Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[spina1953]

Ah, I meant that the Greeks wanted the Slavic world to look to them. By giving the Tsar his own Patriarch, it meant that the Tsar could and would act like the protector of the Orthodox Christians of the Muslim world, as the Emperors of Constantinople had done previously.

Hi Novocastrian: Thanks for the Info. I am very graetful to you as it was becoming somewhat confussing to me as to the history. I would like to point out that as a Catholic I would like to see union with all the Orthodox Churches. I know that they have a beautiful tradition. I wonder from some of the posts concerning some of the Orthodox Churches are not very welcoming as St. Paul said there is no Jew, Greek nor free or slave to mean as I understand it that we are all one with Jesus the Christ. I do not know if you agree with my thought but would like to know your take on it if you get the time. QAgain thanks for the info it clears up some of my confussion.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I’m not going to wade into the debate too much again (as I said before, people more knowledgable than me can do that, but I will make these comments:

Reuben, many of us understand Papal Power just fine. A Benevolent Supreme Pontiff, is still a “Supreme Pontiff” and we reject this on multiple grounds, which have been rehashed ad nauseum. No Bishop is infallible, and talking about collegiality in those decision making processes is disingenous, because every Bishop in the Latin Church serves at the discretion of the Pope. The Pope can unilaterally remove a bishop anywhere, at any time. He is above Canon Law, and is the final authority. There is no Synodical structure which can check that power. Despite the Benevolence of the last few occupants of the Papal Chair, the power is still there and it is THAT we find unacceptable. Vigorously disagreeing with the Papacy is not an “attack.” I don’t like what Randy Carson says much of the time, but I never reported him to the moderators for it.

I also noticed that Father John was sent on a vacation, not by choice. This is distressing, and merely reinforces what many Orthodox think about these dialogues. Some may interpret this as “Questioning the moderators”…I am not challenging their decision, as they can do as they like. Report me if you will, it doesn’t matter at this point.

We are a competing historical narrative. That is what it boils down to. Our very existence debunks the idea that a strong centralized figure is necessary to keep the Faith. This strikes at the theology of the Papacy, which is the very heart of Latin Ecclesiology and practice. Our existence is an assault on that authority, even though it is implicit. Our faithfulness (or as some Latins have insinuated, our sinful Pride) to the Faith that we have received is what is at issue here.

No doubt the possibility of conversion of lurkers in these discussions to Orthodoxy is on the mind of many Latins here (and perhaps the moderators) which is why our Position must be debunked at all costs…or disipated in a hand waving “We all believe the same thing anyway.”

I think it was Father John who said that our differences should be discussed openly and honestly…I agree. This being a Latin forum, I can understand the hostility. The ignorance about Orthodoxy should be countered, and the ignorance about the Latin Church should be as well.

The narrative that we are disunified, ethnic cranks who irrationally dislike anything Latin is wrong. Most of us want to disabuse people of those misconceptions, which is why many Orthodox participate on forums such as this.

However, the above mentioned narrative is very useful in Latin Apologetics and Polemics, which is why that canard is always drug out in every discussion like this. The apologetics materials of this very website even have a whiff of that narrative, which is also unfortunate.

I hope that everyone has gotten something positive out of these dialogues, despite the vitriol that can be displayed at times.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Pope can unilaterally remove a bishop anywhere, at any time. He is above Canon Law, and is the final authority. There is no Synodical structure which can check that power.

Except it does not work like that. You see, that’s the difficulty when you base on your self opinion without asking us on what truly happening. Appointing and dismissing a bishop probably has nothing to do with the Pope personally. Of course there is exception. Bishops are stationed all over the world. A Pope cannot possibly know each and everyone of them. Yet Bishops are appointed nearly every year, either new positions or replacing the older ones.

Removing a Bishop needs to go through a process. You DO NOT need a Synodical structure, whatever that means, to do that. The most important thing is none of these appointment and dismissal are done abritrarily.

Now how it should be done is indeed a point of difference between us and there is surely nothing wrong in pointing that out.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Hi there. Peace.

I note your post and thanks for the comment. The bottom line in discussing about each other religion is not to impose one’s opinion on it that it may sound as if it is true but nevertheless truly disparaging and saddening for us. Of course it works both ways – it is two-way traffic. I hope you know what I mean. For me if I inadvertently did that and if someone pointed to me, I would immediately apologize. I have pointed the posts which were leading in nature and explained why they were not right.

Calling a Pope a dictator is not acceptable. You have to respect us who revere his position and we know that he is not. Neither is he making decision arbitrarily.

Besides the formal meetings, synods and councils with thousand of cardinals, bishops, theologians and scientists, the Pope is also given (name removed by moderator)uts and suggestions from the millions of Catholics which also include people of high caliber in the subjects they are in.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of movements in the Catholic Church. If you should attend some of these gatherings where representatives of such movements are called to the Vatican, there are hundreds of thousands of them. Each has their own respective leaders, people of great ability and honesty, who are equally concerned with the church. They would be in contact with the Pope now and then, giving suggestions and pointing out issues affecting the Church and doctrines. Yes, they may have their own movements’ interest at heart and some would be quite extreme but because of the wide spectrum of such movements, there are check and balance. No one can really pursue their own spirituality, for example, without the objection of the others, if it is considered to be too extreme or impinging the church’s own dogmas. The Pope is privy to all this.

Thus the Pope’s decision is not just according to his whim and fancy and that’s why if you use the term dictator to describe the Pope, then you are wrong. Looking at the various Vatican documents and especially the summarized power of the Pope without appreciating the context will usually make any comment on it to be erring.

He is not a pastor of an independent church at the end of the street who had formed of his own church over some disagreement and whereby now his personal thought matters that either you join his church or leave. That IS a dictator.

I have no problem in disagreeing, even vigorously. That is a given otherwise we would be in the same Church. But it is different if it look like becoming an agenda, either intentionally or perhaps unintentionally, but if the effect is the same due to our enthusiasm.

God bless.

Reuben

Thank you for your reply.

You state that he gets (name removed by moderator)ut and suggestions from all over the place. That is all well and good, but that is something he “allows”…he doesn’t have to do that, and if he decided not to anymore, who could say he was wrong? You may counter that he “would never do that” but that is not the point. No Bishop has that authority or power in the first place, and it shouldn’t even be an option, or on the books at all. THAT is the point we are making.

How is there a check and balance there? The various movements may balance each other by the influence that they are allowed to exert at the Vatican, but they have no say in the final decisions…that is reserved to the Pope alone. The Pope listens to who he wants to, and disregards who he wants to. He still has supreme authority, even if he exercises it in a spirit of generosity and has a very large council of advisors and committees.

In the strictest of senses, according to the definition of the word, the Pope is a dictator because all final authority rests in him. He has final say, final veto, final authority…he is not bound by Canon Law, or any Synod. I think Father’s use of that word was unfortunate, but it is not technically inaccurate. It is akin to saying that Sola Scriptura is a heresy…while that is technically true, it is a very loaded word with many negative connotations so it is not used much anymore. I think one could accuse Father John of being tactless or “unecumenical”, but he is not wrong.

God be with you as well, and us all.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben, many of us understand Papal Power just fine. A Benevolent Supreme Pontiff, is still a “Supreme Pontiff” and we reject this on multiple grounds, which have been rehashed ad nauseum. No Bishop is infallible, and talking about collegiality in those decision making processes is disingenous, because every Bishop in the Latin Church serves at the discretion of the Pope. The Pope can unilaterally remove a bishop anywhere, at any time. He is above Canon Law, and is the final authority. There is no Synodical structure which can check that power. Despite the Benevolence of the last few occupants of the Papal Chair, the power is still there and it is THAT we find unacceptable. Vigorously disagreeing with the Papacy is not an “attack.” I don’t like what Randy Carson says much of the time, but I never reported him to the moderators for it.

Hi there. Peace.

I note your post and thanks for the comment. The bottom line in discussing about each other religion is not to impose one’s opinion on it that it may sound as if it is true but nevertheless truly disparaging and saddening for us. Of course it works both ways – it is two-way traffic. I hope you know what I mean. For me if I inadvertently did that and if someone pointed to me, I would immediately apologize. I have pointed the posts which were leading in nature and explained why they were not right.

Calling a Pope a dictator is not acceptable. You have to respect us who revere his position and we know that he is not. Neither is he making decision arbitrarily.

Besides the formal meetings, synods and councils with thousand of cardinals, bishops, theologians and scientists, the Pope is also given (name removed by moderator)uts and suggestions from the millions of Catholics which also include people of high caliber in the subjects they are in.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of movements in the Catholic Church. If you should attend some of these gatherings where representatives of such movements are called to the Vatican, there are hundreds of thousands of them. Each has their own respective leaders, people of great ability and honesty, who are equally concerned with the church. They would be in contact with the Pope now and then, giving suggestions and pointing out issues affecting the Church and doctrines. Yes, they may have their own movements’ interest at heart and some would be quite extreme but because of the wide spectrum of such movements, there are check and balance. No one can really pursue their own spirituality, for example, without the objection of the others, if it is considered to be too extreme or impinging the church’s own dogmas. The Pope is privy to all this.

Thus the Pope’s decision is not just according to his whim and fancy and that’s why if you use the term dictator to describe the Pope, then you are wrong. Looking at the various Vatican documents and especially the summarized power of the Pope without appreciating the context will usually make any comment on it to be erring.

He is not a pastor of an independent church at the end of the street who had formed of his own church over some disagreement and whereby now his personal thought matters that either you join his church or leave. That IS a dictator.

I have no problem in disagreeing, even vigorously. That is a given otherwise we would be in the same Church. But it is different if it look like becoming an agenda, either intentionally or perhaps unintentionally, but if the effect is the same due to our enthusiasm.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Please don’t misunderstand. I think that Pope Francis is a very nice man, and does a lot of good. He has a very good relationship with my own Patriarch, HAH Bartholomew I. I mean no disrespect to him at all.

With that said, the issues that I mentioned are serious, and are an impediment to reunion. It doesn’t matter how nice he is…the Papacy took powers upon itself that it had no right to, and still have no right to. That is our position. The Holy Synod could depose our Patriarch if they wanted to…and the Ecumenical Patriarch cannot make decisions without not just the counsel of the Holy Synod, but he also needs the APPROVAL of the Holy Synod. Therein lies the difference. THAT is the model of the Early Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thank you for your reply.

You are welcome.

You state that he gets (name removed by moderator)ut and suggestions from all over the place. That is all well and good, but that is something he “allows”…he doesn’t have to do that, and if he decided not to anymore, who could say he was wrong? You may counter that he “would never do that” but that is not the point. No Bishop has that authority or power in the first place, and it shouldn’t even be an option, or on the books at all. THAT is the point we are making.

He is a man of God. You are looking for the worst in a Pope which can be applied to everyone. Yet the Church is protected from grave error and the Gate of Hell will not prevail. The Pope is given the charism of infallibility, which is the contention here. Either you believe that or you don’t. What we are talking there is the spiritual realm, not a U.S. presidential administration.

That authority of the Pope is well debated here. No problem with that.

How is there a check and balance there? The various movements may balance each other by the influence that they are allowed to exert at the Vatican, but they have no say in the final decisions…that is reserved to the Pope alone. The Pope listens to who he wants to, and disregards who he wants to. He still has supreme authority, even if he exercises it in a spirit of generosity and has a very large council of advisors and committees.

Simply said, a Pope will not go heretical. Isn’t that the contention? He is not living in a cave or surrounded by Presidential yes-men.

In the strictest of senses, according to the definition of the word, the Pope is a dictator because all final authority rests in him. He has final say, final veto, final authority…he is not bound by Canon Law, or any Synod. I think Father’s use of that word was unfortunate, but it is not technically inaccurate. It is akin to saying that Sola Scriptura is a heresy…while that is technically true, it is a very loaded word with many negative connotations so it is not used much anymore. I think one could accuse Father John of being tactless or “unecumenical”, but he is not wrong.

It is my earlier post. Can a President/Queen/Prime Minister be a dictator? Yes, but no, if the system is in place. If you are saying the Pope is a dictator, then you are insulting us because you are saying the system/structure of the papacy is not in place.

God be with you as well, and us all.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Please don’t misunderstand. I think that Pope Francis is a very nice man, and does a lot of good. He has a very good relationship with my own Patriarch, HAH Bartholomew I. I mean no disrespect to him at all.

With that said, the issues that I mentioned are serious, and are an impediment to reunion. It doesn’t matter how nice he is…the Papacy took powers upon itself that it had no right to, and still have no right to. That is our position. The Holy Synod could depose our Patriarch if they wanted to…and the Ecumenical Patriarch cannot make decisions without not just the counsel of the Holy Synod, but he also needs the APPROVAL of the Holy Synod. Therein lies the difference. THAT is the model of the Early Church.

Not at all. I appreciate your posts. I know the distinction between discussion/argument and malicious intent, if that makes you feel better.

OK. Thanks for stating your position. I accept the difference. That has never been a problem here.

btw I did mentioned about what to model a church on in one of the earlier posts. I hope you got it

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Reuben:

“He is a man of God. You are looking for the worst in a Pope which can be applied to everyone. Yet the Church is protected from grave error and the Gate of Hell will not prevail. The Pope is given the charism of infallibility, which is the contention here. Either you believe that or you don’t. What we are talking there is the spiritual realm, not a U.S. presidential administration.”

REPLY: I am not looking for the worst in anyone. The fact of the matter is, this goes beyond the personality of a particular Pope. Does he have the authority he claims? You say he has the charism of Infallibility. We deny that such a thing exists, nor was such a thing exercised in the early Church. He had a primacy of Honor, and certain perogatives (which don’t include the powers I mentioned before). If you want to see what the role of the Pope is/was, look at the powers of our own Ecumenical Patriarch, or your Dean of the College of Cardinals.

“That authority of the Pope is well debated here. No problem with that.”

REPLY: It is indeed.

“Simply said, a Pope will not go heretical. Isn’t that the contention? He is not living in a cave or surrounded by Presidential yes-men.”

REPLY: Yet a Pope was condemned for Heresy. Whether it was his actual views, or his passivity in the face of them (the Latin Position. Although that still makes him a cooperator in Heresy…an accessory, if you will). The Gates of Hell didn’t prevail then, did it?

“It is my earlier post. Can a President/Queen/Prime Minister be a dictator? Yes, but no, if the system is in place. If you are saying the Pope is a dictator, then you are insulting us because you are saying the system/structure of the papacy is not in place.”

REPLY: I am not saying the Pope is a dictator in the modern usage of the word (the ones evoking Hitler, Pol Pot or whoever) but the basic definition of the word does fit with some of the “Supreme” perogatives of the Papacy. We are not saying the system is not in place, what we are saying is that the system itself is suspect and “too centralized” to use a less abrasive term.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben:

Hi again

Yet a Pope was condemned for Heresy. Whether it was his actual views, or his passivity in the face of them (the Latin Position. Although that still makes him a cooperator in Heresy…an accessory, if you will). The Gates of Hell didn’t prevail then, did it?

A pope will not be heretic when he is speaking ex-cathedra because he is protected by the charism of infallibility in matter of faith and moral. He is not impeccable personally in his personal exhortations, encyclicals, decrees and teachings which are not binding on the Church.

I am not saying the Pope is a dictator in the modern usage of the word (the ones evoking Hitler, Pol Pot or whoever) but the basic definition of the word does fit with some of the “Supreme” perogatives of the Papacy. We are not saying the system is not in place, what we are saying is that the system itself is suspect and “too centralized” to use a less abrasive term.

Then be careful in using term that could disparage in a Forum which is controlled to prevent discussion becoming a slugging match. Why use it if he is not?

However, I know what you are trying to say though to liken the Pope as a dictator is still not accurate.

One has to believe the system. I understand that the Orthodox consider the Ecumenical Council as infallible. However, they say it is only an Ecumenical Council when it is accepted and agreed by all the Church otherwise it is not. That is the system that you preferred. There are certainly weaknesses there also, and that has been discussed. How do you know that the people in the Ecumenical Council could not make mistake? After all they are people too. The fact that you do is because you believe there is a basis for it, perhaps scripturally or from the Church Tradition.

The papacy works in a manner that sometimes the Pope is merely like a President in signing a document to make it official. When he does, it is always an informed decision. You have failed to really appreciate the immensity of those who advise the Pope. I gave the example of the various leaders of the movements/disciplines/orders of the Catholic Church besides the College of the Cardinals, Bishop, the clergies and the religious. These people have relationship with the Pope, having audiences and personal meetings or celebrating the mass together with him.

Can you imagine their outcry if the Pope declares something completely objectionable? The check and balance is that extremism could not really work. Thus a Pope cannot really be personal when he speaks ex-cathedra besides the fact that the scope of the subject is very limited – to the faith and moral that were held by the apostles.

The concept of ex-cathedra exists since the early Church and pre-Christianity - the chair of Peter, the Chair of Moses.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi again
Can you imagine their outcry if the Pope declares something completely objectionable? The check and balance is that extremism could not really work.

How do you reconcile this idea with the formation of the Old Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican I, which was formed in resistance to the supposed objectionable nature of the decisions of that council regarding Papal power and prerogatives?

I mean…we don’t really need to imagine what would happen, in that case…that’s what did happen, so it’s a little odd to read about how just such a thing cannot happen because of “checks and balances” that are supposed to guard against the declaration of objectionable things. Can the declaration of Papal Infallibility itself not be taken as evidence that this schema cannot work, and if not, why not?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Are the Old Catholics a good example? They are numerically insignificant, and they have leapt headfirst into liberalism and relativism: women’s ordination, homosexuality, contraception, full communion with Anglicans etc. If anything, they would be an example of why we do need a pope. In any event, I don’t see how, regardless of the example, this is a good sort of argument. Isn’t the point of definig dogma to guard against heretics? Is the existence of the Oriental Orthodox an indication of the questionable nature of Chalcedonianism for the EO? Is the existence of Nestorians after Ephesus indicative of the questionable nature of anti-Nestorianism for the OO? Do you think this is a good argument?

 

[dzheremi]

I have a feeling you have misunderstood the motivation for my question. The question, in case you missed it, is “Can the declaration of Papal Infallibility itself not be taken as evidence that this schema cannot work, and if not, why not?” Old Catholics were/are evidence of what happened when the Pope declared something that others found objectionable, in answer to Reuben’s quoted question (hence the point that we don’t need to imagine what would happen, since it already happened in this case). But the question of Papal Infallibility itself being objectionable is something else, since of course it’s not only Old Catholics who object to it. The motivation for asking this is that if we accept that Papal Infallibility itself could be seen as objectionable (as it is on the part of Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, etc. – basically every church or communion not in union with Rome, and even some that are…), then it creates a strange dichotomy in which the very thing that we are told protects the Pope or the Chair or whatever from error is itself an error, and hence is proof of the falsehood of the doctrine.

So the question is really not “Is X evidence for Y that Y’s doctrine is wrong?”, but rather “If dogma which is presented as safeguarding the faith can be shown by others to be somehow harming it instead, then shouldn’t the existence of that dogma (e.g., Papal Infallibility) be taken as evidence of its falsehood, rather than evidence of its necessity?” And, in fact, now that you’ve mentioned it, this is something that the OO traditionally say about Chalcedon (in viewing it as an unnecessary council whose doctrinal statement perverted the faith), but we don’t expect any Chalcedonian to lose sleep over that…we do, however, keep repeating our reasons for being against it, no differently than the EO and OO in this thread have voiced their reasons for being against various points of RCC doctrine, including Papal Infallibility. Is that enough to convince Catholics themselves that it’s wrong? Of course not. But I would hope it’s enough for my RC friends here like Reuben to think a little bit more about the arguments that they present, since they rely on the a priori acceptance of Papal Infallibility to even make sense/be seen as anything other than circular logic. This is not the case with any of the examples you brought up.

 

[Reuben_J]

How do you reconcile this idea with the formation of the Old Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican I, which was formed in resistance to the supposed objectionable nature of the decisions of that council regarding Papal power and prerogatives?

I mean…we don’t really need to imagine what would happen, in that case…that’s what did happen, so it’s a little odd to read about how just such a thing cannot happen because of “checks and balances” that are supposed to guard against the declaration of objectionable things. Can the declaration of Papal Infallibility itself not be taken as evidence that this schema cannot work, and if not, why not?

If you meant that many Catholics disagreed and left the Church, yes, I know what you meant, though I don’t know what you are getting at. In fact that supports the fact how difficult it is for the Pope to act arbitrarily. Then you have to rely on the system and operate within it.

Vatican 1 is a Council. I think Orthodox have no problem as far as council is per se; they only disagree on the infallibility of the Pope which is one of the subject being spelt out from that Council.

The argument here rather is whether papal infallibility is real or not. Catholics believe it is real. That reality cannot be proved explicitly by what the ancient Church were doing simply because it was a ‘Church under seize’ and also the structure had not been fully developed. The belief was there but the doctrines were known within the Church and many were not defined; the Church took for granted the belief as a given. Only when the needs arise then decision had to be made to define them. Defining doctrines is not just about the Pope. That’s why the attack on the Pope to wield unlimited privilege is misplaced.

Do let me know if I did not address your thought.

 

[Peter_J]

How do you reconcile this idea with the formation of the Old Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican I, which was formed in resistance to the supposed objectionable nature of the decisions of that council regarding Papal power and prerogatives?

I mean…we don’t really need to imagine what would happen, in that case…that’s what did happen, so it’s a little odd to read about how just such a thing cannot happen because of “checks and balances” that are supposed to guard against the declaration of objectionable things. Can the declaration of Papal Infallibility itself not be taken as evidence that this schema cannot work, and if not, why not?

With regard to effects of Vatican I, the Old Catholics were just the tip of the iceberg. That is, the Old Catholics breaking communion with Rome after Vatican I was highly visible, like the above-water portion of an iceberg; but the larger part of the “iceberg” is much harder to see, subtle. But the bottom line is that ultramontanism finally lost its grip on Catholicism (after having “overplayed its hand” if you will) – just consider Vatican II.

 

[Peter_J]

With regard to effects of Vatican I, the Old Catholics were just the tip of the iceberg. That is, the Old Catholics breaking communion with Rome after Vatican I was highly visible, like the above-water portion of an iceberg; but the larger part of the “iceberg” is much harder to see, subtle. But the bottom line is that ultramontanism finally lost its grip on Catholicism (after having “overplayed its hand” if you will) – just consider Vatican II.

P.S. Of course, I guess a more cynical mind might respond “No, ultramontanism didn’t lose its grip at all. It was appeased, so it decided to go easy for a while” or something like that.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

“A pope will not be heretic when he is speaking ex-cathedra because he is protected by the charism of infallibility in matter of faith and moral. He is not impeccable personally in his personal exhortations, encyclicals, decrees and teachings which are not binding on the Church.”

REPLY: So how does one know which statements are infallible? There is disagreement within the Latin Church as to what qualifies as an infallible teaching and what isn’t. This Dogma has sown much confusion and hang wringing, with different factions parsing Papal Statements looking for that “magic bullet.” A Pope speaks on Faith and Morals most of the time when they publish Encyclicals, et al. Is the Ordinary Magisterium subject for debate?

"Then be careful in using term that could disparage in a Forum which is controlled to prevent discussion becoming a slugging match. Why use it if he is not?

However, I know what you are trying to say though to liken the Pope as a dictator is still not accurate."

REPLY: I did not use the word myself. My point was to show you that he could be viewed in that light, depending on what your POV is. Your point is taken.

“One has to believe the system. I understand that the Orthodox consider the Ecumenical Council as infallible. However, they say it is only an Ecumenical Council when it is accepted and agreed by all the Church otherwise it is not. That is the system that you preferred. There are certainly weaknesses there also, and that has been discussed. How do you know that the people in the Ecumenical Council could not make mistake? After all they are people too. The fact that you do is because you believe there is a basis for it, perhaps scripturally or from the Church Tradition.”

REPLY: God knows that we are fallible and weak creatures. This is why Christ promised that he would protect us from ourselves, so to speak when it comes to Church teaching.

“The papacy works in a manner that sometimes the Pope is merely like a President in signing a document to make it official. When he does, it is always an informed decision. You have failed to really appreciate the immensity of those who advise the Pope. I gave the example of the various leaders of the movements/disciplines/orders of the Catholic Church besides the College of the Cardinals, Bishop, the clergies and the religious. These people have relationship with the Pope, having audiences and personal meetings or celebrating the mass together with him.”

REPLY: I’m sure they have a great relationship. But at the end of the day, The Pope is the one who decides. They serve at his leisure, and depend entirely on the Pope’s say so for any authority or role at all. Could the College of Cardinals depose a Pope if the need manifested itself?

“Can you imagine their outcry if the Pope declares something completely objectionable? The check and balance is that extremism could not really work. Thus a Pope cannot really be personal when he speaks ex-cathedra besides the fact that the scope of the subject is very limited – to the faith and moral that were held by the apostles.”

REPLY: dzheremi made a very good point. Infallibility itself is an error, with far reaching consequences. The increased estrangement of the Latin Church from us only one of them.

“The concept of ex-cathedra exists since the early Church and pre-Christianity - the chair of Peter, the Chair of Moses.”

REPLY: I understand that the Latins see it that way.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

With regard to effects of Vatican I, the Old Catholics were just the tip of the iceberg. That is, the Old Catholics breaking communion with Rome after Vatican I was highly visible, like the above-water portion of an iceberg; but the larger part of the “iceberg” is much harder to see, subtle. But the bottom line is that ultramontanism finally lost its grip on Catholicism (after having “overplayed its hand” if you will) – just consider Vatican II.

Which brings up a bigger question. Is the personage of the Pope the only thing holding it all together? Despite the protestations of Apologists, The Latin Church changed radically after Vatican II. The rupture with the Past is apparent and obvious. The SSPX was the Catholic Mainstream in 1940. Now they are viewed as fringe kooks. You have Catholic clergy and religious holding all sorts of heterodox beliefs, and some professing them publicly.

We have our fringe as well, but our disagreements are more out in the open. It’s a public spectacle (and at times quite messy), but there are no illusions and it is honest. There is a deep disunity within the Latin Church…serious enough that without the Papal Tent, Schism would undoubtedly occur.

 

[Reuben_J]

With regard to effects of Vatican I, the Old Catholics were just the tip of the iceberg. That is, the Old Catholics breaking communion with Rome after Vatican I was highly visible, like the above-water portion of an iceberg; but the larger part of the “iceberg” is much harder to see, subtle. But the bottom line is that ultramontanism finally lost its grip on Catholicism (after having “overplayed its hand” if you will) – just consider Vatican II.

I am still wondering why bringing up this? Is it to prove that because of some of the negative fallouts of the Council that the infallibility of the Pope is wrong? So I am not sure what the idea here is.

Basically a Council is called to address concerns that the Church is facing. It is not about appeasing interested parties but to uphold the truth which is not always pretty. During Jesus’ time, people left because of the hard teaching (John 6). The young man left because the requirement of following Jesus is too great. But the truth did not change. Calling up a council is like putting the card on the table, to show our hands, to show the truth. Like when God called a prophet, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth. See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” (Jer 1). There is always both positive and negative effect to anything new or when the line is drawn.

There’s been lots of discussion to this effect. That the decreased Church’s attendance is due to Vatican II and so its validity is suspect. I would not accept such argument simply because that is not a measuring standard for the Church but rather the natural way of the world. Just like when there is a natural calamity, an earthquake, the remedial action is to salvage whatever consequence that it may cause but it is not to stop the earthquake because we can’t. But then that’s another topic.

 

[Reuben_J]

Which brings up a bigger question. Is the personage of the Pope the only thing holding it all together?

Holding the truth in a structure of the Church. The weed will always grow with the wheat; the Pope is not a magician, none can be but together with the servants of God, he being the visible leader, is having the responsibility to keep the faith and the guardian of the truth.

Despite the protestations of Apologists, The Latin Church changed radically after Vatican II.

Probably the apologists have got nothing to do with it. The phenomenon after Vatican II is something we can never fully understand. If one is truly faithful to God, the spirit of obedience, then nothing can be really a problem.

The rupture with the Past is apparent and obvious. The SSPX was the Catholic Mainstream in 1940. Now they are viewed as fringe kooks. You have Catholic clergy and religious holding all sorts of heterodox beliefs, and some professing them publicly.

And this is nothing new though in the history and the experience of the Church. The question here is actually: is calling for Council wrong or not? Does a Council has any part t play in the Church or not?

We know that council existed since the beginning and when it was called there would be always an effect, rightly or wrongly, unity or separation, agreement or dissent.

We have our fringe as well, but our disagreements are more out in the open. It’s a public spectacle (and at times quite messy), but there are no illusions and it is honest. There is a deep disunity within the Latin Church…serious enough that without the Papal Tent, Schism would undoubtedly occur.

You can sing the goodness of your Church and so can we but this does not prove anything.

If that’s the purpose of discussion in this Forum, then that is not what it wants. Really.