Communing in an Orthodox church

[MariaGoretti88]

I’m surprised you ever did believe that.

Oh my dear brother in Christ…you’d be surprised how radically anti-anything-not-Catholic I became when I was a teen after my family either left the Church, became indifferent, or picked only one food group in the cafeteria… But God knows all things and He knows everyone’s final decision and my job is to just pray for them and all unbelievers because even if they don’t get received into the Church until the deathbed, it could be the result of peoples’ prayers now for them.

 

[MariaGoretti88]

I’ve never been Orthodox, yet I have to admit that even I get tired of hearing stuff like “The Orthodox disagree with fill in RC teaching]? Well then that just shows that they don’t understand it.”

Yes!!! I’m glad someone else feels the same way!

 

[Peter_J]

IF I were the Pope (thank goodness I’m not, I have enough trouble trying to get myself on the right path, let alone all people), I do not feel that there is enough harmony between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism for us to be receiving each others Sacraments in danger of death. But that’s just me.

It isn’t just about danger-of-death circumstances. There are plenty of Catholics who think that the Orthodox should allow them to receive communion any time they attend an Orthodox liturgy.

 

[MariaGoretti88]

It isn’t just about danger-of-death circumstances. There are plenty of Catholics who think that the Orthodox should allow them to receive communion any time they attend an Orthodox liturgy.

I’m trying very hard to understand this logic, but I’m missing something. Ugh, I need to review some basics on Sacraments and maybe I’ll get a glimpse of something I missed. sigh

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You should read Never the Twain?

Not a bad article, and I think you misunderstand me if you believe I disagree with the article’s main point: that mainstream eastern Orthodox are far from sympathetic to the notion of re-entering communion with Rome.

That wasn’t my point, though. Nowhere do I entertain starry-eyed delusions about how imminent reunion is. My claim is not that we’re almost there, but rather that the mainstream Orthodox who see massive gulfs, chasms, between us are incorrect. They are incorrect about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I realize fully that full communion cannot even come close to happening, however, as long as the mainstream Orthodox perception is that we’re closer to Protestants than to them.

That said, there are some flaws in minor points made by the editorial:

(1) I and many other Catholics who say these things are, in fact, well aware that mainstream eastern Orthodox Christians do not share our assessment. It is not a “shock” to us.

(2) “When Roman Catholics disagree with their Holy Father, they are called “dissenters” and are said to be out of step.” This is not true at all. Nowhere are we taught we have to agree with the Holy Father on everything. What makes one a dissenter is obstinate denial of a truth of the faith, and even if the pope has infallibly defined something, it’s not a truth of the faith because he has defined it. Rather, he has defined it because it is a truth of the faith.

So Pope Benedict XVI’s opinions - really, any pope’s opinions - are not binding on Catholics in and of themselves, and if they are binding, it is not because it is the pope’s opinion in that case but rather because in that case, that opinion happens to be a part of divine revelation, Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, of whom the pope - like every bishop - is a guardian and preserver.

(3) We are also well aware that Patriarch Bartholomew is not “the eastern Orthodox pope” and exercises nowhere near the kind of jurisdiction the pope of Rome does.

(4) I’ve gotten the impression that eastern Orthodox have not truly engaged the ecclesiology of the First and Second Vatican Councils. They reject the common caricature - common even among Catholics, I admit, and this is our fault and our problem - of them only.

Of course, I could be wrong. That is, however, my experience.

There are exceptions, though. In my personal opinion, Hesychios on this forum has actually addressed with honesty and precision the true ecclesiology of those councils, and he does still disagree with them.

That is not the norm, though.

I’m glad you realize that people don’t like being manipulated – I’ve actually met quite a few Catholics who are surprised by that!

Peter, it’s not manipulative to say, “We don’t really disagree with you.” Nowhere does such an assertion involve telling the Orthodox what they believe; it involves telling them what we believe.

The best example of this is original sin. When I say that Catholic teaching and the Orthodox understanding are fully compatible, I’m not telling them what they believe. I’ve read what they believe, in their own words, from their own people. And what we are taught even in the Latin Church does not assert anything that goes against the understanding that they have communicated to us in their own words.

Are we getting ready for Brest-Litovsk, Part II?

No, we’re not.

The days of the dreaded “u” word are over. We now live in the age of the Zoghby Initiative and the Ratzinger Proposal… which are problematic only insofar as their implications regarding second millennium dogmatization have been misunderstood.

We don’t believe you when you say you don’t believe us.

Really?

I wouldn’t be surprised if you said, “We don’t believe you when you speak as though you’ve comprehended the Orthodox understanding.”

But you seem to be saying not that we are inaccurate, but that we don’t even believe our own claims. Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Understand correctly? Quite frankly, I don’t think that anybody truly understands Papal Infallibility, because until the infallible Magisterium or a pope in an ex-cathedra statement releases a document clarifying which papal proclamations are actually ex-cathedra, it is about as meaningful of a dogma as if I were to say that Jesus had five abcd’s and two xyzk’s (what is an abcd or an xyzk? I don’t know, but you are required to believe that Jesus had five of the former and two of the latter).

If somebody were to ask, for example, if the declaration from Unam Sanctam, “furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” is an ex-cathedra statement, he would receive a myriad of answers, some saying that it does not fit the criteria to be an ex-cathedra statement because it was not meant for public dissemination, or that it was not meant for all of the faithful (at which point, one wonders what sort of papal bull Unam Sanctam was then), much to the chagrin of Traditionalist Catholics most of whom will certainly affirm that it is in fact an ex-cathedra statement, and therefore a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, the criteria for an ex-cathedra statement from the First Vatican Council:Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.are sufficiently vague, that people can argue whether or not the statement in question concerns faith or morals, was made by the pope in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, or was intended to be held by the whole Church.

Then there is also the question of how much of a particular document is infallible. Is it only the sentence in which the Roman Pontiff writes “We define”? The paragraph? Everything proceeding? Everything preceding? The entire document? We see this of course with Munificentissimus Deus, where people pick and choose how much of the document is infallible. Don’t like the fact that Pope Pius XII also writes in Munificentissimus Deus that the Theotokos died? That’s ok, the only thing Pope Pius XII defines is that she was assumed into heaven after the completion of her earthy life, so you can just ignore the rest of the document.

I honestly don’t think anybody is capable of understanding papal infallibility, because it simply wasn’t defined well enough, hence you have incredible disagreements over what should be an incredibly simple question: which statements disseminated by the popes throughout the near-two-thousand-year history of Christianity are ex-cathedra and therefore irreformable? Trust me, this is not simply the Orthodox being stubborn, this is the Orthodox being baffled by a dogma which has no inherent meaning.

I see you have noticed that Catholic teaching is more nuanced than anti-Latin stereotypes give it credit for. I’m glad.

Anyway, if it’s as vague as you claim (and I think you’re partially correct in its application), then to regard it as definitively problematic is itself a suspect position to take…

I just pray that sins of sacrilege never be committed especially not towards Jesus Christ present in the Holy Eucharist.

Me too. On a practical level, though, I highly doubt eastern Orthodox are receiving Communion at Catholic Masses. Their own beliefs don’t permit that, to my knowledge, just as we are not allowed to receive communion from Protestants even if they offer it.

Even if they did, honestly, the eastern Orthodox I know are so serious about their faith and dedicated to the Lord, that if I were to worry about unworthy reception, I’d worry far more about lax Latin Catholics than eastern Orthodox doing so…

That’s why the Church needs to stop playing semantics games and “Oh well the Protestants and the Orthodox just understand things differently…ehhh what the heck, let 'em on in!” this mentality is a slippery slope because who knows what’s next in the concessions to make (I gotta hand it to our Orthodox brethren that at least they aren’t making concessions to Catholics trying to please us).

Is it semantics? Is it concessions?

If so, why don’t we play this “game” with the Protestants? I don’t, anyway. Sure, there are things we have in common, but there is substantive incompatibility, too.

The eastern Orthodox understanding of all these matters is different from the Roman Catholic understanding, to be sure. East and West are far, far from the same.

The question is, are either side’s doctrines heterodox by the other’s standards?

Those are different questions.

For instance, are the common Christological agreements between the Chalcedonian churches and the Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysites) mere semantics?

If you say yes, you’d better have a substantive reason for saying so, rather than mere suspicion.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Most of you are the ones making the Church look like she’s lying trying to say that on one hand, she teaches that all Christians must share the same beliefs and revealed Truths to receive the Sacraments, but then those who don’t believe our beliefs may receive the Sacraments and get the same amount of Grace (if any) that ‘good’ Catholics would.

Not at all. As I said, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Christians must share the same beliefs and revealed Truths to receive the Sacraments.

Despite their best efforts, no eastern Orthodox has yet convinced me that Catholic teachings about original sin and the Immaculate Conception are incompatible with Holy Orthodoxy.

I admit they’ve done far better regarding papal supremacy and papal infallibility… I do believe that some do reject the Catholic teaching on those matters. What is surprising is that what many of them object to… is not Catholic teaching at all, but a neo-ultramontanist caricature of the dogmas.

Because I’m Latin so people presume I know what I’m talking about? Why thank you! I’m flattered but the Eastern Orthodox from what I’ve experienced know exactly what they are talking about and disagreeing with.

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful." - Pope Pius IX

“preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin”? The eastern explanation of ancestral sin is so different from the western one that this sentence makes no sense from the vocabulary of eastern theology.

I understand their position on the procession of the Holy Ghost, however ridiculous I may feel it is, but I understand it, and therefore refuse to believe it.

This is from session six of the Council of Florence:

"For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind."

I think you should really take it to heart.

IF I were the Pope (thank goodness I’m not, I have enough trouble trying to get myself on the right path, let alone all people), I do not feel that there is enough harmony between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism for us to be receiving each others Sacraments in danger of death. But that’s just me.

I agree. There is substantive incompatibility between certain Protestant teachings and Catholic teaching. Substantive incompatibility between the western doctrine and the eastern Orthodox doctrine is harder to find.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’ve never been Orthodox, yet I have to admit that even I get tired of hearing stuff like “The Orthodox disagree with fill in RC teaching]? Well then that just shows that they don’t understand it.”

No one says that.

It’s not the fact that they claim to disagree which shows that they don’t understand it. Rather, what shows they don’t understand it is that when they explain why, what they describe as incorrect is almost invariably either not Catholic teaching or not universally binding from the Catholic perspective.

For instance,

“We don’t believe in original sin.”

“Why?”

“We don’t believe in inherited guilt.”

“Oh, that’s reus guilt, not culpa guilt. We don’t actually think we’re each personally at fault for Adam’s individual sin.”

“Even reus guilt is inherited guilt. We don’t believe in that!”

“But reus guilt is merely consequences naturally incurred. We all inherit death, right?”

“Yes.”

“So how can you claim to reject the idea that we inherit reus guilt?”

“Because we’re not guilty of Adam’s sin!”

… And the circus goes on.

It isn’t just about danger-of-death circumstances. There are plenty of Catholics who think that the Orthodox should allow them to receive communion any time they attend an Orthodox liturgy.

To clarify: I am not one of those Catholics. As long as schism persists, even if I don’t think there’s a good reason for it, what is visible does count enough that the Orthodox are certainly entitled, out of caution and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, not to offer it to those of us whom they believe to be outside of Holy Orthodoxy.

No one has a right to Holy Communion just because he wants it, especially if his own community can offer him it.

 

[Peter_J]

We don’t believe you when you say you don’t believe us.

I suspect he was making a joke. But I could be wrong. I’m not sure the statement “We don’t believe you when you say you don’t believe us” is any some surprising than “we simply don’t believe them when they say they deny the Immaculate Conception”.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

No one says that.

It’s not the fact that they claim to disagree which shows that they don’t understand it. Rather, what shows they don’t understand it is that when they explain why, what they describe as incorrect is almost invariably either not Catholic teaching or not universally binding from the Catholic perspective.

For instance,

“We don’t believe in original sin.”

“Why?”

“We don’t believe in inherited guilt.”

“Oh, that’s reus guilt, not culpa guilt. We don’t actually think we’re each personally at fault for Adam’s individual sin.”

“Even reus guilt is inherited guilt. We don’t believe in that!”

“But reus guilt is merely consequences naturally incurred. We all inherit death, right?”

“Yes.”

“So how can you claim to reject the idea that we inherit reus guilt?”

“Because we’re not guilty of Adam’s sin!”

… And the circus goes on.

But wait, we inherit mortality through “reus guilt” and St. Mary was somehow preserved from that. Does that mean she was basically immortal?

 

[Nine_Two]

Understand correctly? Quite frankly, I don’t think that anybody truly understands Papal Infallibility, because until the infallible Magisterium or a pope in an ex-cathedra statement releases a document clarifying which papal proclamations are actually ex-cathedra, it is about as meaningful of a dogma as if I were to say that Jesus had five abcd’s and two xyzk’s (what is an abcd or an xyzk? I don’t know, but you are required to believe that Jesus had five of the former and two of the latter).

If somebody were to ask, for example, if the declaration from Unam Sanctam, “furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” is an ex-cathedra statement, he would receive a myriad of answers, some saying that it does not fit the criteria to be an ex-cathedra statement because it was not meant for public dissemination, or that it was not meant for all of the faithful (at which point, one wonders what sort of papal bull Unam Sanctam was then), much to the chagrin of Traditionalist Catholics most of whom will certainly affirm that it is in fact an ex-cathedra statement, and therefore a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, the criteria for an ex-cathedra statement from the First Vatican Council:Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.are sufficiently vague, that people can argue whether or not the statement in question concerns faith or morals, was made by the pope in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, or was intended to be held by the whole Church.

Then there is also the question of how much of a particular document is infallible. Is it only the sentence in which the Roman Pontiff writes “We define”? The paragraph? Everything proceeding? Everything preceding? The entire document? We see this of course with Munificentissimus Deus, where people pick and choose how much of the document is infallible. Don’t like the fact that Pope Pius XII also writes in Munificentissimus Deus that the Theotokos died? That’s ok, the only thing Pope Pius XII defines is that she was assumed into heaven after the completion of her earthy life, so you can just ignore the rest of the document.

I honestly don’t think anybody is capable of understanding papal infallibility, because it simply wasn’t defined well enough, hence you have incredible disagreements over what should be an incredibly simple question: which statements disseminated by the popes throughout the near-two-thousand-year history of Christianity are ex-cathedra and therefore irreformable? Trust me, this is not simply the Orthodox being stubborn, this is the Orthodox being baffled by a dogma which has no inherent meaning.

Excellent explanation.

I was recently in contact with a Roman Catholic professor of theology who refused to accept even the necessity of Ex Cathedra until it was pointed out to him in the text. His reason for not accepting it - it made no sense.

 

[Nine_Two]

I suspect he was making a joke. But I could be wrong. I’m not sure the statement “We don’t believe you when you say you don’t believe us” is any some surprising than “we simply don’t believe them when they say they deny the Immaculate Conception”.

I don’t believe anyone when they say they disagree with me. I just assume they mispronounced “I agree with everything you say!”

 

[Nine_Two]

I see you have noticed that Catholic teaching is more nuanced than anti-Latin stereotypes give it credit for. I’m glad.

Anyway, if it’s as vague as you claim (and I think you’re partially correct in its application), then to regard it as definitively problematic is itself a suspect position to take…

Is your suggestion that if you make something vague enough that everyone should believe it? I find that a suspect position.

I notice, however, that you are no longer claiming there is a misunderstanding of what the dogma is. Am I to take this that you have found an Orthodox Christian who both knows what the dogma is, and lacks belief in it? Can we thereby say that what you claimed before about those who disagree not understanding was false?

 

[Schism_hater]

It’s definitely not political correctness.
Papal infallibility: I have yet to meet one eastern Orthodox who is willing to understand this correctly… I’m not saying they’re not out there, but until I speak with even one, their denial remains a miscommunication.

I must respectfully disagree with you. Although I am not Orthodox, at least not yet, I am leaning that way, and I think I can say honestly and without presumption that I understand the doctrine as it has been stated by Vatican I and reaffirmed by Vatican II. I have also met quite a few Orthodox who seem to understand the doctrine.

It is true there are probably quite a few Orthodox, as there are Protestants and even practicing Catholics who don’t understand it, and especially confuse it with impeccability. I have read at least one Orthodox author Anthony Conairis, who seems to do that, and there are other Orthodox authors who react to exaggerated versions of it.

The main Orthodox misgiving that I read and hear, and it is one that I share, is that PI seems to give one office, the papacy, the authority to bind the entire Church to a dogmatic declaration, on its own, without the necessity of agreement of other patriarchs, bishops, councils, etc. or reception by the Church as a whole. I believe Aeterni Pastorus (sp?) says exactly that, that declarations that meet the criteria of infallibility are “irreformeable of themselves, and not from reception…” I don’t think that that is a misconception or miscommunication, although if you believe that it is, feel free to explain that, I would love to be shown otherwise.

 

[Schism_hater]

Understand correctly? Quite frankly, I don’t think that anybody truly understands Papal Infallibility, because until the infallible Magisterium or a pope in an ex-cathedra statement releases a document clarifying which papal proclamations are actually ex-cathedra, it is about as meaningful of a dogma as if I were to say that Jesus had five abcd’s and two xyzk’s (what is an abcd or an xyzk? I don’t know, but you are required to believe that Jesus had five of the former and two of the latter).

If somebody were to ask, for example, if the declaration from Unam Sanctam, “furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” is an ex-cathedra statement, he would receive a myriad of answers, some saying that it does not fit the criteria to be an ex-cathedra statement because it was not meant for public dissemination, or that it was not meant for all of the faithful (at which point, one wonders what sort of papal bull Unam Sanctam was then), much to the chagrin of Traditionalist Catholics most of whom will certainly affirm that it is in fact an ex-cathedra statement, and therefore a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, the criteria for an ex-cathedra statement from the First Vatican Council:Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.are sufficiently vague, that people can argue whether or not the statement in question concerns faith or morals, was made by the pope in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, or was intended to be held by the whole Church.

Then there is also the question of how much of a particular document is infallible. Is it only the sentence in which the Roman Pontiff writes “We define”? The paragraph? Everything proceeding? Everything preceding? The entire document? We see this of course with Munificentissimus Deus, where people pick and choose how much of the document is infallible. Don’t like the fact that Pope Pius XII also writes in Munificentissimus Deus that the Theotokos died? That’s ok, the only thing Pope Pius XII defines is that she was assumed into heaven after the completion of her earthy life, so you can just ignore the rest of the document.

I honestly don’t think anybody is capable of understanding papal infallibility, because it simply wasn’t defined well enough, hence you have incredible disagreements over what should be an incredibly simple question: which statements disseminated by the popes throughout the near-two-thousand-year history of Christianity are ex-cathedra and therefore irreformable? Trust me, this is not simply the Orthodox being stubborn, this is the Orthodox being baffled by a dogma which has no inherent meaning.

That is all very well said, and part of my problem with the dogma. Even Roman theologians whose loyalty to Rome are beyond question can’t seem to decide what exactly what declarations fall under VI’s criteria, except for Ineffabilis Deus (the Immaculate Conception), and the one I can’t write that announced the Dogma of the Assumption. Your point about Unam Sanctam especially resonates with me. I have read the most tortured interpretations of it and especially its last sentence in the attempt to get it to line up with the later Catholic teaching. It’s strange how those who believe frevently in PI seem to have no problem with taking an actual instance of infallibility (at least I believe it is), the last sentence of Unam Sanctam, and then say it must be read in conjunction with this or that non-infallible statement, or we must keep in mind that Boniface VIII was ignorant of such-and-such. It’s an “infallible” statement, it is supposed to be at the apex of Catholic dogmatic authority, yet so many Catholic apologists seem to be anxious to avoid its rather clear meaning. At least the Catholic traditionalists seem to honestly take it for what it says. It seems to me that the adherence to the dogma has become more important, as a litmus test of loyalty, than the infallible declarations covered by the dogma themselves are as providing guidance to the Church.

 

[MariaGoretti88]

(2) “When Roman Catholics disagree with their Holy Father, they are called “dissenters” and are said to be out of step.” This is not true at all. Nowhere are we taught we have to agree with the Holy Father on everything. What makes one a dissenter is obstinate denial of a truth of the faith, and even if the pope has infallibly defined something, it’s not a truth of the faith because he has defined it. Rather, he has defined it because it is a truth of the faith.

So Pope Benedict XVI’s opinions - really, any pope’s opinions - are not binding on Catholics in and of themselves, and if they are binding, it is not because it is the pope’s opinion in that case but rather because in that case, that opinion happens to be a part of divine revelation, Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, of whom the pope - like every bishop - is a guardian and preserver.

This is very true and I’m glad that you brought this up because many of us need to be reminded of this sometimes.

 

[MariaGoretti88]

This is from session six of the Council of Florence:

"For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind."

All I can say about this is that somehow, this has to in some way be consistent with the TRUTH that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is what I profess in the Credo and this is what I firmly and strongly believe as taught to me by Jesus Christ Himself (He did say the Spirit Who (the Holy Ghost) proceeds from the Father Whom (the Holy Ghost) He (the Father) shall send in His (the Son) Name), and through the Holy Apostles and their successors.

It doesn’t make sense to me, nor does it really have to, but as St. Thomas Aquinas said, “That which the Truth has spoken, that for Truth I hold.”

 

[5Loaves]

It isn’t just about danger-of-death circumstances. There are plenty of Catholics who think that the Orthodox should allow them to receive communion** any time** they attend an Orthodox liturgy.

News to me. I haven’t run into them in the Eastern Church and certainly not the Latin Church.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

That is all very well said, and part of my problem with the dogma. Even Roman theologians whose loyalty to Rome are beyond question can’t seem to decide what exactly what declarations fall under VI’s criteria, except for Ineffabilis Deus (the Immaculate Conception), and the one I can’t write that announced the Dogma of the Assumption. Your point about Unam Sanctam especially resonates with me. I have read the most tortured interpretations of it and especially its last sentence in the attempt to get it to line up with the later Catholic teaching. It’s strange how those who believe frevently in PI seem to have no problem with taking an actual instance of infallibility (at least I believe it is), the last sentence of Unam Sanctam, and then say it must be read in conjunction with this or that non-infallible statement, or we must keep in mind that Boniface VIII was ignorant of such-and-such. It’s an “infallible” statement, it is supposed to be at the apex of Catholic dogmatic authority, yet so many Catholic apologists seem to be anxious to avoid its rather clear meaning. At least the Catholic traditionalists seem to honestly take it for what it says. It seems to me that the adherence to the dogma has become more important, as a litmus test of loyalty, than the infallible declarations covered by the dogma themselves are as providing guidance to the Church.

But if Church fathers believed in infallibility, why won’t you?
It’s really quit simple, actually…the pope is a safeguard against heresy.
I once again pull out quotes from my very wise Priest friend:

"The pope is superior to any other bishop in only one way: his ability to invoke the charism of infallibility contrary to discordant bishops (even when the discordance represents a numerical majority, as it did in the Arian heresy).

There is a balance, as I tried to explain in my previous email, in the Church’s understanding of the collegiality of all bishops and the hierarchy of the Church’s administrative structure, which is infused with the grace of governance even in its bureaucratic structure."

I also believe that if the East had the pope, instead of the west, the east would in fact accept infallablty. Please, I invite all of you (especially Schism hater) to read this blog.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But if Church fathers believed in infallibility, why won’t you?
It’s really quit simple, actually…the pope is a safeguard against heresy.
I once again pull out quotes from my very wise Priest friend:

"The pope is superior to any other bishop in only one way: his ability to invoke the charism of infallibility contrary to discordant bishops (even when the discordance represents a numerical majority, as it did in the Arian heresy).

There is a balance, as I tried to explain in my previous email, in the Church’s understanding of the collegiality of all bishops and the hierarchy of the Church’s administrative structure, which is infused with the grace of governance even in its bureaucratic structure."

I also believe that if the East had the pope, instead of the west, the east would in fact accept infallablty. Please, I invite all of you (especially Schism hater) to read this blog.

But many of those quotes are taken out of context. St. Cyprian for example, definitely did not believe that pope Stephen possessed the charism of infallibility when pope Stephen demanded that he cease baptizing those who were baptized by schismatics. Instead, he and Firmillian got into a bitter battle with pope Stephen on the matter.

The quotations from the council of Ephesus and Chalcedon likewise do not show what Catholic apologists wants then to show. The Tome of Leo, for example was only accepted after a rather intense debate, which is only mentioned in the acts after the famous “Peter has spoken through Leo” line, because acts represent a cleaned up version of the proceedings. Why is it that no Catholic apologist mentions that the reading of the Tome was interrupted multiple times by the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops who objected on several accounts that it taught what Nestorius taught? Why is it that nobody mentions that the Tome was not being read as an infallible statement but rather that it was being scrutinized to see if its faith was consistent with the faith of Cyril, the fathers of Ephesus, and the fathers of Nicaea?