymore to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confesses the Orthodox Faith either.
Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?
By having the faithful fortitude to make the existential decision to accept what the Church proclaimed at Ephesus, and not dodging it. Besides Scripture and Tradition.

How do you know that you got the right pope out of all this mess?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #113 on: December 30, 2010, 11:31:53 AM »

Quote from: SolEx01
Which Church doctrine or canon law led to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor when the Christian world remained unified, albeit tenuously?

The Pope was the ruler of the city of Rome as well as a official of the Church. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope in that (political) capacity, and acclaimed Imperator by the Roman people. The people of Rome have the right to choose their own Emperor.

Quote from: SolEx01
You're playing armchair theologian with the Holy Fathers of the pre-1054 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - can you cite where any of those you listed made the claim that "they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine?"

Their actions speak to it. They were regularly interfering in the ecclesiastical and doctrinal affairs of Churches outside of their own Patriarchate, and expecting to be obeyed. They were, until Photios.

For example, from a letter of Pope Julius to the east:

"It behooved you, beloved, to come hither [to Rome], and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this... O beloved!...For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus...And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you. "

Or when Pope Celestine wrote to the Bishops of Illyricum:

"We especially are bound to have care for all, to whom Christ imposed the necessity of dealing with all, in the holy apostle Peter, when He gave him the keys for opening and shutting... "

Or in the words of Philip, Papal Legate to the Council of Ephesus:

"Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church... to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who up to this very age ever lives and judges in his successors. "

Quote from: SolEX01
Do the Roman Catholics have Diptychs today?  I saw the Vatican's Christmas Mass on TV and I didn't see anyone reading Diptychs (well, other than the Deacon who asked for blessings for Pope Benedict XVI, a one Hierarch Diptych, but I digress) - with 201 Cardinals and thousands and thousands of worldwide Bishops, I guess there wasn't enough time to list them all.   Roll Eyes  When Archbishop O'Brien performs Mass, does He read the Diptychs of His suffragan Bishops or even His own predecessors, living and deceased (there aren't that many - 15, I believe)?

Pope Saint Gelasius I was ordering that the name of Acacius be struck from the diptychs in Constantinople. To my knowledge it has never been the custom to keep diptychs in Rome.

Quote from: SolEx01
The monothelite patriarchs excommunicated themselves by not accepting Chalcedon; however, the West accepted Charlemagne as Emperor because He could defend and protect the Holy See from those Byzantines, Muslims and other "enemies" of the Faith.   Wink

Charlemagne did not need to be an enemy of the Byzantines. He proposed to marry Empress Irene in fact, and she was friendly to the idea, but the people rose up and overthrew her when faced with the prospect that she might wed a 'barbarian' Frank.

What happened in 1204 was a horrific event which was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Innocent III, but I remind you that at the outset of the Crusades, the west was most eager to come to the aid and defense of their eastern brothers, after Manzikert threatened the destruction of the Empire. The memory of the Crusades is painful, for obvious reasons, and the East is not wrong to resent what was later done at the hands of those false crusaders who betrayed the trust placed in them, both by the people of the east and the pontiffs of Rome, but the west did not hate the east from the time of Charlemagne. The Genoese ships, sent by the Pope, who defied the fleet of Mehmed II to rush supplies to the last defenders of Constantinople under the Ethnomartyr Constantine XI did not hate the east.

Quote from: SolEX01
Vatican I vs. the Council of Nicaea - I'm sure a thread exists that compares/contrasts those 2 Councils?   Huh

Plainly the west understands the magisterium differently from the east, but I don't know what he means with regards to the idea that the magisterium as such is a new creation. The church, west and east, has always asserted itself to hold infallible teaching authority of some form or another.
It would help if you would link to your quote mine, or give references from whence these alleged quotes come from.

For instance, your Pope Julius quote, is that "Epistle of Julius to Antioch, c. xxii"?  that was the prelude to the council of Sardica/Philoppolis. we all know how that ended, or should.

Quote
The holy and regional Council which was assembled in the city of Sardica, Illyria, convened A.D. 347 in the reign of Constantius and Con-stans, who were full brothers and who were both of them emperors, the one of whom reigned in Constantinople, and the other in Rome, eleven years after the death of their father Constantine the Great. It was attended by three hundred Fathers from the West, and by seventy-six from the East, according to Socrates (Book II, ch. 20) and Sozomen (Book III, ch. 12). Of these the exarchs were not only Hosius, the bishop of Cordova, Spain, a man worthy of all respect, on account of his great age and of the excessive toil he underwent, but included also Archidamos and Philoxenus, the presbyters, and the three legates of Pope Julius, acting as the latter’s personal representatives. Maximus of Jerusalem, Paul of Constantinople and Athanasius of Alexandria, though present at the Council, had been deposed from office by the Eusebians. Protogenes, the bishop of Sardica, and others were also attending this Council. But a split and division between the Fathers of the East and those of the West followed, and they failed to agree with each other. For the Easterners, being Arianists, when departing for Sardica, wrote to the Westerners not to admit to a seat in the Council St. Paul, and Athanasius the Great, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas Gazaeus, on the ground that they had been deposed from office. But the Westerners replied to them that they did not consider them to be at fault, nor to have been duly deposed, and on this account would regard them as entitled to seats and participation. But when the Easterners learned this, they turned back to Philippoupolis, and again deposed from office Athanasius, Paul, Marcellus, and Asclepas, Julius the bishop (i.e., Pope) of Rome, Hosius (the bishop) of Cordova, Protogenes (the bishop) of Sardica, and others. Being averse from perfect accord with the doctrine of coessentiality (though Socrates says that they openly anathematized it, in Book II, ch. 20), they anathematized only those who asserted three Gods, and anyone that said that Christ was not a God, or that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one and the same person; and anyone that said perhaps that the Son was unbegotten, or perhaps that there was a time or an age in which He was not. After the Western Fathers convoked and assembled the Council, they confirmed the Nicene Creed, without adding anything to it or removing anything from it, and proceeded to declare Athanasius, and Paul, and Marcellus, and Asclepas right and innocent, and through the emperors they contrived to have their thrones returned to them; while, on the other hand, they deposed from, office the Easterners in Philippoupolis in turn, though not all of them, but only eleven; for not all of them, were Arians, but only some of them, the others being orthodox (as the Sardican Fathers state in their letter to all the churches). That is why they also anathematized many doctrines of Arms; and their Creed was accepted as orthodox by divine Hilary. Besides all these things, they also issued the present Canons, which are necessary to the good order and constitution of the Church. They are confirmed indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and by c. I of the 7th, and are confirmed definitely by c. II of the 6th; and by reason of this confirmation they have acquired a power which is in a way ecumenical.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635084
If it were as the Vatican says, they would have been ecumenical per the Pope of Rome, not the Pentheke Council.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 11:41:34 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #114 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not.

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

Quote
In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

this new creature, a charism not confered by sacrement, rather guts the episcopate. the vatican is trying to deny the fact that is setting another order above the episcopate.


It is not another order at all.    There are no orders above the level of bishop.

that's right. No matter what Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I & II say to the contrairy.



Quote
Is the Patriarch another order...simply because you say it is not?

Even you do not make any claims of charism for your patriarchs, except your pope, epitomized by the ban on your rivals hiearchs in Alexandria taking the traditional title.

Since your supreme pontiff magically gets his charism of infallibility by sitting his seat on the cathedra of the Roman see (or Avignon, or Pisa...), why any need for apostolic hands on his head?

How many times have I heard Orthodoxy tell me that there are MANY different times one can be annointed/Chrismated, and so I don't insist that every Chrismation is the same as the one that Initiates in Orthodoxy.   I am more than willing to take the Orthodox word without pushing and shoving and grunting and insisting...that they must be lying to themselves if not to me...eh?

There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #115 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

There is no consecration of a pope...eh?...There is no consecration of a pope...eh?

There is an election of a pope...eh?....There is an election of a pope...eh?

The pope assumes the Chair of Peter...eh?...The pope assumes the Chair of Peter?

good grief....

Thank God there are at least some Orthodox bishop who have a clue.
Indeed.


Holding to the Apostolic succession, we only recognize charisms conferred through the laying of hands on the candidates, not one coming from the elected sitting his seat on a chair.

We all, by virtue of our initiation into Christ have a charism or direction and purpose in our lives for which God gives us all the graces necessary for us to cooperate with his providence.

You are more than willing to press these meaningless points but I am here to tell others that they are indeed without meaning as they come from your own twisted lack of understanding and added values which are all negative when it comes to Catholic hierarchy.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

There is no consecration of a pope...eh?...There is no consecration of a pope...eh?

There is an election of a pope...eh?....There is an election of a pope...eh?

The pope assumes the Chair of Peter...eh?...The pope assumes the Chair of Peter?

good grief....

Thank God there are at least some Orthodox bishop who have a clue.

Anyone we know besides the ones cited by Isa in the above icon?   Huh

I expect that will come clear in time as the bi-lateral discussions continue.  But even from my own experience I know some of you are going to be bitterly distressed one day.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #117 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

There is no comparison necessary.  Don't duck the issue.

The prescribed Orthodox use of artificial birth control is essentially an innovation of the 20th century. 

It is an excellent example of so-called "reception" of doctrine waiting nearly 2000 years for what now appears to be a universal reception....It is now universally received, is it not?

I am sure you are not unaware that neither the Roman Catholic nor Orthodox teaching on contraception is an "innovation" of the 20th century.  I am sure you are aware that we have so little from the Fathers on this matter that we cannot really say we have a broad patristic consensus.

The little that we do have is ignored by both our Churches, namely:

1.  Every act of sexual intercourse must be performed with the INTENTION of conception
2.  Every act of sexual intercourse must have the PHYSICAL  POSSIBILITY of conception.

In accord with (2) the Fathers did not allow intercourse for women past childbearing, for husbands and wives with physical disabilities which prevent conception, etc.

If you wish to check the extreme paucity of reliable patristic teaching as regards contraception simply locate the many Catholic Answers articles on the topic.  The patristic quotes are far from convincing and are often right off topic.

When you speak of ducking the issue I often smile because the Roman Catholic Church ducks the teaching of the Ancients.

The papal Church IS the Church of 2000 years of teaching the truths of revelation.  The fathers and councils are an integral part of a living breathing organism called The Body of Christ.    It did not take 2000 years for the papal Church to teach that artificial contraception is inherently evil.    That has been the teaching all along.  It is Orthodoxy who now teaches that it is Okee-dokee.   Speaking of development of doctrine.   Whatever else you might say about us, that's a fact about Orthodoxy.  You don't even bother to keep the spirit of the ancient teachings much less the letter of their law.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »


The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.
.

Things have changed.  It used to be the teaching that infallibility was a personal charism of the Pope by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of Saint Peter.  "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not..."

If the current teaching is that infallibility "does not inhere in the Pope specifically" you may need to substantiate that with some documentation.

You may understand why the ability of Catholicism to change its teachings rather quickly in only a few decades raises anxieties for the Orthodox.

That may be the biggest difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholics have the "development of doctrine," which allows their teaching to change. This makes things incredibly difficult for purposes of dialogue.

Development does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that the core truth of a teaching changes.  It means that we become more cognizant of better ways of expressing the eternal truth.  Our Christological and Trinitarian teachings are a fine example of such developments. 

Palamas teaching on essence and energies is another example of development of doctrine as he adds insight, experience,  and refinement to an ancient teaching.

The papacy is another example.

Marian doctrine is another example.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #119 on: December 30, 2010, 11:44:36 AM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not.

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

Quote
In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

this new creature, a charism not confered by sacrement, rather guts the episcopate. the vatican is trying to deny the fact that is setting another order above the episcopate.


It is not another order at all.    There are no orders above the level of bishop.

that's right. No matter what Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I & II say to the contrairy.



Quote
Is the Patriarch another order...simply because you say it is not?

Even you do not make any claims of charism for your patriarchs, except your pope, epitomized by the ban on your rivals hiearchs in Alexandria taking the traditional title.

Since your supreme pontiff magically gets his charism of infallibility by sitting his seat on the cathedra of the Roman see (or Avignon, or Pisa...), why any need for apostolic hands on his head?

How many times have I heard Orthodoxy tell me that there are MANY different times one can be annointed/Chrismated, and so I don't insist that every Chrismation is the same as the one that Initiates in Orthodoxy.   I am more than willing to take the Orthodox word without pushing and shoving and grunting and insisting...that they must be lying to themselves if not to me...eh?
This is a new claim of yours AFAIK. You are free to grunt as much as you like, a right you otherwise exercise in profusion, why not this?
Quote
There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.
Like I said, charism through the seat.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #120 on: December 30, 2010, 11:46:18 AM »

How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective?  Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

There is no consecration of a pope...eh?...There is no consecration of a pope...eh?

There is an election of a pope...eh?....There is an election of a pope...eh?

The pope assumes the Chair of Peter...eh?...The pope assumes the Chair of Peter?

good grief....

Thank God there are at least some Orthodox bishop who have a clue.
Indeed.


Holding to the Apostolic succession, we only recognize charisms conferred through the laying of hands on the candidates, not one coming from the elected sitting his seat on a chair.

We all, by virtue of our initiation into Christ have a charism or direction and purpose in our lives for which God gives us all the graces necessary for us to cooperate with his providence.

You are more than willing to press these meaningless points but I am here to tell others that they are indeed without meaning as they come from your own twisted lack of understanding and added values which are all negative when it comes to Catholic hierarchy.
I didn't glorify the Pillars of Orthodoxy, I just follow the good example God and the Church has set by glorifying them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,865


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 30, 2010, 11:53:10 AM »

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

In fact, none of us knows.  If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary.  The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith. 
Agreed, but the Catholic system seems more internally consistent.

I have to agree to a certain extent that there is indeed consistency and organization in the Roman Catholic system.  That the Pope of Rome can convene councils in an efficient manner is very laudable.  But consistency does not mean that Petrine primacy is true.  The ancient church shockingly received her consistency from imperial authorities when convening councils and regulating behavior of bishops.  It would seem that the occupation of "infallibility" in those times was not the Pope of Rome, but rather the emperor of Rome/Constantinople.

Someone else mentioned taking the last word on a council.  If that was a definition of infallibility, the Pope of Rome, or even St. Peter himself, did not have the last word.  In the council of Jerusalem convened by the Apostles, St. James had the last word.  The council of Nicea, it seemed that St. Alexander had the last word.  In Ephesus, St. Cyril had the last word.

The other question of infallibility is right doctrine.  Well, in that case, many people can be considered infallible.  St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazienzen, etc.  These people expressed infallibility in doctrines.

Then I'm reading here the idea that conciliarity is an important prerequisite of the Pope's infallibility, i.e. the Pope isn't infallible unless the council agrees.  But then what is the point of papal or Petrine infallibility?  That seems to confuse me.  I'm sure the East would agree that the Pope of Rome can take an authoritative role in a council, but if his infallibility depends no the council's bishops, wouldn't the idea of papal infallibility be pointless?

The structure seems consistent and well-organized, but the theological reasoning behind it actually confuses me and seems rather inconsistent in itself.  I guess the question is, what really is "infallibility"?  Why does it fall on a single person in addition to the councils?

The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.

Ialmis, you said that Pastor Aeternus says otherwise. Can you quote the specific passage to which you are referring?

It was mentioned that Catholics don't like to discuss the Papacy between the 11th and 14th centuries. I presume that what is being referred to is the western schism, though I do not know for sure. I am happy to discuss the Western Schism, if someone would like to raise a particular theological issue with regards to it. Or, if it's any other issue, whatever it is that's in question.

Well, as I said before, St Peter and at various points of history, the Pope of Rome did not have the final word of a "magisterium" in the imperial church.  So many times, I've seen Catholics support the idea of the Pope's infallibility with quotes from Church fathers about the authority of Peter in him, the rock of faith in him, representation of the Church by him, etc.  But what's the point of defining infallibility for the Pope of Rome who has been given this special blessing of "final word" when that wasn't always the case in history?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,865


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #122 on: December 30, 2010, 11:56:52 AM »

There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.

What does that mean?  That the Pope doesn't ordain by laying of hands or that the Pope is ordained, but not by laying of hands?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: December 30, 2010, 12:04:27 PM »


Like I said, charism through the seat.

Aside from being crude you have no idea what you are talking about.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: December 30, 2010, 12:04:27 PM »

There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.

What does that mean?  That the Pope doesn't ordain by laying of hands or that the Pope is ordained, but not by laying of hands?

I mean to say that the papal office is an office in the Church.  The only office in the Church is that of pasto.   The local pastor serves by the authority of a diocesan bishop and is appointed by the bishop.

The Pope is the universal pastor and is appointed by his brother bishops in the college of cardinals.

The office of pastor is not in the line of holy orders at all.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #125 on: December 30, 2010, 12:55:16 PM »


Like I said, charism through the seat.

Aside from being crude you have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, I do, and that's what gets you.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,206


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #126 on: December 30, 2010, 12:59:24 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #127 on: December 30, 2010, 01:01:50 PM »

There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.

What does that mean?  That the Pope doesn't ordain by laying of hands or that the Pope is ordained, but not by laying of hands?

I mean to say that the papal office is an office in the Church.  The only office in the Church is that of pasto. 
Is that like pesto, or pasta?

Quote
The local pastor serves by the authority of a diocesan bishop and is appointed by the bishop.

that brings up the problem of this "altus Christus/alter Christi" innovation.

Quote
The Pope is the universal pastor and is appointed by his brother bishops in the college of cardinals.
The office of pastor is not in the line of holy orders at all.
the office of pastor doesn't have any charism attached to it either.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2010, 01:04:11 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.
Yes, but because many continue on sowing confusion, we have to hoe those rows over and over and over to get the weeds out, lest we have a harvest of only tares.

And every once in a while we get some new claim:
How many times have I heard Orthodoxy tell me that there are MANY different times one can be annointed/Chrismated, and so I don't insist that every Chrismation is the same as the one that Initiates in Orthodoxy.   I am more than willing to take the Orthodox word without pushing and shoving and grunting and insisting...that they must be lying to themselves if not to me...eh?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 01:07:06 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2010, 01:36:17 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.

Welcome to my hell. Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #130 on: December 30, 2010, 02:06:40 PM »


Like I said, charism through the seat.

Aside from being crude you have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, I do, and that's what gets you.

No you do not. 

And you don't get me at all, because I am quite comfortable being Catholic, and a properly educated Catholic without a good bit of baggage bumping along with me.

And I am here primarily to tell you that you are lost when it comes to understanding the Catholic Church.  You have a neat and tidy story in your notebook but it is not real and it is not accurate.

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #131 on: December 30, 2010, 02:06:40 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.

 Smiley  There were bishops in the middle of the 20th century in the Catholic Church who thought there were too many useless repetitions in the Roman rite liturgy... Smiley....and look where that took us.

There is always room for "useless repetitions"

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have mercy on me, A sinner!

 Smiley
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #132 on: December 30, 2010, 02:08:21 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.

HAHAHA!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #133 on: December 30, 2010, 02:09:52 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Every single one has.


That is not true in the slightest, only the first three can rightfully be declared Ecumenical, and as such, only Canons of the First Three are Universally accepted, not just across Orthodoxy, but also even the Roman Catholics and many Protestants (including even Baptists!!) where as many traditions and jurisdictions across the board refute Councils following the first three.  This is history. Within all of our respective jurisdictions we have had various councils and canons, and even many multi-jurisdictional ones, but none-the-less these can never be honestly called Ecumenical in any sense of the word.  Only the first three possessed the unity and form of the entire Church, and as such we rightfully venerate those Three Canons because it was indeed a blessed miracle that for so many centuries the various and diverse Christian bishops actually managed to get along! If that is not a miracle of the Holy Spirit what is Wink

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.
Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical. That they are schismatic shouldn't matter. The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.


I believe this is the truth.

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

 The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith.  

Well, honesty the Roman system is more rational and logical and efficient than the Orthodox, but that is the legacy of the Romans and their good managerial skills.  Today, the Vatican is far more centralizing, efficient and authoritative across the Catholic world far more so than any Patriarchate, and further, I am not sure of any Patriarchates or jurisdictions that even want to have the kind of centralization that Rome has.  Again, the Romans are Romans, they do what they do best, and that is management and logistics.  In Orthodox, we are of the East and we do what Easterners do best, attending to spiritual and cultural matters.  The epitome of the Roman efficiency is in the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, that the centralized authority of the solitary leader (the Bishop of Rome) can supercede unilaterally the decisions of any other leaders, which as we have pointed out before, is quite foreign to the Orthodox world.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 02:12:32 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #134 on: December 30, 2010, 02:38:30 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Every single one has.
That is not true in the slightest, only the first three can rightfully be declared Ecumenical, and as such, only Canons of the First Three are Universally accepted, not just across Orthodoxy, but also even the Roman Catholics and many Protestants (including even Baptists!!) where as many traditions and jurisdictions across the board refute Councils following the first three.  This is history.
I am afraid that is spin.

The Nestorians have never accepted anything past the Second Ecumenical Council, and anathematize the Third, and pay lip service to the Fourth.

And the Baptists not have bishops or canons, so much of the canons of the first three councils are rejected outright.

Quote
Within all of our respective jurisdictions we have had various councils and canons, and even many multi-jurisdictional ones, but none-the-less these can never be honestly called Ecumenical in any sense of the word.  Only the first three possessed the unity and form of the entire Church, and as such we rightfully venerate those Three Canons because it was indeed a blessed miracle that for so many centuries the various and diverse Christian bishops actually managed to get along! If that is not a miracle of the Holy Spirit what is Wink
LOL. Don't know what Church history you are reading.

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.
Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical. That they are schismatic shouldn't matter. The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.
I believe this is the truth.
Oh? Because you contradict it by ignoring the Assyrians.
Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?
The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith.  
Well, honesty the Roman system is more rational and logical and efficient than the Orthodox, but that is the legacy of the Romans and their good managerial skills.  Today, the Vatican is far more centralizing, efficient and authoritative across the Catholic world far more so than any Patriarchate, and further, I am not sure of any Patriarchates or jurisdictions that even want to have the kind of centralization that Rome has.  Again, the Romans are Romans, they do what they do best, and that is management and logistics.  In Orthodox, we are of the East and we do what Easterners do best, attending to spiritual and cultural matters.  The epitome of the Roman efficiency is in the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, that the centralized authority of the solitary leader (the Bishop of Rome) can supercede unilaterally the decisions of any other leaders, which as we have pointed out before, is quite foreign to the Orthodox world.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 02:39:13 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #135 on: December 30, 2010, 02:49:52 PM »

Like I said, charism through the seat.
Aside from being crude you have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, I do, and that's what gets you.
No you do not. 
And you don't get me at all, because I am quite comfortable being Catholic, and a properly educated Catholic without a good bit of baggage bumping along with me.
Really? Then what is that loud bumping sound with a Latin beat that echoes whenever you post?
Quote
And I am here primarily to tell you that you are lost when it comes to understanding the Catholic Church.
LOL. You think the Vatican is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Chruch. So much for credibility and authority.

Quote
You have a neat and tidy story in your notebook but it is not real and it is not accurate.
I have eyes that see what EWTN broadcasts, and ears that hear what Relevant Radio broadcasts (plus the parochial school and its proselyzing), so I am quite immune against the disinformation campaign going on. Just making sure the Orthodox Faithful of the One, Holy ,Catholic and Apostolic Church are similarly innoculated.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #136 on: December 30, 2010, 04:56:45 PM »


More later, but quick note for the moment:
How many times have I heard Orthodoxy tell me that there are MANY different times one can be annointed/Chrismated


Is this information from your anonymous board of learned Orthodox advisors?  They are wrong.  Orthodox Christians are chrismated ONCE when they are baptized or received in to the Church.

There are RARE occasions when Chrismation is repeated if an individual should apostasize from Orthodoxy and then wish to return to the Church.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #137 on: December 30, 2010, 05:02:26 PM »

To many posts here to effectively use the quote mechanism, so I'm going to try to remember everything.

Irish Hermit: You said it "Used to be" that the Pope had a special personal charism that other Bishops do not have. To my knowledge, the Church has never taught that. What are you referring to?

On the issue of the Great Western Schism. Firstly, it lasted 39 years, which is a brief moment in the history of the Papacy. Secondly, it is not absolutely necessary that it have been the "correct" Papal line since the only thing that matters for apostolic succession is that the the person who takes up the Bishop's chair have received the sacrament of ordination validly. However, the Papal claimants of all three lines (Gregory XII from Rome, John XXIII from Pisa, Clement VIII from Avignon) all ended up recognizing the validity of Pope Martin V.

On the quote from Pope Julius being to the Council of Sardica, so what? The Bishop of Rome did not specially change his view of himself beforehand, having foreknown that Sardica would not be an ecumenical council.


« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 05:03:06 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #138 on: December 30, 2010, 05:12:50 PM »

To many posts here to effectively use the quote mechanism, so I'm going to try to remember everything.

Irish Hermit: You said it "Used to be" that the Pope had a special personal charism that other Bishops do not have. To my knowledge, the Church has never taught that. What are you referring to?
Paster Aeternus, for one. And Lumen Gentium. And your code of canon law.

Quote
On the issue of the Great Western Schism. Firstly, it lasted 39 years, which is a brief moment in the history of the Papacy.
A whole lifetime at the time. Think of all those who died without being in communion with the correct pope.

And you speak as if it was an isolated incident. It was not.

Quote
Secondly, it is not absolutely necessary that it have been the "correct" Papal line since the only thing that matters for apostolic succession is that the the person who takes up the Bishop's chair have received the sacrament of ordination validly. However, the Papal claimants of all three lines (Gregory XII from Rome, John XXIII from Pisa, Clement VIII from Avignon) all ended up recognizing the validity of Pope Martin V.
Not entirely correct, but I will have to come back when I have time.

Quote
On the quote from Pope Julius being to the Council of Sardica, so what? The Bishop of Rome did not specially change his view of himself beforehand, having foreknown that Sardica would not be an ecumenical council.
So his words he quotes are of no value then, no?

Does prophecy come ex cathedra too?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #139 on: December 30, 2010, 05:30:49 PM »

What are your referring to in Pastor Aeternus or Lumen Gentium? I am going off of the dogmatic definition of Vatican I, which states:

"He possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

On the issue of the Western Schism, I suppose it's unfortunate if people died out of communion with the correct Pope? They still had common faith, valid apostolic succession, and valid sacraments, so nobody had their salvation endangered by the schism.

The words of Pope Julius are obviously of great importance for the historian in recognizing what authority the western Church was asserting for itself. Throughout the first millenium the western Church always communicated clearly to the eastern Churches that they were all under its authority on matters of doctrine or canon law and commanded by Christ to obey it in these things.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 05:35:21 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #140 on: December 30, 2010, 05:39:51 PM »

I am going off of the dogmatic definition of Vatican I, which states:

"He possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."


I think you may have a misunderstanding.  The Saviour, in this definition, wills His Church to enjoy the infallibility possessed by the Pope.  Infallibility belongs to the Pope.  The Church benefits from the infallibility of the Pope.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #141 on: December 30, 2010, 05:44:44 PM »

Quote
The Magisterium (Latin: magister, "teacher") is the teaching office of the Catholic Church. Catholic theology divides the functions of the teaching office of the Church into two categories: the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the fallible Ordinary Magisterium. The infallible Sacred Magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of the Pope speaking ex cathedra and of ecumenical councils (traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons, and decrees), as well as of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Despite its name, the "ordinary and universal Magisterium" falls under the infallible Sacred Magisterium, and in fact is the usual manifestation of the infallibility of the Church, the decrees of popes and councils being "extraordinary".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church#Infallibility_of_the_Catholic_Church
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #142 on: December 30, 2010, 08:40:40 PM »

What are your referring to in Pastor Aeternus or Lumen Gentium? I am going off of the dogmatic definition of Vatican I, which states:

"He possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

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 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 it was a primacy of honor 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.

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 savior 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 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 the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.


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 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 he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that 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.

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.

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 Savior 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 savior, 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 when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. 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
.

On the issue of the Western Schism, I suppose it's unfortunate if people died out of communion with the correct Pope? They still had common faith, valid apostolic succession, and valid sacraments, so nobody had their salvation endangered by the schism.
Very odd to make communion and submission to the office essential to salvation, and place no importance of the correct holder of the office.

So, why not go with Pope Novatian?

The words of Pope Julius are obviously of great importance for the historian in recognizing what authority the western Church was asserting for itself.

even more important for the historian of the the dogma of papal supremacy lies in how such claims were ignored, to recognize the limits the Church held on Rome's authority no matter how much it asserted to the contrary.

Quote
Throughout the first millenium the western Church always communicated clearly to the eastern Churches that they were all under its authority on matters of doctrine or canon law and commanded by Christ to obey it in these things.
No, such claims began with Pope St. Victor (a insider of the court of the emperor Commodus, not unrelated), at the end of the second century.  And the "entire Church," even those in his own patriarchate of the West, communicated clearly to him in "words of theirs extant, sharply rebuking Victor...sending letters in the name of the brethren" of the "Synods and assemblies of bishops [which] were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree." so no, Christ did not command them to obey it in these things, nor do they recognize its authority in matters of doctrine or canon law that it progressively asserted.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #143 on: December 30, 2010, 08:44:04 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Every single one has.
That is not true in the slightest, only the first three can rightfully be declared Ecumenical, and as such, only Canons of the First Three are Universally accepted, not just across Orthodoxy, but also even the Roman Catholics and many Protestants (including even Baptists!!) where as many traditions and jurisdictions across the board refute Councils following the first three.  This is history.
I am afraid that is spin.

The Nestorians have never accepted anything past the Second Ecumenical Council, and anathematize the Third, and pay lip service to the Fourth.

And the Baptists not have bishops or canons, so much of the canons of the first three councils are rejected outright.

Quote
Within all of our respective jurisdictions we have had various councils and canons, and even many multi-jurisdictional ones, but none-the-less these can never be honestly called Ecumenical in any sense of the word.  Only the first three possessed the unity and form of the entire Church, and as such we rightfully venerate those Three Canons because it was indeed a blessed miracle that for so many centuries the various and diverse Christian bishops actually managed to get along! If that is not a miracle of the Holy Spirit what is Wink
LOL. Don't know what Church history you are reading.

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.
Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical. That they are schismatic shouldn't matter. The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.
I believe this is the truth.
Oh? Because you contradict it by ignoring the Assyrians.
Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?
The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith.  
Well, honesty the Roman system is more rational and logical and efficient than the Orthodox, but that is the legacy of the Romans and their good managerial skills.  Today, the Vatican is far more centralizing, efficient and authoritative across the Catholic world far more so than any Patriarchate, and further, I am not sure of any Patriarchates or jurisdictions that even want to have the kind of centralization that Rome has.  Again, the Romans are Romans, they do what they do best, and that is management and logistics.  In Orthodox, we are of the East and we do what Easterners do best, attending to spiritual and cultural matters.  The epitome of the Roman efficiency is in the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, that the centralized authority of the solitary leader (the Bishop of Rome) can supercede unilaterally the decisions of any other leaders, which as we have pointed out before, is quite foreign to the Orthodox world.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #144 on: December 30, 2010, 08:57:42 PM »

Quote
The Magisterium (Latin: magister, "teacher") is the teaching office of the Catholic Church. Catholic theology divides the functions of the teaching office of the Church into two categories: the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the fallible Ordinary Magisterium. The infallible Sacred Magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of the Pope speaking ex cathedra and of ecumenical councils (traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons, and decrees), as well as of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Despite its name, the "ordinary and universal Magisterium" falls under the infallible Sacred Magisterium, and in fact is the usual manifestation of the infallibility of the Church, the decrees of popes and councils being "extraordinary".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church#Infallibility_of_the_Catholic_Church

Quote
While the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is well-defined today, it has not always been so clear a doctrine. Until the formal pronouncements in the 19th century, the subject of teaching authority in the Church was a matter of disagreement and confusion, and indeed, the concept of papal infallibility still remains controversial in some Catholic circles.

It is important to note that the acceptance of papal authority did not include an acceptance of the doctrine of papal infallibility, a later development. In fact, there was a certain amount of resistance to this doctrine during the medieval period In the Decretum of Gratian, a 12th century canon lawyer, the pope is attributed the legal right to pass judgment in theological disputes, but he was certainly not guaranteed freedom from error. The pope’s role was to establish limits within which theologians, who were often better suited for the full expression of truth, could work. Thus, the pope’s authority was as a judge, not an infallible teacher.

Other opponents of the doctrine include Pope John XXII (1316–1334), who rejected the doctrine because he did not want to be bound to the teachings of previous popes, and St. Thomas More, who pronounced that church councils were the only authoritative and inerrant means of settling disputes. The doctrine began to visibly develop during the Reformation, leading to a formal statement of the doctrine by St. Robert Bellarmine in the early 17th century, but it did not come to widespread acceptance until the 19th century and the First Vatican Council.

Other concepts of teaching authority gained prominence in the Middle Ages, as well, however, including the concept of the authority of the learned expert, an idea which began with Origen (or even earlier) and still today has proponents. Some allowed for the participation of theologians in the teaching life of the church, but still drew distinctions between the powers of the theologian and the pope or bishop; one example of this view is in the writing of St. Thomas Aquinas, who spoke of the “Magisterium cathedrae pastoralis/pontificalis” (Magisterium of the pastoral or pontifical chair) and the “Magisterium cathedrae magistralis” (Magisterium of a master’s chair). Others held more extreme views, such as Godefroid of Fontaines, who insisted that the theologian had a right to maintain his own opinions in the face of episcopal and even papal rulings.

Either way, the theologian began to play a more prominent role in the teaching life of the church, as “doctors” were called upon more and more to help bishops form doctrinal opinions. Illustrating this, at the Council of Basle in 1439, bishops and other clergy were greatly outnumbered by doctors of theology.

Another significant development in the teaching authority of the Church occurred from 1414 to 1418 with the Council of Constance, which effectively ran the Church during the Great Schism, during which there were three men claiming to be the pope. An early decree of this council, Haec Sancta, challenged the primacy of the pope, saying that councils represent the church, are imbued with their power directly by Christ, and are binding even for the pope in matters of faith.  This declaration was later declared void by the Church because the early sessions of the council had not been confirmed by a pope, but it demonstrates that there were still conciliar currents in the church running against the doctrine of papal primacy, likely influenced by the corruption seen in the papacy during this time period.

The groundwork for papal primacy was laid in the medieval period, and in the late Middle Ages, the idea of papal infallibility was introduced, but a definitive statement and explanation of these doctrines did not occur until the 19th century, with Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council (1869–1870). Pius IX was the first pope to use the term “Magisterium” in the sense that it is understood today, and the concept of the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” was officially established during Vatican I. In addition, this council defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, the ability of the pope to speak without error “when, acting in his capacity as pastor and teacher of all Christians, he commits his supreme authority in the universal Church on a question of faith or morals.”

Later, Pope Pius XII took the concept of the newly defined Magisterium even further, stating that the faithful must be obedient to even the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope, and that “there can no longer be any question of free discussion between theologians” once the Pope has spoken on a given issue.  Additionally, he proposed the understanding of the theologian as a justifier of the Magisterium, who ought not be concerned with the formulation of new doctrine but with the explanation of what has been set forth by the Church.

Pope Paul VI agreed with this view, and in a speech to the International Congress on the Theology of Vatican II, he described the theologian as a sort of middleman between the Church and the faithful, entrusted with the task of explaining to the laity why the Church teaches what she does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#Historical_development

so it seems it is only quite recently that all the pieces of your puzzle have been jimmyied into place, much to the bepuzzlement of all.
Quote
The debate concerning the Magisterium, papal primacy and infallibility, and the authority to teach in general has not lessened since the official declaration of the doctrines. Instead, the Church has been torn by arguments; at one end there are those with the tendency to regard even technically non-binding papal encyclicals as infallible statements and, at the other, are those who refuse to accept in any sense controversial encyclicals such as Humanae Vitae and who consider the dogma of papal infallibility to be itself a fallible pronouncement.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #145 on: December 30, 2010, 10:03:16 PM »

What are your referring to in Pastor Aeternus or Lumen Gentium? I am going off of the dogmatic definition of Vatican I, which states:

"He possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."

On the issue of the Western Schism, I suppose it's unfortunate if people died out of communion with the correct Pope? They still had common faith, valid apostolic succession, and valid sacraments, so nobody had their salvation endangered by the schism.

The words of Pope Julius are obviously of great importance for the historian in recognizing what authority the western Church was asserting for itself. Throughout the first millenium the western Church always communicated clearly to the eastern Churches that they were all under its authority on matters of doctrine or canon law and commanded by Christ to obey it in these things.
Then why couldn't the Popes even keep the Filioque out of the Latin Creed when they didn't want it in? Smiley
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,865


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #146 on: December 30, 2010, 10:25:20 PM »

What are your referring to in Pastor Aeternus or Lumen Gentium? I am going off of the dogmatic definition of Vatican I, which states:

"He possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."


I think this is where disagreement comes about.  St. Peter may have received this blessing as the first, but he wasn't the only one to receive it, and neither was he the last word in the council of Jerusalem.  All the other Apostles and Disciples, and St. Paul eventually received the blessing of "infallibility" in Church doctrines.  It has been passed on to the episcopal tradition, and then later on developed into the Pentarchial tradition within the imperial system, but even outside the imperial boundaries, you had other church traditions, such as those in Armenia, Georgia, Persia, and India that continued an infallible Apostolic tradition without the need of Rome at a time.

Infallibility is an Apostolic blessing, not merely a Petrine blessing alone.  The Pope of Alexandria, in our Coptic Church, receives this special blessing for his church only, not over others.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 10:35:01 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #147 on: December 31, 2010, 01:51:03 AM »

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 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 it was a primacy of honor 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.

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 savior 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 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 the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.


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 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 he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that 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.

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.

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 Savior 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 savior, 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 when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. 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
.
[/quote]

The Roman See, not the rest of the Church, is the authority on what the magisterium teaches. This does not mean there is a special charism in the Roman Pontiff's ordination, which is what we were discussing. The Roman Pontiff is an ordained Priest like any other ordained Priest and a consecrated Bishop like any other consecrated Bishop.

Quote
Very odd to make communion and submission to the office essential to salvation, and place no importance of the correct holder of the office.

So, why not go with Pope Novatian?

It is the authority of the magisterium to determine who the Pope is, as in the case of the Western Schism it did at the Council of Constance. Obviously willfully following an Antipope who the Magisterium has determined to be an Antipope is to place oneself outside the communion of the Church, as it is to willfully defy the Church's teaching authority. This is not comparable to a situation in which the Magisterium had not made a determined selection.

Quote
even more important for the historian of the the dogma of papal supremacy lies in how such claims were ignored, to recognize the limits the Church held on Rome's authority no matter how much it asserted to the contrary.

The east ignoring claims of Supremacy by the Roman Pontiff was an error then just as it is now; it happened occasionally just as it does now. But prior to Photios it was never openly contradicted on principle.

Quote
No, such claims began with Pope St. Victor (a insider of the court of the emperor Commodus, not unrelated), at the end of the second century.  And the "entire Church," even those in his own patriarchate of the West, communicated clearly to him in "words of theirs extant, sharply rebuking Victor...sending letters in the name of the brethren" of the "Synods and assemblies of bishops [which] were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree." so no, Christ did not command them to obey it in these things, nor do they recognize its authority in matters of doctrine or canon law that it progressively asserted.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html


The rebukes in question do not demonstrate a rebuke of Victor's authority to make the decision, but his choice to make it.

Eusebius: "Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses .... But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: They replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbors. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor."

The western Church has never taught that the Pope cannot be criticized or rebuked. Indeed, there are stronger examples than this. Pope Boniface VIII was put on posthumous trial for heresy and sodomy, and the question was ultimately dealt with at the Council of Vienne, which the Catholic Church regards as ecumenical. Rebuking the Pope does not equate to a denial of the principle of Papal authority.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 02:09:28 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #148 on: December 31, 2010, 03:25:40 AM »

P.S: If the claim being made here that Saint Victor did not have the authority to excommunicate the Quartodecimans was correct, then it would follow that his act of excommunication would have been in violation of canon law. There is no record of anyone from the period suggesting that Saint Victor had violated canon law by his excommunication.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #149 on: December 31, 2010, 03:59:27 AM »

P.S: If the claim being made here that Saint Victor did not have the authority to excommunicate the Quartodecimans was correct, then it would follow that his act of excommunication would have been in violation of canon law. There is no record of anyone from the period suggesting that Saint Victor had violated canon law by his excommunication.

Possibly because Victor had not excommunicated anyone but had merely threatened to.  See Eusebius,etc.  Also, was there a body of legislation (canons) which would have covered these issues?  Remember that Saint Victor was back in the 2nd century.   No great councils of the Church had yet occurred.

I would have thought that any bishop was able to break communion with other bishops if he judged the matter as sufficiently serious.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #150 on: December 31, 2010, 06:04:36 AM »

P.S: If the claim being made here that Saint Victor did not have the authority to excommunicate the Quartodecimans was correct, then it would follow that his act of excommunication would have been in violation of canon law. There is no record of anyone from the period suggesting that Saint Victor had violated canon law by his excommunication.
Possibly because Victor had not excommunicated anyone but had merely threatened to.  See Eusebius,etc.  Also, was there a body of legislation (canons) which would have covered these issues?  Remember that Saint Victor was back in the 2nd century.   No great councils of the Church had yet occurred.

I would have thought that any bishop was able to break communion with other bishops if he judged the matter as sufficiently serious.
Indeed. But that of course was when Rome was Orthodox, Father.

For the Ultramontanists, the issue is moot: all authority flows from Rome.  The Pope of Rome rules the Church by fiat: let the Asians be anathema, and they are anathema!

Eusebius et alia make it clear that Church Councils were held all over the world on the issue, and all of them except Asia agreed that Pascha must be celebrated on a Sunday. Btw on that:
The Jewish Pesach and the origins of the Christian Easter: open questions in Current Research... By Clemens Leonhard
http://books.google.com/books?id=z9tepT3hbl4C&pg=PR6&dq=%224+Easter+Sunday%22&hl=en&ei=qqUdTf3MOszLnAeatLzZDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%224%20Easter%20Sunday%22&f=false

They also, however, all agreed with the Asians in their right to maintain their Apostolic practice, and all rebuked "sharply rebuking" Pope St. Victor.

Now of course, this is of course only of interest to the Orthodox, as they were all Orthodox, and the "receptionist" theory which was brought up on this thread or a similar one lately (the search function isn't what it once was).  The Ecumenical Councils were not in reality a new thing after the Edict of Milan except in that the mechanism of acclerating reception of Councils by the Catholic Church was put in place: the Paschal Controversy in reality would be an Ecumenical Council held in multiply regional sessions-the Church, being an illegal institution, not being able to gather in one place and disseminate its decision from one Act. As Eusebius says "Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree."  The decision received its authority by being upheld and received by all the local councils, Rome's being the only odd man out.

For the Ultramontanists, that doesn't matter. Rome had spoken in its council and the case is closed.  The problem they have with history, of course, is that the rest of the Church not only ignored Rome's decision on the matter, but rebuked it for it, such rebuke not only coming from the other patriarchates (or rather proto-/future patriarchates) but those which would come under Rome's jurisdiction.

Ultramontanists and unfortunately others (even Orthodox!) make the mistake of vindicating Pope St. Victor in Nicea I. Such did not happen-the rest of the Church did not adopt the rule of Rome: those who celebrated on Sunday did so because that is the Tradition they received from the Apostles, not from Rome, and the calculation of Pascha and Paschalion which was adopted at Nicea was NOT Rome's, but Alexandria's, see of the original Pope. Alexandria and Jerusalem had long co-ordinated their calculaitons even in the days of Pope St. Victor, and Rome adopted Alexandria's rule, and later the refinement that Alexandria instituted.  As Nicea decreed, Alexandria set the date (officailly because of the accuracy of its astronomers, btw) and announces it to Rome, who announces Alexandria's date to the rest of the Church.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 06:14:06 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #151 on: December 31, 2010, 06:37:46 AM »

P.S: If the claim being made here that Saint Victor did not have the authority to excommunicate the Quartodecimans was correct, then it would follow that his act of excommunication would have been in violation of canon law. There is no record of anyone from the period suggesting that Saint Victor had violated canon law by his excommunication.
Yes, the usual Ultamontanist attempt to avoid the obvious.  As the link I provided says:
Quote
"Suppose it had been Irenaeus who had rashly broken communion with the Asiatic Churches; suppose that Victor had then written a letter to Irenaeus, sharply rebuking him, and had written also to other bishops, warning them not to separate from those who had been unwarrantably excommunicated; and suppose that in consequence of this action of Victor’s the threatened schism had been averted, would not that have been paraded as a decisive proof of Papal Supremacy?" (The Infallibility Of The Church [London, England: John Murray, 1914], p. 386)

And it's worth noting that Eusebius tells us that Victor attempted to cut off the Asian churches. His effort failed. Even bishops who agreed with Victor's position on the issue under dispute "sharply rebuked" him (5:24). In his letter to Victor, the Ephesian bishop Polycrates mentions that the synod in Asia Minor had been held at Victor's request (5:24), so it seems that Victor had more of an interest in settling the issue than other bishops had. They were satisfied with allowing the disagreement to continue, but Victor wasn't.

Throughout this account, Eusebius speaks of Victor as one church leader among others, never referring to him as a Pope. (The concept of the papacy is, in fact, absent from Eusebius' entire church history.) He refers to Victor as one local church leader holding a synod in his region while other local church leaders held synods in other regions (5:23). He refers to him as "Victor, who presided over the church at Rome" (5:24). The same could be said of a Pope. But why only mention Victor's regional authority if he had universal jurisdiction and was the infallible foundation of the church? Why would Eusebius repeatedly refer only to such regional authority? Eusebius goes on to say that Irenaeus "conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches" (5:24). Again, Victor is referred to as one ruler of a church among others. He made himself prominent in this dispute over the celebration of Easter, both by initiating the discussion and by trying to cut off the Asian churches from the common fellowship when they disagreed with his position. But he was a regional church leader among other regional church leaders, not a Pope, despite his prominence in this particular dispute.

and to make the case that "rebuke" means "rebuke"-and does not undergo semantic shift when the obeject of this verb is the Pope of Rome (or, for that matter, St. Peter Gal. 2:11)-more clear:
Quote
As an illustration of the variety of potential meanings Eusebius' account could have, consider another incident I mentioned in an earlier response to Dave. The Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz wrote the following about responses to the doctrinal inconsistencies of the Roman bishop Vigilius in the sixth century:

"The emperor in turn called a council at Constantinople (the Second Council of Constantinople, 553) made up only of opponents of the three chapters. It not only condemned those three chapters but even excommunicated the pope. This was a unique case of an ecumenical council setting itself clearly against the pope and yet not suffering the fate of Ephesus II. Instead, over time it was accepted and even recognized as valid by the pope. The council got around the papal opposition by referring to Matthew 18:20 ('Where two or three are gathered in my name. . .'): no individual [including the Pope] could therefore forestall the decision of the universal Church. This kind of argument was invalid, of course, because the pope was not alone; the entire West was behind him, and yet it was not represented at the council. Broken in spirit, Vigilius capitulated after the end of the council and assented to its condemnation of the three chapters. The result was a schism in the West, where the pope was accused of having surrendered Chalcedon. A North African synod of bishops excommunicated the pope, and the ecclesial provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke communion with Rome. (Milan returned to communion only after fifty years; for Aquileia the breach lasted one hundred and fifty years, until 700)." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 53)

Presumably, Dave would argue that Second Constantinople was claiming authority over the Pope, but didn't have it, and that the synod in North Africa was breaking fellowship with the Pope without claiming to have an office of jurisdiction over him. If he wants us to believe that papal authority was involved in the case of Victor, he ought to argue for that conclusion rather than just assuming it. And if he wants us to believe that other churches agreed with such an assertion of papal authority on Victor's part, despite the negative reaction to Victor that I've outlined above, Dave would need a further argument to that effect.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html

rebuke: transiive vb. 1 a : to criticize sharply : reprimand b : to serve as a rebuke to 2: to turn back or keep down "the father was forced to rebuke his son for the spendthrift ways he had adopted since arriving at college." "strongly rebuked the girl for playing with matches." [rather odd to argue that the prodigal son and the pyromaniac girl didn't violate some norm, or that the father wasn't denying that they had the right to spendthrift ways and playing with fire]. <Middle English, from Anglo-French rebucher, rebouker to blunt, check, reprimand.
Synonyms: admonish, chide, reprimand, reproach, reprove, tick off, burn one's ears, get after, get on
Antonyms: cite, commend, endorse (also indorse)
Related Words: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, flay, harangue, jaw, keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rail (at or against), rate, scold, score, upbraid; abuse, assail, attack, bad-mouth, blame, blast, censure, condemn, criticize, crucify, denounce, dis (also diss) [slang], excoriate, fault, knock, lash, pan, reprehend, slam; belittle, deprecate, disparage, minimize, mock, put down; deride, ridicule, scoff, scorn
Near Antonyms: approve, endorse (also indorse), OK (or okay), sanction; applaud, extol (also extoll), hail, laud, praise, salute, tout
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebuke
webster gives the following interesting synonym discussion:
reprove, rebuke, reprimand, admonish, reproach, chide mean to criticize adversely. reprove implies an often kindly intent to correct a fault <gently reproved my table manners>. rebuke suggests a sharp or stern reproof <the papal letter rebuked dissenting clerics>. reprimand implies a severe, formal, often public or official rebuke <reprimanded by the ethics committee>. admonish suggests earnest or friendly warning and counsel <admonished by my parents to control expenses>. reproach and chide suggest displeasure or disappointment expressed in mild reproof or scolding <reproached him for tardiness> <chided by their mother for untidiness>.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprove

so, the dissenting clerics weren't breaking any rule? Huh
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,363



« Reply #152 on: December 31, 2010, 08:32:54 AM »

The Roman See, not the rest of the Church, is the authority on what the magisterium teaches.
Yes, hence your charism problem, at least how we see it. But in your ecclesiastical communion, where infidels and atheists can baptize validly but the priests the Vatican ordains cannot ordinarily christmate, where the couples marry themselves in a spiritual common law marriage but the qorban factory a/k/a the marriage tribunal have to dissolve, er, annul it, where infants the Vatican baptized cannot commune but Orthodox who do not recognize the validity of can commune....well, ya'll dance to a different drummer, and your milage varies.
 
This does not mean there is a special charism in the Roman Pontiff's ordination, which is what we were discussing. The Roman Pontiff is an ordained Priest like any other ordained Priest and a consecrated Bishop like any other consecrated Bishop.
Yes, every priest is alter Christi but the supreme pontiff is His vicar.

Like I said, special charism through the seat.

Very odd to make communion and submission to the office essential to salvation, and place no importance of the correct holder of the office.

So, why not go with Pope Novatian?

It is the authority of the magisterium to determine who the Pope is,
The Roman See, not the rest of the Church, is the authority on what the magisterium teaches.
my, isn't that wonderfully circular.
as in the case of the Western Schism it did at the Council of Constance.

Neither the Roman See nor the Avignon See determined the Council of Constance.

Obviously willfully following an Antipope who the Magisterium has determined to be an Antipope is to place oneself outside the communion of the Church,
Ah, but that is your problem: no one rules as an Antipope, as so every "antipope," not the rest of the Church (which would include those antipopes that Rome has retroactively declared popes-antipapacies being always in the eye of the beholder) is the authority on what the magisterium teaches.

as it is to willfully defy the Church's teaching authority.

No, it is just choosing sides.

This is not comparable to a situation in which the Magisterium had not made a determined selection.
since a pope, according to the Vatican, must ratify a council for it to be ecumenical, how can it make a determined selection of pope?

even more important for the historian of the the dogma of papal supremacy lies in how such claims were ignored, to recognize the limits the Church held on Rome's authority no matter how much it asserted to the contrary.
The east ignoring claims of Supremacy by the Roman Pontiff was an error then just as it is now; it happened occasionally just as it does now. But prior to Photios it was never openly contradicted on principle.
LOL.
Besides the example of Pope Vigilius, and the meddling of Rome in the Meletian schism in Antioch, another delicious absurdity of surrealist Ultramontanist revisioism:
Quote
The then occupant of the Byzantine See was a certain Anthimus, who without the authority of the canons had left his episcopal see of Trebizond to join the crypto-Monophysites who, in conjunction with the Empress Theodora were then intriguing to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Against the protests of the orthodox, the Empress finally seated Anthimus in the patriarchal chair. No sooner had the Pope arrived than the most prominent of the clergy entered charges against the new patriarch as an intruder and a heretic. Agapetus ordered him to make a written profession of faith and to return to his forsaken see; upon his refusal, he declined to have any relations with him. This vexed the Emperor, who had been deceived by his wife as to the orthodoxy of her favorite, and he went so far as to threaten the Pope with banishment. Agapetus replied with spirit: "With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the Most Christian Emperor Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not." This intrepid language made Justinian pause; and being finally convinced that Anthimus was unsound in faith, he made no objection to the Pope's exercising the plenitude of his powers in deposing and suspending the intruder and, for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas. This memorable exercise of the papal prerogative was not soon forgotten by the Orientals.
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01202c.htm
actually, as the "catholic encyclopedia" elsewhere admits, it was "soo forgotten by the Orientals," and it otherwise attributes the fall of Anthimus less to the pope than to the canons, the Holy Synod of Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon (and the emperor):
Quote
Agapetus promptly deposed Anthimus and he consecrated Mennas patriarch. Anthimus was deposed partly because his transfer from one see to another was uncanonical, and partly on account of his doubtful orthodoxy. The question next arose whether he should be allowed to return to his old see. Agapetus was preparing to deal with this question when he died. Mennas proceeded with the affair at a synod held in Constantinople the same year, 536, presiding over it the place of honour on his right hand being assigned to five Italian bishops who represented the Apostolic See. The result was that Anthimus, who failed to appear and vindicate his orthodoxy, was excommunicated together with several of his adherents...The first from whom the emperor Justinian demanded subscription to the edict anathematizing the Three Chapters was Mennas. He hesitated, but eventually gave way on the understanding that his subscription should be returned to him if the pope disapproved. Later on he compelled his suffragans to subscribe. Many of them complained to the papal legate Stephen of the constraint put upon them. Stephen broke off communion with Mennas. When Pope Vigilius arrived at Constantinople in 547, he cut Mennas off from Church communion for four months. Mennas retorted by striking the pope's name off the diptychs. When Vigilius issued his "Judicatum", the two were reconciled.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10190a.htm

btw, on Pope Agapetus:
Quote
His first official act was to burn in the presence of the assembled clergy the anathema which Boniface II had pronounced against the latter's rival Dioscurus and had ordered to be preserved in the Roman archives.

To prevent a possible contest for the papacy, Pope Felix IV, shortly before his death, had taken the unprecedented step of appointed his own successor in the person of the aged Archdeacon Boniface, his trusted friend and adviser. When, however on the death of Felix (Sept. 530) Boniface II succeeded him, the great majority of the Roman priests — sixty out of sixty-seven — refused to accept the new pope and elected in his stead the Greek Dioscorus in the basilica of Constantine (the Lateran) and Boniface in the aula (hall) of the Lateran Palace, know as basilica Julii. Fortunately for the Roman Church, the schism which followed was but of short duration, for in less than a month (14 Oct., 530) Dioscorus died and the presbyters who had elected him wisely submitted to Boniface. In December, 530, Boniface convened a synod at Rome and issued a decree anathematizing Dioscorus as an intruder. He at the same time (it is not known by what means) secured the signatures of the sixty presbyters to his late rival's condemnation, and caused the caused the document to be deposited in the archives of the church. The anathema against Diocorus was however, subsequently removed, and the document burned by Pope Agapetus I (535).

Boniface served the Roman Church from early youth. During the reign of Pope Felix IV, he was archdeacon and a personage of considerable influence with the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. His elevation to the papacy is remarkable as offering an unquestionable example of the nomination of a pope by his predecessor, without even the formality of an election. Felix IV apprehending death and fearing a contest for the papacy between Roman and Gothic factions, gathered about him several of his clergy and a number of Roman Senators and patricians who happened to be near. In their presence, he solemnly conferred on his aged archdeacon the pallium of papal sovereignty, proclaiming him his successor and menacing with excommunication those refusing to recognize and obey Boniface as validly chosen pope. On Felix's death Boniface assumed succession, but nearly all of the Roman priests. Sixty out of perhaps about seventy, refused to accept him and elected Dioscorus.

Both popes were consecrated 22 September, 530, Boniface in the Basilica of Julius, and Dioscorus in the Lateran. The Roman Church was thus involved in the seventh anti-papal schism. Fortunately it endured but twenty-two days, for Dioscorus died 14 October, leaving Boniface in possession. He soon convened a Roman synod and presented a decree anathematizing his late rival to which he secured the signatures of the priests who had been Dioscorus's partisans (December, 530) Each of these expressed regret for their participation in the irregular election and pledged future obedience. Boniface reconciled many by his mild, conciliatory administration; but some resentment remained, for he seems not to have been tendered a formal election by those who, despite their submission, had impugned the validly of his nomination; and five years later a pope of their choice solemnly burned the anathema against Dioscorus. (See AGAPETUS I). In a second synod, held (531) in St. Peter's, Boniface presented a constitution attributing to himself the right to appoint his successor. The Roman Clergy subscribed to it and promised obedience. Boniface proposed as his choice the deacon Vigilius and it was ratified by priests and. people. This enactment provoked bitter resentment and even imperial disfavor, for in third synod (631) it was rescinded. Boniface burned the constitution before the clergy and senate and nullified the appointment of Vigilius.

Vigilius entered the service of the Roman Church and was a deacon in 531, in which year the Roman clergy agreed to a Decree empowering the pope to determine the succession to the Papal See. Vigilius was chosen by Boniface II as his successor, and presented to the clergy assembled in St. Peter's. The opposition to such a procedure led Boniface in the following year to withdraw his designation of a successor and to burn the Decree respecting it. The second successor of Boniface, Agapetus I (535-36), appointed Vigilius papal representative (Apocrisiary) at Constantinople; Vigilius thus came to the Eastern capital. Empress Theodora sought to win him as a confederate, to revenge the deposition of the Monophysite Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople by Agapetus and also to gain aid for her efforts in behalf of the Monophysites. Vigilius is said to have agreed to the plans of the intriguing empress who promised him the Papal See and a large sum of money (700 pounds of gold). After Agapetus's death on 22 April, 536, Vigilius return to Rome equipped with letters from the imperial Court and with money. Meanwhile Silverius had been made pope through the influence of the King of the Goths. Soon after this the Byzantine commander Belisarius garrisoned the city of Rome, which was, however, besieged again by the Goths. Vigilius gave Belisarius the letters from the Court of Constantinople, which recommended Vigilius himself for the Papal See. False accusations now led Belisarius to depose Silverius. Owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine commander, Vigilius was elected pope in place of Silverius and consecrated and enthroned on 29 March, 537. Vigilius brought it about that the unjustly deposed Silverius was put into his keeping where the late pope soon died from the harsh treatment he received. After the death of this predecessor Vigilius was recognized as pope by all the Roman clergy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01202c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05018a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02660a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
Guess we do not need to wait until the Middle Ages for "too much weidness going on."

No, such claims began with Pope St. Victor (a insider of the court of the emperor Commodus, not unrelated), at the end of the second century.  And the "entire Church," even those in his own patriarchate of the West, communicated clearly to him in "words of theirs extant, sharply rebuking Victor...sending letters in the name of the brethren" of the "Synods and assemblies of bishops [which] were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree." so no, Christ did not command them to obey it in these things, nor do they recognize its authority in matters of doctrine or canon law that it progressively asserted.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html


The rebukes in question do not demonstrate a rebuke of Victor's authority to make the decision, but his choice to make it.

amazing as it is to Ultramontanist, "rebuke" means "rebuke" and not "endorse" even when it takes "pope of Rome" as its object. Bottom line, only Pope Victor would be out of communion with the Asians, as the rest of the Church would not.

Eusebius: "Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses .... But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: They replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbors. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor."
since you give no link for the source of this "translation," I can't speak to how they turn a rebuke into a request.
the greek, btw, is ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πᾶσί γε τοῖς ἐπισκόποις ταῦτ᾿ ἠρέσκετο. ἀντιπαρακελεύονται δῆτα αὐτῷ τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης καὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς πλησίον ἑνώσεώς τε καὶ ἀγάπης φρονεῖν
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0265-0339,_Eusebius_Caesariensis,_Historia_Ecclesiastica,_GR.pdf

The western Church has never taught that the Pope cannot be criticized or rebuked.

It just now claims that there is no appeal from his judgemet. Roll Eyes

Indeed, there are stronger examples than this. Pope Boniface VIII was put on posthumous trial for heresy and sodomy, and the question was ultimately dealt with at the Council of Vienne, which the Catholic Church regards as ecumenical.
why not go with Honorius?

Rebuking the Pope does not equate to a denial of the principle of Papal authority.
So Christ's rebukig of the demons does not equate to a denail of the principle of demonic authority. when a rebuke isn't a rebuke.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 08:37:28 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #153 on: December 31, 2010, 11:07:05 AM »

The Roman See, not the rest of the Church, is the authority on what the magisterium teaches.
Yes, hence your charism problem, at least how we see it. But in your ecclesiastical communion, where infidels and atheists can baptize validly but the priests the Vatican ordains cannot ordinarily christmate, where the couples marry themselves in a spiritual common law marriage but the qorban factory a/k/a the marriage tribunal have to dissolve, er, annul it, where infants the Vatican baptized cannot commune but Orthodox who do not recognize the validity of can commune....well, ya'll dance to a different drummer, and your milage varies.
 

This is no different from Orthodox two-steps...As far as I can tell there's less logic applied to the Orthodox Dance than the Papal Dance but you folks never did give much credit to reason anyway.

So the only difference I can see between the Papal Dance and the Economia Two-Step is one is logical and the other...ain't.