Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

So then …

you get to pick and choose?

Though we as non-Latins don’t completely agree with the dogmatism of the Latins (both in the sense that things need to be dogmatized and that only what is considered dogma can be infallible), this is one instance where we can turn that Latin tendency against them. The fact is, there is no such thing as a dogmatic list of Ecumenical Councils.

Brother Steve claims that this list is easy to find, but I challenge him to give us a dogmatically defined list as such.

I believe Eastern and Oriental Catholics who do not accept all or most of the Ecumenical Councils after the seventh are perfectly consistent. Even Western Catholics who do not accept all the Ecumenical Councils after the seventh are perfectly consistent with their own general principle that only those things that are dogmatically defined can be required as necessary for belief.

As stated, unless brother Steve can provide a dogmatically-defined list of Ecumencal Councils, then his arguments hold no water. Last I checked (which was when I came into Catholic communion), affirming that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Church was not part of my profession of Faith. If brother SteveB can prove that the Profession of Faith has changed since 6 years ago, I’ll concede.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Perhaps I’m naive here, being a simple Latin Catholic living in the Central Valley of California where there are few Orthodox at all let alone Orthodox in communion with Rome, I have never known much about them. But I always assumed that they were friendly with their Latin brethren since all fall under the auspice of Rome and share that common shepherd and unity. But it seems like the Eastern Catholics give out an anti-Latin vibe in here as if the Latins are so mistaken on so many things, something of lost sheep who need to be enlightened by their Eastern brethren. I know East and West within Catholicism have somewhat different approaches to several things in worship and approach things like the atonement differently, pious traditions being unique, but it seems sometimes when reading Eastern Catholics that they are almost arguing against Catholicism and sound more like regular Eastern Orthodox Christians?

Just an observation and curiosity. Again, disclaimer, I don’t even know ANY Orthodox Christians with the exception of this forum…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

My personal ethic is that I will argue against anything that will lead to disunity. This includes times when non-Latins misrepresent or misunderstand Latins, when Latins misrepresent or misunderstand non-Latins, when Latins try to impose a Latinization on non-Latins, or when non-Latins try to impose non-Latinizations on the Latins (yes, the latter does occur!).

I know you’ve seen me take the Latin side of things in debates here at CAF, and it is due to the consistent principle/ethic that I hold already mentioned above.

Blessings,
Marduk

Perhaps I’m naive here, being a simple Latin Catholic living in the Central Valley of California where there are few Orthodox at all let alone Orthodox in communion with Rome, I have never known much about them. But I always assumed that they were friendly with their Latin brethren since all fall under the auspice of Rome and share that common shepherd and unity. But it seems like the Eastern Catholics give out an anti-Latin vibe in here as if the Latins are so mistaken on so many things, something of lost sheep who need to be enlightened by their Eastern brethren. I know East and West within Catholicism have somewhat different approaches to several things in worship and approach things like the atonement differently, pious traditions being unique, but it seems sometimes when reading Eastern Catholics that they are almost arguing against Catholicism and sound more like regular Eastern Orthodox Christians?

Just an observation and curiosity. Again, disclaimer, I don’t even know ANY Orthodox Christians with the exception of this forum…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t really hear Latins trying to impose themselves on Eastern Catholics? I hear a lot of the latter though…I see a lot of respect in here for the Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics seem to usually look up to them. I don’t try to impose anything but I do feel that Latin Christianity is far more correct in many areas than Eastern.

Disunity is not the only thing to prompt argument though. Unity at all costs isn’t good either…

Dear brother Gurney,

My personal ethic is that I will argue against anything that will lead to disunity. This includes times when non-Latins misrepresent or misunderstand Latins, when Latins misrepresent or misunderstand non-Latins, when Latins try to impose a Latinization on non-Latins, or when non-Latins try to impose non-Latinizations on the Latins (yes, the latter does occur!).

I know you’ve seen me take the Latin side of things in debates here at CAF, and it is due to the consistent principle/ethic that I hold already mentioned above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So then …

you get to pick and choose?

No, I’m not picking and choosing here, Hesychios, because I’m not “deciding” this or even choosing to theorize definitively about individual councils myself. What I am doing is thinking, “Could the Catholic Church credibly reconsider the status of the Council of _____”?

For some of them, the answer is yes.

For some of them, the answer is obviously no.

Justifying my statements here is, of course, what Marduk pointed out: that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has technically not infallibly or authoritatively ruled that each of the twenty-one councils commonly accepted as ecumenical by the Latin Church actually are.

That said, some obviously are (from the Catholic point of view). Others… not necessarily.

Perhaps I’m naive here, being a simple Latin Catholic living in the Central Valley of California where there are few Orthodox at all let alone Orthodox in communion with Rome, I have never known much about them. But I always assumed that they were friendly with their Latin brethren since all fall under the auspice of Rome and share that common shepherd and unity. But it seems like the Eastern Catholics give out an anti-Latin vibe in here as if the Latins are so mistaken on so many things, something of lost sheep who need to be enlightened by their Eastern brethren. I know East and West within Catholicism have somewhat different approaches to several things in worship and approach things like the atonement differently, pious traditions being unique, but it seems sometimes when reading Eastern Catholics that they are almost arguing against Catholicism and sound more like regular Eastern Orthodox Christians?

Just an observation and curiosity. Again, disclaimer, I don’t even know ANY Orthodox Christians with the exception of this forum…

As your fellow Latin Catholic, let me just say that this used to be my experience as well. But the more I learn about and from eastern Catholics, the more clarity I gain in discerning exactly what parts of the Latin experience are uncompromisable Catholic truth and which parts are changeable or if not changeable at least hitherto undefined.

That said, it can sometimes be jarring to discover how different the outlook of the eastern churches is. But that’s why I absolutely love the eastern Catholic churches: they are a living testament to what the Orthodox refuse to believe in: the compatibility of their whole eastern Christian worldview with even the developed teachings of the Catholic Church, which are not as rationalistic and specific as they seem (and as we Latins sometimes mistakenly present them to be…).

In his amazing book Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton begins his chapter on the paradoxes of Christianity with this reflection:

“The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait. I give one coarse instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain. At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong.”

By this metaphor Chesterton describes his spiritual experience of Christian orthodoxy, but the more theology I learn, the more I see that this analogy applies to orthodox Catholic theology as well as the practical everyday experience of discipleship. The eastern Orthodox stereotype of the Latin Church as an intellectually cluttered behemoth, caked with centuries of rationalistic scholastic accretions, makes us sound like we’re just like this “mathematical creature from the moon,” but we’re not. That’s not how the Catholic faith operates. As these complex matters of ecclesiology demonstrate, the Catholic Church more than any other Christian body today understands so well what Chesterton’s alien does not.

And though Chesterton wrote these words of the world in general, they apply even better to the Catholic Church itself: “It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait.”

Only the Catholic Church truly lives up to the description Chesterton provides of Christian orthodoxy: “It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

1. Faith and Reason

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, she does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man’s intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science.

St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy as a bee uses the flower. Take only the “honey,” ---- the truth — which God has planted in the world to prepare men for the Coming of the Lord.

For example, the Greeks had a doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John opens, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, in Greek). For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or force by which "God: formed and governs the world. The Fathers pointed to the similarity between the Logos or Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of Providence. The difference between them, they attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human intellect. They remembered the words of the Apostle Paul, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2: 8).

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined “Christianity” with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.

I don’t agree with the first section. I think most critics of the Catholic Church are critical of its opinions of the Church, and critical of its misunderstandings of the RC Church.

“The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason.”

The Church doesn’t have to reconcile, because Faith (in Jesus Christ) is not at odds with reason. Jesus Christ is “Logos” (it’s not strictly translated as only “Word”) He is not only “word” but also “reason” / “logic.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

I don’t really hear Latins trying to impose themselves on Eastern Catholics?

Isn’t trying to insist to non-Latins that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils an example Latins trying to impose themselves?

I hear a lot of the latter though…

I agree that happens, as well. And I am just as opposed to that as when Latins try to impose themselves on non-Latins.

I don’t try to impose anything but I do feel that Latin Christianity is far more correct in many areas than Eastern.

That’s to be expected since you are a Latin Catholic. And non-Latins would feel they are more correct. As long as we understand that we share the same FAITH, and try not to impose anything on each other, then all will be copacetic.

Disunity is not the only thing to prompt argument though.

Agreed.

Unity at all costs isn’t good either…

Those who try to impose on others are the ones guilty of this.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

So then …

you get to pick and choose?

Here’s another way to look at it.

Catholics are not free to pick and choose those things which the Chuch has determined are necessary for belief (though those things necessary for belief may certainly be expressed differently by the different Catholic Churches).

The Catholic Church has never taught that the NUMBER of Ecumenical Councils (aside from 7) is a necessary matter for belief.

I just realized - the number 7 has a great religious, symbolic significance to the Church.

The number 12 also has an equally great religious, symbolic significance. I cited earlier Florence, Trent, V1 and V2 as Ecumenical Councils. That makes 11. I believe the 12th great Council will be the future reunion Council between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (which, mayhap, will include Protestants as well).

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Though we as non-Latins don’t completely agree with the dogmatism of the Latins (both in the sense that things need to be dogmatized and that only what is considered dogma can be infallible), this is one instance where we can turn that Latin tendency against them. The fact is, there is no such thing as a dogmatic list of Ecumenical Councils.

Brother Steve claims that this list is easy to find, but I challenge him to give us a dogmatically defined list as such.

• Since there is no dogmatic list of 21 E councils, then what makes the 1st 7 councils, ecumenical AND infallible either?
• Are we to believe only what is defined as dogma and not ordinary teaching of the Church?

It’s a long article, so I took an exerpt. But you can read the entire text

Requisite number of members

“The number of bishops present required to constitute an Ecumenical council cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so deigned, for ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators. It is physically impossible to bring together all the bishops of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, of prelates necessary to secure ecumenicity. All should be invited, no one should be debarred, a somewhat considerable number of representatives of the several provinces and countries should be actually present; this may be laid down as a practicable theory. But the ancient Church did not conform to this theory. As a rule only the patriarchs and metropolitans received a direct summons to appear with a certain number of their suffragans. At Ephesus and Chalcedon the time between the convocation and the meeting of the council was too short to allow of the Western bishops being invited. As a rule, but very few Western bishops were personally present at any of the first eight general synods. Occasionally, e.g. at the sixth, their absence was remedied by sending deputies with precise instructions arrived at in a previous council held in the West. What gives those Eastern synods their Ecumenical character is the co-operation of the pope as head of the universal, and, especially, of the Western, Church. This circumstance, so remarkably prominent in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, affords the best proof that, in the sense of the Church, the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion of bishops present to bishops absent, than the organic connection of the council with the head of the Church.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
M:

I believe Eastern and Oriental Catholics who do not accept all or most of the Ecumenical Councils after the seventh are perfectly consistent. Even Western Catholics who do not accept all the Ecumenical Councils after the seventh are perfectly consistent with their own general principle that *only *those things that are dogmatically defined can be required as necessary for belief.

As stated, unless brother Steve can provide a dogmatically-defined list of Ecumencal Councils, then his arguments hold no water. Last I checked (which was when I came into Catholic communion), affirming that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Church was not part of my profession of Faith. If brother SteveB can prove that the Profession of Faith has changed since 6 years ago, I’ll concede.

You’re creating a tension between dogma, which must be believed, and normal assent and obedience on a Catholic’s part, to obey ordinary teaching of the Church particularly the pope.

CCC
**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

• Since there is no dogmatic list of 21 E councils, then what makes the 1st 7 councils, ecumenical AND infallible either?

I gave you the criteria in a previous post - through that criteria, I believe there are for certain 11 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church (including the first 7). The criteria I gave, btw, are reflected in the quotes you have just given, as will be explained below.

• Are we to believe only what is defined as dogma and not ordinary teaching of the Church?

I’m encouraged to see that you are not of that particular Latin mindset that believes only dogma can be regarded as valid de fide teaching of the Catholic Church (by which certain Catholics sometimes called “Traditionalist” deny the validity of V2 Council as an Ecumenical Council).

It’s a long article, so I took an exerpt. But you can read the entire text.

I’m aware of this article and have read fully through it before. It is the same article which refutes the position you defended in that thread in the Apologetic Forum wherein you and brother Abu claimed that the Infallibility of an Ecumenical Council depends on “papal infallibility.”

Requisite number of members

Yes, the article indicates that “AS A RULE,” there must be the intent to have the other Patriarchs and metropolitans of the Church as deliberative members - or did you miss that part? If you will recall, that was basically condition # [4] in the explanation I gave in a previous post.

You’re creating a tension between dogma, which must be believed, and normal assent and obedience on a Catholic’s part, to obey ordinary teaching of the Church particularly the pope.

CCC
**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

You’re again myopically focusing only on certain portions of your quotes, instead of considering the entire context. Note that this quote you give specifically states that this ordinary teaching to which religious assent must be given applies only to matters of FAITH AND MORALS (this was criterion # [2] in one of my previous posts). Given that contextual understanding, please answer two questions for me.

1. How is a belief in the NUMBER of Ecumenical Councils a matter of “Faith and morals?”
2. How is an argument over Church property (as one example among many of the so-called “Ecumenical Councils” of the Latin Church) between the Church and State a matter of “Faith and morals?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Catholics believe that the Pope, as one of the forms of Supreme Authority in the Church, can exercise this Supreme authority either personally or collegially.

Two of the several differences between the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine views is this:

(1) History demonstrates that the Pope has exercised his Supreme authority in a personal manner about .01 percent of the time. The other 99.9 % has been collegial. Absolutist Petrine advocates try to present the .01% as the norm, whereas the High Petrine view presents the 99.9% as normative.

(2) The Absolutist Petrine view proposes that the .01% instances wherein the Pope exercises supreme authority in a personal manner is exercised at his personal discretion ALONE. The High Petrine view understands that these very rare occasions are dictated by the genuine needs of the Church as advanced by her local bishops, not merely by what the Pope unilaterally feels the Church needs.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And this is the problem. Nobody can agree on when or how many times the Holy Father has exercised papal infallibility. Some say the declaration of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary were the only two times, some say that those plus Lumen Gentium are infallible, some say Humanae Vitae was infallible, some say none of these…if these things were infallible, one would hope the Church would let us know? There is no real hard formula or way to know what is infallible or not? These statistics of 0.01% of the time and all this stuff makes no sense. Lumen Gentium 25 says that we must completely surrender mind and will to the Pope even when he ISN’T speaking ex cathedra so really does infallibility even matter in light of LG25?

Catholics believe that the Pope, as one of the forms of Supreme Authority in the Church, can exercise this Supreme authority either personally or collegially.

Two of the several differences between the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine views is this:

(1) History demonstrates that the Pope has exercised his Supreme authority in a personal manner about .01 percent of the time. The other 99.9 % has been collegial. Absolutist Petrine advocates try to present the .01% as the norm, whereas the High Petrine view presents the 99.9% as normative.

(2) The Absolutist Petrine view proposes that the .01% instances wherein the Pope exercises supreme authority in a personal manner is exercised at his personal discretion ALONE. The High Petrine view understands that these very rare occasions are dictated by the genuine needs of the Church as advanced by her local bishops, not merely by what the Pope unilaterally feels the Church needs.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And this is the problem. Nobody can agree on when or how many times the Holy Father has exercised papal infallibility. Some say the declaration of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary were the only two times, some say that those plus Lumen Gentium are infallible, some say Humanae Vitae was infallible, some say none of these…if these things were infallible, one would hope the Church would let us know? There is no real hard formula or way to know what is infallible or not? These statistics of 0.01% of the time and all this stuff makes no sense. Lumen Gentium 25 says that we must completely surrender mind and will to the Pope even when he ISN’T speaking ex cathedra so really does infallibility even matter in light of LG25?

Personally, I don’t see an issue. The only ones who seem inclined to think that a list of teachings declared infallibly by the Pope is necessary are those people who think that infallibility belongs to the Pope alone.

If one understands that even “papal infallibility” is merely the Pope exercising the infallibility of the Church and if one understands that dogma is not the only way that infallible teaching can be transmitted in the Church, then one will not be inclined to make their faith depend on such basically useless lists.

All I’m concerned about is the question “CAN THIS TEACHING BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE CONSTANT, IRREFORMIBLE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.” I could care less whether the infallible teaching is transmitted through the extraordinary magisterium of the Pope or the Ecumenical Council, or the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

In any case, please explain how you can consider LG an exercise of the infallible Magisterium of the Pope (not that it matters to my personal Faith as a Catholic)?

Btw, the “ordinary Magisterium” is by definition collegial, not personal. When the Pope exercises his ordinary Magisterium, it is understood that he is presenting the infallible teaching of all the bishops in place and in time as their mouthpiece. This is different from his exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium, wherein he is called upon by his brother bishops to judge on a matter of Faith and/or morals.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

And this is the problem. Nobody can agree on when or how many times the Holy Father has exercised papal infallibility. Some say the declaration of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary were the only two times, some say that those plus Lumen Gentium are infallible, some say Humanae Vitae was infallible, some say none of these…if these things were infallible, one would hope the Church would let us know? There is no real hard formula or way to know what is infallible or not? These statistics of 0.01% of the time and all this stuff makes no sense. Lumen Gentium 25 says that we must completely surrender mind and will to the Pope even when he ISN’T speaking ex cathedra so really does infallibility even matter in light of LG25?

I’m really struggling with the idea of Papal infallibility lately. It seems to cause nothing but confusion and division. And the fact that it was elevated to dogma (after the Great schism) on par with the entire deposit of Faith, and you’ll go to hell if you don’t believe it, disturbs me. Not to mention the quotes from Scripture used to support it seems like a leap. And the fact that something so essential to salvation not being laid out by, and in consent, of the Church Fathers seems suspect. We had Popes that condemned any sort of prayer with heretics, while the last Pontiff held interfaith prayers meetings doing exactly that! Like I said, I’m really struggling with it. It just seems like the Vatican dug itself a hole that is impossible to get out of and Christian unity will never be had because of it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jam070406,

I’m really struggling with the idea of Papal infallibility lately. It seems to cause nothing but confusion and division.

Very understandable, as I used to share that confusion.

And the fact that it was elevated to dogma (after the Great schism) on par with the entire deposit of Faith, and you’ll go to hell if you don’t believe it, disturbs me.

Every Orthodox Christian understands that anathemas are disciplinary in nature, and is not intended by the Church to send someone to hell. I’ve encountered your statement here from Orthodox polemics, and I feel it is very dishonest and utterly hypocritical for such people to present the anathemas of Vatican 1 as the Catholic Church “sending someone to hell,” when they would not do the same for anathemas proposed by their own Eastern Councils (or by the 7 Ecumenical Councils, for that matter). What do you think?

And the fact that something so essential to salvation not being laid out by, and in consent, of the Church Fathers seems suspect.

Where do you get the idea that the consensus of the Fathers was repudiated by Vatican 1?

We had Popes that condemned any sort of prayer with heretics, while the last Pontiff held interfaith prayers meetings doing exactly that! Like I said, I’m really struggling with it.

Actually, from sources I’ve read, Catholics did not pray WITH any of the non-Catholic/non-Christian participants. What happened was that they prayed SEPARATELY in their own respective groups, though their prayers were directed for the same purpose - peace.

It just seems like the Vatican dug itself a hole that is impossible to get out of and Christian unity will never be had because of it.

Very understandable, as I used to hold that position, brother. I hope we can engage in a fruitful discussion to assuage your concerns.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I said “some” consider LG infallible. Why did you ask me to explain why “I” believe it, brother Marduk?

Personally, I don’t see an issue. The only ones who seem inclined to think that a list of teachings declared infallibly by the Pope is necessary are those people who think that infallibility belongs to the Pope alone.

If one understands that even “papal infallibility” is merely the Pope exercising the infallibility of the Church and if one understands that dogma is not the only way that infallible teaching can be transmitted in the Church, then one will not be inclined to make their faith depend on such basically useless lists.

All I’m concerned about is the question “CAN THIS TEACHING BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE CONSTANT, IRREFORMIBLE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.” I could care less whether the infallible teaching is transmitted through the extraordinary magisterium of the Pope or the Ecumenical Council, or the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

In any case, please explain how you can consider LG an exercise of the infallible Magisterium of the Pope (not that it matters to my personal Faith as a Catholic)?

Btw, the “ordinary Magisterium” is by definition collegial, not personal. When the Pope exercises his ordinary Magisterium, it is understood that he is presenting the infallible teaching of all the bishops in place and in time as their mouthpiece. This is different from his exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium, wherein he is called upon by his brother bishops to judge on a matter of Faith and/or morals.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

Dear brother jam070406,

Very understandable, as I used to share that confusion.

Every Orthodox Christian understands that anathemas are disciplinary in nature, and is not intended by the Church to send someone to hell. I’ve encountered your statement here from Orthodox polemics, and I feel it is very dishonest and utterly hypocritical for such people to present the anathemas of Vatican 1 as the Catholic Church “sending someone to hell,” when they would not do the same for anathemas proposed by their own Eastern Councils (or by the 7 Ecumenical Councils, for that matter). What do you think?

Where do you get the idea that the consensus of the Fathers was repudiated by Vatican 1?

Actually, from sources I’ve read, Catholics did not pray WITH any of the non-Catholic/non-Christian participants. What happened was that they prayed SEPARATELY in their own respective groups, though their prayers were directed for the same purpose - peace.

Very understandable, as I used to hold that position, brother. I hope we can engage in a fruitful discussion to assuage your concerns.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm,

You know I totally respect you brother. You have done alot to strengthen my Faith in the past. Your wisdom is truly inspiring.
Understand, I am not trying to be combative. Simply…confused.

I really don’t want to get into it, as it is spiritually exhausting for me. Perhaps when I feel like it more, I’ll PM you. Would that be ok?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear ya, Jam. I’m always struggling to stay Catholic. I look with wonder at these people to whom it all seems so full of obvious good sense, and they just buy it all lock, stock, and barrell. I think the fact that ALL the parishes in my entire area have really stuffy parishoners, HORRIBLE priests, banal homilies, and heaps of liturgical irregularities doesn’t help one bit. But the way Lumen Gentium tells us the following:

**And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others
**
So when people in here say that the pope cannot pronounce infallibly on anything without consulting the Church and/or a council, etc. I fail to see how they can justify saying that when LG 25 says he doesn’t really need the consent of the Church to make “irreformable” doctrine?

I struggle with this part of LG25 as well:
***This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. ***

I’m really struggling with the idea of Papal infallibility lately. It seems to cause nothing but confusion and division. And the fact that it was elevated to dogma (after the Great schism) on par with the entire deposit of Faith, and you’ll go to hell if you don’t believe it, disturbs me. Not to mention the quotes from Scripture used to support it seems like a leap. And the fact that something so essential to salvation not being laid out by, and in consent, of the Church Fathers seems suspect. We had Popes that condemned any sort of prayer with heretics, while the last Pontiff held interfaith prayers meetings doing exactly that! Like I said, I’m really struggling with it. It just seems like the Vatican dug itself a hole that is impossible to get out of and Christian unity will never be had because of it.

 

[mardukm]

I said “some” consider LG infallible. Why did you ask me to explain why “I” believe it, brother Marduk?

My bad. Forgive me? (though I am not usually inclined to ask forgivenes from a Marvel heretic ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm,

You know I totally respect you brother. You have done alot to strengthen my Faith in the past. Your wisdom is truly inspiring.
Understand, I am not trying to be combative. Simply…confused.

I really don’t want to get into it, as it is spiritually exhausting for me. Perhaps when I feel like it more, I’ll PM you. Would that be ok?

Yes. Please do PM me. Or – mm7267@yahoo.com.

I thoroughly understand and sympathize how spiritually exhausting it is!!!

Abundant blessings,
Marduk