Communing in an Orthodox church

[mistergeorge]

Such A great and huge church and i like it the most

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Of course it doesn’t attack papal infallibility. That’s because papal infallibility means whatever you want it to mean, until the Vatican releases a list of ex-cathedra statements. What, for example, is the limit of a matter of faith or morals? I have often heard, from Catholics themselves, that the prohibition of rebaptism is a matter of faith, which they use as an attack against the Orthodox, who simply follow Cyprian’s recommendation that the decision should be left up to the particular bishop (hence you get them mocking what they see as ‘disunity’ in the faith of Orthodoxy). What, therefore makes your fallible interpretation (that prohibiting rebaptism is not a matter of faith) more valid than other interpretations? What you are engaging in is a version of the no True Scotsman fallacy, where you disqualify evidence against your position by making your position more and more specific, thus making it unfalsifiable. When you are arguing that whether rebaptism should be prohibited is not a matter of faith (pope Stephen certainly thought it was), one might start to suspect that your line of argumentation is becoming specious.

I understand and respect your discomfort with the unresolved subtleties of the dogma of papal infallibility, and I accept that rebaptism may indeed be validly seen as a matter of faith.

But Marduk’s point was simply that St. Cyprian didn’t view it as one, since he thought the matter should be left up to each individual bishop. Thus his disagreement with the pope does not constitute an example of a saint/bishop intending to go against the teachings of the Church of Rome, nor is it in tension with what St. Cyprian said elsewhere about that church…

 

[Cavaradossi]

I understand and respect your discomfort with the unresolved subtleties of the dogma of papal infallibility, and I accept that rebaptism may indeed be validly seen as a matter of faith.

But Marduk’s point was simply that St. Cyprian didn’t view it as one, since he thought the matter should be left up to each individual bishop. Thus his disagreement with the pope does not constitute an example of a saint/bishop intending to go against the teachings of the Church of Rome, nor is it in tension with what St. Cyprian said elsewhere about that church…

If it wasn’t a matter of faith, then what gave Pope Stephen the authority to attempt to impose his practice upon Cyprian, one of his fellow bishops?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If it wasn’t a matter of faith, then what gave Pope Stephen the authority to attempt to impose his practice upon Cyprian, one of his fellow bishops?

I didn’t say it wasn’t a matter of faith.

Frankly, it seems like a matter of faith to me. I suppose I’m in agreement with Pope Saint Stephen on that. He thought it was, so he intervened.

And Saint Cyprian thought otherwise: he believed it should be left up to each individual bishop. Obviously the only way that makes sense is if it’s not a matter of faith. If it was not a matter of faith that pertains to the whole church but rather one each individual bishop gets to decide, then the decision belongs to the purview of each bishop’s proper episcopal authority. And as Marduk likes to trumpet, Rome’s official interpretation even of Vatican I says that the pope does not have the authority to impede the exercise of a bishop’s proper authority.

Yes, St. Stephen and St. Cyprian disagreed, both on the matter and on what sort of matter it was. But frankly, for the above reasons how it played out seems to me to be 100% consistent with post-Vatican I and post-Vatican II Catholic Magisterial teaching on papal and episcopal authority…

 

[dcointin]

Ummm. In a letter to the Donatists, St. Cyprian explicitly stated that the Church of Rome COULD NOT err. The issue with rebaptism was not regarded by St. Cyprian as an issue of doctrine because he thought that the matter should be decided by EACH bishop. Do you, as an EO really think that a matter of FAITH can be left to the individual decisions of bishops without regard for what other bishops say? So it is a straw man to claim that the issue of rebaptism in the eyes of St. Cyprian touches upon the doctrine of infallibility.

If you think your reasoning deprives the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” of its truth, then you simply misunderstand the teaching in the first place. Your statement stems from a misunderstanding of the context of the statement “not from the consent of the Church” that is contained in the dogma. I will explain the matter more fully in several days in the other thread wherein Schism-hater gave a false understanding of “papal infallibility.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Could you reference which epistle of St. Cyprian you are referring to?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

Could you reference which epistle of St. Cyprian you are referring to?

I wouldn’t know where to start to look (I am so used to reading books and that is where I read it, but I don’t have any of my book resources here in the Philippines). But some other clues:

• I remember the epistle was a criticism of the installation of an anti-Pope in Rome.
• On second thought, I think it was a critism of the Novatians, not the Donatists. I always get those two confused.
• it was the same epistle wherein St. Cyprian affirmed that the seat of priestly unity resided in Rome.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Besides, if the Church of now would be thrown back in a time machine to St. Cyprian’s time we would all agree with St. Cyprian over Pope St. Stephen. The heretics they talked about were non-trinitarian manichaens. Their baptism is very much invalid, even according to the RCC now.

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother Don,

I wouldn’t know where to start to look (I am so used to reading books and that is where I read it, but I don’t have any of my book resources here in the Philippines). But some other clues:

• I remember the epistle was a criticism of the installation of an anti-Pope in Rome.
• On second thought, I think it was a critism of the Novatians, not the Donatists. I always get those two confused.
• it was the same epistle wherein St. Cyprian affirmed that the seat of priestly unity resided in Rome.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Was this perhaps the quotation? I found this on an apologetics site:

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

 

[Wesley1982]

In the Western Rite several times (communion on the tongue) - communion with the spoon in the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy several times.

 

[mardukm]

Besides, if the Church of now would be thrown back in a time machine to St. Cyprian’s time we would all agree with St. Cyprian over Pope St. Stephen. The heretics they talked about were non-trinitarian manichaens.

That would be incorrect. The issue was over the Novatians. St. Cyprian thought that not only heretics, but also schismatics did not have the Grace of the Sacraments. The First and Second Ecumenical Councils sided with the teaching of Pope St. Stephen and accepted the Baptism and Orders of the Novatians. And not only of the Novatians (who were schismatics), but also certain heretics (such as the Arians and Pelagians). It seems the only heretics whose baptisms were not accepted were the different brands of Pneumatomachi and modalists, and those who did not baptize in the proper Trinitarian formula (such as the Montanists, among others).

Contrary to popular polemic opinion, Pope St. Stephen did NOT accept the baptism of ALL heretics. He would not have accepted the baptism of the Manicheans.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Was this perhaps the quotation? I found this on an apologetics site:

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

Yes, that is the one.

It reminds me of St. Ignatius of Antioch’s statement in his epistle to the Romans, that the Church of Rome was “inseparable” from the Grace of God and was purified from every strange taint.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Of course it doesn’t attack papal infallibility.

That’s because papal infallibility means whatever you want it to mean,

Actually, we have the Official Relatio of V1 which informs us exactly what it means. The problem is that many, including Catholic Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and non-Catholic detractors, are unaware of this important document and thus are emboldened to misinterpret the teaching of Vatican 1.

until the Vatican releases a list of ex-cathedra statements.

Why should it? The Faith and living out of that Faith for most Catholics does not depend on such a list.

What, for example, is the limit of a matter of faith or morals?

Why entertain such questions? You seem so sure the Church should define this. What has your Church done by way of defining such a thing? If your Church is incapable or unwilling to do so, why should you expect any other Church to do so?

I have often heard, from Catholics themselves, that the prohibition of rebaptism is a matter of faith, which they use as an attack against the Orthodox, who simply follow Cyprian’s recommendation that the decision should be left up to the particular bishop (hence you get them mocking what they see as ‘disunity’ in the faith of Orthodoxy). What, therefore makes your fallible interpretation (that prohibiting rebaptism is not a matter of faith) more valid than other interpretations? What you are engaging in is a version of the no True Scotsman fallacy, where you disqualify evidence against your position by making your position more and more specific, thus making it unfalsifiable. When you are arguing that whether rebaptism should be prohibited is not a matter of faith (pope Stephen certainly thought it was), one might start to suspect that your line of argumentation is becoming specious.

I didn’t claim that the issue of rebaptism is not a matter of Faith. I said that St. Cyprian thought it was not a matter of Faith, but a matter of local canon and discpline.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Why entertain such questions? You seem so sure the Church should define this. What has your Church done by way of defining such a thing? If your Church is incapable or unwilling to do so, why should you expect any other Church to do so?

Worse, they haven’t even dogmatically defined Papal Infallibility.

 

[dcointin]

Yes, that is the one.

It reminds me of St. Ignatius of Antioch’s statement in his epistle to the Romans, that the Church of Rome was “inseparable” from the Grace of God and was purified from every strange taint.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here is another translation:

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”

-From the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.liv.html

I’m not sure this is the same thing as papal infallibility.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Here is another translation:

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”

-From the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.liv.html

I’m not sure this is the same thing as papal infallibility.

I agree. As an aside, it seems there was a lengthy discussion about this very quote here before:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59659

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don and sister Andrea,

Here is another translation:

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”

-From the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.liv.html

I’m not sure this is the same thing as papal infallibility.

It depends on what you understand by “papal infallibility.” You have probably noticed that I always put that term in quotes, and I do so for a very good reason - it’s because “Papal infallibility” is a misnomer.

The following are points one will obtain from reading the Offical Relatio of Vatican 1:
(1) The infallibility of the Pope is not a personal infallibility in the sense that it is his as a person, but rather as a public figure OF THE CHURCH REPRESENTING THE CHURCH.
(2) The infallibility of the Pope is not separate from the infallibility of the Church at all. It is “separate” only in the sense that it is “unique,” but its essence and exercise thereof can never be separated from the infallibility of the Church.
(3) Direct quote from the minutes of the Committee De Fide (responsible for formulating the Decrees) in the final amendment session of V1: “the same has to be said of the infallibility of the Pope in defining truths, as of the infallibility of the Church defining them…exactly the same is to be believed as is believed concerning the object of infallibility in the definitions of the Church. This is secured by the definition that the Roman Pontiff in defining ex cathedra is possessed of that infallibility with which Christ wished his Church to be endowed.”
(4) “Papal infallibility” is actually the infallibility OF THE CHURCH merely exercised in a unique way by one who REPRESENTS the Church and acts as its voice (just as an Ecumenical Council, when necessary, represents the Church and acts as its voice).
(5) The Council explicitly changed the title of the Decree of infallibility from “The infallibility of the Pope” (i,e, “papal infallibility”) to “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.” As stated, “papal infallibility” is a misnomer. The actual term is “the Pope’s Magisterial infallibility.” It is an infallibility INTIMATELY related to the WHOLE CHURCH’s Magisterium.

If one (mis)understands “papal infallibility” to be a charism that is the Pope’s alone separated from that of the Church or separated from the Church - if one understands “papal infallibiility” to be a one-man show - I can understand your hesitation in equating St. Cyprian’s statement with “papal infallibility.” But a proper understanding of “papal infallibility” should secure agreement on this issue.

I should also add that according to the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch (an ecclesiology with which I’m sure we all agree), one really can’t separate the bishop from his Church. Whatever is said of the Church of Rome must naturally redound to its proper bishop.

Comments?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Why should it? The Faith and living out of that Faith for most Catholics does not depend on such a list.

You see no problem with the idea that the individual faithful must interpret what documents are in fact infallible, because there is no official list? This inaction could potentially lead to the damnation of many souls, if Papal infallibility is a true dogma on the level of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union.

Why entertain such questions? You seem so sure the Church should define this. What has your Church done by way of defining such a thing? If your Church is incapable or unwilling to do so, why should you expect any other Church to do so?

Tu quoque fallacy. Whether the Orthodox Church has defined what the boundaries of a matter of faith or morals is has no bearing on the validity or soundness of my argument. My argument is that since there is no clearly defined boundary, the dogma of Papal infallibility is vague, which I think is why we see different people producing different lists of what they believe to be infallible statements

I didn’t claim that the issue of rebaptism is not a matter of Faith. I said that St. Cyprian thought it was not a matter of Faith, but a matter of local canon and discpline.

So is it a matter of faith or morals or not? If it isn’t one, then pope Stephen was wrong for trying to impose his local discipline upon other bishops. If it is one, then St. Cyprian was a heretic, who directly contradicted the teachings of a pope on an issue of faith or morals.

 

[mardukm]

You see no problem with the idea that the individual faithful must interpret what documents are in fact infallible, because there is no official list? This inaction could potentially lead to the damnation of many souls, if Papal infallibility is a true dogma on the level of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union.

We actually have a rather solid list of infallible teachings. If you look at any of those different lists you mention, you will find they all have a basic set of teachings in common. So, it is no problem. The rest that are not consistent are just opinions. No big deal.

Tu quoque fallacy. Whether the Orthodox Church has defined what the boundaries of a matter of faith or morals is has no bearing on the validity or soundness of my argument. My argument is that since there is no clearly defined boundary, the dogma of Papal infallibility is vague, which I think is why we see different people producing different lists of what they believe to be infallible statements.

Ummm…That’s was not a tu quoque argument. A tu quoque argument attempts to misdirect the deficiency in a position by claiming the opponent has done the same thing. I am not claiming any deficiency in the fact that everything has not been defined. I think that is a GOOD thing. On the other hand, you should really check the consistency of your own argument. Apophatism is a cherished principle in EO’xy.

So is it a matter of faith or morals or not? If it isn’t one, then pope Stephen was wrong for trying to impose his local discipline upon other bishops.

Well, two Ecumenical Councils settled the matter, and sided with Pope St. Stephen. So it’s not up to local bishops. The Church’s teaching on the issue must be consistent throughout since 2 Ecumenical Council left us the standard to settle such matters. Yes, I believe so-called “Cyprianic” ecclesiology is unpatristic. But I don’t think EO’xy today accepts full blown “Cyprianism.” For example, from my debates with EO, I don’t think the EOC believes schismatics are totally graceless, which is what Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian taught.

If it is one, then St. Cyprian was a heretic, who directly contradicted the teachings of a pope on an issue of faith or morals.

Actually, during the Fifth Ecum, one of the arguments used by some bishops who did not want to condemn the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia was that St. Cyprian was not condemned even though he held a heretical position according to the first two Ecumenical Councils. St. Cyprian was a material heretic at best.

In the Catholic understanding, there is a difference between material heresy and formal heresy. Material heresy is not condemnable. Only formal heresy, since it is believed with full knowledge and volition despite the fact that the Church has taught otherwise, is a putable crime against the Faith.

So the situation you propose presents no quandary for Catholics - St.Cyprian was wrong, though cannot be condemned for being a heretic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

So, it is no problem.

Well that’s a relief!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Apophatism is a cherished principle in EO’xy. What havoc must your rhetoric do for your own spirituality.:tsktsk:

Perhaps you should contemplate what havoc statements like this do for your spirituality. Welcome to my ignore list.

“Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.”