Immaculate conception

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Dear Catholic (Brother or Sister),

Hope you are enjoying your vacation.

Thanks! My vacation is about to end and since most of the things I want to do have already been done I am getting to post a bit more

An interesting post, which is not so much as a ‘correction’ to mine, as a justification for recent Catholic innovation of Mariology which departs from the Apostolic Faith of the Fathers as expressed through the first 7 Ecumenical Councils which in our view were authoritative.

I think I should have made myself clearer here. I of course cannot correct you on what you should believe about your faith; I however can correct you on what I think are some misconceptions about the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and this is what I am trying to do.

1… Your Mariology has consequences for your Christology. The EOC rejects the concept that the Theotokos was not capable of sin. Such a teaching makes her less than human (or by nature super human), and in turn damages the core theology of the Apostolic faith that Christ was fully man, and fully God.

Again a misconception of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that I want to correct here. It is not that Mary cannot sin; if it were she would not be honored as she is by the Church. Rather, she is free from concupiscence. Just like Adam and Eve, she can still sin if she wanted to, but because of the absence of concupiscence (like Adam and Eve) she has much better self control than us.

To say that Mary is super or less than human is the same as saying Adam and Eve are super or less than human. Are you?

2… The Council of Trent was not an authoritative Ecumenical Council. from our perspective, it is not authoritative at all because it propounded dogma and teaching which departed from the the faith of the Apostles.

It is however for us, and since we are dealing with our doctrine…

3… The physical death of the Theotokos does present a huge problem for Catholic innovation (the IC), Mariology and Christology. If she died, she cannot possibly have been the Immaculate Conception because she would necessarily by your own dogma be free of the consequences of original sin. That is why the RC Church does not dogmatically proclaim the Dormition of the Virgin… because it proves she died. You have conveniently left this as an open question, in contradiction to the Church Fathers and the Traditions of the Apostolic Church. The Theotokos had no choice in her human death - Christ did. It was his mission through obedience to God which led to his death.

For these reasons, Mary is immaculate, all-holy, spotless, most highly blessed and ever virgin from her conception, through all her earthly life, death and Assumption into Heaven and for all eternity.

Lumen Gentium

The Theotokos may have no choice in her death, but God did. It was His will that she would die, like Jesus; thus, it would also be appropriate, too, that she would suffer the same fate as her Son.

4… The Theotokos cannot possibly have had a need for Christs salvific death upon the cross if as you say she was Immaculate and not only free of sin (original) - but incapable of it. This is also self evident - the IC dogma, necessarily means she was already perfect, sinless and saved. This is a huge problem for the RC Church to explain.

Again, not a problem. The death of Jesus is not in the past, but eternal. Thus, the salvific effect of Jesus’ death can be used retroactively, before Mary would even be born.

5… The Bishop of Rome and you might think the dogma of the IC is appropriate. From the EOC perspective it is not only superfluous to the faith, but not true. It does not reflect the faith the Apostles taught - and it does not reflect the Church Fathers teaching.

Alright. As I said, I cannot say anything about what you believe.

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Dear Brother or Sister,

That’s just fine… hope you enjoyed your vacation.

In a spirit of love and respect - you have given me no reason’s why the EOC or me should change our Scriptural or Patristic viewpoint on the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos.

You have not attempted to address the Mariology, or the Cristology or the Salvific Sacrifice of Christ - which I name as stumbling blocks to full unity.

With love.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Dear Brother or Sister,

That’s just fine… hope you enjoyed your vacation.

In a spirit of love and respect - you have given me no reason’s why the EOC or me should change our Scriptural or Patristic viewpoint on the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos.

You have not attempted to address the Mariology, or the Cristology or the Salvific Sacrifice of Christ - which I name as stumbling blocks to full unity.

With love.

That was not my intention, I just wanted to make sure that you did not misunderstand the theology of the Immaculate Conception, whether you accept it or not

Thanks again!

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

+JMJ+

That was not my intention, I just wanted to make sure that you did not misunderstand the theology of the Immaculate Conception, whether you accept it or not

Thanks again!

Thankyou Brother or Sister.

Yep. The IC theology is pretty much understood - and I feel I have responded to the actual dogma as it exists.

Can you elaborate on why it is dogma and a necessary article of faith…

We Orthodox bretheren still don’t get the theological source of it - or the need. We have serious concerns as to the Christology and Salvific mission of Christ.

P.S. Can you please explain exactly how the Catholic Church Dogma of the IC does NOT state that the Most Holy Theotokos is free from “original sin”… because from my reading, you guys say she is… please explain why she is not.

With love.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Cannot anybody see how inappropriate it is for Jesus to be Incarnated and stay for nine months in a spiritually dead woman, when even the Ark of the Covenant, the early vessel of God in the Old Testament, was made from the purest materials and made according to exact dimensions?

Thank you for your post, not just the part I addressed here.

Of course it is more appropriate for Our Lord to be incarnated and stay in a spiritually alive woman. She would, in fact, not be spiritually dead for long if not, if the sanctification of John the Baptist while still in the womb is any indication, but that does not really take away anything from your point of appropriateness. Also, appropriateness is still a valid point without the parallel to the Ark of the Covenant, which serves more to underline, to validate, the appropriateness, rather than necessitate it. I think all prefigurement does more to validate than to necessitate what follows. Indeed, it would be most appropriate for Our Lord to be born into a world totally without sin, but then that would negate His reason for coming in the first place. As it was, it is interesting to note that He did not enter His public ministry until His thirtieth year. It is as if He stayed sheltered from the filth of the world until His moment arrived, which called for the utter sacrifice of Himself for which He had come. But there was no “logical need” in the words of KyivanPatriarch for Our Lord to suffer more than His passion and death, and that includes His stay in Our Lady’s womb and His entire sojourn on earth, which I think was kept apart as much as possible from the sinful world into which He was born as He prepared for the very human ordeal He was destined to undergo. But the hidden life became the public life, and aptly began with a confrontation with the devil, who from that day forward had His sights set on his intended Victim.

Also, much has been said as to the lack of need of Mary for a Savior. It occurs to me that her need of a Savior was all the more necessary owing to the fact that her great dispensation was due solely to the future merits of her Son without which she would herself have been born into sin, so you might say, she was pre-saved, that is, she was saved even from the need to be born into original sin. Her very essence flows out of her salvation from sin, for He who is mighty had done great things for her, and holy is His Name.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Dear Catholic Brother,

If as you say, there is no chance of re-unification of our Churches, then the two “lungs” of the Christian Church (East and West) are destined to disappoint Our Lord in his wish for a single Holy and catholic Apostolic Church…

In order for us to re-unite, we must understand our differences, how they arose, and be prepared to humbly submit ourselves to the guideance of the Holy Spirit in settlement of the reasons of schism.

All too often I am confronted in these forums by those Brothers and Sisters who say - if the Orthodox wish to join us, they are welcome to do so. But we Orthodox are keenly aware that because of the innovations of the Bishop of Rome (infallibility in theology, filioque, IC, original sin, the Eucharist etc…) we are being offered an ultimatum rather than an invitation. An ultimatum requiring us to abandon the Apostolic Faith of the first seven Councils of which we were a part - to do so. Is it not also incumbent upon our beloved Catholic brothers and sisters to consider returning to the faith of our common Apostolic heritage and Church Fathers?

With love.

It is not an ultimatum, no more than God’s invitation to follow Him is an ultimatum. I understand that your thinking will not allow you to enter into union with the RCC. You must understand that our thinking will not allow us to dispense with the most critical aspect of our separation, that of papal infallibility. If we dispensed with that, we might reach temporary agreement or union, but without the unifying authority of a Pope who is unerring in matters of faith and morals, I fear it would only be wishful thinking to believe that we would remain united forevermore. Papal infallibility is necessary to Church unity. Without a Father who has the last word, our family will never find peace. It was logically necessary for Christ to give Peter and his successors that authority over the household of the Church. We cannot be several under one; we must be one under one. While the Bishops of the Church along with the Pope are granted that same infallibility, at the same time, the Bishops of the Church are one under the Holy Father, the Pope, who alone can invoke that infallibility in his singular person. This all seems more than logically necessary to me. Without it we are a family, each member going his own way. With it, we all one family, each member serving his given role and each at peace with the rest. (I’m sorry, I have to run to get ready for Mass. Later. )

 

[AmbroseSJ]

KyivanPatriarch:

P.S. Can you please explain exactly how the Catholic Church Dogma of the IC does NOT state that the Most Holy Theotokos is free from “original sin”… because from my reading, you guys say she is… please explain why she is not.

You have completely misunderstood the answer that was offered by nuntym, and in the process changed your own question!

The Catholic Church DOES say that the BVM is free from “original sin.”

The Catholic Church DOES say that the BVM was capable of sin, although remained sinless her whole life.

The EOC does not have the understanding of “original sin” that the Western Church does. That fact is bound to cause problems for the EOC and the IC.

 

[JamesCaruso]

It is not an ultimatum, no more than God’s invitation to follow Him is an ultimatum. I understand that your thinking will not allow you to enter into union with the RCC. You must understand that our thinking will not allow us to dispense with the most critical aspect of our separation, that of papal infallibility. If we dispensed with that, we might reach temporary agreement or union, but without the unifying authority of a Pope who is unerring in matters of faith and morals, I fear it would only be wishful thinking to believe that we would remain united forevermore. Papal infallibility is necessary to Church unity. Without a Father who has the last word, our family will never find peace. It was logically necessary for Christ to give Peter and his successors that authority over the household of the Church. We cannot be several under one; we must be one under one. While the Bishops of the Church along with the Pope are granted that same infallibility, at the same time, the Bishops of the Church are one under the Holy Father, the Pope, who alone can invoke that infallibility in his singular person. This all seems more than logically necessary to me. Without it we are a family, each member going his own way. With it, we all one family, each member serving his given role and each at peace with the rest. (I’m sorry, I have to run to get ready for Mass. Later. )

To clarify what I mean we cannot be several under one, but must be one under one, to be several (Bishops, Patriarchs, people) under one, each of us with the potential for a different understanding, and the one, the Pope, without infallibility, is like a family, each with their own ideas, and a Father who is the head, but without the last word. As it works out on the real life family, the Father who has the last word, seldom invokes that last word as a practical matter, but it does constitute a unifying principle, one which can be invoked at any time. If the Mother (the Bishops) did not follow the Pope, then neither will all the children, the faithful. Some would follow the Father and some would follow the Mother, and discord would ensue. The Bishops must bow to the primacy of the Pope, and the faithful will then not have this one or that one to follow after, but only the Bishop who bows to the Pope, so that all is one under one under one. All who challenge, therefore, are necessarily outside the family unit by virtue of their dissent. The primacy of the Pope, including his infallibility, are essential to the one catholic church of Christ. While pandemonium does not seem to reign supreme within Orthodoxy, the potential is there, each Patriarch independent and equal to each other. To me it is open to the possibility of a form of Protestantism within the Church itself. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Brandrewpaul]

I have checked out all resourses avaliable and all but one say that Our Blessed Mother was conceived Immacutely so she could have a pure body to Immaculately conceive Jesus Christ. This is the end to this discussion. How can anyone challenge this? God works it mysterious ways and we are not understand all because we are human.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I have checked out all resourses avaliable and all but one say that Our Blessed Mother was conceived Immacutely so she could have a pure body to Immaculately conceive Jesus Christ. This is the end to this discussion. How can anyone challenge this? God works it mysterious ways and we are not understand all because we are human.

The point is, we are talking with an Orthodox individual who do not accept the CC’s doctrine, so as much reasoning/light as can be brought to bear on the subject is helpful. Like you, I am not a theologian, so my contribution to this discussion in minimal, yet I do hope to learn more about the reasoning that went into the final decision to create this dogma. It was not plucked out of the sky, and it did take a very long time for the doctrine to develop and finally become dogma. The Church encourages us to delve into an understanding of our faith. There is nothing to fear in this, as the truth will always win out in the end. Like you, I can accept it on the Church’s word alone, but I still want to better my understanding. The Church discourages blind faith.

 

[Trebor135]

It is not an ultimatum, no more than God’s invitation to follow Him is an ultimatum. I understand that your thinking will not allow you to enter into union with the RCC. You must understand that our thinking will not allow us to dispense with the most critical aspect of our separation, that of papal infallibility. If we dispensed with that, we might reach temporary agreement or union, but without the unifying authority of a Pope who is unerring in matters of faith and morals, I fear it would only be wishful thinking to believe that we would remain united forevermore. Papal infallibility is necessary to Church unity. Without a Father who has the last word, our family will never find peace. It was logically necessary for Christ to give Peter and his successors that authority over the household of the Church. We cannot be several under one; we must be one under one. While the Bishops of the Church along with the Pope are granted that same infallibility, at the same time, the Bishops of the Church are one under the Holy Father, the Pope, who alone can invoke that infallibility in his singular person. This all seems more than logically necessary to me. Without it we are a family, each member going his own way. With it, we all one family, each member serving his given role and each at peace with the rest. (I’m sorry, I have to run to get ready for Mass. Later. )

This is taking the thread off-topic, but I have to point out that “logically necessary” and “divinely revealed” are not the same thing.

Surely it can be argued that teachings other than papal infallibility are “logically necessary” too, but Catholicism does not require belief in all such doctrines. Calvinism is about as internally coherent of a system as one can find, but neither of us are going to embrace it on that basis.

In order to be persuaded of its correctness, what Orthodox have to see is a historical-patristic defense of papal infallibility, not philosophical arguments on its behalf.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Dear Catholic Brother,

If as you say, there is no chance of re-unification of our Churches, then the two “lungs” of the Christian Church (East and West) are destined to disappoint Our Lord in his wish for a single Holy and catholic Apostolic Church…

In order for us to re-unite, we must understand our differences, how they arose, and be prepared to humbly submit ourselves to the guideance of the Holy Spirit in settlement of the reasons of schism.

All too often I am confronted in these forums by those Brothers and Sisters who say - if the Orthodox wish to join us, they are welcome to do so. But we Orthodox are keenly aware that because of the innovations of the Bishop of Rome (infallibility in theology, filioque, IC, original sin, the Eucharist etc…) we are being offered an ultimatum rather than an invitation. An ultimatum requiring us to abandon the Apostolic Faith of the first seven Councils of which we were a part - to do so. Is it not also incumbent upon our beloved Catholic brothers and sisters to consider returning to the faith of our common Apostolic heritage and Church Fathers?

With love.

Personally, my friend, if the Church’s Petrine ministry ended with Peter, and has been unable to discern matters of faith and morals for 1,000 years, or hold ecumenical councils despite having bishops throughout the world, and must now revoke dogma, I’d sooner believe there was either no god, or that Christianity is false. Christ must make good on His promise; He would not allow schism to debilitate the Church or make void its ability to discern His will. Otherwise, Christ was a liar and this faith is false. Thankfully, it is not so.

As to your points in your response to me, thank you for those answers. Much of it makes little sense to me, for instance:

1. How God, the Creator of all, could owe one of His creations a ransom, as though He lost some kind of wager, even though He is mentioned as the perfect sacrifice (as though Satan deserved some kind of sacrifice?). He was a ransom, but I can’t see it being paid to Satan. To give us sanctifying grace from His sacrifice, yes, but to pay Satan? I don’t know.
2. How the effects of sin remained, but not sin itself, while still causing death and requiring remission (although not really remission, I guess?), and that Scripture says we are dead in our sin
3. That Mary would be capable of being the ‘Second Eve’ if she was not in the same grace-filled state that Eve was in, and her ‘yes’ was as free as Eve’s ‘no’, and that being in this grace-filled state would somehow make her less human, as though Eve was less human than us simply because of her graceful nature
4. I don’t see the Lord being ‘held prisoner’ by Satan. I see Him as freeing the souls from Abraham’s Bosom, but not being held. I can’t envision our Lord Jesus being held by one of His creations. I also can’t see His Passion and Death bearing any kind of ‘legal’ requirement on Satan.
5. That baptism is done only because it was commanded of Christ and is a sign of our ransom, yet is a Sacrament and therefore must impart very real saving grace.

Also, we believe that Mary had grace that resulted from Christ’s sacrifice, and not in spite of it. So, yes, she had need for a Savior, because without a Savior, she would not have been grace-filled.

I also don’t see the ‘pagan’ theology entering the Church, as you say. If you mean Socrates’ method of reasoning, then absolutely, yes, but this is a method of reasoning and not a pagan religion. God gave us the ability to use reason to see Him more clearly, and Socrates is a perfect example: he came to the conclusion of God years before Christianity. It is true that philosophy is subservient to theology, but certainly these two things can go together to help us understand our Lord.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I’ll have to read into them more to gain a better understanding of Orthodox theology.

 

[JamesCaruso]

In order to be persuaded of its correctness, what Orthodox have to see is a historical-patristic defense of papal infallibility, not philosophical arguments on its behalf.

You may be right, but I can only speak in terms that are meaningful to me. I am not quite sure where you are coming from. Are you asking me to leave the discussion?

 

[JamesCaruso]

This is taking the thread off-topic, but I have to point out that “logically necessary” and “divinely revealed” are not the same thing.

Surely it can be argued that teachings other than papal infallibility are “logically necessary” too, but Catholicism does not require belief in all such doctrines. Calvinism is about as internally coherent of a system as one can find, but neither of us are going to embrace it on that basis.

In order to be persuaded of its correctness, what Orthodox have to see is a historical-patristic defense of papal infallibility, not philosophical arguments on its behalf.

The historical-patristic evidences of papal infallibility have been on the table for centuries. Do you really believe that revisiting them will yield a different answer? To me the evidence is clear; to you the evidence does not exist. I could bore you with lines of succession and Biblical quotes, but would that do any good? Centuries-long disputes by now have centuries-long answers on both sides.

The necessity for an infallible papacy is so compelling that if it did not exist, we would have to invent it. I can’t make you see that, but I believe it to be true.

The fact that we are here discussing differences in doctrinal beliefs shows the need for a deciding factor, a last word, an infallible Pope. The facts of Orthodoxy and Protestantism and Catholicism demonstrates the need for infallibility. If not, then Christ was wrong and Satan has prevailed and left the Christian churches in smoke and confusion.

If all are collectively the “one church” established by Christ, or if even if you say only the CC and Orthodoxy are collectively the “one church” established by Christ, then Satan has won, because we are not one; we are divided and the gates of hell have prevailed. It within the “one church” there is division as to essential doctrine, then none of what either the CC or Orthodoxy teaches can be relied upon with certitude.

So now it logically comes to either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy must be the one, true Church established by Christ, and how do you explain that it is Orthodoxy? Maybe the line of succession in important after all. Where have I erred?

 

[Darryl_B]

The historical-patristic evidences of papal infallibility have been on the table for centuries. Do you really believe that revisiting them will yield a different answer? To me the evidence is clear; to you the evidence does not exist. I could bore you with lines of succession and Biblical quotes, but would that do any good? Centuries-long disputes by now have centuries-long answers on both sides.

The necessity for an infallible papacy is so compelling that if it did not exist, we would have to invent it. I can’t make you see that, but I believe it to be true.

The fact that we are here discussing differences in doctrinal beliefs shows the need for a deciding factor, a last word, an infallible Pope. The facts of Orthodoxy and Protestantism and Catholicism demonstrates the need for infallibility. If not, then Christ was wrong and Satan has prevailed and left the Christian churches in smoke and confusion.

If all are collectively the “one church” established by Christ, or if even if you say only the CC and Orthodoxy are collectively the “one church” established by Christ, then Satan has won, because we are not one; we are divided and the gates of hell have prevailed. It within the “one church” there is division as to essential doctrine, then none of what either the CC or Orthodoxy teaches can be relied upon with certitude.

So now it logically comes to either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy must be the one, true Church established by Christ, and how do you explain that it is Orthodoxy? Maybe the line of succession in important after all. Where have I erred?

Having the background of smoke and confusion protestantism I would whole-heartedly agree. I had to ask myself the question “has Jesus Christ the head of the Church, just left us to it?” The Bible says unequivocally irrevocably no. Holy Spirit - lead - truth.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Thankyou Brother or Sister.

Yep. The IC theology is pretty much understood - and I feel I have responded to the actual dogma as it exists.

Uhm, the question you have at the end of your post says otherwise.

Can you elaborate on why it is dogma and a necessary article of faith…

It says in Ineffabilis Deus, the document that formally defined the Immaculate Conception:

No wonder, then, that the Pastors of the Church and the faithful gloried daily more and more in professing with so much piety, religion, and love this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as the Fathers discerned, was recorded in the Divine Scriptures; which was handed down in so many of their most important writings; which was expressed and celebrated in so many illustrious monuments of venerable antiquity; which was proposed and confirmed by the official and authoritative teaching of the Church. Hence, nothing was dearer, nothing more pleasing to these pastors than to venerate, invoke, and proclaim with most ardent affection the Virgin Mother of God conceived without original stain. Accordingly, from ancient times the bishops of the Church, ecclesiastics, religious orders, and even emperors and kings, have earnestly petitioned this Apostolic See to define a dogma of the Catholic Faith the Immaculate Conception of the most holy Mother of God. These petitions were renewed in these our own times; they were especially brought to the attention of Gregory XVI, our predecessor of happy memory, and to ourselves, not only by bishops, but by the secular clergy and religious orders, by sovereign rulers and by the faithful.

In other words, it is because the whole Church petitioned the Pope, in her desire to honor the Blessed Virgin as prophesized in Scripture: “for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48).

We Orthodox bretheren still don’t get the theological source of it - or the need. We have serious concerns as to the Christology and Salvific mission of Christ.

The theological source is from Holy Tradition, and the need is purely due to joy. Read the whole document: newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm.

 

[PRmerger]

The EOC rejects the concept that the Theotokos was not capable of sin.

Do you have some sort of statement from the Magisterium that declares that the *Theotookos *was not capable of sin? My understanding is that all of us are capable of sin, even those who were born without Original Sin (Adam, Eve, Mary). Mary just chose never to sin.

 

[PRmerger]

2… The Council of Trent was not an authoritative Ecumenical Council. from our perspective, it is not authoritative at all because it propounded dogma and teaching which departed from the the faith of the Apostles.

This is rather circular, is it not Kyivan? “I don’t believe in the teachings of the Council of Trent, therefore it was not authoritative.” and “The council of Trent is not authoritative, therefore the teachings it proposes are not dogma.”

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Dear Brothers and Sisters (Heterodox and Non-Heterodox) …

I think that covers everybody.

Thanks for your many and varied responses and perspectives to my posts… an interesting discussion indeed! I make the important point that the IC Dogma is not only a point of disagreement and controversy for the Orthodox and Protestants - it has also been a point of serious disagreement & controversy within the Roman Catholic Church for hundreds of years before it’s proclamation as Dogma.

Because this is a thread discussing the Immaculate Conception Dogma of the RC Church, I will try to confine my comments to that (and try to only briefly mention the Dogma of Papal Infallibility as it impacts on the core issue of the IC of the Theotokos)…

However, it is abundantly clear from the sad history of Christian disunity, that two issues are at play here. (1) Is the dogma the revealed truth arising from Scripture and Patristic Tradition - and (2), was it’s proclamation done in a manner in accordance with the conciliar forms and procedures of the Apostolic Church established by Christ himself?

We Orthodox answer emphatically NO to both questions.

1… We maintain that the IC Dogma is not justifiable on either Scriptural, Patristic or Traditional grounds… further we assert that it is contradicted by same, and in many ways, damages and changes the core theology of the Apostles as expressed in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils.

It is based upon an altered (Augustinian) understanding of original sin and it’s consequences from that of the Apostles and the early Church.

It alters the fullness of humanity of the Theotokos and consequently that of Christ. It is a departure from the Hypostatic Union theology taught by the Apostles and early Church, and disturbingly alters the actual salvific nature and effect of Christ’s death upon the cross for all mankind - as it was understood and proclaimed by the early Church.

In short, we consider it a novel innovation of the faith, which piles error upon error, is internally inconsistent and illogical, inappropriately damaging central tenets of the faith.

2… We assert the historical fact that the Dogma was proclaimed outside of the conciliar ecumenism of the early Church (the Roman Patriarchate unilaterally assuming theological infallibility based upon the ‘Petrine See’), places it outside of the Traditions of the early Apostolic Faith.

Even if the rest of the Church (the Constantinoplan, Antiochian, Alexandrian and Jerusalemate Patriarchates) accepted this ‘Petrine Perogative’, the Roman Patriarchate historically had less claim to it than Jerusalem and especially Antioch. This perogative of infallibility was never a feature of the early Church - who’s forms, theology and traditions the Orthodox maintain and defend.

Defenders of ‘Papal Infallibilty’ point to the need for order, consistency and unity which they erroneously suggest is it’s practical effect. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Dogma directly led to Rome’s Schism with the Apostolic Church - going it alone in Western Europe, and turning it’s back on the majority of it’s bretheren in Eastern Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Further it directly led to a multitude of further disarray, confusion and disunity which gave birth to Protestantism in a multitude of forms within Western Europe itself.

Today, probably the most divisive Dogma of the RC Church is Papal Infallibility - not only because it did not exist in the Apostolic early Church - but because it has caused and continues to entrench the disunity of the Christian Church worldwide.

This is a source of great sadness for Orthodox and Heterodox Christians alike.

With love to all…

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

This is rather circular, is it not Kyivan? “I don’t believe in the teachings of the Council of Trent, therefore it was not authoritative.” and “The council of Trent is not authoritative, therefore the teachings it proposes are not dogma.”

No.

The Council of Trent was a product of schism between Rome and the other 4 Patriarchates of the Apostolic Church (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch).

Very straight forward. The majority of the Church were not there. It was not Ecumenical.

And even so - it is still argued credibly that Trent did not support the IC Dogma.