Communing in an Orthodox church

[John_of_Patmos]

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?

Logically, though, with men having free will, a bishop can choose to follow a heresy. God grants the Pope the ability to be infallible, therefore insuring that the Church never ceases to exist. And like I said before, if Peter stopped in Antioch and never went to Rome, then the Pope would be there…I honestly believe that the Orthodox would accept many catholic beliefs regarding the pope if he were in the east…
God bless, John.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Logically, though, with men having free will, a bishop can choose to follow a heresy. God grants the Pope the ability to be infallible, therefore insuring that the Church never ceases to exist. And like I said before, if Peter stopped in Antioch and never went to Rome, then the Pope would be there…I honestly believe that the Orthodox would accept many catholic beliefs regarding the pope if he were in the east…
God bless, John.

So St. Cyprian was a heretic? I guess we’ll just have to disagree.

God bless!

 

[John_of_Patmos]

So St. Cyprian was a heretic? I guess we’ll just have to disagree.

God bless!

I didn’t call anyone a heretic…
If I said anything that would make me a heretic in the eyes of the RCC, I recant…

 

[Nine_Two]

But if Church fathers believed in infallibility, why won’t you?

Are you suggesting that something is factual truth as a result of some of the Father’s believing it?
I don’t buy for a second that any of them believed in infallibility, but lets pretend that all those who are often quoted as backing it up did believe it - that is still a very small number of the fathers. How large does the group have to be in order to make it truth? Should the church be teaching apocotostasis because that was once the majority opinion of the fathers?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I read the list of quotes provided in the blog, but none seemed to even support papal infallibility. Maybe I missed it but what quote directly supports papal infallibilty?

Also funny that the author tried to disprove that papal infallibility was a latin invention and goes on to quote St. Augustine and St. Jerome.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I read the list of quotes provided in the blog, but none seemed to even support papal infallibility. Maybe I missed it but what quote directly supports papal infallibilty?

Also funny that the author tried to disprove that papal infallibility was a latin invention and goes on to quote St. Augustine and St. Jerome.

Marduk M. would be able to my cause here…
Look up some of his posts on infallibility

 

[Vico]

I read the list of quotes provided in the blog, but none seemed to even support papal infallibility. Maybe I missed it but what quote directly supports papal infallibilty?

Also funny that the author tried to disprove that papal infallibility was a latin invention and goes on to quote St. Augustine and St. Jerome.

You can look them up from this, especially Chapter 4 (ex cathedral), keeping in mind that is the the infallibility of the Church which is the basis of the papal infallibility (Vatican I) and of the conciliar infallibility and of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium (Vatican II).

Pastor Aeternus - 1870

Ch. 1 - Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

42 Jn 1, 42.
43 Mt 16, 16 19.
44 Jn 21, 15-17.

Ch. 2 - Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

45 See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48.
46 From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the Council of Ephesus (D no. 112).
47 Leo I, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146).
48 Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946).

Ch. 3 - So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

49 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528).
50 See Jn 10, 16.
51 Ep. ad Eulog. Alexandrin. (Letter to Eulogius of Alexandria), VIII 29 (30) (MGH, Ep. 2, 31 28-30, PL 77, 933).
52 Pius VI, Letter Super soliditate dated 28 Nov. 1786.
53 From Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).
54 Nicholas I, Ep. ad Michaelem imp. (Letter to the emperor Michael) (PL 119, 954).

Ch. 4 - 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. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

55 Mt 16, 18.
56 From Pope Hormisdas’s formula of the year 517 (D no. 171), see above p. 157 n. 1.
57 From Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).
58 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528). S Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).
59 Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).
60 Lk 22, 32.

fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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

No, she wasn’t immortal.

I think your question illustrates what I was asserting: eastern vs. western conceptions of original/ancestral sin are so different that it takes more than, “Your understanding is wrong according to our teaching” for me to believe it.

In the centuries leading up to the nineteenth century, when the Immaculate Conception was formally proclaimed as dogma, Catholic theologians and popes started making it quite clear that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free not from the physical consequences of sin - i.e. mortality, physical suffering, etc. - but from its spiritual consequences.

Restated from the eastern perspective, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception essentially asserts that the Theotokos had the divine life of grace in her soul from the very moment of her conception. What the rest of us receive at baptism, she received - and far more - the moment she came into existence in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne.

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

Hey, it’s not impossible to convince me.

As I clearly said above, Hesychios here on this forum, for instance, has convinced me that he understands the so-called High Petrine view of papal supremacy and actually does reject what the Catholic Church really teaches about the papacy.

As far as this forum goes, at least, that’s pretty rare, though…

I’ll bet I’d find more who are genuinely informed and still reject Catholic teaching if I frequented eastern Christian forums as well. But for every eastern Orthodox like our forum’s Hesychios, there are two who choose to be content with rejecting caricatures of Catholic teaching.

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

Oh, I agree - I didn’t mean to argue for that.

What I was saying was, rather, that if something is ambiguous enough, confidence that it is clearly in error is premature.

That’s all.

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?

Sure. I didn’t mean to imply that no such Orthodox Christian exists. My earliest replies themselves conceded a concrete example of just such a Christian regarding the papal dogmas (Hesychios, here on this forum).

That doesn’t change the fact that there are others who simply like to throw out one-liners and aren’t willing to take a substantive look at the authentic Catholic claims.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Understood. And from what you’ve just said, I think you understand it.

I wasn’t thinking of people who confuse it with the notion of impeccability. I was thinking of those who don’t understand that papal infallibility is itself a unique participation in the infallibility of the Church but rather think of the pope as someone who, as an individual, can definitively proclaim whatever he wants outside the context of Scripture and Tradition as received revelation.

There are those who have this attitude, who somehow separate their idea of papal infallibility from the Catholic Church’s understanding that the formal teachings of the Church are infallible.

Actually, I will admit that I haven’t really seen anyone persist in a misunderstanding of it, though. Once explained, they’re usually content to believe us that that’s what it means and still disagree with it.

Papal supremacy and universal papal jurisdiction are the ones concerning which people are most guilty - including some Catholics, I’ll admit! - of persisting in neo-ultramontanist distortions of the teachings.

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.

I don’t disagree with you. I profess it in the Creed myself, and I believe it.

The important thing for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue is that when we profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we don’t mean “and the Son” in the sense that the eastern Orthodox reject.

There was a long thread on this awhile back, and Marduk explained the Catholic teaching and defended it using the writings of Saint John of Damascus… whom the Orthodox venerate as well.

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

I’m happy to hear that. They embarrass me… no one is entitled to another church’s Holy Communion.

 

[Nine_Two]

That doesn’t change the fact that there are others who simply like to throw out one-liners and aren’t willing to take a substantive look at the authentic Catholic claims.

This describes many on both sides. This is a far cry from saying if they understood properly, they’d agree.

 

[Peter_J]

I think your question illustrates what I was asserting: eastern vs. western conceptions of original/ancestral sin are so different that it takes more than, “Your understanding is wrong according to our teaching” for me to believe it.

Well certainly you shouldn’t believe that Catholic teaching is wrong just because you hear someone say that it’s wrong. To me, that seems obvious.

 

[Peter_J]

The important thing for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue is that when we profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we don’t mean “and the Son” in the sense that the eastern Orthodox reject.

I think that statement sums up quite a lot of ecumenism.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This describes many on both sides. This is a far cry from saying if they understood properly, they’d agree.

Of course. I acknowledge this. I don’t mean to say that their refusal to engage meaningfully *is *the reason they’d agree if they understood properly.

I think that statement sums up quite a lot of ecumenism.

Concerning what I said about the filioque: that is the opinion of Orthodox theologians themselves. I read an article a few weeks ago that was far from positive, optimistic, or trusting of Catholic teaching, and it explored contemporary Orthodox objections and reasons for wariness about the filioque.

It clearly acknowledged early on, however, that the phrase itself can be interpreted in a manner that is fully orthodox.

If you want me to find it, I’ll try, although I actually tried to find it a few days ago and could not…

 

[mardukm]

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Uh-oh. They hate hearing that. I’m taking cover!

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Sadly, ecumenical discussions can be a bit of a free-for-all.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Both sides have a habit of… using pronouns? Heaven forbid!

In all seriousness, I was just kidding around. It was funny that Marduk made his point with those words when many of this thread’s posts have been reactions against precisely that type of statement. What can I say? I admire Marduk’s tenacity, his bold lack of irony in making the point once again.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

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.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I did say ecumenical discussions can be a bit of a free-for-all.

 

[Peter_J]

I have to agree with Fone Bone. Calling them “they” or “them” isn’t offensive.