OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 07:08:56 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 16198 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,207


Beannachd Dia dhuit

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

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

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

LOL, too true... Cool
Logged

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

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



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

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

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

LOL
Logged


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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



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

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

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

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

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

good grief....

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,722


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,694


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

More later, but quick note for the moment:

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

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



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

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

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

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

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

He would be consecrated before he assumes the chair.

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

You got it all contradicted there in Sistine Chapel.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



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

More later, but quick note for the moment:

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

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,694


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

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

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

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

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

He would be consecrated before he assumes the chair.

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

You got it all contradicted there in Sistine Chapel.

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

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

Job 31:20 (NKJV)

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

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

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

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

2 Samuel 14:22 (NKJV)

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

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

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



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

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

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

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

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

good grief....

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


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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,694


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

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

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

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

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

good grief....

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

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



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

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

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

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

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

He would be consecrated before he assumes the chair.

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

You got it all contradicted there in Sistine Chapel.

The footnotes in the NAB Bible cited on the USCCB website seem to create doubt regarding how the lesser are blessed by the greater:

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

2 Samuel 14:22 (NKJV)

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

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

USCCB = United States Council of Catholic Bishops
hmmmmm indeed.

Odd that they went to the OT for a "contradiction," when they could have refered to St. John baptizing Christ. But then, the Gospel is quite clear how much in essence it was a contradiction, or rather a fulfillment, so that the order of Aaron in St. John (as shown by the opening of St. Luke: on that, note that St. Luke begins both his gospel and his book of Acts with a succession, involving the casting of lots to reveal God's will) might return its priesthood to Melchizedek Who instituted.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #103 on: December 30, 2010, 04:34:18 AM »

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

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

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

I am sure you are not unaware that neither the Roman Catholic nor Orthodox teaching on contraception is an "innovation" of the 20th century.  I am sure you are aware that we have so little from the Fathers on this matter that we cannot really say we have a broad patristic consensus.

The little that we do have is ignored by both our Churches, namely:

1.  Every act of sexual intercourse must be performed with the INTENTION of conception
2.  Every act of sexual intercourse must have the PHYSICAL  POSSIBILITY of conception.

In accord with (2) the Fathers did not allow intercourse for women past childbearing, for husbands and wives with physical disabilities which prevent conception, etc.

If you wish to check the extreme paucity of reliable patristic teaching as regards contraception simply locate the many Catholic Answers articles on the topic.  The patristic quotes are far from convincing and are often right off topic.

When you speak of ducking the issue I often smile because the Roman Catholic Church ducks the teaching of the Ancients.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #104 on: December 30, 2010, 04:34:38 AM »

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

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

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

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

good grief....

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

Anyone we know besides the ones cited by Isa in the above icon?   Huh
Even the Vatican's best friend, the EP, has his moments
Quote
the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos’s blunt speech at Georgetown University on October 21, 1997, with its allusion to “the continually increasing divergence” and “ontological difference” between the two churches
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,694


WWW
« Reply #105 on: December 30, 2010, 04:35:10 AM »

hmmmmm indeed.

Odd that they went to the OT for a "contradiction," when they could have refered to St. John baptizing Christ. But then, the Gospel is quite clear how much in essence it was a contradiction, or rather a fulfillment, so that the order of Aaron in St. John (as shown by the opening of St. Luke: on that, note that St. Luke begins both his gospel and his book of Acts with a succession, involving the casting of lots to reveal God's will) might return its priesthood to Melchizedek Who instituted.

The author of the NAB footnotes for Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek lives forever since He has no beginning nor end ... perhaps what the Papacy aspires to except, unfortunately, that humans are mortal.   Sad
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #106 on: December 30, 2010, 04:36:12 AM »

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

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

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

I am sure you are not unaware that neither the Roman Catholic nor Orthodox teaching on contraception is an "innovation" of the 20th century.  I am sure you are aware that we have so little from the Fathers on this matter that we cannot really say we have a broad patristic consensus.

The little that we do have is ignored by both our Churches, namely:

1.  Every act of sexual intercourse must be performed with the INTENTION of conception
2.  Every act of sexual intercourse must have the PHYSICAL  POSSIBILITY of conception.

In accord with (2) the Fathers did not allow intercourse for women past childbearing, for husbands and wives with physical disabilities which prevent conception, etc.

If you wish to check the extreme paucity of reliable patristic teaching as regards contraception simply locate the many Catholic Answers articles on the topic.  The patristic quotes are far from convincing and are often right off topic.

When you speak of ducking the issue I often smile because the Roman Catholic Church ducks the teaching of the Ancients.
...by making too much out of too litttle.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #107 on: December 30, 2010, 04:36:25 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

The structure seems consistent and well-organized, but the theological reasoning behind it actually confuses me and seems rather inconsistent in itself.  I guess the question is, what really is "infallibility"?  Why does it fall on a single person in addition to the councils?

The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.

Ialmis, you said that Pastor Aeternus says otherwise. Can you quote the specific passage to which you are referring?

It was mentioned that Catholics don't like to discuss the Papacy between the 11th and 14th centuries. I presume that what is being referred to is the western schism, though I do not know for sure. I am happy to discuss the Western Schism, if someone would like to raise a particular theological issue with regards to it. Or, if it's any other issue, whatever it is that's in question.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 04:38:22 AM by Thomist » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,694


WWW
« Reply #108 on: December 30, 2010, 04:39:43 AM »

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

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

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

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

good grief....

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

Anyone we know besides the ones cited by Isa in the above icon?   Huh
Even the Vatican's best friend, the EP, has his moments
Quote
the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos’s blunt speech at Georgetown University on October 21, 1997, with its allusion to “the continually increasing divergence” and “ontological difference” between the two churches
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b

That was 13+ years ago.  I don't know if His All Holiness still feels the same way given recent interactions between the EP and Pope Benedict; Met. Methodios recently had an audience with Pope Benedict during an interfaith trip to Rome and Istanbul with the Archbishop of Worcester, MA (Huh).  That visit was displayed in the Orthodox Observer.

Time for bed....   Smiley
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #109 on: December 30, 2010, 07:43:57 AM »


The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.
.

Things have changed.  It used to be the teaching that infallibility was a personal charism of the Pope by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of Saint Peter.  "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not..."

If the current teaching is that infallibility "does not inhere in the Pope specifically" you may need to substantiate that with some documentation.

You may understand why the ability of Catholicism to change its teachings rather quickly in only a few decades raises anxieties for the Orthodox.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #110 on: December 30, 2010, 10:07:11 AM »


The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.
.

Things have changed.  It used to be the teaching that infallibility was a personal charism of the Pope by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of Saint Peter.  "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not..."

If the current teaching is that infallibility "does not inhere in the Pope specifically" you may need to substantiate that with some documentation.

You may understand why the ability of Catholicism to change its teachings rather quickly in only a few decades raises anxieties for the Orthodox.

That may be the biggest difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholics have the "development of doctrine," which allows their teaching to change. This makes things incredibly difficult for purposes of dialogue.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 30, 2010, 10:30:25 AM »


The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.
.

Things have changed.  It used to be the teaching that infallibility was a personal charism of the Pope by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of Saint Peter.  "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not..."

If the current teaching is that infallibility "does not inhere in the Pope specifically" you may need to substantiate that with some documentation.

You may understand why the ability of Catholicism to change its teachings rather quickly in only a few decades raises anxieties for the Orthodox.

That may be the biggest difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholics have the "development of doctrine," which allows their teaching to change. This makes things incredibly difficult for purposes of dialogue.

It's pretty hard to keep up with the dialogue in these threads when you guys keep high-fiving each other over how wrong the Roman Catholic Church is.

Even Isa is lax on the super-quote department.
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #112 on: December 30, 2010, 11:24:42 AM »

You believe the consent of the whole Church is necessary?

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

Every single one has.

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

How do you know that you got the right pope out of all this mess?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #113 on: December 30, 2010, 11:31:53 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or when Pope Celestine wrote to the Bishops of Illyricum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plainly the west understands the magisterium differently from the east, but I don't know what he means with regards to the idea that the magisterium as such is a new creation. The church, west and east, has always asserted itself to hold infallible teaching authority of some form or another.
It would help if you would link to your quote mine, or give references from whence these alleged quotes come from.

For instance, your Pope Julius quote, is that "Epistle of Julius to Antioch, c. xxii"?  that was the prelude to the council of Sardica/Philoppolis. we all know how that ended, or should.

Quote
The holy and regional Council which was assembled in the city of Sardica, Illyria, convened A.D. 347 in the reign of Constantius and Con-stans, who were full brothers and who were both of them emperors, the one of whom reigned in Constantinople, and the other in Rome, eleven years after the death of their father Constantine the Great. It was attended by three hundred Fathers from the West, and by seventy-six from the East, according to Socrates (Book II, ch. 20) and Sozomen (Book III, ch. 12). Of these the exarchs were not only Hosius, the bishop of Cordova, Spain, a man worthy of all respect, on account of his great age and of the excessive toil he underwent, but included also Archidamos and Philoxenus, the presbyters, and the three legates of Pope Julius, acting as the latter’s personal representatives. Maximus of Jerusalem, Paul of Constantinople and Athanasius of Alexandria, though present at the Council, had been deposed from office by the Eusebians. Protogenes, the bishop of Sardica, and others were also attending this Council. But a split and division between the Fathers of the East and those of the West followed, and they failed to agree with each other. For the Easterners, being Arianists, when departing for Sardica, wrote to the Westerners not to admit to a seat in the Council St. Paul, and Athanasius the Great, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas Gazaeus, on the ground that they had been deposed from office. But the Westerners replied to them that they did not consider them to be at fault, nor to have been duly deposed, and on this account would regard them as entitled to seats and participation. But when the Easterners learned this, they turned back to Philippoupolis, and again deposed from office Athanasius, Paul, Marcellus, and Asclepas, Julius the bishop (i.e., Pope) of Rome, Hosius (the bishop) of Cordova, Protogenes (the bishop) of Sardica, and others. Being averse from perfect accord with the doctrine of coessentiality (though Socrates says that they openly anathematized it, in Book II, ch. 20), they anathematized only those who asserted three Gods, and anyone that said that Christ was not a God, or that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one and the same person; and anyone that said perhaps that the Son was unbegotten, or perhaps that there was a time or an age in which He was not. After the Western Fathers convoked and assembled the Council, they confirmed the Nicene Creed, without adding anything to it or removing anything from it, and proceeded to declare Athanasius, and Paul, and Marcellus, and Asclepas right and innocent, and through the emperors they contrived to have their thrones returned to them; while, on the other hand, they deposed from, office the Easterners in Philippoupolis in turn, though not all of them, but only eleven; for not all of them, were Arians, but only some of them, the others being orthodox (as the Sardican Fathers state in their letter to all the churches). That is why they also anathematized many doctrines of Arms; and their Creed was accepted as orthodox by divine Hilary. Besides all these things, they also issued the present Canons, which are necessary to the good order and constitution of the Church. They are confirmed indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and by c. I of the 7th, and are confirmed definitely by c. II of the 6th; and by reason of this confirmation they have acquired a power which is in a way ecumenical.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635084
If it were as the Vatican says, they would have been ecumenical per the Pope of Rome, not the Pentheke Council.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 11:41:34 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #114 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

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

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

How many times have I heard Orthodoxy tell me that there are MANY different times one can be annointed/Chrismated, and so I don't insist that every Chrismation is the same as the one that Initiates in Orthodoxy.   I am more than willing to take the Orthodox word without pushing and shoving and grunting and insisting...that they must be lying to themselves if not to me...eh?

There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #115 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

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

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

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

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

good grief....

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


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

We all, by virtue of our initiation into Christ have a charism or direction and purpose in our lives for which God gives us all the graces necessary for us to cooperate with his providence.

You are more than willing to press these meaningless points but I am here to tell others that they are indeed without meaning as they come from your own twisted lack of understanding and added values which are all negative when it comes to Catholic hierarchy.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

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

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

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

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

good grief....

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

Anyone we know besides the ones cited by Isa in the above icon?   Huh

I expect that will come clear in time as the bi-lateral discussions continue.  But even from my own experience I know some of you are going to be bitterly distressed one day.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #117 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »

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

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

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

I am sure you are not unaware that neither the Roman Catholic nor Orthodox teaching on contraception is an "innovation" of the 20th century.  I am sure you are aware that we have so little from the Fathers on this matter that we cannot really say we have a broad patristic consensus.

The little that we do have is ignored by both our Churches, namely:

1.  Every act of sexual intercourse must be performed with the INTENTION of conception
2.  Every act of sexual intercourse must have the PHYSICAL  POSSIBILITY of conception.

In accord with (2) the Fathers did not allow intercourse for women past childbearing, for husbands and wives with physical disabilities which prevent conception, etc.

If you wish to check the extreme paucity of reliable patristic teaching as regards contraception simply locate the many Catholic Answers articles on the topic.  The patristic quotes are far from convincing and are often right off topic.

When you speak of ducking the issue I often smile because the Roman Catholic Church ducks the teaching of the Ancients.

The papal Church IS the Church of 2000 years of teaching the truths of revelation.  The fathers and councils are an integral part of a living breathing organism called The Body of Christ.    It did not take 2000 years for the papal Church to teach that artificial contraception is inherently evil.    That has been the teaching all along.  It is Orthodoxy who now teaches that it is Okee-dokee.   Speaking of development of doctrine.   Whatever else you might say about us, that's a fact about Orthodoxy.  You don't even bother to keep the spirit of the ancient teachings much less the letter of their law.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM »


The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.
.

Things have changed.  It used to be the teaching that infallibility was a personal charism of the Pope by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of Saint Peter.  "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not..."

If the current teaching is that infallibility "does not inhere in the Pope specifically" you may need to substantiate that with some documentation.

You may understand why the ability of Catholicism to change its teachings rather quickly in only a few decades raises anxieties for the Orthodox.

That may be the biggest difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholics have the "development of doctrine," which allows their teaching to change. This makes things incredibly difficult for purposes of dialogue.

Development does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that the core truth of a teaching changes.  It means that we become more cognizant of better ways of expressing the eternal truth.  Our Christological and Trinitarian teachings are a fine example of such developments. 

Palamas teaching on essence and energies is another example of development of doctrine as he adds insight, experience,  and refinement to an ancient teaching.

The papacy is another example.

Marian doctrine is another example.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #119 on: December 30, 2010, 11:44:36 AM »

More later, but quick note for the moment:

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

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

How many times have I heard Orthodoxy tell me that there are MANY different times one can be annointed/Chrismated, and so I don't insist that every Chrismation is the same as the one that Initiates in Orthodoxy.   I am more than willing to take the Orthodox word without pushing and shoving and grunting and insisting...that they must be lying to themselves if not to me...eh?
This is a new claim of yours AFAIK. You are free to grunt as much as you like, a right you otherwise exercise in profusion, why not this?
Quote
There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.
Like I said, charism through the seat.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #120 on: December 30, 2010, 11:46:18 AM »

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

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

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

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

good grief....

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


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

We all, by virtue of our initiation into Christ have a charism or direction and purpose in our lives for which God gives us all the graces necessary for us to cooperate with his providence.

You are more than willing to press these meaningless points but I am here to tell others that they are indeed without meaning as they come from your own twisted lack of understanding and added values which are all negative when it comes to Catholic hierarchy.
I didn't glorify the Pillars of Orthodoxy, I just follow the good example God and the Church has set by glorifying them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,722


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


« Reply #121 on: December 30, 2010, 11:53:10 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

The structure seems consistent and well-organized, but the theological reasoning behind it actually confuses me and seems rather inconsistent in itself.  I guess the question is, what really is "infallibility"?  Why does it fall on a single person in addition to the councils?

The magisterium (What we in the west refer to the teaching authority of the Church as) is infallible. Both Churches have always taught that. In the west we feel that the Bishop of Rome has been, from the earliest days, the final word on what it is that the magisterium teaches. Since the magisterium is infallible, and the Pope is the final word on the magisterium, the Pope's dogmatic definitions are infallible. This infallibility however does not inhere in the Pope specifically but the magisterium generally.

Ialmis, you said that Pastor Aeternus says otherwise. Can you quote the specific passage to which you are referring?

It was mentioned that Catholics don't like to discuss the Papacy between the 11th and 14th centuries. I presume that what is being referred to is the western schism, though I do not know for sure. I am happy to discuss the Western Schism, if someone would like to raise a particular theological issue with regards to it. Or, if it's any other issue, whatever it is that's in question.

Well, as I said before, St Peter and at various points of history, the Pope of Rome did not have the final word of a "magisterium" in the imperial church.  So many times, I've seen Catholics support the idea of the Pope's infallibility with quotes from Church fathers about the authority of Peter in him, the rock of faith in him, representation of the Church by him, etc.  But what's the point of defining infallibility for the Pope of Rome who has been given this special blessing of "final word" when that wasn't always the case in history?
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,722


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


« Reply #122 on: December 30, 2010, 11:56:52 AM »

There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.

What does that mean?  That the Pope doesn't ordain by laying of hands or that the Pope is ordained, but not by laying of hands?
Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: December 30, 2010, 12:04:27 PM »


Like I said, charism through the seat.

Aside from being crude you have no idea what you are talking about.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: December 30, 2010, 12:04:27 PM »

There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.

What does that mean?  That the Pope doesn't ordain by laying of hands or that the Pope is ordained, but not by laying of hands?

I mean to say that the papal office is an office in the Church.  The only office in the Church is that of pasto.   The local pastor serves by the authority of a diocesan bishop and is appointed by the bishop.

The Pope is the universal pastor and is appointed by his brother bishops in the college of cardinals.

The office of pastor is not in the line of holy orders at all.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #125 on: December 30, 2010, 12:55:16 PM »


Like I said, charism through the seat.

Aside from being crude you have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, I do, and that's what gets you.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #126 on: December 30, 2010, 12:59:24 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #127 on: December 30, 2010, 01:01:50 PM »

There is not ordinary laying on of hands as the pope is installed and assumes the Chair of Peter.

What does that mean?  That the Pope doesn't ordain by laying of hands or that the Pope is ordained, but not by laying of hands?

I mean to say that the papal office is an office in the Church.  The only office in the Church is that of pasto. 
Is that like pesto, or pasta?

Quote
The local pastor serves by the authority of a diocesan bishop and is appointed by the bishop.

that brings up the problem of this "altus Christus/alter Christi" innovation.

Quote
The Pope is the universal pastor and is appointed by his brother bishops in the college of cardinals.
The office of pastor is not in the line of holy orders at all.
the office of pastor doesn't have any charism attached to it either.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2010, 01:04:11 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.
Yes, but because many continue on sowing confusion, we have to hoe those rows over and over and over to get the weeds out, lest we have a harvest of only tares.

And every once in a while we get some new claim:
How many times have I heard Orthodoxy tell me that there are MANY different times one can be annointed/Chrismated, and so I don't insist that every Chrismation is the same as the one that Initiates in Orthodoxy.   I am more than willing to take the Orthodox word without pushing and shoving and grunting and insisting...that they must be lying to themselves if not to me...eh?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 01:07:06 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2010, 01:36:17 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.

Welcome to my hell. Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #130 on: December 30, 2010, 02:06:40 PM »


Like I said, charism through the seat.

Aside from being crude you have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, I do, and that's what gets you.

No you do not. 

And you don't get me at all, because I am quite comfortable being Catholic, and a properly educated Catholic without a good bit of baggage bumping along with me.

And I am here primarily to tell you that you are lost when it comes to understanding the Catholic Church.  You have a neat and tidy story in your notebook but it is not real and it is not accurate.

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #131 on: December 30, 2010, 02:06:40 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.

 Smiley  There were bishops in the middle of the 20th century in the Catholic Church who thought there were too many useless repetitions in the Roman rite liturgy... Smiley....and look where that took us.

There is always room for "useless repetitions"

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have mercy on me, A sinner!

 Smiley
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #132 on: December 30, 2010, 02:08:21 PM »

The 'discussions' on this Board usually are repetitive and redundant, sort of like being trapped in the Tron movie for 1000 years.

HAHAHA!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #133 on: December 30, 2010, 02:09:52 PM »

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

Every single one has.


That is not true in the slightest, only the first three can rightfully be declared Ecumenical, and as such, only Canons of the First Three are Universally accepted, not just across Orthodoxy, but also even the Roman Catholics and many Protestants (including even Baptists!!) where as many traditions and jurisdictions across the board refute Councils following the first three.  This is history. Within all of our respective jurisdictions we have had various councils and canons, and even many multi-jurisdictional ones, but none-the-less these can never be honestly called Ecumenical in any sense of the word.  Only the first three possessed the unity and form of the entire Church, and as such we rightfully venerate those Three Canons because it was indeed a blessed miracle that for so many centuries the various and diverse Christian bishops actually managed to get along! If that is not a miracle of the Holy Spirit what is Wink

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.
Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical. That they are schismatic shouldn't matter. The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.


I believe this is the truth.

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

 The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith.  

Well, honesty the Roman system is more rational and logical and efficient than the Orthodox, but that is the legacy of the Romans and their good managerial skills.  Today, the Vatican is far more centralizing, efficient and authoritative across the Catholic world far more so than any Patriarchate, and further, I am not sure of any Patriarchates or jurisdictions that even want to have the kind of centralization that Rome has.  Again, the Romans are Romans, they do what they do best, and that is management and logistics.  In Orthodox, we are of the East and we do what Easterners do best, attending to spiritual and cultural matters.  The epitome of the Roman efficiency is in the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, that the centralized authority of the solitary leader (the Bishop of Rome) can supercede unilaterally the decisions of any other leaders, which as we have pointed out before, is quite foreign to the Orthodox world.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 02:12:32 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #134 on: December 30, 2010, 02:38:30 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Every single one has.
That is not true in the slightest, only the first three can rightfully be declared Ecumenical, and as such, only Canons of the First Three are Universally accepted, not just across Orthodoxy, but also even the Roman Catholics and many Protestants (including even Baptists!!) where as many traditions and jurisdictions across the board refute Councils following the first three.  This is history.
I am afraid that is spin.

The Nestorians have never accepted anything past the Second Ecumenical Council, and anathematize the Third, and pay lip service to the Fourth.

And the Baptists not have bishops or canons, so much of the canons of the first three councils are rejected outright.

Quote
Within all of our respective jurisdictions we have had various councils and canons, and even many multi-jurisdictional ones, but none-the-less these can never be honestly called Ecumenical in any sense of the word.  Only the first three possessed the unity and form of the entire Church, and as such we rightfully venerate those Three Canons because it was indeed a blessed miracle that for so many centuries the various and diverse Christian bishops actually managed to get along! If that is not a miracle of the Holy Spirit what is Wink
LOL. Don't know what Church history you are reading.

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.
Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical. That they are schismatic shouldn't matter. The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.
I believe this is the truth.
Oh? Because you contradict it by ignoring the Assyrians.
Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?
The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system.  At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered.   We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith.  
Well, honesty the Roman system is more rational and logical and efficient than the Orthodox, but that is the legacy of the Romans and their good managerial skills.  Today, the Vatican is far more centralizing, efficient and authoritative across the Catholic world far more so than any Patriarchate, and further, I am not sure of any Patriarchates or jurisdictions that even want to have the kind of centralization that Rome has.  Again, the Romans are Romans, they do what they do best, and that is management and logistics.  In Orthodox, we are of the East and we do what Easterners do best, attending to spiritual and cultural matters.  The epitome of the Roman efficiency is in the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, that the centralized authority of the solitary leader (the Bishop of Rome) can supercede unilaterally the decisions of any other leaders, which as we have pointed out before, is quite foreign to the Orthodox world.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 02:39:13 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 0.218 seconds with 72 queries.