OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 02:42:23 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ex cathedra  (Read 9322 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« on: August 14, 2013, 11:05:43 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 11:25:53 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2013, 11:31:33 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
It seems that Pope John Paul II did when he said that the Church cannot ordain women.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2013, 11:37:46 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
Technically, Ex Cathedra does not exist, therefore the pope has never spoken Ex Cathedra.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 11:38:31 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 896



« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2013, 11:43:11 PM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2013, 11:45:48 PM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 896



« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2013, 11:49:18 PM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.

Sedevacantists are one of a few groups that believe the Vatican II council to be a heresy, hence the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII were illegitimate.  "Sede vacante" is Latin for "the seat being vacant," that is, the seat of Peter is empty until a non-heretical Pope is elected.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
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: 37,650



« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2013, 12:56:11 AM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.

Sedevacantists are one of a few groups that believe the Vatican II council to be a heresy, hence the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII were illegitimate.  "Sede vacante" is Latin for "the seat being vacant," that is, the seat of Peter is empty until a non-heretical Pope is elected.
Unfortunately, they have no means to elect that non-heretical supreme pontiff.  All the "real" cardinals are dead.
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
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 896



« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2013, 01:16:43 AM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.

Sedevacantists are one of a few groups that believe the Vatican II council to be a heresy, hence the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII were illegitimate.  "Sede vacante" is Latin for "the seat being vacant," that is, the seat of Peter is empty until a non-heretical Pope is elected.

Unfortunately, they have no means to elect that non-heretical supreme pontiff.  All the "real" cardinals are dead.

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
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: 37,650



« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2013, 01:20:58 AM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.

Sedevacantists are one of a few groups that believe the Vatican II council to be a heresy, hence the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII were illegitimate.  "Sede vacante" is Latin for "the seat being vacant," that is, the seat of Peter is empty until a non-heretical Pope is elected.

Unfortunately, they have no means to elect that non-heretical supreme pontiff.  All the "real" cardinals are dead.

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.
Unfortunately the rules under which they elected their supreme pontiff John XXIV (although he said XXIII) mandates otherwise.
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
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2013, 01:22:00 AM »

It seems Vatican II gets a lot of attention.  Was there less of a problem prior to this?
Logged
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2013, 06:03:06 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: With a schismatic twist.
Jurisdiction: An Old Rite soglasie
Posts: 614


My grandmother, the twice-named Efrosinia


« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2013, 06:04:55 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.
Logged

ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2013, 07:52:35 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
It seems that Pope John Paul II did when he said that the Church cannot ordain women.

Not to open the can of worms on the subject matter, but Humanae Vitae is also ex cathedra according to most.

I would argue that many, many more papal pronouncements are ex cathedra because the marker is basically the pope defining something on faith and morals for the universal Church and saying it must be believed. You find the key language in many papal writings. Unfortunately, though, many of these have been contradicted later, so there's an effort to now say they weren't ex cathedra.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2013, 08:01:46 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
It seems that Pope John Paul II did when he said that the Church cannot ordain women.

Not to open the can of worms on the subject matter, but Humanae Vitae is also ex cathedra according to most.

I would argue that many, many more papal pronouncements are ex cathedra because the marker is basically the pope defining something on faith and morals for the universal Church and saying it must be believed. You find the key language in many papal writings. Unfortunately, though, many of these have been contradicted later, so there's an effort to now say they weren't ex cathedra.

What kind of things?  If possible, could you be specific?  I ask because I dont know.
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2013, 08:07:51 AM »

Previous popes have defined the evils of false ecumenism, instructing the people that it was sinful to worship with non-Catholics. Also, popes have defined the necessity of submission to the pope for salvation. These things seem contradicted by later conciliar statements and actions of the more recent popes.

Popes have defined the evils of socialism, more recent popes have written documents that seem to support aspects of socialism.

These are the things that are very controversial in Catholicism. It gets a little confusing because there are different levels of teaching to which are owed different levels of belief or deference by Catholics.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:11:18 AM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Eurasian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2013, 08:13:20 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican II, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:38:02 AM by Eurasian » Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2013, 08:19:31 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
DanM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249


« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2013, 08:29:57 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

As far as I can tell, the conditions upon which a pope speaks ex cathedra are not specified by Vatican I.   E.g., the Monotheletism (and subsequent anathematization) of Pope Honorious is not denied, but that he ever taught it ex cathedra is denied.  Upon the layman's understanding of papal infallibility (the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching heresy), this should not happen.  Since we do not know when ex cathedra obtains, though, we cannot know whether Pope Honorious spoke ex cathedra or not.  This leaves us with the bizarre situation in which a pope may teach heresy throughout his whole career, yet never be said to have violated papal infallibility.  (Would those who are more learned correct me?)
Logged
Eurasian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2013, 08:30:19 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

I'm not sure about the pope having declared papal infallibility ex cathedra. This dogma was declared by the First Vatican Council, which defined (and circumscribed) infallibility of papal declarations in such way, that quite a bit of debate is possible over which statements share in the ex cathedra infallibility. I think the Assumption of Mary is at present the only truly undisputable instance of the pope speaking ex cathedra. The Immaculate Conception is also widely accepted as such. Personally, I agree with Papist that John Paul II phrased his teaching on female ordination so as to meet the requirements for infallibility set out by Vatican I.
Logged
Eurasian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2013, 08:32:58 AM »

As far as I can tell, the conditions upon which a pope speaks ex cathedra are not specified by Vatican I.   E.g., the Monotheletism (and subsequent anathematization) of Pope Honorious is not denied, but that he ever taught it ex cathedra is denied.  Upon the layman's understanding of papal infallibility (the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching heresy), this should not happen.  Since we do not know when ex cathedra obtains, though, we cannot know whether Pope Honorious spoke ex cathedra or not.  This leaves us with the bizarre situation in which a pope may teach heresy throughout his whole career, yet never be said to have violated papal infallibility.  (Would those who are more learned correct me?)

Papal teaching is ex cathedra, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church". Vatican I, Session 4, chapter 4.9. For an online text, see http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6

I agree with you that this leaves a lot of room for debate over which statements are to be considered infallible.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:34:30 AM by Eurasian » Logged
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2013, 08:35:56 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.

You absolutely nailed it here. I am a member of another Catholic forum and keep up on the convos regarding these issues. It seems that so many will make peace with contradiction but suggest to them that perhaps Orthodoxy is the Truth or that the Roman church erred and you will be shown the door. No amount of historical or theological evidence will sway those who don't want to face reality. I actually had a sedevacantist tell me not to trust my logic but simply accept the mysterious eclipse of the roman church as a precursor to some grand restoration.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2013, 09:07:26 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.

You absolutely nailed it here. I am a member of another Catholic forum and keep up on the convos regarding these issues. It seems that so many will make peace with contradiction but suggest to them that perhaps Orthodoxy is the Truth or that the Roman church erred and you will be shown the door. No amount of historical or theological evidence will sway those who don't want to face reality. I actually had a sedevacantist tell me not to trust my logic but simply accept the mysterious eclipse of the roman church as a precursor to some grand restoration.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
How would (or could) the Roman Church fix this [problem]?
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2013, 09:11:39 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 09:12:20 AM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2013, 09:12:23 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.

You absolutely nailed it here. I am a member of another Catholic forum and keep up on the convos regarding these issues. It seems that so many will make peace with contradiction but suggest to them that perhaps Orthodoxy is the Truth or that the Roman church erred and you will be shown the door. No amount of historical or theological evidence will sway those who don't want to face reality. I actually had a sedevacantist tell me not to trust my logic but simply accept the mysterious eclipse of the roman church as a precursor to some grand restoration.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
How would (or could) the Roman Church fix this [problem]?
I'm sorry....I  think I may have misunderstood what you are asking.

Scrapping Vatican II and the new mass would be a good start.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 09:13:21 AM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2013, 09:35:13 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.

You absolutely nailed it here. I am a member of another Catholic forum and keep up on the convos regarding these issues. It seems that so many will make peace with contradiction but suggest to them that perhaps Orthodoxy is the Truth or that the Roman church erred and you will be shown the door. No amount of historical or theological evidence will sway those who don't want to face reality. I actually had a sedevacantist tell me not to trust my logic but simply accept the mysterious eclipse of the roman church as a precursor to some grand restoration.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
How would (or could) the Roman Church fix this [problem]?
I'm sorry....I  think I may have misunderstood what you are asking.

Scrapping Vatican II and the new mass would be a good start.

I have heard many Catholics, to include younger Catholics, suggest this very thing.

EDIT:  I shouldn't have said many, instead I should have said many of the Catholics I personally know.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 09:58:08 AM by Kerdy » 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: 37,650



« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2013, 09:54:11 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?
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
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2013, 10:07:37 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

I don't even think that those on the far sides of the spectrum have in common the fealty to the Pope. But, remarkably, merely saying they do is enough.

On the whole, though, for the vast majority of Catholics, what they have in common is only submission to the Pope. Of course, they don't agree on what that submission entails.

In a perfect world, I guess, there would be an agreement on the faith, but the Eastern Catholics on this forum have demonstrated this isn't the case as far as I can tell... But that's another issue, I guess.

I describe this current idea of communion as a merely visible communion instead of a union of the faith. And even the visible communion isn't always expressed in a common way since, again, you can have a bishop say a Solemn High Mass one week and a clown Mass the next. I think these evidence a different theology, but Rome apparently doesn't see the conflict.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
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: 37,650



« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2013, 10:19:33 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

I don't even think that those on the far sides of the spectrum have in common the fealty to the Pope. But, remarkably, merely saying they do is enough.

On the whole, though, for the vast majority of Catholics, what they have in common is only submission to the Pope. Of course, they don't agree on what that submission entails.

In a perfect world, I guess, there would be an agreement on the faith, but the Eastern Catholics on this forum have demonstrated this isn't the case as far as I can tell... But that's another issue, I guess.

I describe this current idea of communion as a merely visible communion instead of a union of the faith. And even the visible communion isn't always expressed in a common way since, again, you can have a bishop say a Solemn High Mass one week and a clown Mass the next. I think these evidence a different theology, but Rome apparently doesn't see the conflict.
Of course not: their bishop of Rome has said ex cathedra that there is nothing to see, so it must be true.
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,106


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2013, 10:43:03 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,106


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2013, 10:44:15 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 10:46:57 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2013, 10:56:35 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
DanM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249


« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2013, 11:09:09 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,106


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2013, 11:16:00 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...

Faith is shared by All Churches of the Catholic Church. At local level there will always be those who dissent from the faith, those who teach heresy, those who disregard doctrine for whatever reason or don't believe doctrine A or B, those who disrespect the liturgy by having Mass filled with abuses and absurd behavior. All in all such deviations by certain people and groups at local level exist in EVERY RELIGION and DENOMINATION even Orthodoxy. There are those who claim to be Orthodox but believe in Immaculate conception  for an example. Those that doubt the real presence, or deny the truth of the sacrament of confession etc. Does this now mean Eastern Orthodoxy is not united in faith? I think you see the point being made. Such things will always exist as Satan works hard to break down Gods Church.

However lets not exaggerate the situation and make it seem as if the acts of the minority are the general happenings in the Catholic Church. Its not like there are clown masses in every second church now... Roll Eyes These things are the actions of a few.

 Unity of faith is reality. I can attest to this from personal experience  where at the local Maronite church, we (Roman and Maronite) commune together and believe and teach the same doctrines. We are all catholic and share the one faith of the Catholic Church. We are brethren of the same flock
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 11:34:22 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,106


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2013, 11:19:55 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2013, 11:34:41 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...

Faith is shared by All Churches of the Catholic Church. At local level there will always be those who dissent from the faith, those who teach heresy, those who disregard doctrine for whatever reason or don't believe doctrine A ot B, those who disrespect the liturgy by having Mass filled with abuses and absurd behavior. All in all such deviations by certain people and groups at local level exist in EVERY RELIGION and DENOMINATION even Orthodoxy. There are those who claim to be Orthodox but believe un Immaculate conception  for an example. Does this now mean Eastern Orthodoxy is not united in faith? I think you see the logic of my argument and the point being made. Such things wil always exist as Satan works hard to break down Gods Church.

However unity of faith is general reality. I can attest to this at local level where at the local maronite church, we commune together and believe and teach the same doctrines. We are all catholic and share the one faith of the Catholic Church.

Again, I think this response is great in theory, but I'm not certain it bears out in reality. If the pope is taking part in festivities with dancing bishops or voodoo priests or whatever, do you believe the same thing as the pope?  This is much more than a local priest who is a little heretical.  In taking about the idea that the church is basically reinvented with the advent of each new Pope these days because the popes have set themselves over tradition (of course, the actual tradition is that they can't do that, so they're simultaneously breaking that tradition also).

If I believe it is sinful to participate in non-catholic worship, which the church taught for a long time, I am at odds with the current teaching and example of the popes and bishops, and they are at odds with their predecessors.

In sum, yes, there will airways be those that are heretics and at odds with the faith at the local level. It is when these errors are approved at the hierarchical level that there is a problem. The disconnect is that the Catholic Church of history and theological manuals isn't the Catholic Church as experienced in reality, both locally and globally. For me, this realization has been perplexing because I am a convert to Catholicism because of my study (and I was at a decent parish). After moving and traveling more, I have seen that there is no universality as I had been led to believe by my study - it is completely haphazard, which led me to ask how this communion is meaningful when the faith isn't shared (this was brought home clearly when I went to a "mass" where the priest had all the kids come hug him and then stand in a circle around the table during the Liturgy of the Faithful -- these people clearly do not believe what I believe(d?) And this was rampant in that diocese).

/endofrant
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
DanM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249


« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2013, 11:40:13 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel, paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.
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: 37,650



« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2013, 06:41:56 PM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith
Sorry, I've been close up to the "American Catholic Church" to know to not take that answer seriously-unless lip service to the supreme pontiff and papolatry constitute the same thing.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2013, 06:42:39 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel[s ], paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2013, 06:45:29 PM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...

Faith is shared by All Churches of the Catholic Church. At local level there will always be those who dissent from the faith, those who teach heresy, those who disregard doctrine for whatever reason or don't believe doctrine A or B, those who disrespect the liturgy by having Mass filled with abuses and absurd behavior. All in all such deviations by certain people and groups at local level exist in EVERY RELIGION and DENOMINATION even Orthodoxy. There are those who claim to be Orthodox but believe in Immaculate conception  for an example. Those that doubt the real presence, or deny the truth of the sacrament of confession etc. Does this now mean Eastern Orthodoxy is not united in faith? I think you see the point being made. Such things will always exist as Satan works hard to break down Gods Church.

However lets not exaggerate the situation and make it seem as if the acts of the minority are the general happenings in the Catholic Church. Its not like there are clown masses in every second church now... Roll Eyes These things are the actions of a few.

 Unity of faith is reality. I can attest to this from personal experience  where at the local Maronite church, we (Roman and Maronite) commune together and believe and teach the same doctrines. We are all catholic and share the one faith of the Catholic Church. We are brethren of the same flock
Given the heavy Latinization of the Maronites, we know where that unity comes from.
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
DanM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249


« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2013, 07:53:04 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel, paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.

When I look at my text, it is not crossed out, but when posted, most of what I wrote is crossed out.  Can anyone correct this?  Thanks.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,856



« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2013, 08:37:43 PM »

When you wrote the word "sequel(s)" you used brackets around the s, which is the code for striking text out, so that everything that followed had a line through it Smiley

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel(s), paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:38:30 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
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: 37,650



« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2013, 10:22:38 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel, paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.

When I look at my text, it is not crossed out, but when posted, most of what I wrote is crossed out.  Can anyone correct this?  Thanks.
Btw, it is from the "s" you have in brackets in "sequel[s ]" which I corrected by putting a space after the "s."

Ooops.  Now I see that Aristektos explained all.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 10:24:41 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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2013, 11:33:48 PM »

This is one of those questions where you will never get a definitive (i.e., ex cathedra) answer.  Grin
Logged

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

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2013, 11:58:12 PM »

This is one of those questions where you will never get a definitive (i.e., ex cathedra) answer.  Grin
Apparently.  I'm sorry I asked.  I'm even more sorry people can't just provide an answer without all the Flying Fists of TheologyFu.  It's almost as if people rather argue than actually learn.  It gets a little old after awhile.

I suppose I'll just have to ask all my Catholic questions to an actual Catholic priest if I want any sincere clarification.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 12:00:28 AM by Kerdy » 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: 37,650



« Reply #44 on: August 16, 2013, 12:09:17 AM »

This is one of those questions where you will never get a definitive (i.e., ex cathedra) answer.  Grin
Apparently.  I'm sorry I asked.  I'm even more sorry people can't just provide an answer without all the Flying Fists of TheologyFu.  It's almost as if people rather argue than actually learn.  It gets a little old after awhile.

I suppose I'll just have to ask all my Catholic questions to an actual Catholic priest if I want any sincere clarification.
Apotheoun gave you the correct answer.  You may not like the answer, and the followers of the Vatican might deny the answer, but that doesn't change the truth, that it is the answer to your question. Munticentissimus Deus, the declaration on the Assumption (i.e. today), is the only one they agree on.

Somewhere here we went into some detail about the different calculations of various theologians and apologists for the Vatican over how many times their supreme pontiffs have spoken "ex cathedra."
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 12:10:28 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  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 0.189 seconds with 72 queries.