OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 09:09:44 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the pope  (Read 4863 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
newbiefound
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« on: September 13, 2005, 09:41:41 AM »

Hey,

Why is it that orthodox faith thinks that Peter wasn't able to or did not pass down his special rights as the leader of the apostles? Peter's binding and loosing on earth and heaven is a phrase I've read that maybe someone would be kind enough to clarify for me.
Logged
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2005, 09:48:35 AM »

Orthodoxy believes in Peter's primacy. She does not however believe in Peter's supremacy over every single Bishop on earth.
Logged

newbiefound
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2005, 10:00:09 AM »

I read that until the tenth century, the Orthodox churches acknowledged the primacy of the pope.  Is this true and why did they accept him before and not any longer?
Logged
Stamfordguy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127



« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2005, 10:08:12 AM »

I don't think you caught the previous answer. The Church accepts Peter's primacy but NOT his supremacy.  Wink
Logged
newbiefound
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2005, 10:13:30 AM »

What does the supremacy mean? How does it differ from primacy?  Does it mean you guys believe he was the top but not the commander?  Does that mean you guys still accept the pope to be primal?
Logged
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2005, 10:22:37 AM »

Primacy:ÂÂ  "First among equals".

Supremacy:ÂÂ  Supreme leader.ÂÂ  Church head, Vicar of Christ.

Orthodox generally recognize the Pope (pre schism) as the first among equals.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2005, 10:23:34 AM by SouthSerb99 » Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2005, 10:46:07 AM »

Our Holy Father Cyprian of Carthage teaches that all bishops are the successors of Peter in his On the Unity of the Catholic Church (c. 254 AD).
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2005, 11:21:43 AM »

Our Holy Father Cyprian of Carthage teaches that all bishops are the successors of Peter in his On the Unity of the Catholic Church (c. 254 AD).

I'm looking for quotes on that from him and other fathers for another discussion.  Do you have a link? Thanks.
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2005, 12:02:33 PM »

I have no problem with whomever has the keys to the liquor cabinet...

JB
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2005, 12:17:35 PM »

I have no problem with whomever has the keys to the liquor cabinet...

JB

What if it is a Southern Baptist who is locking it up so we can't enjoy it? Or ATF agents breaking down my moonshine still??? lol

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2005, 02:14:55 PM »

I have found that those who support a "dry" county can be found in a bar of another county...of course this is my experience while in Texas.

Putting that aside, I support the belief/idea that the Bishop of Rome has a position of honor, now defining that role is the heart of the matter...it appears that this Pope is serious about discussion.

JB
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2005, 06:56:25 PM »

Quote
I'm looking for quotes on that from him and other fathers for another discussion.  Do you have a link? Thanks.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae 4: "If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity."

St. Cyprian also talks about how the "source of priestly unity" is from the chair of Peter. Catholic apologists use that often to show the "supremacy" of the Bishop of Rome. I fell for it at one time, but taken within the context above, St. Cyprian was not talking about the Bishop of Rome, but St. Peter, who was the first among the apostles and symbolic representitive of the Church.

Oh, here's a good one from St. John Chyrsostom, Homily XXXIII: "Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."

And another one from St. John Chyrsostom from Homily II: "Not so this fisherman; for all he saith is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human. But they, like persons who are not held worthy even in a dream to set foot in the king's palace, but who pass their time in the forum with other men, guessing from their own imagination at what they cannot see, have erred a great error, and, like blind or drunken men in their wandering, have dashed against each other; and not only against each other, but against themselves, by continually changing their opinion, and that ever on the same matters."

Now while this may seem to be confirming RC dogma about St. Peter, taken within context, it really talks about St. John (I don't think anyone Father called St. Peter "infallible"): "Not so this fisherman; for all he saith is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human. But they, like persons who are not held worthy even in a dream to set foot in the king's palace, but who pass their time in the forum with other men, guessing from their own imagination at what they cannot see, have erred a great error, and, like blind or drunken men in their wandering, have dashed against each other; and not only against each other, but against themselves, by continually changing their opinion, and that ever on the same matters.

But this unlettered man, the ignorant, the native of Bethsaida, the son of Zebedee, (though the Greeks mock ten thousand times at the rusticity of the names, I shall not the less speak them with the greater boldness.)"

Now unless St. Peter was a son of Zebedee, well...

Here's a good website I found: http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/responsestopa.htm
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2005, 07:31:27 PM »

Quote
Why is it that orthodox faith thinks that Peter wasn't able to or did not pass down his special rights as the leader of the apostles? Peter's binding and loosing on earth and heaven is a phrase I've read that maybe someone would be kind enough to clarify for me.

For the first point, what authority did St. Peter have?  Obviously it wasn't anything found in the modern papacy.  In the disputes mentioned in Acts, noone appeals to St. Peter as an infallible source because he is Saint Peter - when he is right he is right because he is right, not because he is St. Peter. 

As to the other point, which succesor would he have passed his supposed powers to?  To the Patriarch of Antioch where Saint Peter was actually a bishop or to Rome the city of his martyrdom? 
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2005, 08:44:37 PM »

Sean, are you quoting the first redaction or St Cyprian's revised second edition?

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2005, 08:59:51 PM »

Quote
Sean, are you quoting the first redaction or St Cyprian's revised second edition?

No idea at all.

edited to read: I believe it's the second as a quote on a Catholic apologetics website does not have that part in it.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2005, 09:05:46 PM by SeanMc » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2005, 09:26:38 PM »

The reason I ask is because the Roman Catholic apologists like to quote version 1, but St Cyprian himself changed his text when St Stephen began to use it as a basis to claim more papal authority.  So I think that while one text in and of itself does not prove or disprove papal primacy, that these individuals who selectively quote texts that the author himself edited are being disengenuous.  Please note I didn't assume that about you; I find that many people simply do not know about the text redactions.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2005, 09:37:15 PM »

Okay... Oecumenical Councils coming in:

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II.
[immediately following the above-cited letter of the Pope to the Synod of Ephesus]

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (exarkoV) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (qemelioV) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.

Council of Chalcedon, 451
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION I.


Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II. (continued).
After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo.

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION IV
[Pope] Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shew what the true faith is.

Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION VII.


But we, bishops, answered him [Pope Vigilius]: "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a [father] and primate...."

what the strength of our Apostolic faith contains, which we have received through Apostolic tradition and through the tradition of the Apostolical pontiffs,

And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his [i.e. Rome] has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.

SESSION II.
PART OF POPE HADRIAN'S LETTER.


If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches,

We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all. Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shews himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever.

If you wish to read all the quotes I found from the first 7 Oecumenical Councils, pm me.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2005, 09:38:56 PM »

Quote
So I think that while one text in and of itself does not prove or disprove papal primacy, that these individuals who selectively quote texts that the author himself edited are being disengenuous.  Please note I didn't assume that about you; I find that many people simply do not know about the text redactions.

I've noticed that quite a lot with Catholic apologists. I started to read "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys" to try to see if my Catholicism was worth salvaging, when, even before I got past the Introduction, I found a major untruth, which attempts to put the view of anonymous "Eastern theologians" as the view of the Orthodox Church: "Eastern theologians have argued that there can be no doctrinal development of the kind Rome claims because the Church is divided. The doctrinal definitions of the first seven ecumenical councils were done by a united Church which no longer exists according to the Orthodox Church" (p. xviii). Must be news to the Orthodox that their Church is not One, Holy, Apostolic, and Universal!
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2005, 10:37:45 PM »

okay, quoting from the acts of the synod does not prove your point... I can find Arian doctrine in the minutes of the 1st Synod, but it doesn't mean the bishops agreed with them.  All of the quotes you provided that demonstrate some sort of acceptance of Papal primacy are also from Papal legates themselves, except for the quote from session VII of Constantinople II, which history shows isn't true, since there were Popes condemned of heresy.

just a few observations off the cuff....
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2005, 05:02:54 AM »

If the Pope was everything Catholics claim him to be right from the 1st century, why on earth did the Church have councils? After all, all they had to do was write a letter to Rome and await the Pope's infallible ruling, right?
Logged
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2005, 08:16:09 AM »

Quote
If the Pope was everything Catholics claim him to be right from the 1st century, why on earth did the Church have councils? After all, all they had to do was write a letter to Rome and await the Pope's infallible ruling, right?

You realise when Oriental Orthodox accept 3 Oecumenical Councils and the Orthodox accept 7 Oecumenical Councils as valid, the Roman Catholic Church has and accepts as valid 21 Oecumenical Councils (as we all know, 2nd Vatican Council dating to 1960's was the latest).

So your statement sort of backfires, my friend.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2005, 09:06:53 AM »

You realise when Oriental Orthodox accept 3 Oecumenical Councils and the Orthodox accept 7 Oecumenical Councils as valid, the Roman Catholic Church has and accepts as valid 21 Oecumenical Councils (as we all know, 2nd Vatican Council dating to 1960's was the latest).

So your statement sort of backfires, my friend.


What does the number of post-Schism councils called ecumenical by the RCC have to do with anything? And, it may come as a shock to you but some of us Orthodox actually accept nine councils as Ecumenical. Also, given the fact that at least one of Rome's 'Ecumenical' Councils is a Robber Council repudiated by the entire Church including Rome prior to the Schism, forgive me for being a little skeptical about the ecumenicity of her post-Schism councils. All that said, John's original point still stands except that we could also phrase it like this - if the RCC always believed the Pope was as he is today, why on earth did they continue to have councils after the Schism? Better yet, what on earth was Vatican II about? The Pope was already defined as infallible by that point.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2005, 03:07:05 PM »

If the Pope was everything Catholics claim him to be right from the 1st century, why on earth did the Church have councils? After all, all they had to do was write a letter to Rome and await the Pope's infallible ruling, right?

         Very good question mate.If the king  is right and excellent  he don't need ministers.If Pope is right whatever he do or say then no need for councils let Pope decide and Roman catholic follow.Can i add one more question if all Popes were infallible then they its common sense they have done nothing wrong so do catholic say the persecution  ordered by Pope was right?(specially its against any Christian view).If it was right then why Pope John Paul 2 apologise for mistake done by RCC(so who is infallible Present or previous Popes or none)Or John Paul 2 's view were more Christian than Roman Catholic.
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2005, 03:27:02 PM »

I read that until the tenth century, the Orthodox churches acknowledged the primacy of the pope.ÂÂÂ  Is this true and why did they accept him before and not any longer?

Not all orthodox accepted Rome till 10th century Constantinople(now called as Eastern orthodox)was the only Patriarch, among four accepted Rome.Alexandria and Antioch stayed away from teaching of Chaldean.And they been persecuted badly for that ,even the Patriarch of Antioch Mor Savories,Patriarch of Alexandria Mor Thevodius did suffer.At one point Mor Anthimose  of Constantinople also send to prison as  he refused to accept Chaldean faith.

        So its clear primacy primacy of St Peter was not been given to Rome  by other Patriarchs in the early church.Even if they did ;supremacy and primacy is different.If supremacy to govern the Church was soley given to Rome then they didn't needed other patriarchates in the first century.Again if the first postion of Rome was not political then  Antioch would have received the first postion,as its the first chair of St Peter.
Logged

NULL
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #24 on: October 19, 2005, 04:49:46 PM »

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ If Pope is right whatever he do or say then no need for councils let Pope decide and Roman catholic follow.Can i add one more question if all Popes were infallible then they its common sense they have done nothing wrong so do catholic say the persecution  ordered by Pope was right?(specially its against any Christian view).If it was right then why Pope John Paul 2 apologise for mistake done by RCC(so who is infallible Present or previous Popes or none)Or John Paul 2 's view were more Christian than Roman Catholic.

Joe,

Papal infalllibility does not mean that everything that the Pope says or does is infallibile. Infallibility only applies when the Pope proclaims something as doctrine about faith and morals - only.

Here are some quotes about papal infallibility which I gleaned off the internet.

Quote
Papal infallibility is a stumbling block for many Christians, even many Catholics. But it is actually a very limited doctrine. It means that when, and only when, the successor of Peter makes a solemn pronouncement about faith or morals, he is guarded by the Holy Spirit against teaching error. Unlike scripture, such pronouncements are not "inspired." They are simply free from error. The other way the extraordinary Magisterium can be exercised is through an ecumenical council of bishops when they define a doctrine under the guidance of the pope and subject to his confirmation. Two of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council are "dogmatic" in this manner: Lumen gentium, or the Constitution of the Church, and Dei verbum, on revelation.

Quote
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith -- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals" (Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications), 1994, p.235).

Quote
Likewise, Vatican Council II declared the following about papal infallibility:

"The infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32) -- he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals" (Vol. 1, p.380).

"We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the Successor of Peter when he speaks ex cathedra as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, an infallibility which the whole Episcopate also enjoys when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium" (Vol. 2, p.392).

Here is a link which also delves more into this topic - Papal Infallibility

I posted the above to clear up some of the misconceptions that surround papal infallibility in the hopes to provide some clarification about this doctrine of the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Aaron

« Last Edit: October 19, 2005, 04:51:04 PM by Arystarcus » Logged
Victor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2005, 06:29:45 PM »

Anybody have a refernce/quotes of early writings that used the term "first among equals"?

~Victor
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2005, 10:12:25 PM »

Anybody have a refernce/quotes of early writings that used the term "first among equals"?

~Victor

I'd like to read those as well, along with any early writings using the term "papal infallibility"
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2005, 10:14:51 PM »

Victor,

I'm so glad you're back!

Earlier you had mentioned you were working on some of the answers to these questions. Have you gotten anything yet?

Quote
Quote
Quote from: minasoliman on September 27, 2005, 01:19:43 AM

What of Marcian and Leo, and Marcian's persecution on the non-Chalcedonians? What is "wrong"?

Again, why should we trust the Pope of Rome?

 And what makes today's Pope acceptable to Orthodoxy?

Has he denounced many of the things the early Popes of Rome erred from?

Perhaps, it's easy to denounce and ask forgiveness from the results of the Crusades or inquisitions. But what about Immaculate Conception, the filioque, and the celibacy of priests?

Rome is high in primacy because St. Peter died there?

So it's not even about who "received the keys." It's about where this person died. And why so?

Is there a doctrine or a church father in history that says because St. Peter died there, that therefore it must be highest in honor and primacy?

How is a bishop who is not Roman have the power to bind and loose if the only one with the key is Rome?

 Does another bishop get this power from Rome or Christ?

Does the Holy Spirit give every succession same Apostolic grace except Rome, which is given super-Apostolic grace different from all others?

Why then is Constantinople second?

Is it because St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter died there?

What about Alexandria?

The nephew of the Primate died there too?

Is this why the first three received honor?

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2005, 07:59:44 AM »

I don't think post-schism fathers ever considered the Pope as Primus Inter Pares.
I mean, what is so wrong with having one man manage the Church in Christ's name and
by the help of the Holy Spirit? I mean, the church can't really be democratic. Why does
a Bishop have more authority than a deacon, then?
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
Krysostomos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: catholic christian
Jurisdiction: Roman patriarchate
Posts: 72

very eastern minded ...


« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2005, 09:44:33 AM »

Et cum spitito tuo.
For me as a rc but eastern minded, pope is the bishop of Rome and patriach of all the west and the first among the equals - not more but no less.
Servus servorum dei (server of the servers of God)ÂÂ  but not a vicar of Christ...
Logged

"You may say I am a dreamer. But I am not the only one." John Lennon
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2005, 10:54:36 PM »

Hey,

Why is it that orthodox faith thinks that Peter wasn't able to or did not pass down his special rights as the leader of the apostles? Peter's binding and loosing on earth and heaven is a phrase I've read that maybe someone would be kind enough to clarify for me.

I couldnt think of a good enough answer so I reviewed some early comments on this subject and Im afraid I had to plaegerize in order to properly explained the role of Pope in ancient times, here goes:

From T.C.:

The Nicene council also assigned to the Bishop of Rome the authority to
hear appeals, much as the Roman emperor did. That was in part because it
was the capital city at the time as well as the fact that during the
Arian controversy which they were on the tail end of at that point, Rome
was the only patriarchal see to not fall into the error of Arianism at
some point. So he was highly respected. Add onto that the fact that
Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, and that gave the bishop a lot of
clout among the faithful. In short, his opinions, decisions and
teachings carried a lot of weight among the other bishops. So, while he
didn't have authority (as he does in the current situation) to tell
another bishop who he can or cannot make a priest, deacon, etc., if he
said that a certain person was questionable, their bishop would take
note and think twice about ordaining them. Not because he had authority
over that bishop, but because the bishops respected Him....they held him
in a high place of honor.

JoeS  Cool
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2005, 03:34:51 AM »

(I'm up at 3:30am trying to catch whomever is going around at awful-early hours of the morning the last 3 days waking people up by knocking on doors....)

I was just thinking... do the different understandings and theologies regarding Papal authority between east and west grow out of different traditions regarding Apostolic Succession?  For in the east we have the understanding that Apostolic Succession is not some sort of "magical" act that passes the spirit of some dead saint through the hands of the bishops from one guy to the next (not that I'm saying anyone believes that kind of thing...); but there is a clear idea that the succession is passed in a necessarily twofold manner: 1. through the approval/election of the people of their new bishop (an ancient practice); and 2. through the approval/election of the synod to which the see belongs.  In this way, the bishop is seen worthy to succeed his predecessors by the people, who proclaim his orthodoxy with the Axios, and is proclaimed worthy by his co-workers through their presence at his ordination (there is evidence that much of the time you didn't only have the minimum 2 or 3 bishops present, but rather every bishop who could make it to the ordination, which varied by the time period in question).

Don't necessarily pay attention to the ramblings of a man at this hour of the night (here in EDT land)...
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2005, 08:55:36 AM »



The Nicene council also assigned to the Bishop of Rome the authority to
hear appeals, much as the Roman emperor did. That was in part because it
was the capital city at the time as well as the fact that during the
Arian controversy which they were on the tail end of at that point, Rome
was the only patriarchal see to not fall into the error of Arianism at
some point. So he was highly respected. Add onto that the fact that
Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome,

JoeSÂÂÂ  Cool


                      Can i ask you a doubt where did you learn that Rome was the only patriarch not fall into Arain controversy?
What i leared so fra Arian controversy started  by Ariose(Arian) who was priest and schooler in Alexandrian Patriarchate,he was rejected by Alexandrian patriarch  Pope Peter and then again after his departure his successor  Pope Alexendrious called a local synod of Alexandria in AD321 and excommunicated Ariose again.Of course  they where affected by his teaching  but didn't fall into  his controversy.

               And can explain which canon of Nicene gave Patriarch of Rome the authority of appeal and where can i find details of that (independent not RC view)as far as i am aware appeal authority  was general synod  not a particular Patriarch.All patriarch considered equal but when they name Rome came in first only because of political importance nothing more than that if not Antioch which is also found by St Peter would been second  instead Constantinople (which was not formed by First synod)>
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2005, 09:16:30 AM »

Joe,

Papal infallibility does not mean that everything that the Pope says or does is infallible. Infallibility only applies when the Pope proclaims something as doctrine about faith and morals - only.

Here are some quotes about papal infallibility which I gleaned off the internet.
 
Here is a link which also delves more into this topic - Papal Infallibility

I posted the above to clear up some of the misconceptions that surround papal infallibility in the hopes to provide some clarification about this doctrine of the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Aaron



                     What you say about papal infallibility  is only applicable to RC church  because  many teaching of RC is against the view of Orthodox theology for example from whom Holy Sport proceeds the teaching of  RC church is against  creed of general synod.
            Which general synod gave Rome this authority is there any evidence for this.When did Rome started using this.And if it is because Rome Patriarch is successor of St Peter what about Antioch? they should also have the same Right?.And how can 2 patriarch have same authority? Even Rome accept the throne of St Peter in Antioch so where this infallibility lead the church.You can not say one Successor have ineffability one don't can you?
Logged

NULL
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2005, 06:51:30 PM »

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ What you say about papal infallibility  is only applicable to RC church  because  many teaching of RC is against the view of Orthodox theology for example from whom Holy Sport proceeds the teaching of  RC church is against  creed of general synod.
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Which general synod gave Rome this authority is there any evidence for this.When did Rome started using this.And if it is because Rome Patriarch is successor of St Peter what about Antioch? they should also have the same Right?.And how can 2 patriarch have same authority? Even Rome accept the throne of St Peter in Antioch so where this infallibility lead the church.You can not say one Successor have ineffability one don't can you?

Joe77,

I posted that information to show how the Catholic Church defines papal infallibility in their own words, because all too often it's meaning can be misconstrued and made out to be something altogether different.

In regards to your other questions, perhaps one of our fellow posters who is a member of the Catholic Church might be able to address those for you.


In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2005, 04:37:54 PM »

You are so right. It had nothing to do with Peter no matter what so many Church Fathers say.
HAIL TO ORTHODOXY! LET'S MAKE THE BISHOP OF LONDON OR NEW YORK A POPE!!!
LET'S DANCE NAKED TO BYZANTINE MUSIC.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #36 on: October 23, 2005, 06:34:26 PM »

Quote
joe77
Jr. Member

 Offline

Posts: 53


    Re: the pope
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2005, 08:55:36 AM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: JoeS on October 20, 2005, 10:54:36 PM


The Nicene council also assigned to the Bishop of Rome the authority to
hear appeals, much as the Roman emperor did. That was in part because it
was the capital city at the time as well as the fact that during the
Arian controversy which they were on the tail end of at that point, Rome
was the only patriarchal see to not fall into the error of Arianism at
some point. So he was highly respected. Add onto that the fact that
Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome,

JoeS 



                      Can i ask you a doubt where did you learn that Rome was the only patriarch not fall into Arain controversy?
What i leared so fra Arian controversy started  by Ariose(Arian) who was priest and schooler in Alexandrian Patriarchate,he was rejected by Alexandrian patriarch  Pope Peter and then again after his departure his successor  Pope Alexendrious called a local synod of Alexandria in AD321 and excommunicated Ariose again.Of course  they where affected by his teaching  but didn't fall into  his controversy.

               And can explain which canon of Nicene gave Patriarch of Rome the authority of appeal and where can i find details of that (independent not RC view)as far as i am aware appeal authority  was general synod  not a particular Patriarch.All patriarch considered equal but when they name Rome came in first only because of political importance nothing more than that if not Antioch which is also found by St Peter would been second  instead Constantinople (which was not formed by First synod)>
Quote

I was under the impression that Rome in the first millenium was pretty much orthodox in its faith it was only when she adopted the Filioque, Infallibility, and Supremacy did she started to fall into error.

JoeS
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,172


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2005, 10:55:23 PM »

The Church taught that you were first to go to your brother to resolve the dispute, and if that didn't work, then you go to the priest, and then to the bishop, and if even that didn't work (of if the bishop was the problem) then you went to the Council of bishops in your diocese (2nd Ecumenical Council, Canon 2), then if even that didn't bring resolution, you could go to a Bishop of higher rank for consultation. Rome was often consulted, though the 4th Ecumenical Council did authorize Constantinople to act in that capacity in the East:

Quote
If any Clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province. But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him. - Canon 9

However, going to Rome or Constantinople was always to be (in principle anyway) a free-will decision of an individual Local Church or individual people, not something forced on them by Rome of Constantinople. In other words, to preserve the paradoxical truth that all bishops were equal, a more prominent See could not simply force it's will on a lesser See willy nilly. Thus the 2nd Ecumenical Council said:

Quote
Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers. - Canon 2

The 3rd Ecumenical Council said:

Quote
The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the secular fastus be introduced, under the pretext of divine services; lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood. - Canon 8
« Last Edit: October 23, 2005, 10:55:54 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2005, 02:15:14 AM »

IIRC Rome could only request that a case be retried and that Rome could select which bishops were to sit on the council, with the restriction that they had to be bishops from the same area in which the dispute originated. Rome was not given the power to try the case herself.

John
Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2005, 07:56:41 AM »

The Church taught that you were first to go to your brother to resolve the dispute, and if that didn't work, then you go to the priest, and then to the bishop, and if even that didn't work (of if the bishop was the problem) then you went to the Council of bishops in your diocese (2nd Ecumenical Council, Canon 2), then if even that didn't bring resolution, you could go to a Bishop of higher rank for consultation. Rome was often consulted, though the 4th Ecumenical Council did authorize Constantinople to act in that capacity in the East:

However, going to Rome or Constantinople was always to be (in principle anyway) a free-will decision of an individual Local Church or individual people, not something forced on them by Rome of Constantinople. In other words, to preserve the paradoxical truth that all bishops were equal, a more prominent See could not simply force it's will on a lesser See willy nilly. Thus the 2nd Ecumenical Council said:

The 3rd Ecumenical Council said:


                                That authority given to Constantinople is only applied  to Patriarchate of Constantinople that cannot be considered as  an  authority to   solve dispute in all other Patriarchate.Same right is applicable to Patriarch of Rome ,Alexandria and Antioch  in their own province or Patriarchate.They all have the right to solve dispute in their patriarchate as the chief of their synod.They may decide to consult with other Patriarchate when their is important issues but that not binding advice at the end of the day final decision will be the decision of concerned Patriarch.But when we say all this we must think about the atmosphere at the time of unity the light lead them was Love of Christ;not individual greatness they were ready to be count as the last as Jesus taught them not like the church leaders now fighting  to gain supremacy.So their advice and consultation were  as brothers in Christ not supremacy.
                          When dispute grow beyond the borders of  Patriarchate or dispute which may result in serious damages to whole church and against the core faith of whole Catholic church (not Roman Catholic church) then they call synods to discuss these issues as we can see  there were no supremacy who should lead the synod either  it can be anyone.The supremacy was the end result of Pope Leos eager to controle the church and his jealous to Pope of Alexandria.If we see the issue which splinted the Church was not the issue of  faith but who is bigger Rome or Alexandria.(totally opposite to what Jesus taught us).
The dispute was settled  in the synod of Ephesus in AD449.By all  members of Synod(or the majority) issue solved and came to a joint decision too.But the Synod Chaldean was the result of Leos pride as his Tome was not read in  Ephesus synod.As the issue already solved what was the reason for another synod  nothing but Leos intention to gain controle of whole church and his opposition to Alexandria.The synod Chaldean didn't gain a unanimous decision or  majority decision  among 2 patriavhs 2 walked away from  faith of Chaldean and  Constantinople  were in doubt(i believe  latter there were trouble in Constantinople too correct me if i am wrong).And before this  synods came to majority decisions bt here  splited the church.If Rome were right why they used force to convert the other too or why persecuted them.There where disputes before but no church persecuted them for it they cursed them away and walked away from their teaching only when it came to tome of Leo things changed so its clear it wasn't Christian Love   which lead Leo and looking at the latter act of Rome clear it the successor where same  appart from few.How can some one who persecute fellow Christian can hold infallibility.
Logged

NULL
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,172


theologian by day, bard by night


« Reply #40 on: October 25, 2005, 06:43:39 PM »

I was trying to answer a canonical question, which I think I did adequately (ie. it ain't great, but since I used mostly references and not my own thoughts, I think it's pretty close). Not that I know the canons well, I just happen to enjoy researching stuff like that and had some time free. I didn't meant to enter into a polemical discussion about whether this or that Church or Council was naughty. This thread, as I understood it, was about Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox. The post that I wrote is relevant to the Orthodox Church's views on a particular matter. I didn't claim to speak for the Oriental Orthodox. I mean, I don't even disagree with you about disputes going to Council and whatnot, I simply posted the canonical procedure for resolving disputes as I understood it, I'm not sure how it went off in the direction that it did. If I said something that offended you, I apologize.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2005, 06:45:37 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #41 on: October 31, 2005, 09:55:07 AM »

Sorry if i tigers a fire there ;what i was trying to say  not about issues between Easetern and Oriental orthodox but  the greedy attitude of Rome was the  reason behind the big split,from there we can see development of  Roman supremacy and  papal infallibility there is no canonical or theological base for this simple power greedy attitude Rome still believe in this; thats why  they not ready to give this baseless  infallibility and  supremacy.Even Rome do not have a clear unified theology  the Malankara Reath catholic(eastern rite f RC church)still celebrate Eucharist in Syrian rite it contain  theological view of St Severus of Antioch whom Rome  persecuted for his   stand.And profession of faith of them  still say Holy Spirit proceeds from father  alone.
              These are  an examples of roman view.I personally think Romes  view is mainly to increase number not  a clear theology and stand for it.As  long as Orthodox accept infability and Roman supremacy they will accept our theology.How can pope have infability when at least one sect of RC still follow a different faith?
Logged

NULL
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2005, 10:28:56 AM »

Sorry if i tigers a fire there ;what i was trying to say  not about issues between Easetern and Oriental orthodox but  the greedy attitude of Rome was the  reason behind the big split,from there we can see development of  Roman supremacy and  papal infallibility there is no canonical or theological base for this simple power greedy attitude Rome still believe in this; thats why  they not ready to give this baseless  infallibility and  supremacy.Even Rome do not have a clear unified theology  the Malankara Reath catholic(eastern rite f RC church)still celebrate Eucharist in Syrian rite it contain  theological view of St Severus of Antioch whom Rome  persecuted for his  ÃƒÆ’‚ stand.And profession of faith of them  still say Holy Spirit proceeds from father  alone.
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  These are  an examples of roman view.I personally think Romes  view is mainly to increase number not  a clear theology and stand for it.As  long as Orthodox accept infability and Roman supremacy they will accept our theology.How can pope have infability when at least one sect of RC still follow a different faith?

That has always been my take on the Vatican:  "Just join us under the authority of the Pope of Rome and ALL else are negotiable."   It is seemingly saying to us who are not under Rome that it is the Pope which makes the Roman Catholic faith catholic and not the faith.  Because according to Rome without the Pope you cannot be Catholic.  A logical conclusion.

JoeS
Logged
Vasili Kosta
New Guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27

St. Vasilios the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea


« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2005, 02:38:48 AM »

What halted me on becoming a Roman Catholic was The Pope. My issue with the Pope stemmed from two things:
Papal Infallibility and Ex Cathedra:

Ex Cathedra: Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

Papal Infallibility: The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

[li]what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration[/li]ÂÂ  
[li]the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.[/li]
[li]infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:[/li]

[li]The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.[/li]

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense. These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2005, 02:42:13 AM by Vasili Kosta » Logged
Luis_Garza
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2005, 11:02:21 PM »

The definition of infallibility and ex-cathedra may sounds good but just like definition, and I think is important to know how RC defines infallibility and ex-cathedra but after know that, I think those concepts are very abstract, I don't know when the Pope of Roma defined a dogma using the "ex-cathedra" formula  before schism.

I was a roman catholic and I don't know a historical precedent about a pope talking ex-cathedra like when the "inmaculate conception" was defined or another dogma defined by Pope before schism that can give some suport to the "papal infallibility" and to the "ex-cathedra" formula.

Regards
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.151 seconds with 72 queries.