OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 05:45:01 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 15365 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 37,370



« 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: 37,370



« 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: 37,370



« 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: 37,370



« 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: 10,881


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: 37,370



« 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: 37,370



« 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: 37,370



« 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.

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #154 on: December 31, 2010, 11:07:06 AM »


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.

It is most dishonest to take examples that have NOTHING to do with papal Catholic definitions and understandings of primacy and infallibility, falsely attribute some significance to the examples that are not there in reality...then tear it all down and say  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes...as though you have said something terribly profound....rather than the fact that you've said something terribly dishonest.   

The only kinds of people that kind of dishonest argumentation attracts...well... laugh  Let's say that the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my baptism has been able to do quite nicely without them.  and it has not slowed the growth of my Church, which, in its growth becomes even more faithful and interested in the richness of the entire spiritual and liturgical history of her being and becoming.

I disagree with Father Ambrose of NZ.  Many Orthodox are not fearful of the papal Church.  Some are envious to the point where they seek to destroy by any means possible.  Now let's hear the huffing and puffing that comes back to me  laugh

M.
Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,105


WWW
« Reply #155 on: December 31, 2010, 02:23:41 PM »

If Vatican I was never closed (due to the Franco-Prussian War and other issues) and remains open to this day, why hasn't any Pope bothered to close Vatican I ex cathedra?

If only the Pope can open and close Vatican Councils, will there be a Vatican III which may (or may not) close Vatican I?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,105


WWW
« Reply #156 on: December 31, 2010, 02:27:06 PM »

The western Church has never taught that the Pope cannot be criticized or rebuked.

Did Pope Benedict anathematize / excommunicate the woman (assuming she was a Roman Catholic in good standing) who knocked Him down during 2009's Christmas Mass?

Rebuking the Pope does not equate to a denial of the principle of Papal authority.

But knocking Him down is a crime against the State.   Wink
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 02:30:44 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #157 on: December 31, 2010, 02:32:43 PM »

Would you mind replying in one post rather than in multiple? It makes using the quote function a pain, which makes it more difficult to respond succinctly.

Great Western Schism: You claimed that neither the Roman Line nor the Avignon Line created the Council of Constance. This is incorrect. It was created by the Roman and Pisan lines and later recognized by the Avignon line.

Quote
The Council of Constance finally resolved the situation. Gregory XII appointed Carlo Malatesta and Cardinal Giovanni Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies. The cardinal then convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts, thus preserving the formulas of Papal supremacy. Thereupon on 4 July 1415, Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the Pope, which the cardinals accepted. According to prior agreement, they agreed to retain all the cardinals that had been created by Gregory XII, thus satisfying the Correr clan, and appointed Gregory XII Bishop of Frascati, dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals and perpetual legate at Ancona.

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

Quote
However, when King Alfonso had achieved his political goals, he sent a delegation in 1428 (headed by Alfonso de Borgia, the future Callixtus III), to persuade Clement to recognise Martin. Clement's abdication on 26 July 1429 was confirmed in mid-August. Clement had to make a penitential submission in forma to Martin V, and when this was done Martin granted Sanchez Muñoz the bishopric of Palma[1]. Sanchez Muñoz died on 28 December 1446.

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

Quote
In Florence he met Sigismund, who had just been crowned King of Germany and who had ambitions to become emperor. Sigismund wanted to end the schism and urged John to call a general council. John did so with hesitation, afraid that he could be deposed at the council. The Council of Constance was convened in November 1412. During the third session, rival Pope Gregory XII authorized the council as well. The council resolved that all three popes should abdicate and a new pope be elected.

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

On the rebuke of Victor I: Yes, rebuke means to strongly criticize. So what? You've already yourself noted that your argument is a non sequitur because even under the Orthodox autocephalous view, any Bishop has the right to excommunicate if they so choose.

Later events give the lie even to this view, however. Pope Saint Innocent I had the name of Saint John Chrysostom restored to the diptychs of Constantinople over the objections of Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria. Pope Saint Gelasius I had the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople struck from those very same diptychs over the objections of Acacius' successor Euphemius and the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I. When Pope Nicholas I ruled that Ignatios, not Photios, was the rightful Patriarch, Photios could not simply ignore the ruling but rather had to accuse Nicholas of heresy on the pretext of the west's use of the Filioque. Pre-schism Popes making decisions about who was and was not a valid Patriarch of Constantinople demonstrates clear Papal jurisdiction over the whole Church.

On the issue of charism, at this point it isn't clear what you are arguing. You started out by saying that a candidate could not be consecrated Bishop of Rome because he had some special charism of consecration that other Bishops do not. Since then you have just been arguing about Papal infallibility. The Pope's infallibility as the representative of the magisterium has nothing to do with anything about the formal rite of his consecration in the Petrine seat that makes it different from the formal consecration of any other Bishops.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 02:51:15 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 #158 on: December 31, 2010, 04:10:48 PM »

Would you mind replying in one post rather than in multiple? It makes using the quote function a pain, which makes it more difficult to respond succinctly.

You are observing a tactic.  It is designed, along with those directly meaningless cut and paste inclusions, to reduce the opportunity for a succinct discussion of realities, and of the opportunity for honest dialogue using ancient methods and rules, etc.   It is meant to keep you too busy and too frustrated to respond.  So don't respond.  Just keep repeating what is true.

Mary

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #159 on: December 31, 2010, 04:10:48 PM »


Great Western Schism: You claimed that neither the Roman Line nor the Avignon Line created the Council of Constance. This is incorrect. It was created by the Roman and Pisan lines and later recognized by the Avignon line.

Another lesson for you on Forum protocal.  History is as ialmisry says it is.  He counts on ignorance to get him over...Your ignorance would be convenient, but there are others he is more interested in convincing that he is the historian of the Forum, and it is really their inability to refute him that he counts on as he and Father Ambrose groom the next generation in the fine art of disinformation.

I have done advanced studies in education philosophy and methods and this is one of the most successful examples of delivery that I have encountered...ever.  I think it is due mostly to the eagerness of the learners.

M.

Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #160 on: December 31, 2010, 04:12:38 PM »

So don't respond.  Just keep repeating what is true.

This is an excellent idea! Let's all not respond to anything, just keep repeating our declarations.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 37,370



« Reply #161 on: December 31, 2010, 04:15:05 PM »

If Vatican I was never closed (due to the Franco-Prussian War and other issues) and remains open to this day, why hasn't any Pope bothered to close Vatican I ex cathedra?

If only the Pope can open and close Vatican Councils, will there be a Vatican III which may (or may not) close Vatican I?

Yes, before the opening of Vatican II, Pope John went through the formalities of closing Vatican I.
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: 37,370



« Reply #162 on: December 31, 2010, 04:17:54 PM »

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.



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: 37,370



« Reply #163 on: December 31, 2010, 04:19:19 PM »


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.

It is most dishonest to take examples that have NOTHING to do with papal Catholic definitions and understandings of primacy and infallibility, falsely attribute some significance to the examples that are not there in reality...then tear it all down and say  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes...as though you have said something terribly profound....rather than the fact that you've said something terribly dishonest.  

The only kinds of people that kind of dishonest argumentation attracts...well... laugh  Let's say that the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my baptism has been able to do quite nicely without them.  and it has not slowed the growth of my Church, which, in its growth becomes even more faithful and interested in the richness of the entire spiritual and liturgical history of her being and becoming.

I disagree with Father Ambrose of NZ.  Many Orthodox are not fearful of the papal Church.  Some are envious to the point where they seek to destroy by any means possible.  Now let's hear the huffing and puffing that comes back to me  laugh
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 04:20:51 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: 11,105


WWW
« Reply #164 on: December 31, 2010, 05:33:45 PM »

If Vatican I was never closed (due to the Franco-Prussian War and other issues) and remains open to this day, why hasn't any Pope bothered to close Vatican I ex cathedra?

If only the Pope can open and close Vatican Councils, will there be a Vatican III which may (or may not) close Vatican I?

Yes, before the opening of Vatican II, Pope John went through the formalities of closing Vatican I.

Oh, I must have missed that in reading Wikipedia.  Thanks and have a Happy New Year!!   Smiley
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,105


WWW
« Reply #165 on: December 31, 2010, 05:41:49 PM »


Great Western Schism: You claimed that neither the Roman Line nor the Avignon Line created the Council of Constance. This is incorrect. It was created by the Roman and Pisan lines and later recognized by the Avignon line.

Another lesson for you on Forum protocal.  History is as ialmisry says it is.

Isa is an excellent researcher on topics that I have yet to see repudiated on this forum and on other fora that he posts.  He has helped me look closer at the creation of my own Orthodox Jurisdiction in the USA.  While I haven't changed my Jurisdiction because of the revelations, I can reconcile the history of my Jurisdiction to my faith in that I am not an apostate.   Smiley

He counts on ignorance to get him over...

Your ancestors were still Orthodox Christians while the Roman Catholic Great Schism was occurring.  They were ignorant about what was happening in the West until those Holy Roman Emperor knights in swords started slaughtering Orthodox Christians in the name of the Holy See.

Your ignorance would be convenient, but there are others he is more interested in convincing that he is the historian of the Forum, and it is really their inability to refute him that he counts on as he and Father Ambrose groom the next generation in the fine art of disinformation.

Four plus centuries of disinformation hasn't been enough for you?   Huh

I have done advanced studies in education philosophy and methods and this is one of the most successful examples of delivery that I have encountered...ever.  I think it is due mostly to the eagerness of the learners.

From your POV, the truth hurts.   Sad Happy New Year!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 05:43:48 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,105


WWW
« Reply #166 on: December 31, 2010, 05:46:42 PM »

Would you mind replying in one post rather than in multiple? It makes using the quote function a pain, which makes it more difficult to respond succinctly.

You are observing a tactic.  It is designed, along with those directly meaningless cut and paste inclusions, to reduce the opportunity for a succinct discussion of realities, and of the opportunity for honest dialogue using ancient methods and rules, etc.

"ancient methods and rules" - are we on Mars Hill in Athens once again and Isa is teaching correct Orthodox faith while you and other Catholics reply in disparaging tones?
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 #167 on: December 31, 2010, 05:48:07 PM »

This thread seems to be suffering from the same kind of confusion experienced by the Roman Church during the Avignon exile of the papacy.

It would probably be best for all concerned to take a break and celebrate the New Year, or - for those using the Old Calendar - prepare for Christmas.  

Cheesy
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,105


WWW
« Reply #168 on: December 31, 2010, 05:57:42 PM »

This thread seems to be suffering from the same kind of confusion experienced by the Roman Church during the Avignon exile of the papacy.

Confusion in that the representative Hierarchs of the Orthodox Church are coming closer to agreeing with the Roman Catholics on infallibility while we're debating how both sides are not even close?  The big test will come if the Orthodox representative Hierarchs succumb to infallibility, global "protos" et al. and Orthodoxy schisms deeper than mere Calendars and married Bishops who became vagante.   Sad
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 #169 on: December 31, 2010, 06:04:48 PM »

This thread seems to be suffering from the same kind of confusion experienced by the Roman Church during the Avignon exile of the papacy.

Confusion in that the representative Hierarchs of the Orthodox Church are coming closer to agreeing with the Roman Catholics on infallibility while we're debating how both sides are not even close?  The big test will come if the Orthodox representative Hierarchs succumb to infallibility, global "protos" et al. and Orthodoxy schisms deeper than mere Calendars and married Bishops who became vagante.   Sad
I think the "infallibility debate" is rather pointless, and you will not find that word used in the ancient Fathers or the liturgy.  The liturgy speaks of certain councils and Fathers being God-inspired, which I think is a better approach.  The problem with debates on infallibility is that they tend to degenerate into Scholastic arguments akin to the one about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
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 #170 on: December 31, 2010, 06:09:10 PM »

. . . global "protos" et al. and Orthodoxy schisms deeper than mere Calendars and married Bishops who became vagante.   Sad
As far as the idea of a "global protos" is concerned, I see no problem with that, that is, as long as the "protos" is understood to be the first among equals.  Problems arise only when one holds that the "protos" is the supreme pontiff, who governs every diocese through a concept of universal jurisdiction.  The Eastern Orthodox have always accepted primacy in synodality (see Apostolic Canon 34), while rejecting any concept that promotes the false notion that one bishop is somehow supreme over all others.  Hopefully the Orthodox will remain faithful to the tradition that they have advocated and lived since the first millennium.

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 06:12:22 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 #171 on: December 31, 2010, 07:45:49 PM »


From your POV, the truth hurts.   Sad Happy New Year!!

This again is a tried and true tactic.  What hurt?  The truth of my Church sets me free.  The spiritual life gives me a share in the divine life.   I have been happy with that for many years.

Perhaps it is you who needs to put a smile on your face, eh?

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #172 on: December 31, 2010, 07:45:49 PM »


The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

As long as the pope understands, we'll all be fine. 

Besides that language of subjugation is really only ever heard from you and the Orthodox...so I do think it is a personal problem.

M.
Logged

Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,635


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #173 on: December 31, 2010, 07:52:46 PM »

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?

Something to think about.

For a while, I was in the same position until an Orthodox Priest told me to put aside the schizophrenia of trying to be a Roman Catholic (Eastern Catholic) and Eastern Orthodox at the same time. I did as he suggested, became a catechumen, and was eventually chrismated into the Holy Orthodox Church.  I found much peace of mind.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 07:54:34 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
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: 37,370



« Reply #174 on: December 31, 2010, 07:54:18 PM »

Would you mind replying in one post rather than in multiple? It makes using the quote function a pain, which makes it more difficult to respond succinctly.
Remember. you asked for it.
Great Western Schism: You claimed that neither the Roman Line nor the Avignon Line created the Council of Constance. This is incorrect. It was created by the Roman and Pisan lines and later recognized by the Avignon line.
No, I stated the fact that it could not, consistently with papal claims, determine the Councils choice of pope.
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.

Quote
The Council of Constance finally resolved the situation. Gregory XII appointed Carlo Malatesta and Cardinal Giovanni Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies. The cardinal then convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts, thus preserving the formulas of Papal supremacy.
Thereupon on 4 July 1415, Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the Pope, which the cardinals accepted. According to prior agreement, they agreed to retain all the cardinals that had been created by Gregory XII, thus satisfying the Correr clan, and appointed Gregory XII Bishop of Frascati, dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals and perpetual legate at Ancona.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_XII
Quote
However, when King Alfonso had achieved his political goals, he sent a delegation in 1428 (headed by Alfonso de Borgia, the future Callixtus III), to persuade Clement to recognise Martin. Clement's abdication on 26 July 1429 was confirmed in mid-August. Clement had to make a penitential submission in forma to Martin V, and when this was done Martin granted Sanchez Muñoz the bishopric of Palma[1]. Sanchez Muñoz died on 28 December 1446.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Clement_VIII
Quote
In Florence he met Sigismund, who had just been crowned King of Germany and who had ambitions to become emperor. Sigismund wanted to end the schism and urged John to call a general council. John did so with hesitation, afraid that he could be deposed at the council. The Council of Constance was convened in November 1412. During the third session, rival Pope Gregory XII authorized the council as well. The council resolved that all three popes should abdicate and a new pope be elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII
Interesting all those rulers you mention. We are told that caesaropapism was an eastern thing.

Your supreme pontifff claims that the Church cannot hold an Ecumenical Council without him: he must call it, he must approve it, and if the demise of the tiara comes during it, the Council adjures and must be reconvened by the new pope. "The college of bishops never acts without its head, the Roman Pontiff." Under those strictures, Constance had no compentency to choose a new pope.

since the Vatican doesn't publish an official list (how convenient  Roll Eyes), we have to go with the most authoritative, the  Annuario Pontificio,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
and the one with the "Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York." of NewAdvent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

so we get this
Quote
Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
so your papacy hangs on a Council (Constance) called by a pope (John XXIII) which the council then declared an antipope (something that contributes to the mess of the numbering of Pope Johns,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_(numbering)
such that Pope John XXIII Roncalli had to "resolve" it ex cathedra)-with what authority in the Ultramontanist system is not explained-which credentialled and accepted representatives of a rival pope (Gregory XII) who resiged within the same bull that he recogized the council of Constance, while the legitimate successor at Avignon (Pope Beedict XIII) refused to recognize Constance, continuing to the succession of Pope Clement VII, who was elected to undo the elevation by the Roman mob of Urban VI to the papacy. Constance, acting without its head-declaring its convoker an antipope and accepting the resignation, and hence sede vacans, of the claimant it thereafter recognized-and over the objection of the Avignon Papacy, it went on to elect Martin V Pope with conciliar stipulations, which "Pope" Martin V failed to fullfill. Yeah, that inspires lots of confidence.

Given all this weirdness going on in the succession of supreme pontiffs, this and for instance Pope Felix IV appointing Pope Boniface I his successor (something I doubt canonical), who anathematized the elected Pope Dioscorus, which anathema was burned by Pope Boniface's successor, Pope Agapetus, who was succeeded by Pope Vigilius, who had been designated by Pope Boniface as his successor and then withdrew the designation under opposition, I'm inclined to open a thread on all the many, many weak links in the supreme pontifical chain under Ultramontanist claims.


On the rebuke of Victor I: Yes, rebuke means to strongly criticize. So what? You've already yourself noted that your argument is a non sequitur because even under the Orthodox autocephalous view, any Bishop has the right to excommunicate if they so choose.
It is a non sequitur in Orthodox ecclesiology, but not in Ultramontanist claims. The resolution of the Meletian schism and the utter and complete failure of Rome's meddling in the matter demonstrates that point.

When the Patriarch of Moscow struck the EP from the diptychs, the other 13 Churches let both know that they were not removing either from there diptychs, and the matter didn't develop into a schism. The other Churches let Pope St. Victor the same notice.  Since they were all Orthodox, it worked out. If Pope Victor had the power the Ultramontanists attribute to him, "Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, [who] immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate,"his letters would have settled the matter, and the Churches would have to tried to talk some sense into Poplycrates. But we have no evidence at all that they tried to induce the Asians to accept the common date.  Just that they rebuked Pope Victor and told him to leave well enough alone. btw, it is interesting that the Ultramontanist and urlatin Jerome writes on Polycrates
Quote
Polycrates bishop of the Ephesians with other bishops of Asia who in accordance with some ancient custom celebrated the passover with the Jews on the fourteenth of the month, wrote a synodical letter against Victor bishop of Rome in which he says that he follows the authority of the apostle John and of the ancients. From this we make the following brief quotations, We therefore celebrate the day according to usage, inviolably, neither adding anything to nor taking anything from it, for in Asia lie the remains of the greatest saints of those who shall rise again on the day of the Lord, when he shall come in majesty from heaven and shall quicken all the saints, I mean Philip one of the twelve apostles who sleeps at Hierapolis and his two daughters who were virgins until their death and another daughter of his who died at Ephesus full of the Holy Spirit. And John too, who lay on Our Lord's breast and was his high priest carrying the golden frontlet on his forehead, both martyr and doctor, fell asleep at Ephesus and Polycarp bishop and martyr died at Smyrna. Thraseas of Eumenia also, bishop and martyr, rests in the same Smyrna. What need is there of mentioning Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who sleeps in Laodicea and the blessed Papyrus and Melito, eunuch in the Holy Spirit, who, ever serving the Lord, was laid to rest in Sardis and there awaits his resurrection at Christ's advent. These all observed the day of the passover on the fourteenth of the month, in nowise departing from the evangelical tradition and following the ecclesiastical canon. I also, Polycrates, the least of all your servants, according to the doctrine of my relatives which I also have followed (for there were seven of my relatives bishops indeed and I the eighth) have always celebrated the passover when the Jewish people celebrated the putting away of the leaven. And so brethren being sixty-five years old in the Lord and instructed by many brethren from all parts of the world, and having searched all the Scriptures, I will not fear those who threaten us, for my predecessors said It is fitting to obey God rather than men. I quote this to show through a small example the genius and authority of the man. He flourished in the reign of the emperor Severus in the same period as Narcissus of Jerusalem.
and on Victor he says
Quote
Victor, thirteenth bishop of Rome, wrote, On the Paschal Controversy and some other small works. He ruled the church for ten years in the reign of the Emperor Severus.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

Later events give the lie even to this view, however.
LOL. They make the Orthodox position even stronger.  For one thing, you Ultramontanists like to overstress the pronouncments Rome made, and try to ignore if they were followed through, e.g.:

Pope Saint Innocent I had the name of Saint John Chrysostom restored to the diptychs of Constantinople over the objections of Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria.

The emperor and Patriarch igored Pope St. Innocent I. St. John got back into the diptychs because the Faithful of Constatinople refused to recognize his deposition: despite the emperor issuing edict upon edict banning it, they continued to attend DL in the open air celebrated by priests loyal to St. John, and bishops throughout the East refused communion with the patriarchs.  Rome's delegation never entered the City. St. John's nemesis Eudoxia predeceased him, and the Emperor Arcadius followed in 408.  Pope Cyril restored St. John's name in 418, the year after Pope Innocent's death. St. John was fully rehabilitated and glorified under Nestorius, the disciple of St. John's circles in Antioch, within the decade. Pope Innocent played no direct role.

Pope Saint Gelasius I had the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople struck from those very same diptychs over the objections of Acacius' successor Euphemius and the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I.
Pope St. Gelasius I wrote "Duo sunt" which had a lot of influence in the West but none in the East, including the failure to strike Pat. Acacius' name from the diptychs. That didn't happen until 519, over two decades after Pope Gelasius' death. Again, the actions of the Faithful in Constantinople and the ascension of a pro-Chalcedonian dyasty did that, but even then, only as many bishops as the emperor could get his hands on (basically, the capital) signed the formula of Hormisdas. The Pope's suffragan in Thessalonica tore it in two and stomped on it., and the Patriarch of Constantinople ammended it before signing.

When Pope Nicholas I ruled that Ignatios, not Photios, was the rightful Patriarch, Photios could not simply ignore the ruling but rather had to accuse Nicholas of heresy on the pretext of the west's use of the Filioque.
EP St. Phontius could not simply ignore the ruling because he himself had called the council and invited Rome's delegates to preside, and in 861 they, including Pope Nicholas' delegates, found St. Photios the valid patriarch. Pope Nicholas was furious and arrogated to himself the power to call a council in 863 in Rome of his own bishops-i.e. not of any other patriarchate, including Constantinople-and depose and laicize EP St. Photios as having void election and consecration. Everyone dismissed it as the uncanonical intererence in another patriarchate that it was. EP St. Photios could not ignore that the Pope at Rome duirng EP St. Photios' childhood, Leo III, at condemned the approval of the flioque at the Frankish council of Aachen, and he set up on silver tablets on the doors of St. Peter's and the shrie of st. Paul outside the walls, the original Creed of Constantinople (i.e. without fillioque) with the inscription «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith). But Pope Nicholas did, imposing it in Bulgaria and Moravia (St. Photius had sent SS. Cyril and Methodius to evangelize the slavs). So EP St. Ignatius convened a council in 867 and excommunicated Pope Nicholas (so much for the pope not being judged).  It was only the change of dynasty, and the founder of the new dynasty seeking an alliance with the West, that prevented implimentation and caused EP St. Photios to be deposed, and EP St. Ignatius restored.

Things didn't work according to Pope Nicholas' little Roman council of 863. So another council was called in 869-870 with 12 bishops (rising only to perhaps 103), which would be superfluous if a) Pope Nicholas had the powers ascribed to him by the the Ultramontanists and b) if the Roman council had any validity.  The 869 council of Constantiople led to the attachment of Bulgaria to Constantinople's jurisdiction, so Pope Nicholas' latiinizing missionaries were expelled, the filioque suppressed, and Pope Nicholas' Ultramontramonist claims rebuked.  EP St. Ignatius was reconciled to EP St. Photios, so the latter succeeded to the former in 877, and a Council of 383-more than any Ecumenical Council except Chalcedon-convened as Constantinople IV in 879, anathematized the council of 868, voided its acts and condemned the filioque.  Rome accepted it as Constantinople IV, untill after the schism and its caesaropapist Investiture controversy, when it found it too useful to have the 869 canons quoted as fragments in a anti-Photios polemic, and took those scraps as its "eighth ecumenical council."

Pre-schism Popes making decisions about who was and was not a valid Patriarch of Constantinople demonstrates clear Papal jurisdiction over the whole Church.
Pre-schism EP St. Photios making decisions about who was and was not the Orthodox Pope of Old Rome in 867 demonstrates clear jurisdiction over the Church of Rome.

And the events show the similarity of the Popes who ranted Ultramontanist claims ex cathedra from Rome and Emperor Pu Yi ruling as Emperor of China with the Mandate of Heaven, but only in the confines of the Forbidden City. The resolution of the Meletian Schism in Antioch, and the fact that all four primates that the Vatican sends the pallium to in Antioch never claim Paulinus, they all claim Pat. St. Meletius, more than amply show how hollow such claims of juridiction over the whole Church, examples which can, and have, been multiplied.

On the issue of charism, at this point it isn't clear what you are arguing. You started out by saying that a candidate could not be consecrated Bishop of Rome because he had some special charism of consecration that other Bishops do not. Since then you have just been arguing about Papal infallibility. The Pope's infallibility as the representative of the magisterium has nothing to do with anything about the formal rite of his consecration in the Petrine seat that makes it different from the formal consecration of any other Bishops.
the claimed infallibility comes by no sacrament, an oddity in the sacramentology of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which only confers the graces of charisms through a Holy Mystery/sacrament. Placing him as the "visible head," it creates a super order which has no ordination, no any minister who could cofer it, as "the bettter always blesses the lesser."

charism attached to some abstract office or inanimate object like a cathedra, no, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church knows of no such things.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 08:05:51 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: 37,370



« Reply #175 on: December 31, 2010, 08:07:23 PM »

So don't respond.  Just keep repeating what is true.

This is an excellent idea! Let's all not respond to anything, just keep repeating our declarations.
Yes. Do all those in submission to the Vatican adopt Hindu mantras with their Latinization?
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: 37,370



« Reply #176 on: December 31, 2010, 08:14:09 PM »


From your POV, the truth hurts.   Sad Happy New Year!!

This again is a tried and true tactic.  What hurt?  The truth of my Church sets me free.  The spiritual life gives me a share in the divine life.   I have been happy with that for many years.

Perhaps it is you who needs to put a smile on your face, eh?
I think he is too busy LOL to be able to do that.
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: 37,370



« Reply #177 on: December 31, 2010, 08:14:55 PM »


The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

As long as the pope understands, we'll all be fine. 

Besides that language of subjugation is really only ever heard from you and the Orthodox...so I do think it is a personal problem.
Only for those in subjugation.
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: 37,370



« Reply #178 on: December 31, 2010, 08:21:49 PM »


Great Western Schism: You claimed that neither the Roman Line nor the Avignon Line created the Council of Constance. This is incorrect. It was created by the Roman and Pisan lines and later recognized by the Avignon line.

Another lesson for you on Forum protocal.  History is as ialmisry says it is.

Isa is an excellent researcher on topics that I have yet to see repudiated on this forum and on other fora that he posts.  He has helped me look closer at the creation of my own Orthodox Jurisdiction in the USA.  While I haven't changed my Jurisdiction because of the revelations, I can reconcile the history of my Jurisdiction to my faith in that I am not an apostate.   Smiley
I don't believe you are an apostate either, just to be clear.

The situation in North America calls direction, but for economia, not akrevia.  I've never consuled anyone to leave the GOA, nor would I. The closest I've done to that is ask those who weren't Greek or didn't speak it, who were leaving Orthodoxy over it, to tell them to try an English parish, typically OCA.  I go to GOA parishes frequently, and was at the EP's DL in Chicago, and kissed his hand, literally.

I took my sons this year only to St. Augustine, to the St. Photios shrine, but also to the New Smyrna ruins, although I know that the Greeks were in submission to the Vatican. It's still Greek history, and I like Greeks (yeah, I hide it well).
efcharisto for the kind words.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 08:24:17 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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,105


WWW
« Reply #179 on: January 01, 2011, 12:02:43 AM »

Παρακαλό.   Smiley (You're Welcome).
Logged
Tags: Papal Infallibility ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.26 seconds with 72 queries.