Topic: The Fifth Ecumenical Council on Pope St. Leo's infallibility

[Vadim]

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, The Sentence of the Synod

"...And it was shewn in the acts that in former times Ibas had been accused because of the very impiety which is contained in this letter; at first by Proclus, of holy memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius, of pious memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession to Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius, bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beyroot.  Afterwards the same Ibas, being found guilty, was cast out of his bishopric.  Such was the state of the case, how could anyone presume to say that that impious letter was received by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it throughout?  Nevertheless in order that they who thus calumniate the holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity of doing so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious memory, sometime Pope of Old Rome.  And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we interrupted our proceedings so as to recite also the definition of the faith which was set forth by the holy council of Chalcedon, so that we might compare the things in the epistle with this decree.  And when this was done it was perfectly clear that the contents of the epistle were wholly opposite to those of the definition."

"And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers" - this is just the Orthodox teaching on the infallibility of the Church; it contradicts as to Roman Catolic teaching (Pope Leo's treatise could not become a rule of faith till it was confirmed by the Council), and to the protestant teachings as well (because of the words "faith of the holy Fathers").

[ialmisry]

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, The Sentence of the Synod

"...And it was shewn in the acts that in former times Ibas had been accused because of the very impiety which is contained in this letter; at first by Proclus, of holy memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius, of pious memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession to Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius, bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beyroot.  Afterwards the same Ibas, being found guilty, was cast out of his bishopric.  Such was the state of the case, how could anyone presume to say that that impious letter was received by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it throughout?  Nevertheless in order that they who thus calumniate the holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity of doing so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious memory, sometime Pope of Old Rome.  And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we interrupted our proceedings so as to recite also the definition of the faith which was set forth by the holy council of Chalcedon, so that we might compare the things in the epistle with this decree.  And when this was done it was perfectly clear that the contents of the epistle were wholly opposite to those of the definition."

"And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers" - this is just the Orthodox teaching on the infallibility of the Church; it contradicts as to Roman Catolic teaching (Pope Leo's treatise could not become a rule of faith till it was confirmed by the Council), and to the protestant teachings as well (because of the words "faith of the holy Fathers").

The Spirit is descended!

Pope St. Leo had wanted the Council to just rubber stamp his Tome as the definition of Faith.  Instead the Fathers wrote their own, and, as is explicitely stated in the Acts, accepted the Tome only after it was examined for agreement with the Faith of the Holy Fathers.

Though most Vatican apologists, confronted with these facts, will deny the Tome is ex cathedra (while still citing the acclamation "Peter has spoken through Leo" as proof of "infallibility"), it is evident that if such a thing as "ex cathedra" pronouncements existed, the Tome would be one.

[Vadim]

And the same statement was made on the Pope Vigilius.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, The Sentence of the Synod

"And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all.  Moreover the most pious Emperor, according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood should after common discussion impose a common faith.  On this account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was not right that the scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby.  And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers.  For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles:  “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.”

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon:  “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong 307as a well-founded kingdom;” and again in Ecclesiastes he says:  “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.”

So also the Lord himself says:  “Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven.  For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre):  And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul:  “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”  Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them."

These statements also contradict to Roman Catholic teaching of infallibility (as well as to the protestant teachings), but express just the Orthodox teaching.

1. "Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith," (no discussions are needed according to Roman Catholics and according to protestants)

2. But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre):  And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul:  “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”  Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.

- here the Council explicitly stated that Vigilius's sentence on the Three Chapters "ex sese" would not be enough.

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

And the same statement was made on the Pope Vigilius.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, The Sentence of the Synod

"And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all.  Moreover the most pious Emperor, according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood should after common discussion impose a common faith.  On this account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was not right that the scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby.  And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers.  For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles:  “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.”

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon:  “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong 307as a well-founded kingdom;” and again in Ecclesiastes he says:  “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.”

So also the Lord himself says:  “Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven.  For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre):  And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul:  “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”  Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them."

These statements also contradict to Roman Catholic teaching of infallibility (as well as to the protestant teachings), but express just the Orthodox teaching.

1. "Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith," (no discussions are needed according to Roman Catholics and according to protestants)

2. But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre):  And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul:  “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”  Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.

- here the Council explicitly stated that Vigilius's sentence on the Three Chapters "ex sese" would not be enough.

Add to that the fact that the Fifth Council was being held over Pope Vigilius' objection.

[Aindriú]

Pope St. Leo had wanted the Council to just rubber stamp his Tome as the definition of Faith.  Instead the Fathers wrote their own, and, as is explicitely stated in the Acts, accepted the Tome only after it was examined for agreement with the Faith of the Holy Fathers.

It seems the Bishop of Rome carried some belief that it would be accepted in this way?

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

Pope St. Leo had wanted the Council to just rubber stamp his Tome as the definition of Faith.  Instead the Fathers wrote their own, and, as is explicitely stated in the Acts, accepted the Tome only after it was examined for agreement with the Faith of the Holy Fathers.

It seems the Bishop of Rome carried some belief that it would be accepted in this way?

Perhaps, but the Church in Council believed otherwise, a fact Pope St. Leo had to admit (in a letter to the Empress) when even his suffragans in the Balkans honored canon 28, over his protest and claims to have annulled it.

[Peter J]

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

The Dictates of the Pope
That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
That the pope may depose the absent.
That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
That this is the only name in the world.
That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html

[Peter J]

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

[Paisius]

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

I've also heard a number of Catholics say that God would probably kill a pope before He allowed him to officially pronounce heresy. 

[Shlomlokh]

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

I've also heard a number of Catholics say that God would probably kill a pope before He allowed him to officially pronounce heresy. 

I have heard that too. I've also heard what Peter said above. It's absolutely impossible for an infallible pope to err! Where can I get that ability?

In Christ,
Andrew

[Volnutt]

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

If the Pope can't fall into heresy doesn't that make him more than a man?

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

[biro]

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

Or, that the 'problem' of which you are afraid is little borne out in reality. 

Not a surprise.

[Peter J]

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

Or, that the 'problem' of which you are afraid is little borne out in reality. 

Not a surprise.

I would suggest that the 'problem' isn't really in the dogmatic definition from Vatican I, but rather in the way many/most Catholics imagine papal infallibility.

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

Or, that the 'problem' of which you are afraid is little borne out in reality. 

Not a surprise.

What "problem" is that?

[WetCatechumen]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

1) the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church agree to disagree
2) I've heard of one or two bishops who disagree with the statement of the Russian Holy Synod on the matter.  No a great dissent.  On the other hand, the "dissent" on Humanae Vitae was the majority, and since your supreme pontiff refused to give a straight answer on whether it was given ex cathedra, you are deluding yourself to think your ecclesiastical community has a common answer to this question.
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
4) is irrelevant
5) any Orthodox bishop that thinks filioque is legitimate, per the Council of Constantinople IV 879 should repent or be deposed
6) any Orthodox bishop that allows that should be deposed, as the Holy Synod of Romania recently demonstrated, to the cheers of the other Orthodox Churches.
7) The OCA is the only one whose autocephaly is questioned, and all 14 of the other Churches find it canonical.

So at most each bishop is an island in an archipelago.

The fact that you list 6) demonstrates that you are grasping at straws, as the second largest EO Church, Romania, forced one of its highest bishops to repent of allowing this, and stating that any bishop that did so would be automatically deposed, a statement greeted with approval and no dissent by ALL the Orthodox Churches.   In other words, you aren't looking at the answers staring you right in the face.

I can talk to any of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, and I'm sure I'll get answers different from your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, let alone Cardinal Martini.

[WetCatechumen]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

1) the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church agree to disagree
2) I've heard of one or two bishops who disagree with the statement of the Russian Holy Synod on the matter.  No a great dissent.  On the other hand, the "dissent" on Humanae Vitae was the majority, and since your supreme pontiff refused to give a straight answer on whether it was given ex cathedra, you are deluding yourself to think your ecclesiastical community has a common answer to this question.
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
4) is irrelevant
5) any Orthodox bishop that thinks filioque is legitimate, per the Council of Constantinople IV 879 should repent or be deposed
6) any Orthodox bishop that allows that should be deposed, as the Holy Synod of Romania recently demonstrated, to the cheers of the other Orthodox Churches.
7) The OCA is the only one whose autocephaly is questioned, and all 14 of the other Churches find it canonical.

So at most each bishop is an island in an archipelago.

The fact that you list 6) demonstrates that you are grasping at straws, as the second largest EO Church, Romania, forced one of its highest bishops to repent of allowing this, and stating that any bishop that did so would be automatically deposed, a statement greeted with approval and no dissent by ALL the Orthodox Churches.   In other words, you aren't looking at the answers staring you right in the face.

I can talk to any of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, and I'm sure I'll get answers different from your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, let alone Cardinal Martini.

No, because I've tried to get answers on these and despite the fact that one polemicist on the internet thinks the answers are staring me right in the face, there is an Orthodox priest who has specifically argued against me that consubstantiation and sacramental union are valid ways of looking at the Eucharist. Fr. Anastasios says that birth control is wrong, period. You guys don't even know whether or not you can say that you can't know that the monophysite Orthodox churches have valid holy orders.

And you'd have to excommunicate the entire Antiochian Church when it comes to the intercommunion.

And you admitted yourself we've no idea if OCA is canonical. What about Ukraine? Is the matter that clear cut? Or ROCOR? Sure, you guys patched that up - but who was right when the Russian Church was controlled by the communist party?

Sorry, but you get no dice. Orthodoxy is a confusing mess to me, an outsider.

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

1) the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church agree to disagree
2) I've heard of one or two bishops who disagree with the statement of the Russian Holy Synod on the matter.  No a great dissent.  On the other hand, the "dissent" on Humanae Vitae was the majority, and since your supreme pontiff refused to give a straight answer on whether it was given ex cathedra, you are deluding yourself to think your ecclesiastical community has a common answer to this question.
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
4) is irrelevant
5) any Orthodox bishop that thinks filioque is legitimate, per the Council of Constantinople IV 879 should repent or be deposed
6) any Orthodox bishop that allows that should be deposed, as the Holy Synod of Romania recently demonstrated, to the cheers of the other Orthodox Churches.
7) The OCA is the only one whose autocephaly is questioned, and all 14 of the other Churches find it canonical.

So at most each bishop is an island in an archipelago.

The fact that you list 6) demonstrates that you are grasping at straws, as the second largest EO Church, Romania, forced one of its highest bishops to repent of allowing this, and stating that any bishop that did so would be automatically deposed, a statement greeted with approval and no dissent by ALL the Orthodox Churches.   In other words, you aren't looking at the answers staring you right in the face.

I can talk to any of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, and I'm sure I'll get answers different from your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, let alone Cardinal Martini.

No, because I've tried to get answers on these and despite the fact that one polemicist on the internet thinks the answers are staring me right in the face, there is an Orthodox priest who has specifically argued against me that consubstantiation and sacramental union are valid ways of looking at the Eucharist.

1) priest, not a bishop.  Perhaps his bishop should correct him. 2) valid for whom? Not the Orthodox, as we teach no such thing, for Protestants, it is certainly an improvement on the Calvinist view, which was specifically condemned as heretical at the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem.

 

Fr. Anastasios says that birth control is wrong, period.

Fr. Anastaios is not in communion with the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, nor those with whom they are in communion, such as myself.  You, however, are in communion with Cardinal Martini and the bishops that Cardinal Lefebvre ordained, and they don't agree on this issue, or with your supreme pontiff.

You guys don't even know whether or not you can say that you can't know that the monophysite Orthodox churches have valid holy orders.

Since you are neither Oriental Orthodox nor Eastern Orthodox, how is it your business?

And you'd have to excommunicate the entire Antiochian Church when it comes to the intercommunion.

I go to an Antiochian Church, and I see people turned away from communion all the time. In fact, often there is an announcement beforehand on how only prepared Orthodox Christians can commune.

And you admitted yourself we've no idea if OCA is canonical.

I've said no such thing. In fact, I am quite known for saying the opposite.  On that, I am in agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of Alexandria, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Catholicos of Georgia, the Archbishops of Cyprus, Greece, Albania, and the Metropolitans of Poland and the Czech Lands and Slovakia.  And of the Orthodox Chruch in America.

What about Ukraine? Is the matter that clear cut?

Yes.

Or ROCOR?

Yes.

Sure, you guys patched that up - but who was right when the Russian Church was controlled by the communist party?

is there some reason why you are worried about things which I am guessing were before you were born?

Who was right in the Meletian schism? Patriarch St. Meletius, St. Basil, EP St. Gregory and EP St. John Chrysostom, or Pope St. Athansius, St. Jerome, and Pope St. Damasus?

Sorry, but you get no dice. Orthodoxy is a confusing mess to me, an outsider.

That's your problem.

You Ultramontanists all claim that you have this infallible guide, who unfortunately won't tell you when he is infallible.  Some guidance!

[Robb]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.


Just confuses me and the other RC's.

[Ad Orientem]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

1) the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church agree to disagree
2) I've heard of one or two bishops who disagree with the statement of the Russian Holy Synod on the matter.  No a great dissent.  On the other hand, the "dissent" on Humanae Vitae was the majority, and since your supreme pontiff refused to give a straight answer on whether it was given ex cathedra, you are deluding yourself to think your ecclesiastical community has a common answer to this question.
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
4) is irrelevant
5) any Orthodox bishop that thinks filioque is legitimate, per the Council of Constantinople IV 879 should repent or be deposed
6) any Orthodox bishop that allows that should be deposed, as the Holy Synod of Romania recently demonstrated, to the cheers of the other Orthodox Churches.
7) The OCA is the only one whose autocephaly is questioned, and all 14 of the other Churches find it canonical.

So at most each bishop is an island in an archipelago.

The fact that you list 6) demonstrates that you are grasping at straws, as the second largest EO Church, Romania, forced one of its highest bishops to repent of allowing this, and stating that any bishop that did so would be automatically deposed, a statement greeted with approval and no dissent by ALL the Orthodox Churches.   In other words, you aren't looking at the answers staring you right in the face.

I can talk to any of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, and I'm sure I'll get answers different from your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, let alone Cardinal Martini.

No, because I've tried to get answers on these and despite the fact that one polemicist on the internet thinks the answers are staring me right in the face, there is an Orthodox priest who has specifically argued against me that consubstantiation and sacramental union are valid ways of looking at the Eucharist. Fr. Anastasios says that birth control is wrong, period. You guys don't even know whether or not you can say that you can't know that the monophysite Orthodox churches have valid holy orders.

And you'd have to excommunicate the entire Antiochian Church when it comes to the intercommunion.

And you admitted yourself we've no idea if OCA is canonical. What about Ukraine? Is the matter that clear cut? Or ROCOR? Sure, you guys patched that up - but who was right when the Russian Church was controlled by the communist party?

Sorry, but you get no dice. Orthodoxy is a confusing mess to me, an outsider.

WetCatechumen,
I think you are perhaps missing some important distinctions.  First most of your questions deal with issues that fall under two different headings.  The first being church discipline and the second being doctrine.  Where church discipline is concerned there is a great deal more flexibility in general than in the RCC.  The Orthodox Church is not a monolithic top down autocracy.  As such there are many situations, some of which you touched on, where your mileage will vary. 

This is to some degree also true in matters of doctrine and faith.  Outside of Scripture and the defined teachings of the Seven Councils you may find huge disagreements on some subjects and near universal accord on others.  Again your mileage will vary.  As a former Catholic I can personally affirm that at times this can be absolutely maddening.  But it is the way things worked in the First Millennium, and it is the way things still work today in the Church.  When in doubt the default answer to most questions is... whatever your bishop says it is.

But let's take these points one at a time for some constructive examples.

1) Calendar- This is an issue of church discipline (though some disagree).  While it has been controversial the controversy has died down a bit and the matter is on the agenda for a forthcoming Pan Orthodox Great Council.

2) Birth Control- This was and is deeply controversial.  Historically the church has tended to come down very strongly against it.  But the issue has never been dogmatized.  Rome had that debate and seems to have settled the matter in the early 1970's.  We are still debating it.  Get back to us in a few hundred years.  We may have an answer for you.

3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union- These are all Western theological terms that are not really used by us.  In general though I would say that the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is probably in line with our views.  I would point out that Rome seems to have no doubt about Orthodox teachings on this subject.

4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots- Again, this is a matter that has not been formally dogmatized.  In general it is the accepted teaching of the Church that there are no Mysteries outside her.  Even Rome holds to that view though they have so diluted it with their acceptance of Augustine's dual nature of the Church that it is rendered effectively meaningless.  As Fr. Florovsky once noted in his famous essay, we know where the Church is, but we do not always know with certainty where it is not.  In the absence of a decree from a great council or synod the local church synod has the final say on how far to go in recognizing the grace of heterodox or schismatic sacraments.

5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation- The Filioque has been condemned formally by numerous Church Synods and Councils.  There is not much room on this subject.  Rome has shifted quite a bit in it's understanding of what it means by "Filioque" since it was dogmatized at Lyons.  But in Orthodoxy we adhere to the principal of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.  In its plain meaning "Filioque" affirms a double procession.  That's heresy.  In addition the Canons of the Third and Eighth Councils expressly anathematize those who tamper with the Creed.  Case closed.

6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice- There is no doubt that there have been instances of inter-communion.  I generally believe this to be rare.  But it has happened.  All of which said church canons expressly forbid it.  The fact that something happens once in a while does not give it legitimacy.  See my comment on inter-communion here... http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35462.msg587801.html#msg587801

7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not- This is also on the agenda for the forthcoming Great Council.  For the moment however it depends entirely on your synod.  If your synod is "in communion" than they are presumed to be canonical.  If not, then there is a problem.  Communion can of course be broken for many reasons.  But another good indicator is who the questionable local church is in communion with.  If they are in communion with only themselves that's a red flag.  Likewise if a church is not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch or any of the other generally recognized autocephalous churches that's a problem too.  For the record the OCA's status as autocephalous is controversial.  But she is in full communion with all of the other 14 generally recognized churches.

Who was right... ROCOR-vs The MP???  Who cares.  Is this something you feel touches on your salvation?  It was a tragic schism that by the mercy of God is now healed.  Both were Orthodox in Faith. While points beyond that might make for an interesting debate among academics, I personally have better things with my time.

[Irish Hermit]

You Ultramontanists all claim that you have this infallible guide, who unfortunately won't tell you when he is infallible.  Some guidance!

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

[stanley123]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.


Just confuses me and the other RC's.

But let's be fair about this. There are loopholes or confusion in the Roman Catholic Church also. I can think of a few right off the bat:
1. Limbo.
2. Marriage annulments.
3. Was the Blood of Christ shed for all or for many?
4. Which teachings are infallible or ex cathedra?

[WetCatechumen]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.


Just confuses me and the other RC's.

But let's be fair about this. There are loopholes or confusion in the Roman Catholic Church also. I can think of a few right off the bat:
1. Limbo.
2. Marriage annulments.
3. Was the Blood of Christ shed for all or for many?
4. Which teachings are infallible or ex cathedra?

1. Never a dogma, but still a legitimate opinion to hold. What I've always heard.
2. Never heard any lack of clarity on this.
3. Bad English translation from the 1970's. End of story. It's about to be fixed.
4. Good question. I'm not even sure myself. But everyone knows that birth control is wrong. Everyone knows that Orthodox holy orders are valid but (mainstream) Anglican are not. Everyone knows that it's transubstantiation. Everyone knows that the SSPX excommunicate themselves automatically by all the stuff they do without jurisdiction.

However, Orthodoxy gives me a headache.

[Vadim]

But let's be fair about this. There are loopholes or confusion in the Roman Catholic Church also. I can think of a few right off the bat:
1. Limbo.
2. Marriage annulments.
3. Was the Blood of Christ shed for all or for many?
4. Which teachings are infallible or ex cathedra?

I would begin with Communion under one species. I looked up into the Cathehism of the Roman Catholic Church and found no quotations of the Church Fathers on this questions.

[Peter J]

3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.

Interesting. I'm glad, and not at all surprised, that you had to renounce Consubstantiation; but it's interesting that you even had to renounce the Lutheran theory of Sacramental Union.

[Peter J]

I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.

You're in good company, Robb. Here's what the ultrapopular Catholic theologian Scott Hahn said:

Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.

Ecumenical, isn't he?

[Volnutt]

especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed.

That should probably be a red flag for you right there... Since when can only half the Church unilaterally add to the Creed?

This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.

You mean like when the Pope ruled a third of Italy and had his own army? Let's not forget the Donation of Constantine either.

[Peter J]

FYI, I'm a traditional Catholic, not a Hahn-ite.

[Volnutt]

Ok.

[ialmisry]

3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.

Interesting. I'm glad, and not at all surprised, that you had to renounce Consubstantiation; but it's interesting that you even had to renounce the Lutheran theory of Sacramental Union.

We don't make a distinction, because, for Orthodoxy, there is none. Btw, the dogmas are described, not named, in the renunciation.

[Irish Hermit]

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.

Sometimes it really does pay to engage the brain and avoid making idiotic statements!!

Does this mean that when Catholic doctrine reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine *never* stops developing?  That's a curious idea!!!

[Vadim]

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

One well informed Roman Catholic showed me this list of 18 "infallible" statements:

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/infallibility.txt

"...Appendix I:  Purported Infallible Statements

This list comes from the book _That Catholic Church_, Frs.
Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, 1954.  If you are not
familiar with this group: Radio Replies was a radio program in
Australia active in the 1930's to 50's.  The contents of their
radio broadcasts were gathered into a three volume set; this book
was published as an addendum to this set in the United States.  I
have no idea of the quality of the contents--apologetics from
this period are either very good or extremely bad.  The book is
currently being reprinted by a very conservative Catholic
publisher.  It needs to be repeated that this list has _no_
official status and is probably in error.

Leo I.  Lectis Dilectionis Tuae.  449.
Agatho.  Omnium Bonorum Spes.  680.
Boniface VIII.  Unam Sanctum.  1302.
Benedict XII.  Benidictus Deus.  1336.
Leo X.  Exsurge Domine.  1520.
Innocent X.  Cum Occasione.  1653.
Innocent XI.  Coelestis Pastor.  1687.
Clement XI.  Unigenitus.  1713.
Pius VI.  Auctorem Fidei.  1794.
Pius IX.  Ineffabilis Deus.  1854.
Pius IX.  Quanta Cura.  1864.
Leo XIII.  Apostolicae Cura.  1896. *
Leo XIII.  Testem Benefolentiae.  1899. *
Pius X.  Lamentabili.  1907.
Pius X.  Pascendi.  1907.
Pius XI.  Casti Connubii. 1930.  %
Pius XI.  Quadregesimo Anno.  1931.  %
Pius XII.  Munificentissimus Deus.  1950.

* It is noted that some Catholic theologians hold
  that these encyclicals fall short of the technical
  requirements for being "ex cathedra."
% It is noted that some statements in these encyclicals
  "very probably" comply with the requirements of an
  "ex cathedra" decision."

[Volnutt]

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.

Sometimes it really does pay to engage the brain and avoid making idiotic statements!!

Does this mean that when Catholic doctrine reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine *never* stops developing?  That's a curious idea!!!

Care for a Buddhist Pope, anyone?

[Volnutt]

Boniface VIII.  Unam Sanctum.  1302.

Leo X.  Exsurge Domine.  1520.

Well there goes the ecumenical movement...

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.


Just confuses me and the other RC's.

But let's be fair about this. There are loopholes or confusion in the Roman Catholic Church also. I can think of a few right off the bat:
1. Limbo.
2. Marriage annulments.
3. Was the Blood of Christ shed for all or for many?
4. Which teachings are infallible or ex cathedra?

1. Never a dogma, but still a legitimate opinion to hold. What I've always heard.

but many followers of the Vatican, and the Vatican itself, were very dogmative about it, and not so long ago.  Sort of like the opinions about non-abortifacient birth control among the Orthodox.

2. Never heard any lack of clarity on this.

Yes, Corban and Jesuitry are always clear.

3. Bad English translation from the 1970's. End of story. It's about to be fixed.

read up on your Jansenist controversy.

4. Good question. I'm not even sure myself.

No one is. Including, apparently, your "infallible pope."

But everyone knows that birth control is wrong.

Cardinal Martini doesn't.  IIRC he got the next largest number (actually higher in the first vote) after Cardinal Ratzinger. Since Humanae Vitae hasn't been proclaimed "infallible" by anyone authorized to do so (the majority of the "magisterium" found it wrong, hence the majority report), he, and many, many others (i.e., the majority of the Vatican's followers) are entitled to their opinion, and don't mind proclaiming so.

And Humanae Vitae directly contradicts those Patristics (which it doesn't quote) upon which its apologists depend-as Noonan remarked, it is odd that HV proclaims as moral the method explicitely condemned as immoral by the few Fathers who express an opinion.

Everyone knows that Orthodox holy orders are valid but (mainstream) Anglican are not.

The former Anglican bishop of London was not ordained to the deaconate but ordained bishop by the Vatican conditionally.  Other than the Anglican Archbishop of Canteberry, you can't get more mainstream Anglican than that.  Btw, the Vatican didn't even accept Coptic Orthodox baptisms, but Mardukm, for what it is worth, disputed that IIRC.

Everyone knows that it's transubstantiation.

True (but not everyone believes it).  

Everyone knows that the SSPX excommunicate themselves automatically by all the stuff they do without jurisdiction.

They have their supporters, defenders and sympathizers.

However, Orthodoxy gives me a headache.

Scholastic hairsplitting always becomes headspliting (and often literally  )
[/quote]

[Peter J]

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

Personally, I'm not too bothered. After all, we got by until 1870 without even the dogma that every ex cathedra statement is infallible. (It still wouldn't be a dogma, if Cardinal Newman had had his way.)

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

[Peter J]

Everyone knows that Orthodox holy orders are valid but (mainstream) Anglican are not.

The former Anglican bishop of London was not ordained to the deaconate but ordained bishop by the Vatican conditionally.  Other than the Anglican Archbishop of Canteberry, you can't get more mainstream Anglican than that.  

Indeed. It seems to me that Orthodox and Catholics are closer on this subject than a lot of people think.

Btw, the Vatican didn't even accept Coptic Orthodox baptisms,

 

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:

As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.

Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.

What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.

I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.

Idle curiosity is not of a vital nature for believers.

It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants.

Only for those looking for problems where their are none.  We know the Ultramontanists would like to see it otherwise, but the Orthodox for nearly a thousand years (actually more, but for sake of argument we'll let you say we started in 1054) have remained one communion with nearly (99%) identical theology in all the autocephalous Churches, a record admitted IIRC by your supreme pontiff, and definitely not one matched by the Vatican since 1054: leaving aside the Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, Old Catholics, etc., you ecclesiastical community doesn't have the unanimity that the Orthodox do, even if we don't count the SPXX, let alone the "sui juris churches" in the east vis-a-vis the Latin "mother church."

The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.

 
And? What "important" questions are you talking about?  How many angels on a pin?

Private interpretation.  With all your "private revelations" giving you all those answers to "important questions," I can see that Faithful interpretation guided but not dictatd by the Church would throw you.

While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.

He hasn't.

Just confuses me and the other RC's.

You all have been confused at least since 1054.

[ialmisry]

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

Personally, I'm not too bothered. After all, we got by until 1870 without even the dogma that every ex cathedra statement is infallible. (It still wouldn't be a dogma, if Cardinal Newman had had his way.)

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

No, they are sure.  They do not agree.  There is a difference.

We are all agreed on the Four Gospels.  All the rest is commentary on these.

We are all agreed on the New Testament 27 books.  The OT is read in the light of these.

The EO have III Maccabbees, which among the OO, only the Armenians have.  The EO have IV Maccabbees as an appendix, except the Georgians who include it in the main body, and the OO do not have the appendix.  The Greeks do not have II Esdras, the Slavs have it as an appendix, the Georgians and the OO having it in the main body of the OT.  The Ethiopians have an expanded canon, part of which is quoted in the NT.

End of discrepancies.  Since, however, Scripture is part of Tradition, and not opposed to Tradition, and the "disputed books" are in the Tradition, it doesn't make much of a difference.  Only with Protestants.

[Volnutt]

All these books are part of EO tradition, even the Ethiopian ones?

[Peter J]

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

Personally, I'm not too bothered. After all, we got by until 1870 without even the dogma that every ex cathedra statement is infallible. (It still wouldn't be a dogma, if Cardinal Newman had had his way.)

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

No, they are sure.  They do not agree.  There is a difference.

To be honest, I myself thought that Fr. Taft's criticism was rather weak.

On the other hand, I also think the criticism by some Orthodox posters, based on the absence of official list of ex cathedra statements, is rather weak.

We are all agreed on the Four Gospels.  All the rest is commentary on these.

We are all agreed on the New Testament 27 books.  The OT is read in the light of these.

We, too, are agree on the Four Gospels and the New Testament 27 books. Plus we're agreed on a list of Old Testament books. Plus we are agreed on 21 General Councils (notwithstanding minor disagreements about how many of those 21 should be considered Ecumenical Councils). Why do we need to also agree on a list of ex cathedra statements?

[ialmisry]

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

Personally, I'm not too bothered. After all, we got by until 1870 without even the dogma that every ex cathedra statement is infallible. (It still wouldn't be a dogma, if Cardinal Newman had had his way.)

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

No, they are sure.  They do not agree.  There is a difference.

To be honest, I myself thought that Fr. Taft's criticism was rather weak.

On the other hand, I also think the criticism by some Orthodox posters, based on the absence of official list of ex cathedra statements, is rather weak.

We are all agreed on the Four Gospels.  All the rest is commentary on these.

We are all agreed on the New Testament 27 books.  The OT is read in the light of these.

We, too, are agree on the Four Gospels and the New Testament 27 books. Plus we're agreed on a list of Old Testament books. Plus we are agreed on 21 General Councils (notwithstanding minor disagreements about how many of those 21 should be considered Ecumenical Councils). Why do we need to also agree on a list of ex cathedra statements?

Because in a number of those purported statements, your supreme pontiffs state you must believe it at the peril of shipwrecking your faith and other unpleasantries.

Even St. Jude doesn't say if you don't accept the Book of Enoch, you shipwreck your Faith.

[Irish Hermit]

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

I think the difference is that your faith is "magisterial" and based firmly on official statements.   Outside of magisterial definition and teaching doctrinal things are not so clear-cut.  Over the past millennium you have been quite busy defining more and more of your faith by magisterial definition.  There is probably not much left now to officially define.

Now Orthodoxy has no Magisterium per se, it simply has the long stream of Tradition from the Apostolic era and the patristic era.  We believe it is safeguarded in the Church by the Holy Spirit, among both the bishops and the faithful. 

So we don't sweat the small stuff and don't expect a few of the ragged edges to ever be resolved.  The Church, East and West, has always slightly disagreed on the canon of the Old Testament, even in the first millennium when Rome was supposedly in control of us all, and making decisions.  I know this flexibility can irritate modern people who want sharp edges and precision but it never bothered the first millennium Church and it doesn't bother us today.   I doubt we shall ever hold a Council to decide on the status of these books.  And let's remember that we are talking about only 3 rather minor books.

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible.

There have been changes in the Catholic Bible, and very recently.  Is Father Taft unaware of this?  Catholics don't ever think of this these days. You have removed books you once counted as canonical.

The Clementine Vulgate, the Vatican's official Bible until as recently as 1979 when the new official Nova Vulgata replaced it, removed such books as  3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses.  Previously they were counted as part of the Catholic Old Testament.  These days you won't find them in Catholic bibles.