OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 09:38:47 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 15571 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #225 on: January 02, 2011, 01:37:08 PM »


The big deal is that he abolished the procedures for electing a successor, without giving the means to get a successor.  The epitomy of a constitutional crisis of succession.

That's not a big deal, Professor...nor is it an "epitomy"

Maybe you are a linguist and not an historian.

The big deal is that there is nothing in this putative discussion of your's here that has anything to do with primacy OR infallibility.
I was thinking of moving responses to more appropriate threads, but didn't have the time

Quote
Whatever Adrian V did was procedural and was managed by his successors.  These are earthly considerations and the Cardinals had every power to make the necessary procedural arrangements in the absence of Adrian V.
According to your present code of canon law, your present "dogmatic constitution," and the practice and theory underlying both stretching back to before Pope Adrian V,no, the cardinals did not.  Remember "can do nothing without their head."

No one but the Orthodox and Protestants put this kind of twist on the present canons.

As I said, you are shooting a breeze here and it is not from the horse's mouth.

There's no other response to this kind of idiocy....Prof.

None of your discussion here has a thing to do with primacy or infallibility.  It is the equivalent of one of the Catholics on the list getting hold of Orthodox documents of local synods where issues were internally and hotly contested,  or marking other kinds of uncanonical issues over the centuries and saying that all this mess was proof positive that there is no such thing as universal Orthodoxy...You know the kind of Orthodoxy where NOTHING changes...not even teaching on birth control...or marriage...etc.  Don't even mention the liturgy.   There are no Orthodox liturgical histories you know because nothing changed in 2000 years...etc., etc., etc.

That is all that you are offering here.  Snapshots of disconnected events that are no more indicative of any point in the topic of this thread than the assertion that there are no liturgical histories in Orthodoxy because the liturgy has not changed in 2000 years.  Makes about as much sense....Professor.

So quit horsin' around... laugh laugh laugh
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: 37,585



« Reply #226 on: January 02, 2011, 04:31:06 PM »


The big deal is that he abolished the procedures for electing a successor, without giving the means to get a successor.  The epitomy of a constitutional crisis of succession.

That's not a big deal, Professor...nor is it an "epitomy"

Maybe you are a linguist and not an historian.

The big deal is that there is nothing in this putative discussion of your's here that has anything to do with primacy OR infallibility.
I was thinking of moving responses to more appropriate threads, but didn't have the time

Quote
Whatever Adrian V did was procedural and was managed by his successors.  These are earthly considerations and the Cardinals had every power to make the necessary procedural arrangements in the absence of Adrian V.
According to your present code of canon law, your present "dogmatic constitution," and the practice and theory underlying both stretching back to before Pope Adrian V,no, the cardinals did not.  Remember "can do nothing without their head."

No one but the Orthodox and Protestants put this kind of twist on the present canons.

No one but the Orthodox and Protestants, eh?

Which Chief Rabbi did you consult, the Sephardic or the Ashkenazi?

Has Al-Azhar issued a fatwa for you on that?

What has the Mormon Prophet-President said?

Has the Dalai Lama weighed in for the Buddhists?

What twist?  This twist?:
Quote
Preliminary Note of Explanation

The Commission has decided to preface the assessment of the Modi with the following general observations.

A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of Episcopal consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members. Cf. n. 22, end of 1 1.

In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word "functions [munera]" is used deliberately instead of the word "powers [potestates]," because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority. An additional norm of this sort is required by the very nature of the case, because it involves functions [munera] which must be exercised by many subjects cooperating in a hierarchical manner in accordance with Christ's will. It is evident that this "communion" was applied in the Church's life according to the circumstances of the time, before it was codified as law.

For this reason it is clearly stated that hierarchical communion with the head and members of the church is required. Communion is a notion which is held in high honor in the ancient Church (and also today, especially in the East). However, it is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity. Hence the Commission, almost unanimously, decided that this wording should be used: "in hierarchical communion." Cf. Modus 40 and the statements on canonical mission (n. 24).

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

None of your discussion here has a thing to do with primacy or infallibility.  It is the equivalent of one of the Catholics on the list

What list?

Quote
getting hold of Orthodox documents of local synods where issues were internally and hotly contested,

The Vatican claims universal jurisdcition for its curia and councils, and that great font of unity, the supreme pontiff, to make all things clear ex cathedra.

Quote
or marking other kinds of uncanonical issues over the centuries and saying that all this mess was proof positive that there is no such thing as universal Orthodoxy...You know the kind of Orthodoxy where NOTHING changes...not even teaching on birth control

Unlike the Vatican after 1853, the Orthodox hasn't changed on the issue: it continues to see and treat it as a pastoral rather than dogmatic issue, while reiterating the dogmatic condemnation of abortion.

Quote
...or marriage...etc.

The Orthodox teaching hasn't changed, but the practice, I admit, has become lax among many. But then many areas have become rather generous dishing out the Vatican's newly minted martical corban too.

Quote
Don't even mention the liturgy.

Given the novus ordo, I'm suprised you mention the liturgy.

Quote
There are no Orthodox liturgical histories you know because nothing changed in 2000 years...etc., etc., etc.

No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.
It seems you reacted to the West the same way that the Arians reacted to the Church when the doctrine of the Trinity was formally defined.

I'm sure you see it that way.

I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  Wink

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

That is all that you are offering here.  Snapshots of disconnected events that are no more indicative of any point in the topic of this thread
That is all I need to offer, that the claims of the supreme pontiffs are disconnencted, not the seamless and unbroken chain of consistency upon which the Ultramontanists wish to hang the Church.

I plan on dealing more on that here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32532.0.html

Quote
than the assertion that there are no liturgical histories in Orthodoxy because the liturgy has not changed in 2000 years.  Makes about as much sense....Professor.
Look at the quote box above, on change.

Quote
So quit horsin' around... laugh laugh laugh
naggin'?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 04:36:28 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #227 on: January 02, 2011, 04:49:50 PM »

Again you claim but fail to demonstrate.

You are happy with looks-like-sounds-like and you think you are clever but substantially you've got nothing there at all...but a few absurd pictures and disconnected ideas.

Probably won't even get you tenure in an Orthodox seminary, Prof.





Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #228 on: January 02, 2011, 06:21:02 PM »

A call to address the topic

One week ago Thomist commenced this thread with the title "Can Views on Infallibility Be Merged?"

Has that been addressed yet?

Have we had any definitions of what infallibility means to the Roman Catholics and to the Orthodox?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #229 on: January 02, 2011, 06:39:50 PM »

Topic? What is this gibberish!  Cheesy
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: 37,585



« Reply #230 on: January 02, 2011, 06:44:59 PM »

You appear to have diverted the discussion away from the Meletian, Acacian, and Photian schisms and the roles played in them by Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, and Nicholas I.
no. Fatherhood, sonship and Vespers called.  I do have priorities.

Care to give your thoughts on them?
Sure do, but I have to catch up on sleep now. Lord willing tommorrow.

Quote from: Ialmisry
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.:

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.

"Innocent played no direct role".

The west and east went in to schism until Chrysostom was restored to the diptychs. That Innocent I died a year before the schism ended is of no relevance.
This papautism, which causes ultramontanists to see everyting through the keyhole of the Sistine Chapel, prevents them from seeing that the credit they give to Pope Inncoent belongs to another, Pat. St. Alexander of Antioch.
Quote
The lead given by Alexander of Antioch in inserting the name of John Chrysostom in the diptychs of his liturgy was not at once followed by Atticus of Constantinople.  A letter from Innocent to a Bishop Maximimian in Macedonia discloses that Atticus had sent a deputation of clergy to Rome askig for restored communion, but would not agree to the condition imposed by Innocent, namely that John's name be included in the diptychs...Another extant letter from Innocent...asks a presbyter named Boniface to inform Atticus' supporters that to out of communion with the Roman see is to forsake the unity of the one Church.

Atticus finally yielded if only to reconcile the Johnites, and wrote to Cyril, Theophilus' successor at Alexandria, to inform him...surely one could remember the dead John without unbearable insult to the memory of your father Theophius, the equal of the apostles'. Cyril['s]...initial reaction in reply to Atticus was to describe John as a Judas Iscariot.  We owe to Nestorius the clear information that even Cyril ultimately and most unwilling agree to honour John's memory.
The Church in ancient society: from Galilee to Gregory the Great By Henry Chadwick
http://books.google.com/books?id=nLic1cabc8gC&pg=PA506&dq=Alexander+John+Chrysostom+Atticus&cd=5#

Quote
Only after a sermon of Alexander, in which he openly pleaded for the admission of John into the diptychs, and demonstrations threatened in the streets, did Atticus decide to swallow the bitter pill. He went to the thirteen year old emperor Theodosius II and asked for counsel. The emperor informed him, advised by the praetorian prefect Anthemius, that it could do no harm to enter the name of a dead person into the diptychs for the sake of peace.
John Chrysostom: bishop, reformer, martyr by Rudolf Brändle
http://books.google.com/books?id=FEUQAQAAIAAJ&q=Alexander+John+Chrysostom+diptychs&dq=Alexander+John+Chrysostom+diptychs&hl=en&ei=SvwgTfnpKM_vnQfq5LTPDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg

Quote
Alexander I was bishop of Antioch during the early decades of the fifth century. His mediation efforts led to restoration of communion between the Meletian and Eustathian groups, ending the Meletian schism at Antioch.

Little is known of the life of Alexander. Before his consecration as bishop, Alexander was known for his ascetic life, one of self discipline, poverty, and self-denial. He was also noted for his wisdom and eloquence. Through his efforts the Church of Constantinople restored the name of John Chrysostom to the diptychs of the Church.

In 415, Alexander, through his exhortations, brought the followers of Eustathius, Paulinus, and Evagrius, back into communion within the Church of Antioch. In a day of rejoicing, he led the united group of both clergy and laity in a great procession to an assembly in the great church in Antioch, filling the forum with people.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_I_of_Antioch

Quote
Thirty-eighth bishop of that see (413-421), praised by Theodoret (Church History V.35) "for the holiness and austerity of his life, his contempt of riches, his love of wisdom, and powerful eloquence." He healed the last remnants of the Meletian schism at Antioch, and obtained at Constantinople the restitution of the name of St. John Chrysostom to the ecclesiastical diptychs (registers).
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01285b.htm
Quote
At this time the see of Alexandria was held by Cyril, brother's son to Theophilus whom he succeeded; at the same time Jerusalem was occupied by John in succession to Cyril whom we have formerly mentioned. The Antiochenes were under the care of Alexander whose life and conversation were of a piece with his episcopate. Before his consecration he passed his time in ascetic training and in hard bodily exercise. He was known as a noble champion, teaching by word and confirming the word by deed. His predecessor was Porphyrius who guided that church after Flavianus, and left behind him many memorials of his loving character. He was also distinguished by intellectual power. The holy Alexander was specially rich in self discipline and philosophy; his life was one of poverty and self denial; his eloquence was copious and his other gifts were innumerable; by his advice and exhortation, the following of the great Eustathius which Paulinus, and after him Evagrius, had not permitted to be restored, was united to the rest of the body, and a festival was celebrated the like of which none had ever seen before. The bishop gathered all the faithful together, both clergy and laity, and marched with them to the assembly. The procession was accompanied by musicians; one hymn was sung by all in harmony, and thus he and his company went in procession from the western postern to the great church, filling the whole forum with people, and constituting a stream of thinking living beings like the Orontes in its course.

When this was seen by the Jews, by the victims of the Arian plague, and by the insignificant remnant of Pagans, they set up a groaning and wailing, and were distressed at seeing the rest of the rivers discharging their waters into the Church. By Alexander the name of the great John was first inscribed in the records of the Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27025.htm

Btw, more on the Meletian Schism, or Rome backs the wrong horse (just for you Elijah Maria).
Quote
At Antioch the great Meletius had been succeeded by Flavianus who, together with Diodorus, had undergone great struggles for the salvation of the sheep. Paulinus had indeed desired to receive the bishopric, but he was withstood by the clergy on the ground that it was not right that Meletius at his death should be succeeded by one who did not share his opinions, and that to the care of the flock ought to be advanced he who was conspicuous for many toils, and had run the risk of many perils for the sheeps' sake. Thus a lasting hostility arose among the Romans and the Egyptians against the East, and the ill feeling was not even destroyed on the death of Paulinus. After him when Evagrius had occupied his see, hostility was still shown to the great Flavianus, notwithstanding the fact that the promotion of Evagrius was a violation of the law of the Church, for he had been promoted by Paulinus alone in disregard of many canons. For a dying bishop is not permitted to ordain another to take his place, and all the bishops of a province are ordered to be convened; again no ordination of a bishop is permitted to take place without three bishops. Nevertheless they refused to take cognizance of any of these laws, embraced the communion of Evagrius, and filled the ears of the emperor with complaints against Flavianus, so that, being frequently importuned, he summoned him to Constantinople, and ordered him to repair to Rome.

Flavianus, however, urged in reply that it was now winter, and promised to obey the command in spring. He then returned home. But when the bishops of Rome, not only the admirable Damasus, but also Siricius his successor and Anastasius the successor of Siricius, importuned the emperor more vehemently and represented that, while he put down the rivals against his own authority, he suffered bold rebels against the laws of Christ to maintain their usurped authority, then he sent for him again and tried to force him to undertake the journey to Rome. On this Flavianus in his great wisdom spoke very boldly, and said, If, sir, there are some who accuse me of being unsound in the faith, or of life and conversation unworthy of the priesthood, I will accept my accusers themselves for judges, and will submit to whatever sentence they may give. But if they are contending about see and primacy I will not contest the point; I will not oppose those who wish to take them; I will give way and resign my bishopric. So, sir, give the episcopal throne of Antioch to whom you will.

The emperor admired his manliness and wisdom, and bade him go home again, and tend the church committed to his care.

After a considerable time had elapsed the emperor arrived at Rome, and once more encountered the charges advanced by the bishops on the ground that he was making no attempt to put down the tyranny of Flavianus. The emperor ordered them to set forth the nature of the tyranny, saying that he himself was Flavianus and had become his protector. The bishops rejoined that it was impossible for them to dispute with the emperor. He then exhorted them in future to join the churches in concord, put an end to the quarrel, and quench the fires of an useless controversy. Paulinus, he pointed out, had long since departed this life; Evagrius had been irregularly promoted; the eastern churches accepted Flavianus as their bishop. Not only the east but all Asia, Pontus, and Thrace were united in communion with him, and all Illyricum recognised his authority over the oriental bishops. In submission to these counsels the western bishops promised to bring their hostility to a close and to receive the envoys who should be sent them.

When Flavianus had been informed of this decision he dispatched to Rome certain worthy bishops with presbyters and deacons of Antioch, giving the chief authority among them to Acacius bishop of Berœa, who was famous throughout the world. On the arrival of Acacius and his party at Rome they put an end to the protracted quarrel, and after a war of seventeen years gave peace to the churches. When the Egyptians were informed of the reconciliation they too gave up their opposition, and gladly accepted the agreement which was made.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27025.htm

It is intersting to note that St. John was supported throughout the East (as the Vatican should have learned after Florence, a few metropolitans cannot lead the Orthodox into schism and heresy). St. Jerome, Rome's man in the East and Paulinus' loud mouth there, was quite isolated in his support for St. John deposition. His only notice in the Viris ilustribus is "John, presbyter of the church at Antioch, a follower of Eusebius of Emesa and Diodorus, is said to have composed many books, but of these I have only read his On the priesthood."
« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 06:52:27 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #231 on: January 03, 2011, 04:30:47 AM »


Dear Professors,

I see you and Todd are experts in Catholic Canon Law as well...It is all so clear in black and white, you know. 


Is there some cryptic meaning encoded into the canons of the Oriental Church quoted in message 189?  Is the meaning hidden from the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics unless they have a special decoder ring from the Vatican?
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #232 on: January 03, 2011, 05:52:46 AM »

Quote from: ialmisry
That leaves no authority to a pope depending on his election by the Council of Constance to declare its acts "illicit." If "Pope" Martin V thought the Councils Acts-and the Council makes no distinction between its Acts Sessions-then he should not have accepted election by them.

He didn't. The first five sessions held at Constance weren't part of the Ecumenical Council of Constance. They were an independent convocation called by John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund, not part of the council jointly convened by Gregory and John.

Quote from: ialmisry
Rather intereting catch 22 you got there:if the decree is not valid, then the act of electing Martin "Pope," which the Council predicates on its earlier acts, must be rejected as void as well. And "Pope" Gregory should not abdicated to Council,which had already issued Haec Sancta.  btw, when did those Popes depending on the Council of Constance for their legitimacy declare its acts illicit.

Gregory abdicated to the Ecumenical Council of Constance, of which the five sessions in question were not a part.

Quote from: ialmisry
There was evidently no pallium  in the early centuries:"According to the "Liber Pontificalis", it was first used in the first half of the fourth century."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11427a.htm
Are you saying that none of the first 33 "popes" were popes? Then you have bigger problems than first thought.

Are you sedevantist, saying that because the last three  popes were not coronated, that they were not popes?

The cardinals swore loyalty to Pope Benedict of the Vatican right after his election. They did not wait until his inaugral mass.

Again,the Ultramontanist claims made for deacons like Hilary, combined with this insistence that the papacy is not an order, pulls the rug under the "lack of episcopal character" as an excuse.

False bifurcation. A law does not have to have held from time immemorial to be a law, nor is it the case that a law cannot be repealed.

Quote from: ialmisry
Pope Adrian VI is too kind. He was papal enough to annull his predecessor's bull, and the bishops under him accepted that.

Sure. Of their own will. Had they decided not to there would not have been canon law precedent to compel them.

Quote from: ialmisry
When a Pope lays down a constitution, like Pope Gregory X did, and another annulls it, as Pope Adrian V did, it's big deal.  What you argue would be like insisting that John McCain is the Vice President of the United States, since he got the next highest votes, as we are free to ignore the XII Amendment.

No, that's a false analogy. The Church does not have a single written constitution as does the United States government. Procedural traditions are subject to change at any time, and since the procedures for electing a Pope don't have to be set by a Pope, there's no problem here.

Quote from: ialmisry
According to your present code of canon law, your present "dogmatic constitution," and the practice and theory underlying both stretching back to before Pope Adrian V,no, the cardinals did not.  Remember "can do nothing without their head."

When the Papal chair is vacant the Dean of the College of Cardinals acts as the regent of the Church for the purpose of electing a new Pope.

Quote from: ialmisry
To act licitly, I would suppose.

The first five sessions at Constance weren't summoned by aforementioned dual convocation.

Quote from: ialmisry
Pope Clement VIII submitted to Pope Martin V 26 July 1429, which was accepted a month later, ending officially the 51 year schism which started in 1378, with a decidedly phyletist backing.

Yes. And?

Quote from: ialmisry
we have st. Jerome's whiney letter on the schism, a favorite of Ultramontanist quote mines:

Personal insults directed at Christian saints, very classy.

Quote from: Ialmisry
This papautism, which causes ultramontanists to see everyting through the keyhole of the Sistine Chapel, prevents them from seeing that the credit they give to Pope Inncoent belongs to another, Pat. St. Alexander of Antioch.

Who cares who persuaded the east to abandon its error? Rome preaches the truth, those who oppose the truth are in schism with it. They can return for whatever reason they like.

Quote
Flavianus, however, urged in reply that it was now winter, and promised to obey the command in spring. He then returned home. But when the bishops of Rome, not only the admirable Damasus, but also Siricius his successor and Anastasius the successor of Siricius, importuned the emperor more vehemently and represented that, while he put down the rivals against his own authority, he suffered bold rebels against the laws of Christ to maintain their usurped authority, then he sent for him again and tried to force him to undertake the journey to Rome. On this Flavianus in his great wisdom spoke very boldly, and said, If, sir, there are some who accuse me of being unsound in the faith, or of life and conversation unworthy of the priesthood, I will accept my accusers themselves for judges, and will submit to whatever sentence they may give. But if they are contending about see and primacy I will not contest the point; I will not oppose those who wish to take them; I will give way and resign my bishopric. So, sir, give the episcopal throne of Antioch to whom you will.

Flavianus was right, and with the aid of the Emperor ended up being confirmed, happily. Rome has never claimed infallibility on matters of canon law. But Flavianus did not contest Rome's authority to decide. He accepted both that it was necessary for him to appear in Rome for judgment and that the judgment of Rome would be legally binding.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 05:53:37 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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #233 on: January 03, 2011, 11:55:10 AM »


Dear Professors,

I see you and Todd are experts in Catholic Canon Law as well...It is all so clear in black and white, you know. 


Is there some cryptic meaning encoded into the canons of the Oriental Church quoted in message 189?  Is the meaning hidden from the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics unless they have a special decoder ring from the Vatican?


Remember to drink your Ovaltine.
Logged


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #234 on: January 03, 2011, 12:22:37 PM »


Dear Professors,

I see you and Todd are experts in Catholic Canon Law as well...It is all so clear in black and white, you know. 


Is there some cryptic meaning encoded into the canons of the Oriental Church quoted in message 189?  Is the meaning hidden from the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics unless they have a special decoder ring from the Vatican?


Clearly there is something going on in the writing and reading of the law that you and others are missing.

If there was no skill set necessary to enact codes in either civil or canon law then we'd have not need for lawyers.

I've heard that there are no experts in canon law in Orthodoxy because the codes speak for themselves.  And then from others I've heard that was a ridiculous thing for those other Orthodox to say, because there are ways of reading and understanding the canons that are NOT intuitive or literal or visible to the untrained eye.

So maybe you should look to your own tradition.  I am sure it works in very similar ways.

Maybe you could apply for your Orthodox decoder ring.  It might give you something more useful to do with your spare time.
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: 11,413


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


WWW
« Reply #235 on: January 03, 2011, 01:22:41 PM »

Are there papers and minutes of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogues addressing this particular issue?
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.
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: 37,585



« Reply #236 on: January 03, 2011, 07:56:38 PM »


Dear Professors,

I see you and Todd are experts in Catholic Canon Law as well...It is all so clear in black and white, you know. 


Is there some cryptic meaning encoded into the canons of the Oriental Church quoted in message 189?  Is the meaning hidden from the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics unless they have a special decoder ring from the Vatican?

Clearly there is something going on in the writing and reading of the law that you and others are missing.
Haven't missed a thing.

If there was no skill set necessary to enact codes in either civil or canon law then we'd have not need for lawyers.
Government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers, and canons as a scholastic exercise go a long way to explain the origins of many messes.

I've heard that there are no experts in canon law in Orthodoxy because the codes speak for themselves.
If it isn't obvious with a modicum of historical notes and commentary, it should be removed from the books.

And then from others I've heard that was a ridiculous thing for those other Orthodox to say, because there are ways of reading and understanding the canons that are NOT intuitive or literal or visible to the untrained eye.
You hear that from those faceless and nameless all-knowing super Orthodox advisors you keep on alluding to, no?

So maybe you should look to your own tradition.  I am sure it works in very similar ways.
No, we don't have the mental gymnastics.

Maybe you could apply for your Orthodox decoder ring.  It might give you something more useful to do with your spare time.
The Orthodox canons are out in black and white. No neo-gnostic jurisprudence.
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 #237 on: January 04, 2011, 01:42:02 PM »


Dear Professors,

I see you and Todd are experts in Catholic Canon Law as well...It is all so clear in black and white, you know. 


Is there some cryptic meaning encoded into the canons of the Oriental Church quoted in message 189?  Is the meaning hidden from the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics unless they have a special decoder ring from the Vatican?

Clearly there is something going on in the writing and reading of the law that you and others are missing.
Haven't missed a thing.

You are no expert in canon law.  You do not grasp the fact that the pope is subject to due process, and you ignore the fact that the apostolic constitution protects the local power of the bishop, and the canons sustain that power and today it is greater, canonically, than it has ever been in the history of the Church.  You entirely miss the full implication of that reality.

So you may please those who think as you do but you do nothing to advance knowledge and understanding...if that is indeed what you are trying to do.
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: 37,585



« Reply #238 on: August 23, 2011, 03:21:27 PM »


Dear Professors,

I see you and Todd are experts in Catholic Canon Law as well...It is all so clear in black and white, you know. 


Is there some cryptic meaning encoded into the canons of the Oriental Church quoted in message 189?  Is the meaning hidden from the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics unless they have a special decoder ring from the Vatican?

Clearly there is something going on in the writing and reading of the law that you and others are missing.
Haven't missed a thing.

You are no expert in canon law.

Oh?  Who licensed you?

You do not grasp the fact that the pope is subject to due process,

if he were, Card. Law would be in Boston, not the Vatican.

Who says your supreme pontiff is subject to due process?  Not Pastor Aeternus, nor either of you codes of canon law.

and you ignore the fact that the apostolic constitution protects the local power of the bishop,
yes, and the Soviet and Yugoslav constitutions gave the republics the right of secession.  But when they tried to exercise that right....

And no, the "apostolic constition" doesn't protect the local power of the bishop from the grasp of your supreme pontiff. Not at all.

and the canons sustain that power and today it is greater, canonically, than it has ever been in the history of the Church.
then quoting those canons shouldn't be a problem, now, should it?

You entirely miss the full implication of that reality.
can't miss what doesn't exist in reality.

So you may please those who think as you do

says the preacher to her choir
but you do nothing to advance knowledge and understanding...if that is indeed what you are trying to do.
we both know and understand what your canons say, and their implications.  And are aware of what you are trying to do, to impede knowledge and understanding of what the Vatican is up to.
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: 8,329


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #239 on: August 23, 2011, 03:49:10 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
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: 37,585



« Reply #240 on: August 23, 2011, 03:52:55 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
This thread was stillborn, so it doesn't make a difference.

I had to quote a previous post, and noticed that I had not paid EM the courtesy of a reply.  Wouldn't want her to feel slighted. LOL.

Now I see I never addressed the OP:
Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

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

Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?
It's not a question of majority: God and you are a majority.  Ephesus presented an existential crisis.  We remained what we were, the Nestorians became what they became.  Not to chose is to chose.  That the Vatican thinks it solved existential angst with Pastor Aeternus doesn't mean we have to similarly fool ourselves.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 04:00:15 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
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,234



« Reply #241 on: August 23, 2011, 03:59:47 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
You can stuff your sorries in a sack, mister!

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
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: 37,585



« Reply #242 on: August 23, 2011, 04:00:49 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
You can stuff your sorries in a sack, mister!

In Christ,
Andrew
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
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #243 on: August 23, 2011, 05:15:28 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
You can stuff your sorries in a sack, mister!

In Christ,
Andrew
Huh

Obviously, you are not a golfer.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 05:16:12 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #244 on: August 23, 2011, 05:18:03 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
This thread was stillborn, so it doesn't make a difference.

I had to quote a previous post, and noticed that I had not paid EM the courtesy of a reply.  Wouldn't want her to feel slighted. LOL.
Seems like a silly reason to ressurrect this thread.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,585



« Reply #245 on: August 23, 2011, 05:25:01 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
This thread was stillborn, so it doesn't make a difference.

I had to quote a previous post, and noticed that I had not paid EM the courtesy of a reply.  Wouldn't want her to feel slighted. LOL.
Seems like a silly reason to ressurrect this thread.
That seemed a silly reason to post on this thread.
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
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,234



« Reply #246 on: August 23, 2011, 05:26:32 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
You can stuff your sorries in a sack, mister!

In Christ,
Andrew
Huh
One of George Costanza's famous lines. I don't think it pertains to anything in this thread, but I saw a Seinfeld reference, so I just went for it. Cheesy

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #247 on: August 23, 2011, 05:30:10 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
You can stuff your sorries in a sack, mister!

In Christ,
Andrew
Huh
One of George Costanza's famous lines. I don't think it pertains to anything in this thread, but I saw a Seinfeld reference, so I just went for it. Cheesy

In Christ,
Andrew

OC.net: Where no Christian says I'm sorry.*

*Except Severian, who won't stop.


//:=)
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #248 on: August 23, 2011, 05:41:01 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
You can stuff your sorries in a sack, mister!

In Christ,
Andrew
Huh
One of George Costanza's famous lines. I don't think it pertains to anything in this thread, but I saw a Seinfeld reference, so I just went for it. Cheesy

In Christ,
Andrew

OC.net: Where no Christian says I'm sorry.*


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29681.msg470054.html#msg470054
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: 37,585



« Reply #249 on: April 05, 2012, 01:59:56 PM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
This thread was stillborn, so it doesn't make a difference.

I had to quote a previous post, and noticed that I had not paid EM the courtesy of a reply.  Wouldn't want her to feel slighted. LOL.

Now I see I never addressed the OP:
Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

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

Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?
It's not a question of majority: God and you are a majority.  Ephesus presented an existential crisis.  We remained what we were, the Nestorians became what they became.  Not to chose is to chose.  That the Vatican thinks it solved existential angst with Pastor Aeternus doesn't mean we have to similarly fool ourselves.
Just thought of another issue: Pastor Aeternus states:
Quote
...   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.  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... 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.   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....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...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.

Since the supremacy depends on "succeeding" St. Peter (at Rome, Avignon is not addressed), and the ordinary bishops do not have the power to make one a "successor of Peter" as he is not their minister, it seems they have a problem with that transmission of authority.  This is particularly accute with the problem of the council of Constance and solving this

because it claimed the power to make a pope as its minister, and then the pope it made (more his successors) claimed later that it couldn't.

How does the colllege of cardinals, who do not have the power to appoint the supreme pontiff as their minister, do so?
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 #250 on: April 11, 2012, 12:45:02 AM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
This thread was stillborn, so it doesn't make a difference.

I had to quote a previous post, and noticed that I had not paid EM the courtesy of a reply.  Wouldn't want her to feel slighted. LOL.

Now I see I never addressed the OP:
Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

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

Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?
It's not a question of majority: God and you are a majority.  Ephesus presented an existential crisis.  We remained what we were, the Nestorians became what they became.  Not to chose is to chose.  That the Vatican thinks it solved existential angst with Pastor Aeternus doesn't mean we have to similarly fool ourselves.
Just thought of another issue: Pastor Aeternus states:
Quote
...   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.  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... 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.   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....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...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.

Since the supremacy depends on "succeeding" St. Peter (at Rome, Avignon is not addressed), and the ordinary bishops do not have the power to make one a "successor of Peter" as he is not their minister, it seems they have a problem with that transmission of authority.  This is particularly accute with the problem of the council of Constance and solving this

because it claimed the power to make a pope as its minister, and then the pope it made (more his successors) claimed later that it couldn't.

How does the colllege of cardinals, who do not have the power to appoint the supreme pontiff as their minister, do so?

You know, you COULD just make that pic your avvy or put it in your sig, save you the trouble of posting it over and over  Tongue
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #251 on: April 11, 2012, 01:15:11 AM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
This thread was stillborn, so it doesn't make a difference.

I had to quote a previous post, and noticed that I had not paid EM the courtesy of a reply.  Wouldn't want her to feel slighted. LOL.

Now I see I never addressed the OP:
Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

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

Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?
It's not a question of majority: God and you are a majority.  Ephesus presented an existential crisis.  We remained what we were, the Nestorians became what they became.  Not to chose is to chose.  That the Vatican thinks it solved existential angst with Pastor Aeternus doesn't mean we have to similarly fool ourselves.
Just thought of another issue: Pastor Aeternus states:
Quote
...   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.  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... 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.   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....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...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.

Since the supremacy depends on "succeeding" St. Peter (at Rome, Avignon is not addressed), and the ordinary bishops do not have the power to make one a "successor of Peter" as he is not their minister, it seems they have a problem with that transmission of authority.  This is particularly accute with the problem of the council of Constance and solving this

because it claimed the power to make a pope as its minister, and then the pope it made (more his successors) claimed later that it couldn't.

How does the colllege of cardinals, who do not have the power to appoint the supreme pontiff as their minister, do so?

You know, you COULD just make that pic your avvy or put it in your sig, save you the trouble of posting it over and over  Tongue
It is interesting to see how much more territory that Hungary, Lithuania and Serbia had in those days.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #252 on: April 11, 2012, 11:29:49 AM »

AS Seinfeld might ask, What's the deal with bringing the dead (threads) back to life?
This thread was stillborn, so it doesn't make a difference.

I had to quote a previous post, and noticed that I had not paid EM the courtesy of a reply.  Wouldn't want her to feel slighted. LOL.

Now I see I never addressed the OP:
Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

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

Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?
It's not a question of majority: God and you are a majority.  Ephesus presented an existential crisis.  We remained what we were, the Nestorians became what they became.  Not to chose is to chose.  That the Vatican thinks it solved existential angst with Pastor Aeternus doesn't mean we have to similarly fool ourselves.
Just thought of another issue: Pastor Aeternus states:
Quote
...   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.  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... 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.   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....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...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.

Since the supremacy depends on "succeeding" St. Peter (at Rome, Avignon is not addressed), and the ordinary bishops do not have the power to make one a "successor of Peter" as he is not their minister, it seems they have a problem with that transmission of authority.  This is particularly accute with the problem of the council of Constance and solving this

because it claimed the power to make a pope as its minister, and then the pope it made (more his successors) claimed later that it couldn't.

How does the colllege of cardinals, who do not have the power to appoint the supreme pontiff as their minister, do so?
Are you referring to the western schism?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,585



« Reply #253 on: April 11, 2012, 11:50:50 AM »

Just thought of another issue: Pastor Aeternus states:
Quote
...   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.  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... 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.   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....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...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.

Since the supremacy depends on "succeeding" St. Peter (at Rome, Avignon is not addressed), and the ordinary bishops do not have the power to make one a "successor of Peter" as he is not their minister, it seems they have a problem with that transmission of authority.  This is particularly accute with the problem of the council of Constance and solving this

because it claimed the power to make a pope as its minister, and then the pope it made (more his successors) claimed later that it couldn't.

How does the colllege of cardinals, who do not have the power to appoint the supreme pontiff as their minister, do so?
Are you referring to the western schism?
The assertion that its solution comports with the ecclesiology of Pastor Aeternus.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 11:53:11 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #254 on: April 11, 2012, 01:12:00 PM »

Just thought of another issue: Pastor Aeternus states:
Quote
...   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.  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... 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.   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....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...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.

Since the supremacy depends on "succeeding" St. Peter (at Rome, Avignon is not addressed), and the ordinary bishops do not have the power to make one a "successor of Peter" as he is not their minister, it seems they have a problem with that transmission of authority.  This is particularly accute with the problem of the council of Constance and solving this

because it claimed the power to make a pope as its minister, and then the pope it made (more his successors) claimed later that it couldn't.

How does the colllege of cardinals, who do not have the power to appoint the supreme pontiff as their minister, do so?
Are you referring to the western schism?
The assertion that its solution comports with the ecclesiology of Pastor Aeternus.
Well, since the one who the Church considers the valid Pope from this tragic even abdicated on his own, your argument is a non-issue.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,615


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #255 on: April 11, 2012, 03:07:31 PM »

The issue is that even then, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe that just the heirarchy in the Church like the decision of the magistratum (sp?) or Pope is infallible, and therefore we cannot profess or reconcile that doctrine with ourselves. The Orthodox view has been that as a whole, the Church is infallible; not just the clergy or congregation or monastics. But that whenever an issue comes up, there will always be at least one person, whether he be a clergy member, deacon or just a poor monastic, who will hold fast to the truth and somehow prevail in the end. This is why so many Orthodox Christians love St. Maximus the Confessor. For many reasons, many Roman Catholics find this very strange and foreign to them whenever I explain this view, possibly because lets face it, we like to believe that there is order. We like to believe that our heirarchs will make the right decision and that it will never become this complicated. Unfortunately though, that does not mean it is true, although I can sympathize with them.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #256 on: April 11, 2012, 05:03:46 PM »

The issue is that even then, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe that just the heirarchy in the Church like the decision of the magistratum (sp?) or Pope is infallible, and therefore we cannot profess or reconcile that doctrine with ourselves. The Orthodox view has been that as a whole, the Church is infallible; not just the clergy or congregation or monastics. But that whenever an issue comes up, there will always be at least one person, whether he be a clergy member, deacon or just a poor monastic, who will hold fast to the truth and somehow prevail in the end. This is why so many Orthodox Christians love St. Maximus the Confessor. For many reasons, many Roman Catholics find this very strange and foreign to them whenever I explain this view, possibly because lets face it, we like to believe that there is order. We like to believe that our heirarchs will make the right decision and that it will never become this complicated. Unfortunately though, that does not mean it is true, although I can sympathize with them.

Do you know where this takes you? "The faith once delivered unto the saints"?

If you take this statement seriously, then you can understand how the faith can change and at once remain the same.

Such serious appropriations of Orthodoxy will allow you get out of the dichotomous and incoherent manner of thought which came into Christianity via the Romans and by Romans, I mean the people who quickly cast Christian theology within their understanding of the world of in light of a philosophy from which they were greatly divorced. Both your Western and Eastern theologians.

As you intuitively allude to, infallibility gets worked out in time and among specific peoples and persons who must necessarily understand that which is handed to them in manner appropriated by the age in which they live.

How they handle the deposit of faith will continue to mark it and shape it.

Saints of every era appear not to maintain a faith uttered in one moment in time, whether at one moment within the Church of the New Testament, or at the end of a specific Ecumenical Council, or revealed in the sayings of an illumined Elder, but to allow a faith which in the fullness of time to come to fruition, to grow, and to develop.

Till the last of these Saints takes within their hands what was given to them, the tradition, the faith once delivered unto them all, is not yet fully revealed. Perhaps not even in the age to come will the fullness of faith be granted unto all, but still worked out into time immemorial.

This is the folly of revisiting the past to learn the language used within a specific time to only mimic its phrasing once more.

To revisit the past authentically is to ask how were those words appropriate to the times and persons in which they were spoken and how can we do the same, if at all?





 
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #257 on: April 11, 2012, 05:51:13 PM »

The issue is that even then, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe that just the heirarchy in the Church like the decision of the magistratum (sp?) or Pope is infallible, and therefore we cannot profess or reconcile that doctrine with ourselves. The Orthodox view has been that as a whole, the Church is infallible; not just the clergy or congregation or monastics. But that whenever an issue comes up, there will always be at least one person, whether he be a clergy member, deacon or just a poor monastic, who will hold fast to the truth and somehow prevail in the end. This is why so many Orthodox Christians love St. Maximus the Confessor. For many reasons, many Roman Catholics find this very strange and foreign to them whenever I explain this view, possibly because lets face it, we like to believe that there is order. We like to believe that our heirarchs will make the right decision and that it will never become this complicated. Unfortunately though, that does not mean it is true, although I can sympathize with them.

Do you know where this takes you? "The faith once delivered unto the saints"?

If you take this statement seriously, then you can understand how the faith can change and at once remain the same.

Such serious appropriations of Orthodoxy will allow you get out of the dichotomous and incoherent manner of thought which came into Christianity via the Romans and by Romans, I mean the people who quickly cast Christian theology within their understanding of the world of in light of a philosophy from which they were greatly divorced. Both your Western and Eastern theologians.

As you intuitively allude to, infallibility gets worked out in time and among specific peoples and persons who must necessarily understand that which is handed to them in manner appropriated by the age in which they live.

How they handle the deposit of faith will continue to mark it and shape it.

Saints of every era appear not to maintain a faith uttered in one moment in time, whether at one moment within the Church of the New Testament, or at the end of a specific Ecumenical Council, or revealed in the sayings of an illumined Elder, but to allow a faith which in the fullness of time to come to fruition, to grow, and to develop.

Till the last of these Saints takes within their hands what was given to them, the tradition, the faith once delivered unto them all, is not yet fully revealed. Perhaps not even in the age to come will the fullness of faith be granted unto all, but still worked out into time immemorial.

This is the folly of revisiting the past to learn the language used within a specific time to only mimic its phrasing once more.

To revisit the past authentically is to ask how were those words appropriate to the times and persons in which they were spoken and how can we do the same, if at all?
 

Not only accurate but wise...
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,387


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #258 on: April 11, 2012, 08:17:54 PM »

I'd like to mention something. In the logic portion of one of my math classes, in high school, they told us that the word infallible means not that someone is incapable of being wrong, but that something (or someone) cannot be tested as to whether or not they are wrong. As in, "The journal would not publish the study because the experiment was not fallible." So, perhaps it was once meant that the RCC Pope is considered the top prelate of the Church, much as the president in the U.S. is also given the title, the Commander in Chief. Then, the understanding of it got sidetracked, and everybody sort of got confused. Growing up in the RCC, I never thought that he had the right to, for instance, say that Monday is really Thursday, yellow is blue and goats can fly, and expect all the Roman Catholics in the world to have to believe him. We had a lot of respect for him, but we didn't go quite that far. The Pope is a human being; he is loved by a lot of people, but he's not Gandalf or something. Even though he does get to wear a really big hat.

 Smiley

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #259 on: April 11, 2012, 08:52:47 PM »

I'd like to mention something. In the logic portion of one of my math classes, in high school, they told us that the word infallible means not that someone is incapable of being wrong, but that something (or someone) cannot be tested as to whether or not they are wrong. As in, "The journal would not publish the study because the experiment was not fallible." So, perhaps it was once meant that the RCC Pope is considered the top prelate of the Church, much as the president in the U.S. is also given the title, the Commander in Chief. Then, the understanding of it got sidetracked, and everybody sort of got confused. Growing up in the RCC, I never thought that he had the right to, for instance, say that Monday is really Thursday, yellow is blue and goats can fly, and expect all the Roman Catholics in the world to have to believe him. We had a lot of respect for him, but we didn't go quite that far. The Pope is a human being; he is loved by a lot of people, but he's not Gandalf or something. Even though he does get to wear a really big hat.

 Smiley



Purrrrrr-fect.... Cool
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,387


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #260 on: April 11, 2012, 08:55:01 PM »

Thank you.   Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #261 on: April 12, 2012, 07:53:47 AM »

I'd like to mention something. In the logic portion of one of my math classes, in high school, they told us that the word infallible means not that someone is incapable of being wrong, but that something (or someone) cannot be tested as to whether or not they are wrong. As in, "The journal would not publish the study because the experiment was not fallible." So, perhaps it was once meant that the RCC Pope is considered the top prelate of the Church, much as the president in the U.S. is also given the title, the Commander in Chief. Then, the understanding of it got sidetracked, and everybody sort of got confused. Growing up in the RCC, I never thought that he had the right to, for instance, say that Monday is really Thursday, yellow is blue and goats can fly, and expect all the Roman Catholics in the world to have to believe him. We had a lot of respect for him, but we didn't go quite that far. The Pope is a human being; he is loved by a lot of people, but he's not Gandalf or something. Even though he does get to wear a really big hat.

 Smiley



Purrrrrr-fect.... Cool

But that's not what I've ever seen taught. It's taught that by Divine grace as the Pope, he is incapable of/protected from being wrong (at the appropriate times).
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 07:55:05 AM by Aindriú » 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: 37,585



« Reply #262 on: April 17, 2012, 06:22:21 PM »

Christ is risen!
Just thought of another issue: Pastor Aeternus states:
Quote
...   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.  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... 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.   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....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...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.

Since the supremacy depends on "succeeding" St. Peter (at Rome, Avignon is not addressed), and the ordinary bishops do not have the power to make one a "successor of Peter" as he is not their minister, it seems they have a problem with that transmission of authority.  This is particularly accute with the problem of the council of Constance and solving this

because it claimed the power to make a pope as its minister, and then the pope it made (more his successors) claimed later that it couldn't.

How does the colllege of cardinals, who do not have the power to appoint the supreme pontiff as their minister, do so?
Are you referring to the western schism?
The assertion that its solution comports with the ecclesiology of Pastor Aeternus.
Well, since the one who the Church considers the valid Pope from this tragic even abdicated on his own, your argument is a non-issue.
The Church is indifferent to which of your candidates for font of unity was entitled to your office of "supreme pontiff."

But as for your Vatican, you are forgetting the issue of Haec Sancta Synodus.  The Church has valid decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and invalid decrees of void concils, but invalid decrees of Ecumenical (purported in the case of Constance) Councils?  No, the Church knows of no such creature.

Your "magisterium" hasn't seen fit to promulgate an "infallible" list of those supreme pontiffs of yours "gifted with infallibility," leaving the question of "valid pope" per Pastor Aeternus up in the air: Pope Alexander VI of Old Rome, which everyone in the Vatican's following counts as a "valid pope," within a century after took the number after Pope Alexander V of Old Rome, or rather Pisa. As the "Catholic Encyclopedia" admits:
Quote
Whether or not Alexander was a true pope is a question which canonists and historians of the Schism still discuss. The Church has not pronounced a definite opinion nor is it at all likely that she will. [emphasis added] The Roman "Gerarchia Cattolica", not an authoritative work, which prior to 1906 contained a chronological list of the popes, designated Alexander V as the 211th pope, succeeding Gregory XII, resigned. (See PAPACY.) His remains are interred in the church of St. Francis at Bologna in a tomb magnificently restored in 1889 under the direction of Leo XIII.
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01288a.htm
He was succeeded by Pope John XXIII, who called the council of Constance, which you now recognize as "Ecumenical" and which issued Haec Sancta Synodus, which anti-Pope Gregory XII submitted and which elected Pope Martin V, whom your current supreme pontiff claims to succeed.  Both Popes Alexander V and John XXIII were listed by the Annuario Pontificio into the 20th century, and both are commemorated in the papal medalions on the walls of St. Paul-outside-the-Walls in Rome.
Quote
Doubt still shrouds the validity of the three rival lines of pontiffs during the four decades subsequent to the still disputed papal election of 1378. This makes suspect the credentials of the cardinals created by the Roman, Avignon, and Pisan claimants to the Apostolic See. Unity was finally restored without a definitive solution to the question; for the Council of Constance succeeded in terminating the Western Schism, not by declaring which of the three claimants was the rightful one, but by eliminating all of them by forcing their abdication or deposition, and then setting up a novel arrangement for choosing a new pope acceptable to all sides. To this day the Church has never made any official, authoritative pronouncement about the papal lines of succession for this confusing period; nor has Martin V or any of his successors. Modern scholars are not agreed in their solutions; although they tend to favor the Roman line
Broderick, J.F. 1987. "The Sacred College of Cardinals: Size and Geographical Composition (1099–1986)." Archivum historiae Pontificiae, 25: p. 14

So you have no basis to claim your church considers anti-pope Gregory XII as valid over Pope Alexander V, Pope John XXIII, the council of Constance and its decree Haec Sancta Synods.

This came up in a debate, where the issues of Orthodox succession were dealt with rather nicely:
Quote
Scott starts out by pre-supposing that Pope Benedict XVI is the current and valid successor to St. Peter's See, and the valid Patriarch of the Latin Church, and says he feels safe in assuming I will recognize these facts since apostolic succession in general is something we both agree on.

Unfortunately, Scott doesn't know as much about the Eastern traditions as he has made out. There are two theories of valid succession, the so-called Cyprianic view and the Augustinian view. The Cyprianic view is essentially that valid orders, succession and sacraments are a function of the mystical body of Christ, which must of necessity be One. The true church and true succession are not something that can be separated. On the other hand, the Augustinian view is that they can be separated. If orders are bestowed with proper form and intent, then they are valid, regardless of how the Church feels about it.

Eastern Churches have always generally held to the Cyprianic view. Valid succession is a really a question of valid Church. Since Orthodoxy considers Rome's status as a valid church highly questionable, it considers the Pope as a valid bishop equally as questionable.

A problem for Rome is that the Papacy doesn't really fit into the Augustinian model. There are anti-popes both now and in times past with valid orders according to the Catholic reckoning of such things, who have been appointed as Bishop of Rome with correct form and intent. The Papacy is the one ecclesiastical office where Catholics have to fall back to a kind of Cyprianic model, where the true holder of the office is dependant on what the true Church recognizes.

All of which means that Orthodoxy would consider the proposition that the Pope holds any kind of valid orders, to be highly questionable at best, let alone recognizing Benedict as the "Patriarch of the Latin Church". There would be some Orthodox who would express that sentiment, but it would not be the standard position.

The second problem with recognizing Benedict XVI as the "current and valid "successor of Peter, "rightfully sitting in Peter's see", is that as we have seen in my opening statement, Peter has more than one see. At the very least Antioch historically has been regarded as Peter's See and Peter's Chair, and Pope Gregory also regarded Alexandria as Peter's see. However, for Scott to win this debate, it's not enough to prove that Benedict is one current successor of Peter, he must prove he is the only successor.
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/rebut1.htm
Under the Augustanian view, Popes Alexander V and John XXIII are as valid as anti-Pope Gregory XII.  To try to apply the Cyprian view to vindicate the latter nullifies the argument, as no Pope of Old Rome qualifies under St. Cyprian since 1014.
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
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,387


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #263 on: April 17, 2012, 06:54:53 PM »

I'd like to mention something. In the logic portion of one of my math classes, in high school, they told us that the word infallible means not that someone is incapable of being wrong, but that something (or someone) cannot be tested as to whether or not they are wrong. As in, "The journal would not publish the study because the experiment was not fallible." So, perhaps it was once meant that the RCC Pope is considered the top prelate of the Church, much as the president in the U.S. is also given the title, the Commander in Chief. Then, the understanding of it got sidetracked, and everybody sort of got confused. Growing up in the RCC, I never thought that he had the right to, for instance, say that Monday is really Thursday, yellow is blue and goats can fly, and expect all the Roman Catholics in the world to have to believe him. We had a lot of respect for him, but we didn't go quite that far. The Pope is a human being; he is loved by a lot of people, but he's not Gandalf or something. Even though he does get to wear a really big hat.

 Smiley



Purrrrrr-fect.... Cool

But that's not what I've ever seen taught. It's taught that by Divine grace as the Pope, he is incapable of/protected from being wrong (at the appropriate times).

That's funny, what I said is what I was told many times in my Confirmation classes, and what I read over the years. Go figure.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #264 on: April 17, 2012, 10:15:47 PM »

I'd like to mention something. In the logic portion of one of my math classes, in high school, they told us that the word infallible means not that someone is incapable of being wrong, but that something (or someone) cannot be tested as to whether or not they are wrong. As in, "The journal would not publish the study because the experiment was not fallible." So, perhaps it was once meant that the RCC Pope is considered the top prelate of the Church, much as the president in the U.S. is also given the title, the Commander in Chief. Then, the understanding of it got sidetracked, and everybody sort of got confused. Growing up in the RCC, I never thought that he had the right to, for instance, say that Monday is really Thursday, yellow is blue and goats can fly, and expect all the Roman Catholics in the world to have to believe him. We had a lot of respect for him, but we didn't go quite that far. The Pope is a human being; he is loved by a lot of people, but he's not Gandalf or something. Even though he does get to wear a really big hat.

 Smiley



Purrrrrr-fect.... Cool

But that's not what I've ever seen taught. It's taught that by Divine grace as the Pope, he is incapable of/protected from being wrong (at the appropriate times).

That's funny, what I said is what I was told many times in my Confirmation classes, and what I read over the years. Go figure.

Yeah, go figure.

CCC:
Quote
The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#891

Webster's Dictionary
Quote
char·ism     noun \ˈker-ˌi-zəm, ˈka-ˌri-\
plural cha·ris·ma·ta or charisms

Definition of CHARISM

: an extraordinary power (as of healing) given a Christian by the Holy Spirit for the good of the church
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charism

I guess your classes weren't using the catechism?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #265 on: April 18, 2012, 02:42:37 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

At this point, are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches light years apart, as is often supposed? 
I would say that what you have mentioned here is going to play an important role in any future attempt at reunion and full communion between the Roman and Orthodox Churches. As I understand it to be,  Father Sullivan and others have maintained an important, and pehaps essential, element of a dogma being considered as infallibly defined, is that it receive the consent of the whole Church. Now, if the Eastern Orthodox Church is supposed to be a Sister Church of the Roman church, and if the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the infallibility of the Roman Pope as defined in Vatican I, then according to the above method of thinking,would it not be true that the doctrine of papal infallibility is itself susceptible to reform and reconsideration by the whole Church, East and West. 
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,329


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #266 on: April 18, 2012, 11:02:10 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

At this point, are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches light years apart, as is often supposed? 
I would say that what you have mentioned here is going to play an important role in any future attempt at reunion and full communion between the Roman and Orthodox Churches. As I understand it to be,  Father Sullivan and others have maintained an important, and pehaps essential, element of a dogma being considered as infallibly defined, is that it receive the consent of the whole Church. Now, if the Eastern Orthodox Church is supposed to be a Sister Church of the Roman church, and if the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the infallibility of the Roman Pope as defined in Vatican I, then according to the above method of thinking,would it not be true that the doctrine of papal infallibility is itself susceptible to reform and reconsideration by the whole Church, East and West. 

That's the argument to which I alluded in the other thread regarding the 'work around.' The problem is that while it may be intellectually defensible on some levels, the history of apologetics and polemics coming from the West - and to a lessor extent the East (at least regarding Vatican 1) requires that I restate my comment of 'Easier said than done.'
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #267 on: April 18, 2012, 07:19:52 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

At this point, are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches light years apart, as is often supposed? 
I would say that what you have mentioned here is going to play an important role in any future attempt at reunion and full communion between the Roman and Orthodox Churches. As I understand it to be,  Father Sullivan and others have maintained an important, and pehaps essential, element of a dogma being considered as infallibly defined, is that it receive the consent of the whole Church. Now, if the Eastern Orthodox Church is supposed to be a Sister Church of the Roman church, and if the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the infallibility of the Roman Pope as defined in Vatican I, then according to the above method of thinking,would it not be true that the doctrine of papal infallibility is itself susceptible to reform and reconsideration by the whole Church, East and West. 

That's the argument to which I alluded in the other thread regarding the 'work around.' The problem is that while it may be intellectually defensible on some levels, the history of apologetics and polemics coming from the West - and to a lessor extent the East (at least regarding Vatican 1) requires that I restate my comment of 'Easier said than done.'
Right. It's not going to be resolved overnight, but there is an open road available.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #268 on: April 26, 2012, 09:34:45 AM »

I'd like to mention something. In the logic portion of one of my math classes, in high school, they told us that the word infallible means not that someone is incapable of being wrong, but that something (or someone) cannot be tested as to whether or not they are wrong. As in, "The journal would not publish the study because the experiment was not fallible." So, perhaps it was once meant that the RCC Pope is considered the top prelate of the Church, much as the president in the U.S. is also given the title, the Commander in Chief. Then, the understanding of it got sidetracked, and everybody sort of got confused. Growing up in the RCC, I never thought that he had the right to, for instance, say that Monday is really Thursday, yellow is blue and goats can fly, and expect all the Roman Catholics in the world to have to believe him. We had a lot of respect for him, but we didn't go quite that far. The Pope is a human being; he is loved by a lot of people, but he's not Gandalf or something. Even though he does get to wear a really big hat.

 Smiley



Purrrrrr-fect.... Cool

But that's not what I've ever seen taught. It's taught that by Divine grace as the Pope, he is incapable of/protected from being wrong (at the appropriate times).

Interesting debate, but could one of you explain further about this alternate meaning of "infallible" that you're debating? I'm not too clear on "infallible [second meaning] means not that someone is incapable of being wrong, but that something (or someone) cannot be tested as to whether or not they are wrong. As in, "The journal would not publish the study because the experiment was not fallible." " Thanks in advance.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,387


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #269 on: April 26, 2012, 08:05:42 PM »

It's really funny that I grew up as a Roman Catholic and was never aware of the deep, dark, Godzilla-like nefariousness of that creature called the Pope. I mean, I always thought of him as an old man who liked to travel and talk about world peace. How did I miss all his super powers? It's like you need a decoder ring...
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
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 0.264 seconds with 73 queries.