I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Like his views on the filioque?
- Status
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Which is, for the Orthodox: no intercommunion.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Yep. And, if I happened to go to Mass with an Orthodox friend, I would encourage him to obey the rules of his church and not receive. I wouldn’t receive if I went to an Orthodox church either, since I have no wish to insult anyone or defy church (both Catholic and Orthodox) rules by demanding the Eucharist, as if the Eucharist was some sort of right.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes. It would be like having the honeymoonn before the wedding.
Such things never work.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Exactly!Yes. It would be like having the honeymoonn before the wedding.
B
bobzills
Guest
Suppose a R Catholic was lying in his deathbed in a hospital in Russia and there was no Catholic priest available, but there was a Russian Orthodox priest there. Would it be OK for the Catholic to ask the priest for a Sacrament?Yes. It would be like having the honeymoonn before the wedding.
N
Nicholas82
Guest
As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned: yes. As to whether the priest would administer said sacrament, I can only assume it would happen if the priest was overly ecumenically minded, overcome by emotion, or the dying person really, really wanted to convert to Orthodoxy
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nicholas,
Blessings,
Marduk
Father Ambrose (of days past) informed us that such things are commonplace in the Siberian regions of the former Soviet Union.As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned: yes. As to whether the priest would administer said sacrament, I can only assume it would happen if the priest was overly ecumenically minded, overcome by emotion, or the dying person really, really wanted to convert to Orthodoxy
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ematouk,
As far as the consensus issue is concerned, consensus is a SIGN that points us to the Truth. And often, consensus is enough to determine that a certain teaching is de fide and thus infallible. But what about in those instances when it is not enough? In truth, consensus can, objectively, only REFLECT what is true. But by no means is consensus to be regarded as a CONDITION for Truth or infallibility. Do you see the difference? Did St. Peter need consensus for the infallible teaching (that the Gentiles should be included in the Church) to be Truth? Did Moses? Of course not. Why do you suppose our Lord assigned to ONE the responsibility to be the confirmer of the brethren, if it was not other than what God intended for the order of His Church? Please answer that.
You mention that God may work through anyone to convince the church of God of the truth. But can you admit that this is only in hindsight – AFTER the Church has established in the past what is to be held as Truth? But put yourself in the position of our common Fathers, brother Ematouk. Who did THEY turn to when there was no other recourse? Who did St. Athanasius turn to? Who did St. Basil turn to? Who did St. John Chrysostom turn to? Who did St. Cyril turn to? Who did St. Cyprian turn to (don’t get off the track on the matter, because St. Cyprian DID turn to St. Stephen, but when St. Stephen disagreed with him… well, let’s just say the First Ecumenical Council proved St. Stephen correct)? Who did St. Augustine turn to? Ask yourself this question, and please give us your answer: If you were in the position of any one of these men, what would cause you to turn to Rome?
So I would ask you this: How would the Pope know the mind of the Church in order for him to properly make a judgment on a matter ex cathedra without recourse to his brother bishops, and even to the Church at large? Please answer that. Of course, I will admit that there are certain instances when the infallible Tradition of the Church is so clear, that the Pope need not have recourse to his brother bishops (e.g., Humanae Vitae, women’s ordination). Btw, if you want to debate about the contents of Humanae Vitae, whether it properly reflects Sacred Tradition, let’s do that on another thread.
CONTINUED
As I’m sure you know, this homily was given while St. Chrysostom was just a priest or deacon. He did not have the teaching authority of a bishop. But we also know that as priest and as bishop, he never tired of explicitly acknowledging the authority of the rule of Faith which is Sacred Tradition. So we are secure that St. John would have bent his understanding to the unanimous tradition of Mary’s sinlessness if push came to shove. So we do not consider him a heretic by any sense. The term “heretic” is reserved to those who are obstinately heretical, and we are secure, as stated, that St. John would have accommodated himself to the authority of Sacred Tradition.
Yes, that is ALSO part of the Catholic Church’s self-understanding. The Pope is, after all, simply endowed with the self-same infallibility as the Church – as Vatican I explicitly teaches. Once again, I feel this is another misconception which causes you to have difficulty with the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility. Once you divest yourself of the wrong idea that infallibility in the Church is completely and solely dependent on the infallibility of the Pope, on the one hand, or that the infallibility of the Pope is completely separate or foreign to the infallibility of the Church, on the other, that will go a long way for you in understanding the true and holy Catholic teaching (I’m not looking for conversion here, brother, just understanding).
As far as the consensus issue is concerned, consensus is a SIGN that points us to the Truth. And often, consensus is enough to determine that a certain teaching is de fide and thus infallible. But what about in those instances when it is not enough? In truth, consensus can, objectively, only REFLECT what is true. But by no means is consensus to be regarded as a CONDITION for Truth or infallibility. Do you see the difference? Did St. Peter need consensus for the infallible teaching (that the Gentiles should be included in the Church) to be Truth? Did Moses? Of course not. Why do you suppose our Lord assigned to ONE the responsibility to be the confirmer of the brethren, if it was not other than what God intended for the order of His Church? Please answer that.
You mention that God may work through anyone to convince the church of God of the truth. But can you admit that this is only in hindsight – AFTER the Church has established in the past what is to be held as Truth? But put yourself in the position of our common Fathers, brother Ematouk. Who did THEY turn to when there was no other recourse? Who did St. Athanasius turn to? Who did St. Basil turn to? Who did St. John Chrysostom turn to? Who did St. Cyril turn to? Who did St. Cyprian turn to (don’t get off the track on the matter, because St. Cyprian DID turn to St. Stephen, but when St. Stephen disagreed with him… well, let’s just say the First Ecumenical Council proved St. Stephen correct)? Who did St. Augustine turn to? Ask yourself this question, and please give us your answer: If you were in the position of any one of these men, what would cause you to turn to Rome?
No, it is not even theoretically possible, though your EO sensibilities are probably straining to believe that to be so. The ONLY way for such a circumstance to take place wherein the Pope makes a decision without the Church is if the Pope was gifted with INSPIRATION or OMNISIENCE. You’ll have a better chance of looking for a needle in a haystack than to find any Catholic document or teaching that states that the charism of infallibility is equivalent to the charism of inspiration or omniscience. Rather, you will find categorical denials of such a thing in our official documents.
So I would ask you this: How would the Pope know the mind of the Church in order for him to properly make a judgment on a matter ex cathedra without recourse to his brother bishops, and even to the Church at large? Please answer that. Of course, I will admit that there are certain instances when the infallible Tradition of the Church is so clear, that the Pope need not have recourse to his brother bishops (e.g., Humanae Vitae, women’s ordination). Btw, if you want to debate about the contents of Humanae Vitae, whether it properly reflects Sacred Tradition, let’s do that on another thread.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Now, answer this question for me (I know I am asking a lot of questions!): Would you agree that when Jesus spoke of confirming the brethren, this confirmation consisted of confirmation in the FAITH? If so, how could Christ’s praeyer be said to have any effect if there was the slightest iota of possibility that the confirmer could err in the Faith (i.e., in those times when his confirmation is necessary – remember the charism of infallibility is rarely used)?
CONTINUED
This question has nothing to do with universal jurisdiction - in other words, it’s not about whether a Pope has the prerogative to intervene in the affairs of another particular Church. We’re talking about the specific instance of a promulgation of a doctrine that has an effect for the entire Church (in other words, on a matter that has nothing to do with jurisdictional boundaries) We are talking about the role of the Pope as head bishop of the bishops of every nation. In that role, WITHIN A BODY OF BISHOPS, why would you need to ask, “if the Church defines anything, it needs his approval?” As I said, it’s ecclesiology 101 according to Apostolic Canon 34.
Here is another misconception brother. Perhaps you are not aware, but this issue was specifically debated at the Vatican Council. Some extreme ultramontanists wanted to add to the description of the papal prerogatives, aside from the words “ordinary” and “immediate” the word “episcopal.” Both the Minority party and about half of the Majority Party voted AGAINST adding this adjective. The charism of infallibility is by no means episcopal in nature – if it was, then there would be a merit to your complaint, for that would indicate a whole new level in the hierarchy. But, as stated, the Petrine charism is not episcopal. Nor is it Sacramental in nature, for Sacraments give grace to individual Christians in a personal way, and this obviously is not the purpose of the charism of infallibility. Infallibility is nothing more nor less than a special charism given through the Holy Spirit (as are ALL charisms – please see I Corinthians 12 ,and Romans 12 for proof) FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE CHURCH. Once you understand the true nature of it, exactly as I have depicted, your concerns about it should be assuaged. Is it not true that the Holy Spirit gives different charisms? Is it not true that the Holy Spirit gives certain charisms only to certain people and not all? And is it not true that Christ prayed especially for Peter to be confirmer of the brethren? THAT is the charism we are speaking about, brother, and it is nothing more than that. And we know Christ gave it, because He says so.
Now, answer this question for me (I know I am asking a lot of questions!): Would you agree that when Jesus spoke of confirming the brethren, this confirmation consisted of confirmation in the FAITH? If so, how could Christ’s praeyer be said to have any effect if there was the slightest iota of possibility that the confirmer could err in the Faith (i.e., in those times when his confirmation is necessary – remember the charism of infallibility is rarely used)?
Yes, these cases are interesting indeed. These are two instances when the Popes were FORCED to make concessions UNDER DURESS. And with the hindsight of history, everyone will agree that these excommunications on the Pope were hasty and wrong. Apart from those comments, I can’t say anything more.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Let me give you three examples (I admit I lean to the Catholic side on the interpretations, but that is only because I believe the Catholic understanding is more cogent):
Blessings,
Marduk
I actually thought about these and pondered about including them originally, but the more I thought about it, both of these are actually dependant on a predisposition towards the first three. The predispositions of the first three misconceptions will affect both (4) and (5), which are actually the same – they are a matter of interpreting historical evidence.
Let me give you three examples (I admit I lean to the Catholic side on the interpretations, but that is only because I believe the Catholic understanding is more cogent):
- The issue of St. James and the Council of Jerusalem. The conciliarism of the Eastern Orthodox forces you to claim that this is an example of the conciliar model; Catholic exegetes on the other hand will point to the fact that it was St. James who gave the authoritative decision on the matter (i.e., the voice of one), while fully admitting that the decision was publicized as the decision of the whole Church. This is an example of the local Church adhering to the final decision of its head bishop (the semi-monarchical model), not the conciliar model of the Eastern Orthodox which effectively deprives the head bishop of any authority whatsoever. It is only the Catholic understanding that takes into account ALL the facts – BOTH the JUDGMENT of the head bishop, AND the consensus of the entire Church.
- The issue of re-baptism between Sts. Cyprian and Stephen. The Eastern Orthodox lack of appreciation for the authority of the head bishop forces you to ONLY appeal to the revised treatise of St. Cyprian (on the unity of the Church) which downplays the authority of the bishop of Rome. Catholic exegetes on the other hand appeal to ALL the evidence, understanding that St. Cyprian’s FIRST treatise on the topic gave full credence to the special role of the Pope, and only when he disagreed with the Pope did he produce the second treatise. Further, given the sheer orthodoxy of St. Cyprian otherwise, we are certain he would have humbly submitted to the fact that he was wrong, if he had been aware of the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council siding with Pope St. Stephen on the matter.
- The issue of Pope Vigilius and the Fifth Ecumenical Council – the lack of appreciation of the authority of the head bishop within Eastern Orthodoxy forces you to consider the circumstance as an example of an Ecumenical Council making a judgment on the Pope. Catholic apologists on the other hand, because of our appreciation for the authority of the head bishop, understands the circumstance as an example of an Ecumenical Council regarding the confirmation of the head bishop (the Pope) SO important, that they imprisoned him until they finally obtained the confirmation. In any case, the Ecumenical Council actually made no judgment on the Pope. If they did, they would have simply done what they did to holy Pope St. Dioscorus during the Council of Chalcedon, and eventually set up a parallel hierarchy within Western Christendom (for there were certainly those within the Western Patriarchate that would have sided with them).
A beautiful quote brother. But nothing that diminishes the Catholic position, for this is nothing more nor less than the position of the Catholic Church. In normative circumstances, ALL bishops are vicars of Christ, act as God on earth, and are true shepherds of their flock. That is all that St. Paul (St. Vincent properly interpreting him) is saying. Would that he would address the issue of what to do when there is conflict in the Church, or when he felt he needed confirmation of his faith. In fact, he did so. In the latter instance, he visited St. Peter, not because he lacked knowledge, but in order to make sure, as Scripture states, that he was not running in vain – that is, to confirm the divine knowledge he already had. And the former instance, we see him appeal to an authority higher than himself – the council of Jerusalem where the voice of one gave the authoritative decision, with the consensus of all.
Blessings,
Marduk
N
Nicholas82
Guest
I suppose it happens. Not quite sure what I think of it…
M
mardukm
Guest
With the approval of the sacred general council, we teach and declare that the quality of infallibility…which should not be confused with the charism of inspiration, and which does not look to enriching the Church with new revelations…
Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, ch. 9.
Blessings,
Marduk
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
According to whom?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Actually I’ve seen even Old Calendarist literature which would concede this situation. But why don’t we deal with 99% of life.As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned: yes. As to whether the priest would administer said sacrament, I can only assume it would happen if the priest was overly ecumenically minded, overcome by emotion, or the dying person really, really wanted to convert to Orthodoxy
And yes, like the Vatican, we have death bed conversions.
My parish has had a number where the catechumens have had to be chrismated sooner than expected, because their health failed them. Their families went on according to schedule. In one case the parish had to provide burial (which was also out of state: we figured with the family that to do so, so they extended family, poor southerners, could visit the grave. Btw, when a neighbor of mine died, I found out that in the south even the Protestants visited graves and had memorials: that’s odd for Protestants up North).
On www.orthodoxchrisitanity.net one priest related a story where the family converted, and the grandmother, senile by alzheimers, wasn’t crismated. She began to do things like venerate icons. The priest hesitated because she hadn’t been in church for decades, wasn’t religious when she was lucid, etc. Anyway, all of sudden, she becomes lucid, regains all her faculties, memory etc. and requests herself to be chrismated. The priest does so. The Lord calls her the next day.
B
bobzills
Guest
According to the Russian EO priest. Would he allow a RC to petition him for help in the absence of an RC priest?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ematouk,
First, an explanation of the statement “therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”
This statement has nothing to do with HOW the declaration comes about. Rather, it is simply a statement of the NATURE of an ex cathedra decree, as Truth which needs no consensus to be Truth. HOW the declaration comes about, which denotes the involvement of the Church is addressed in the second point.
Second, I would like to add this portion of the Decree on Infallibility:
The Roman Pontiffs on their part according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scripture and with the apostolic tradition.
I don’t see anything in there that states the Pope does or can act ALONE in the promulgation of a dogma. I ask brother that you not attempt to criticize little snippets of Catholic doctrine. Take the WHOLE doctrine into account, and it may make more sense to you. Read it in a genuine Spirit of understanding, instead of a document where you’re only trying to find bits of ammunition to support a preconceived notion.
Blessings,
Marduk
I would like to add two points to my response above:ematouk:
No, it is not even theoretically possible, though your EO sensibilities are probably straining to believe that to be so. The ONLY way for such a circumstance to take place wherein the Pope makes a decision without the Church is if the Pope was gifted with INSPIRATION or OMNISIENCE. You’ll have a better chance of looking for a needle in a haystack than to find any Catholic document or teaching that states that the charism of infallibility is equivalent to the charism of inspiration or omniscience. Rather, you will find categorical denials of such a thing in our official documents.
So I would ask you this: How would the Pope know the mind of the Church in order for him to properly make a judgment on a matter ex cathedra without recourse to his brother bishops, and even to the Church at large? Please answer that. Of course, I will admit that there are certain instances when the infallible Tradition of the Church is so clear, that the Pope need not have recourse to his brother bishops (e.g., Humanae Vitae, women’s ordination). Btw, if you want to debate about the contents of Humanae Vitae, whether it properly reflects Sacred Tradition, let’s do that on another thread.
First, an explanation of the statement “therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”
This statement has nothing to do with HOW the declaration comes about. Rather, it is simply a statement of the NATURE of an ex cathedra decree, as Truth which needs no consensus to be Truth. HOW the declaration comes about, which denotes the involvement of the Church is addressed in the second point.
Second, I would like to add this portion of the Decree on Infallibility:
The Roman Pontiffs on their part according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scripture and with the apostolic tradition.
I don’t see anything in there that states the Pope does or can act ALONE in the promulgation of a dogma. I ask brother that you not attempt to criticize little snippets of Catholic doctrine. Take the WHOLE doctrine into account, and it may make more sense to you. Read it in a genuine Spirit of understanding, instead of a document where you’re only trying to find bits of ammunition to support a preconceived notion.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Jimmy,
Blessings,
Marduk
I can’t disagree with you there. The Pope never acts alone or on his own in the promulgation of dogma. He must have recourse to the mind of the Church through his brother bishops. The model is the one at the Council of Jerusalem. Though it came down to the judgment of one (St. James), obviously EVERYONE was involved in the whole decisionmaking process.
Blessings,
Marduk
E
ematouk
Guest
This is very silly, what you are suggesting is that we dont really know if anyone is truly a heretic. Many “heretical patriarchs” of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch died prior to the councils which declared them heretics. If we take your theory to its logical conclusion, then there werent really many heretics at all - most of the condemned heretics of the church died before an ecumenical council condemned them. How are we to know they would not have repented their heresy?
Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople is often called a “monothelite”, but had he died after the 6th council, would he have been a monothelite? How do we know he didnt have a correct understanding using different phraseology - like some people attribute to Pope Honarius? How do we know that Origen would not have joined orthodox doctrine had he knew the church were going to condemn apokastasis?
I dont think your theory is too tenable. If the Immaculate Conception is a DOGMA then St John Chrysostom is a heretic!
There needs to be a primacy of servitude/honour/authority - nobody denies this. But Peter was not ABOVE the rest of the disciples but AMONG them. He confirmed them as brother does to his brother, he did not confirm them as a king does to slaves. The difference is the first is in a relationship sense, while the second is seen in “legal” terms.
Apostolic canon 34 states “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent… but neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity…”
A pope can call an ecumenical council, but does he need to confirm it in the end for it to be valid? The canon doesnt say that. All it says in my private judgement is that the Pope can call an Ecumenical Council.
In a discussion with a traditionalist Catholic, he told me that the Pope has the authority to alter canon laws. But he is still subject to them as, if he falls under the penalty of a canon law after it is passed, he is still subject to it. Shouldn’t it be the same with councils - the pope can call it, but becomes subject to it if the pope himself is found by the council to be wrong after the judgement is passed?
Well you answer your own question. They turned to the Pope, but in the same manner that we turn to the Patriarch of Constantinople today. The Pope’s word was not the last word, St Stephen’s position wasnt held because it came from a Pope, it was held because it was approved by a council later on. The council settled the dispute, not the pope.
The honor belonged to Rome, being the first patriarchate. The honour is SECONDARILY to the bishop of that patriarchate - the Pope. I believe the Pope had an administrative role in governing the church and recieving appeals from all of Christendom, but not immediate and universal jurisdiction. Otherwise each diocese has 2 heads - the local bishop and the pope. If this is the case, then either the pope is the ‘real’ bishop and the local bishop is merely a vicar for the pope - OR each diocese has 2 heads (2 people whom we would sing “many years, master”) - and the Lord Himself told us we can not serve 2 masters.
If it is the nature of the ex cathedra decree, then this means everything flows through the Pope. IOW, the Pope is what is the cause of the church’s infallibility. The church only has infallibility because it is possessed by the Pope who guides it (not personally, but due to his office).
This is silly, Jesus said the gates of Hades will not provail against His church - He didn’t say the gates of Hades will not provail against Peter.
Amen. It did consist of confirmation of the faith, because Peter had just denied the faith.
I do not think this implies infallibility. Just because Jesus prays for something, it does not mean HUMAN sin cannot prevent it. Jesus prayed that all Christians will be one, but there was a Great Schism. Jesus wants all to be saved, but some will be damned. God wanted Adam to grow in communion with Him, but he fell from grace and committed sin.
God gave man freewill (See Ecclesiasticus 15). Even human sinfulness can prevent Peter from confirming the faith. Wasn’t it Peter who was called “Satan” for being more concerned with Earthly things then that of the Heavenly?
ONE can fall at a time. But it is impossible for Satan to possess ALL the church at once.
[CONTINUED]
E
ematouk
Guest
[CONTINUED]
mardukm:
mardukm:
(obviously in more technical language)… would you accept the definition as dogma?
God bless.
- If you are talking about the local church, then there is only 1 person who is called a “bishop” and thus he is the only head. We should obey the bishop in all things, but we are not obliged to follow a bishop into heresy (if he knowingly is trying to force heresies on the church). We accept this notion, 100%.
- I think you are confusing Orthodox exegetes with Protestant exegetes. The Orthodox accept both of them as being written by Cyprian. Please read “The Primacy of Peter” editted by John Meyedorff. Also it can not be used in support of the Roman Ecclesiology anyways, see the research of the Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno “The rise of the papacy”.
- Very interesting, but Western Christendom is a little bit further away then Egypt. I dont think it would have been practical to set up a parrallel hierarchy.
But it doesnt say anything against it either. If a pope taught without consulting any other bishops in an official papal bull directed at the whole church “We declare, pronounce and define the Virgin Mary is coredemtrix…”
(obviously in more technical language)… would you accept the definition as dogma?
God bless.
- Status