Exclusive: Controversial swiss theologian pleads with pope francis to solve problem of infallibility

[pnewton]

For readers of this thread (and of the article in discussion of his), please be cautious with Father Küng’s teachings.

Considering that he is not even supposed to* be* teaching, this is sage advice.

 

[Genesis315]

Well, the Popes have said that the Orthodox Church is a sister Church of the Catholic Church and that it is the second lung of the Catholic Church.

I don’t think this is true. See the CDF note on usage of the term “sister Churches” which says we cannot say the Orthodox Church is a sister of the Catholic Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Also, it appears it is the Eastern Catholic Churches that are the second lung:
St. John Paul II:

The universal Church needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West so that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america.html

 

[Genesis315]

Not originally, it wasn’t, though it undoubtedly is now. The schism happened well before the doctrine of papal infallibility was proclaimed.

And the persistence of the east/west schism owes a lot to international politics, eastern rejection of Catholic councils and the primacy of the various patriarchs within the ambit of their authority. But of all of them, I would say international politics is presently chief among them; which is closely related to patriarchal primacy. The overwhelming number of Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox under the Patriarch of Moscow. The primacy of that patriarchy is closely intertwined with the desire for re-creation of the “Russian World”, which is wider than the Russian Republic.

Just because it was defined at the time, doesn’t mean it wasn’t the issue–remember, conciliar definitions don’t invent truths, they reaffirm them. The ability of the Pope to definitively decide matters of faith without error was the main issue underlying the Filioque controversy.

This is why St. Thomas addresses it in that context in his work “Against the Errors of the Greeks.”

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b36

But you’re also right that politics also played a very large role.

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t think this is true.

See:
Ut unum sint:

“The structures of unity which existed before the separation are a heritage of experience that guides our common path towards the re-establishment of full communion. Obviously, during the second millennium the Lord has not ceased to bestow on his Church abundant fruits of grace and growth. Unfortunately, however, the gradual and mutual estrangement between the Churches of the West and the East deprived them of the benefits of mutual exchanges and cooperation. With the grace of God a great effort must be made to re-establish full communion among them, the source of such good for the Church of Christ. This effort calls for all our good will, humble prayer and a steadfast cooperation which never yields to discouragement. Saint Paul urges us: “Bear one another’s burdens” (Gal 6:2). How appropriate and relevant for us is the Apostle’s exhortation! The traditional designation of “Sister Churches” should ever accompany us along this path.”
" the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus’ it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity."

 

[Genesis315]

That doesn’t sound like someone who supports the kind of papal primacy espoused by modern day Catholicism. See this thread for the full debate:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=998317&page=6

What St. Gregory is referring to here by “three places” is the principle of the three original patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in that order of primacy, which directly governed the three regions of the universal Church (the three regions of the known world: Europe, Africa, and Asia, respectively), with Rome being the final court of appeal (which is why these Patriarchs were turning to Rome, why Rome was telling them what to do in this case, and why they later submitted to Rome certain synodical acts and patriarchal judgments—see Book VII, Letter 34 and Book VIII, Letter 30 for examples; also see Book IX Letter 59 where St. Gregory says all bishops are subject to his See but they should be treated as equals when there is no cause not to).

This whole structure of authority flowed from Peter’s authority at Rome, with Alexandria and Antioch participating in that Petrine authority via their ties of discipleship to Petrine Rome.

This order was threatened early on by the imperial See of Constantinople trying to insert itself, first at Constantinople I and of course again by the infamous canon 28 of Chalcedon, which was denied by St. Leo the Great, who cited this same tradition of the three Petrine patriarchates. This original, Apostolic order was consistently disturbed by the theocratic government at Constantinople, which intruded into the Apostolic rights of the native bishops. In fact, the context in which the letter from St. Gregory on the “universal bishop” was written was yet another example of Constantinople trying to do this very thing (the universal bishop controversy, often falsely attributed to the Catholic understanding of primacy).

Again, Rome is always considered first and Alexandria and Antioch second and third in all the acts of Councils, etc. The three are never considered tied for first and no other See was numbered with them until politics won out later.

 

[phil19034]

The whole Eastern Orthodox Church and the whole Oriental Orthodox Church were both shut out of Vatican I.

I believe they were invited to attend. And if not, they did attend Vatican II. They simply didn’t have a vote because you need to be in communion with the See of Peter to vote. That was the case in the year 500 and it the case now.

 

[Tomdstone]

I believe they were invited to attend. And if not, they did attend Vatican II. They simply didn’t have a vote because you need to be in communion with the See of Peter to vote. That was the case in the year 500 and it the case now.

I didn’t think that they had a vote at Vatican II. But I thought they they did have a vote or at least a voice at the Council of Florence?

 

[josie_L]

Vatican I was not an Ecumenical Council in any meaningful sense. It was a western council. There have been no truly ecumenical councils since the first millenium.

Many of the ecumenical councils prior to the schism were almost entirely composed of Eastern bishops, in fact, the second and fifth ecumenical councils were “Eastern councils” and yet that did not hinder the fact that they were universally accepted by the Church.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The difference is that the voices of animosity coming from the western Church are capable of being sidelined and would not be a source of further schism within the western Church in the event of a reunification.
The voices of animosity coming from the eastern Church are central to the core of that church and will never agree to unity with the “devil”.

That is not an accurate general portrayal of the attitude of the Orthodox towards the West. It is, unfortunately, true of some Orthodox, but animosity towards the west is not “central to the core” of Orthodoxy. If that were true, the recent meetings between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow and the Pope would never have occurred.

If anyone is interested in the attitudes of some contemporary Orthodox theologians towards the West and the schism, I would suggest two books:

For the Unity of All, John Panteleimon Manoussakis

His Broken Body, Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck

 

[josie_L]

That is not an accurate general portrayal of the attitude of the Orthodox towards the West. It is, unfortunately, true of some Orthodox, but animosity towards the west is not “central to the core” of Orthodoxy. If that were true, the recent meetings between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow and the Pope would never have occurred.

If anyone is interested in the attitudes of some contemporary Orthodox theologians towards the West and the schism, I would suggest two books:

For the Unity of All, John Panteleimon Manoussakis

His Broken Body, Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck

I believe the relations between the EP and the Pope are rather good, but that between the EP and Patriarch of Moscow rather acrimonious. Furthermore, I don’t think that the relations between the Pope and the P of M can be considered “good” especially in light of the Ukrainian situation.

 

[PPeterson]

I said “if”. Now if there is an alternative to what I said, what it its. The Catholic Church declares papal infallibility and Vatican I. Is the Church* not* lead by the Holy Spirit when defining dogma, or papal infallibility is true. What is the third option?

c) the Holy Spirit is leading the church to correct an error. Don’t worry, once corrected the Church could say it was never an authentic teaching of the church because it was an error. tautologies are awesome!

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Many of the ecumenical councils prior to the schism were almost entirely composed of Eastern bishops, in fact, the second and fifth ecumenical councils were “Eastern councils” and yet that did not hinder the fact that they were universally accepted by the Church.

Yes, but the difference is that they were still capable of, and in fact were, eventually accepted by the whole Church, which was unified at that time. The post-schism western councils have not been accepted by the East. Maybe some day at least parts of them will be in a reunified Church!

 

[pnewton]

c) the Holy Spirit is leading the church to correct an error. Don’t worry, once corrected the Church could say it was never an authentic teaching of the church because it was an error. tautologies are awesome!

That is the most self-contradictory things imaginable. I guess the Holy Spirit was what, out on vacation for a few centuries? Besides, one dissident theologian is a poor method of leading.

 

[PPeterson]

That is the most self-contradictory things imaginable.

It is pretty weak. Right up there with Bob can’t be wrong and we know this to be true because Bob says he can’t be wrong, and since we know he said he can’t be wrong, we now know that he can’t be wrong.

 

[Tesomas]

On a sadly related note, the Church nearest to me has a parish library dominated by Kung. Literally everywhere you looked was a new Kung text. I didn’t know who he was at the time, but when I later looked him up I was disappointed that such works were included in the collection. Seriously dissident theologians aren’t the writers that uneducated laity like myself should be reading heavily…

 

[Dorothy]

On a sadly related note, the Church nearest to me has a parish library dominated by Kung. Literally everywhere you looked was a new Kung text. I didn’t know who he was at the time, but when I later looked him up I was disappointed that such works were included in the collection. Seriously dissident theologians aren’t the writers that uneducated laity like myself should be reading heavily…

I totally agree.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, but the difference is that they were still capable of, and in fact were, eventually accepted by the whole Church, which was unified at that time. The post-schism western councils have not been accepted by the East. Maybe some day at least parts of them will be in a reunified Church!

No, there were many parts of the Church that did not accept the councils of the first millennium, for example, Chalcedon and Trullo. That being said, are you insinuating that the Orthodox Churches cannot hold an ecumenical council, because from what I heard/read they are planning to have one in the near future?