Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[SoMissCatholic]

(Continued from previous)

You say “There is no accountability of a Pope to the rest of your Church.” I say, there is accountability to God, who promised through our Lord Jesus Christ that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, and who further promised not to leave us orphaned. For example, look at Pope Sixtus V:

Sixtus V reigned as pope from 1585-1590. He has been described as a “brilliant leader in political and ecclesiastical arenas, a tireless innovator in agriculture, engineering and law, he effectively enacted and enforced laws, created an impressive aqueduct system, reformed clergy and the Church’s liturgical customs, tackled building projects, drained the swamps near Rome to eliminate the siege of malaria, spent large amounts of money on charitable works and missions, and oversaw the completion of the St. Peter’s Basilica.” Unfortunately he had an ego to match and this got him into serious trouble when a revision of the Latin Vulgate edition of the holy Bible was begun. “Historian Francis Gasquet explains the background of the Vulgate: ‘The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity.’ The translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come ‘from the first days of the Faith’, and the latter that it ‘ had helped strengthen the Faith of the infant Church.’ Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful.”

Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments.  He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others.  They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . "  If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching.  But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it.  Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him."  **But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness.**  The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again.  "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

(quote taken from here)

It seems to me that Pope Sixtus V was indeed held accountable for nearly leading the flock astray.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

If someone told you a decade ago that you would join the Catholic Church, what would you have thought?

He probably would have thought that they were crazy, considering that he converted to Catholicism in 1979

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Randy Carson
Ah. I forgot. You are in the camp which believes that Catholics are of a different faith than true Christians.

I say to them that they are Christians, and if necessary I back it up with Vatican II.

As a matter of fact, Cardinal Kaspar went further (and cheesed off so-called “traditionalist” Catholics pretty good) by saying “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Randy Carson;Because God cannot allow His Church to teach error.

I RESPOND: I agree, but I do not agree with your assumption that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church. I recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church as the true Church or I would not be Eastern Orthodox. My studies of church history have convinced me that the Eastern Orthodox Church has maintained without change or corruption the Faith of the ancient Church. **I can show the growth of the papacy historically as a departure from the Faith and practices of the ancient undivided Church. **

Father, I beg to differ. The development in Church government through the See of Rome is not a departure of the Faith but a departure from an old and ineffective government system, where each Church ran into the danger of looking like what Protestantism looks like today. Each Church being their own authority.

I RESPOND: The Eastern Patriarchs who embraced heresy or were corrupt, were all removed by the Church acting through a local or Ecumenical Council. There is no way for the Roman Catholic Church to remove a Pope because you have given the Popes too much power and authority. In our system a Patriarch is answerable to the Holy Synod of his patriarchate as well as to the other Patriarchs. There is no accountability of a Pope to the rest of your Church.
There have been plenty of corrupt and power hungry Popes. Alexander VI was not exactly an example of true Christian morality. I do not believe that it was good for the Western Church for its leader to become a secular prince as the Popes became when they became the rulers over Rome and central Italy. It is not faithful to the teachings of Christ for a Bishop to field armies and led troops in war as some of the Popes did. Was not Julius II called the “Warrior Pope?” How is it healthy for the Church to be led by a warrior? In the Eastern Orthodox Church no Priest or Bishop is allowed to bear arms. If an Orthodox Priest or Bishop kills someone, he is automatically removed from office.

I am really disappointed by these comments, . I really don’t like pointing fingers back but I am sure there have been corrupt Bishops and Patriarchates in the Orthodox Church.

And Roman Catholics do not interpret history and the Holy Scriptures according to their own presuppositions? Just like a Baptist or a Calvinists you have your proof texts which you take out of context to prove your point of view. So far, only two sections of the Bible have been given as justification for the powers of the Pope, St. Matthew 16: 17-1, and St. John 21:15-19. It seems to me that if papal supremacy were so important it would be clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures throughout the New Testament, not in two passages, that can be interpreted differently than Roman Catholics. **For example, the rock upon which Christ would build His Church is the Faith confessed by St. Peter, not St. Peter himself. **The triple questions asked by Christ in John was his restoration to Apostleship after his triple denial of Christ.

I think this is the first time I’ve heard this argument from an Orthodox.

I RESPOND: Roman Catholics are just like Protestants. Instead of following the Holy Tradition of the ancient Church which enshrined the conciliar system of polity, you have let your Church become an absolute monarchy led by one man, who is not accountable to the rest of your Church. If a Pope makes a bad or theologically unsound decision, you have no safety valve to overrule the bad or theologically unsound decision. We have such a safety valve through our conciliar system. A Patriarch can be overruled by the Holy Synod of his patriarchate or, if necessary, by a pan-Orthodox council. I can show that the conciliar system was the system adopted by the ancient undivided Church in which all important decisions were made by councils, not papal decree. The best that you can do is argue that the papacy is a matter of development of doctrine. If it were truly a matter of a legitimate development of doctrine, it would have been accepted by all 5 ancient Patriarchates, not just by one, the one who benefits by this supposedly development of doctrine by claiming universal power for himself.

Fr. John

This is a dangerous argument, Father. It can be claimed just as well that each Patriarch did not want to be accountable to another and retain their full authority, removed only by a Council - Which are very difficult and extraordinary to convene. So in reality a Patriarch is not accountable to anyone, other than a pan-Orthodox council.

I’ll be the first one to admit that before coming back to the Catholic Church, the Papacy was an obstacle. I don’t mind authority at all - what I mind is my ability to enforce it (Sorry, I bleed blue ). So when I was looking at the “sui compos” Canon 187) principle through the “non sui compos” Canon 99], I discovered that there is no body of authority to enforce this Canon with a Pope, in the event the Pope is found to be lacking of his reasonable faculties. I naturally freaked out.

However, I had to admire and recognize the complete trust in God and confidence in Christ that Catholics present when we subject ourselves to the successor of Peter, in confidence that Christ is not going to allow His Vicar to mislead His sheep in the Faith. Like you previously said regarding Scriptures, this is not just a matter of historical criticism but a matter of the heart.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us, sinners.

God Bless you Father. I truly appreciate you taking the time to interact with us and sharing your knowledge and your conversion story.

 

[Peter_J]

I think this is the first time I’ve heard this argument from an Orthodox.

Ya get used to it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

If they were considered higher courts, sure. But only one was considered the highest court.

According to Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon, the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451, the highest court of appeal was not Rome. It was Constantinople.

Canon IX.
If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his
bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

Fr. John

 

[Isaiah45_9]

According to Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon, the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451, the highest court of appeal was not Rome. It was Constantinople.

Canon IX.
If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his
bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

Fr. John

And still Canon 28 clearly establishes that Constantinople is 2nd to Rome:

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome – we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

(Emphasis mine)

This Council was also commanded by Byzantine Emperor Marcian. Who I think left Rome without aid during the attacks from Attila the Hun. This was a very inconsiderate year to convene the council considering that Attila was present in what today is Northern France at the time.

Still, in this Council the “Definition of the Faith” was promulgated - which is in agreement with Pope Leo’s letter to Flavian of Constantinople.

 

[dronald]

.
Tell me, are any Catholics saved? Or will only Orthodox be in heaven?

There is no guarantee of salvation for those outside of the Church. That is the patristic teaching going all the way back to St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, and others. I only know that salvation is offered in the Church, and that those outside are left to the mercy of God. In accordance with the fathers

And Roman Catholics do not interpret history and the Holy Scriptures according to their own presuppositions? Just like a Baptist or a Calvinists you have your proof texts which you take out of context to prove your point of view.

I RESPOND: Roman Catholics are just like Protestants. Instead of following the Holy Tradition of the ancient Church which enshrined the conciliar system of polity

The Church can never be overcome by an heretical confession of faith, according to the promise of Christ, and thus, we believe the Church to be indefectible.

But am I outside the Church because I am Roman Catholic and not Orthodox?

Yes.

Today I learned: Catholics are to Orthodox what Protestants are to Catholics!

 

[dzheremi]

Well yeah. Any Orthodox person could tell you that, DRonald. It goes Orthodox > Catholics > Protestants > other people > various kinds of plants and trees

 

[simspt]

I would agree with you that the Holy Scriptures could contain historical and scientific errors if I did not believe that the Scriptures are inspired in all their parts. St. Gregory Nazianzen (to name one example) seems to agree on this point:

We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, we never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation. (Oration II.105)

By this, I don’t mean that words ought to be considered inerrant in isolation apart from their context and intended meaning. For example, when Christ says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds and that the mustard plant is the tallest of plants (Mt. 13:32), he is not intending to teach a biology lesson. It is obvious that he is speaking in hyperbolic terms. That should not be taken as an error any more than it is an error when someone says they will be ready in a couple of minutes and ends up being ready after three minutes. The Catholic doctrine of inerrancy does not deny that there are figures of speech in the Bible.

What about theological differences within the Bible i.e. the rejection of the afterlife in OT by some? Historical and scientific issue are one thing but what about theological?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ah. So, eternal damnation for me.

What would lead you to that conclusion? I never said that the Orthodox say that those outside of the Church are definitely consigned to eternal damnation. St. Augustine, for example, elsewhere even writes that those outside of the Church who perform good works may be credited for them at the time of judgment. All I am saying is that according to Orthodox teaching and the teaching of numerous Church Fathers, being outside of the Church can seriously jeopardize one’s salvation, because the guaranteed and narrow way of salvation is found in the Church alone (through living the life of asceticism and the sacramental life of the Church), while outside of the Church one can only hope on the mercy of the Lord, as sacraments performed outside of the Church are lacking in their normal salvific character, as St. Augustine teaches.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

There is no guarantee of salvation for those outside of the Church. That is the patristic teaching going all the way back to St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, and others. I only know that salvation is offered in the Church, and that those outside are left to the mercy of God. In accordance with the fathers, I believe that being outside of the Church is not inherently salvific, but rather that those outside of the Church, if they are saved, are saved by the mercy of God and by virtue of the Church herself, and not by virtue of the sacraments and rites performed outside of the Church. To quote St. Augustine:
“Outside the Catholic Church, is is possible to have everything except salvation. It is possible to have honor, it is posible to have Sacraments, it is possible to sing Alleluia, it is possible to respond Amen, it is possible to have the Gospel, it is posible to have faith and preach in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: but never has it been possible to find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
(St. Augustine, Sermon to the People of the Caesarean Church, ch. 6)

But Cavaradossi, he said outside the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church! Take that, schismatics!

 

[Cavaradossi]

No indignation here. Of course, I wouldn’t tell an Anglican that he was of another faith since through baptism he is joined to the body of Christ.

But if one believes differently, how can one not but say that the two faiths are different? That to me seems just like covering up what may be unpleasant. But those who truly love are not afraid to speak the truth in love, and part of that Christian duty to love is to say that we are separated because on certain points of doctrine, our faiths differ. We do not believe that the Son is cause of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit, and we do not believe that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. We thereby fall under the anathematisms of your Church, and your Church falls under certain anathematisms of ours (namely those of the Council of Blachernae on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Hesychast Councils, which condemned the proposition that there is no distinction at all between essence and energy, and the additions to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy made in 1583, which anathematize the practice of serving communion only in one species, the proposition that the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically and essentially from the Father alone, and the proposition that the faithful who die without completing their penance must go to a purgatory of fire).

I understand the desire for eirenicism, and I’m sure you would be a cool guy to drink a beer or two with (any more though would be sinful excess ), but a love of peace is no reason for anybody to pretend that these differences do not exist. In fact, one of the beauties of genuine charity is that we don’t even have to agree in order to get along.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Take that, schismatics!

I am sure that if St. Augustine were cast into a comic book superhero, that would be one of his catch phrases. This week’s issue: Donatus has returned from the grave, and St. Augustine must stop his mad ravings before it’s too late.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Maybe Catholic Answers could fund it.

 

[prodromos]

Not one Pope, not one, either before or after the Schism has been condemned for formally teaching a heresy.

Pope Honorius was condemned for formally teaching heresy. Of course you won’t find any post schism popes condemned for teaching heresy because you have now defined truth as whatever comes out of the pope’s mouth when he speaks from the chair. If the pope declares that black is white, then black is now white and anyone who says otherwise is speaking heresy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Maybe Catholic Answers could fund it.

Perhaps St. Augustine could engage in pulpit battles with his opponents, somewhat like a rap battle, but theological in content and with fewer explicit profanities (though the fathers sometimes could say some pretty mean and polemical things; St. Basil the Great was the master of invective polemics).

 

[dronald]

I want to chime in again as a middleman just to say how extremely interesting this discussion has been from a non-apostolic faith perspective. I’m really engaged in this discussion and I hope you both can keep it up. God bless you in your pursuit of truth.

Pope Honorius was condemned for formally teaching heresy. Of course you won’t find any post schism popes condemned for teaching heresy because you have now defined truth as whatever comes out of the pope’s mouth when he speaks from the chair. If the pope declares that black is white, then black is now white and anyone who says otherwise is speaking heresy.

From wiki:

Although Honorius never issued a dogmatic (ex cathedra) decree in regards to the controversy of Christ’s wills,[2] he favoured Monothelitism. He supported a formula proposed by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius with the design of bringing about a reconciliation between Monothelites and the rest of the Catholic Church. Monothelitism is the teaching that Christ has only one will, the divine will, in contrast with the teaching that He has both a divine will and a human will.

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

I believe the official answer to this one (this forum has given me some good practice) is that because it was not ex cathedra it’s no big deal.

 

[Nine_Two]

I believe the official answer to this one (this forum has given me some good practice) is that because it was not ex cathedra it’s no big deal.

The problem with that answer is that the idea of “ex cathedra” (and ill defined at that) is a relatively modern one. None of the early popes ever pronounced anything “ex cathedra”. Had Valentinus himself been elected to the Papal chair he sought the same claim would still be available.

 

[prodromos]

Perhaps St. Augustine could engage in pulpit battles with his opponents, somewhat like a rap battle, but theological in content and with fewer explicit profanities (though the fathers sometimes could say some pretty mean and polemical things; St. Basil the Great was the master of invective polemics).

You could submit it to Epic Rap Battles. I’m sure they could come up with something decent.