Intercommunion

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk,

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…I dont think your theory is too tenable. If the Immaculate Conception is a DOGMA then St John Chrysostom is a heretic!

Let’s just put the IC aside for now. Actually, it is the apostolic teaching of the ENTIRE Church, East, West and Orient, Catholic and Orthodox, that Mary was SINLESS. This means that even by your standards, St. John Chrysostom is a heretic.

My viewpoint mitigates this by assuming that had he known what the Church would definitively state on the matter in the future (i.e., Mary was sinless, above the angels, the holiest in all Creation, etc., etc.), then he would have aligned himself to the teaching of the Church - given the example of his sheer orthodoxy. Your understanding is simply that a person can believe heterodox teaching and STILL be considered a Saint, with no explanation. I believe it is your viewpoint that makes the Church’s standards of orthodoxy pointless, not mine.

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.

That’s the way Catholics view it as well. Misinterpreting what the Church teaches about Peter and the papacy doesn’t prove your point.

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.

So to be consistent, in your view, the second part of the canon which states that the head bishop should not do anything without the consent of all should ALSO only apply merely to the calling of a Council. How silly is that?

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?

No orthodox Catholic denies that the Pope is subject to the canons and laws enacted by the Ecumenical Councils. But unlike you, we don’t say “Ecumenical Council” as if the Pope was not a member of it. We don’t say that an Ecumenical Council is above the Pope. We say that an Ecumenical Council cannot be ecumenical without the entire body of Pope and his brother bishops, and when we say “Ecumenical Council” it INHERENTLY includes the Pope. EVERY legislator in the Ecumenical Council is bound by the dogmas and rules it promulgates.

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.

But even the Patriarch of Constantinople turned to the Pope to confirm the Faith of the Church.

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.

We don’t use St. Stephen himself to demonstrate papal primacy (ironically, we use St. Cyprian for that - i.e., his writings), but to demonstrate infallibility. He had the right teaching on the matter.

I will have to answer the rest of your post(s) later - I won’t be back until next weekend. The discussion has been great so far. Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

To restate, more clearly, the catholic position…

A council is Ecumenical because it includes the Pope, as head bishop of the universal synod; without its head bishop, the synod violates canon 34, as quoth by Mardukm.

It is the work of all who attended; by definition, all who are part of the visible church and of the episcopacy may attend; per the canons, only those bishops who currently hold functioning sees may vote (but auxiliary bishops, choirbishops, titular bishops, and retired bishops may attend and speak, just not vote. It is binding on all.

It requires the consent of the head bishop to be binding, again due to Canon 34, as quote by Mardukm.

It is a theologumenon of both Catholics and Orthodox that the Holy Spirit works on and through the Bishops during the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk,

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!

My previous response to you, I realized, was not sufficient. I was on the verge of going to sleep at that time, so forgive me for my carelessness.

As a matter of fact, though I unreservedly believe an Ecumenical Council is infallible when judging a doctrine as heretical, I don’t believe that an Ecumenical Council is infallible when it judges whether a PERSON is condemned for that heresy. And I MOST certainly don’t believe an Ecumenical Council is infallible when it judges a DEAD person who can’t appear personally to defend himself, and about whom we have no knowledge whether or not that person would have submitted him/herself to the Church had he been alive before the Council. We can, however, reasonably infer if a person, by other statements from him/her, would have submitted him/herself to the authority of the Church on a certain disputed matter. This we can certainly do for St. John Chrysostom, for St. Cyprian, and for others who might have had a doubtful or heterodox belief when they were alive.

And don’t worry – there have been a LOT of heretics in the early Church who willfully did not submit to the teaching authority of the Ecumenical Councils and/or the Popes. I don’t know how you can possibly conclude that “there weren’t really very many heretics at all” from my statement.

The honor belonged to Rome, being the first patriarchate. The honour is SECONDARILY to the bishop of that patriarchate - the Pope.

The honor of a patriarchate IS the honor of the head bishop of that patriarchate. They are intimately and indivisibly connected, as the canons of the early Church indicate (I’m certain you know what I’m talking about). A patriarchate cannot have any other patriarch aside from the one it has, and a patriarch cannot have any other patriarchate except that one he has.

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.

I agree with the “immediate” part (as discussed thoroughly in the old “Papal Prerogatives” thread/poll forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=papal+prerogatives)), but I cannot agree with the “universal” part. If the Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, then his authority to hear appeals from all bishops East and West makes no sense.

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.

I have already discussed that here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4038187&postcount=1.
And WE have discussed that in THIS VERY thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4025724&postcount=89. I don’t know why you bring it up again. Your interpretation does not accord with the ACTUAL teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter. If you have concerns and criticisms of Catholic teaching, then base them on the actual teaching of the Catholic Church, not on what you (or non-Catholics in general) think it is. Would you agree that is a proper principle in discussions between people who have different ideologies?

I’ll give you an example that I used recently in another thread. Christianity teaches that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Many non-christians claim we are polytheists. Taken on its own, indeed, their charge would have validity. But that is because they have not referred to the OTHER teachings of Christianity on the matter, explaining the Oneness and consubstantiality of the Godhead. The same case applies here, your conclusions are valid if you use only little snippets of Catholic teaching. But the FULLNESS of Catholic teaching asserts the exact opposite of your conclusions – that there are NOT 2 heads in a diocese, that the bishops are NOT merely vicars of the Pope, and that indeed we cannot serve two masters (this last argument of yours is actually altogether invalid and inconsistent, for belief in the episcopacy is easily open to the same charge of splitting your allegiance between Christ and a bishop). To be consistent (as our Lord teaches us “judge with right judgment”) you must either let go of this misconception of the Catholic teaching, or admit that non-Christians have a valid claim for charging Christians as polytheists.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED
":

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).

WE have ALREADY discussed that here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4025716&postcount=88 Read the second paragraph.
And here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3968405&postcount=38. Read the last paragraph. If there is more than one organ of infallibility in the Catholic Church, then your final sentence is a non-sequitur. And we have also already discussed the fact that the authority of the Ecumenical Council is a COLLECTIVE infallible authority, and does not depend on the infallibility of the Pope alone. THAT is the TEACHING of the Catholic Church.

I would ask again that you apply the same principle I gave above for discussions between people of different ideologies. Base your concerns and criticisms on what the Church ACTUALLY teaches, not on your own misconceptions.

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.

And the Church is founded on the Faith of Peter, which cannot be falsely dichotomized from Peter nor Jesus Christ, wouldn’t you agree?

Amen. It did consist of confirmation of the faith, because Peter had just denied the faith.

Though I believe he denied that he knew Jesus out of fear, and that Jesus is the center and foundation of our Faith, I am not absolutely certain that one can say St. Peter 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?

First, your reference to being called “Satan” occurred before Jesus’ prayer for him, so it really has no relevance. Second, I absolutely do not believe that Christ’s singular prayer can be confounded even by sinfulness. Certainly, Christ’s singular prayer would not prevent Peter or any Pope from sinning, and that is not what Christ’s prayer was about. But to be able to confirm the other Apostles/the rest of the Church in the Faith against which the Gates of Hades will not prevail is another thing altogether.

Besides, this portion of your response is inconsistent with the next portion of your response. Here you claim that man’s sinfulness can overcome Christ’s prayer. Yet you simultaneously claim (in the next portion of your reply) that SOME GROUP will never fail from the Faith. Apparently, the sinfulness of THAT UNidentifiable group of people will somehow not overcome the Faith, yet to the very person for whom Christ SPECIFICALLY prays that his Faith will not fail so that he can confirm others in it, you simply and perhaps blithely assume his sinfulness will? Do you see the UTTER inconsistency of your position?

My response here should be taken in tandem with my response to the next portion of your reply.

ONE can fall at a time. But it is impossible for Satan to possess ALL the church at once.

I don’t mean any insult by this, but that sounds like a purely Protestant perspective. There is an implied belief in that argument that the Church is just an invisible formless entity. But Christ says that the Church must be identifiable – a light set on a hill. Even if Satan does not possess ALL the Church, how will the world distinguish the true Church from the false claimants? Please ponder these questions:

1. If the solid distinguishing factor is just the teaching, how does a prospective believer know if the teaching is true or false?
2. If the solid distinguishing factor is the teaching that has been handed down, how does a prospective believer know which interpretation of such Tradition is true or false if there is an issue on the matter?
3. If the solid distinguishing factor is a group of bishops, how does a prospective believer know which ones are the orthodox ones, if some or many or most of the bishops oppose another group of bishops?
4. If the solid distinguishing factor is the Church at large, how would a prospective believer be able to identify the beliefs of that Church? Does every prospective convert need to do a census?
5. If the solid distinguishing factor is one person, but that person himself has no distinguishing factor, how does a prospective believer identify that person?
   These are not impossible questions to answer, and they are not unreal situations. These questions had to be dealt with during the formative years of the Church that encompassed the Seven Great Ecumenical Councils. The questions were even more relevant during the heydey of Arianism.

I suspect you would want to discuss the issue of the three Popes at this point, but I want to rest mind for a while, and let you bring it up personally if you want to bring that into the discussion.

1. 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’m not sure what this has to do with a discussion on the Council of Jerusalem, but to offer a response: This is what Catholics believe as well, 100%. But we don’t leave it up to the lay Church to judge her bishops as the EO did after the Council of Florence, or as some EO did recently when a bishop decided to make a small change in the Paschal celebration (making a public spectacle of protest). In the Catholic Church, we follow the ordinances of the Ecumenical Councils. God is a God of order, and the Church must reflect that order. The Council of Chalcedon pronounced the procedure for grievances against one’s bishop. I detailed it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4004232&postcount=46. (say, do you know how to make a link with just one word? For instance, I would have liked to insert the aforementioned link with the word “here” in my sentence). With regards to the Pope publicly espousing heresy, we have already discussed that.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

All discuss, a vote is cast, and one speaks on behalf of the entire church once a decision is made. You pointed out in this case that St James spoke on behalf of the church because he was the head bishop of Jerusalem. This contradicts Catholic teaching since if we adopted Universal Ecclesiology, Peter should of spoken for the church since the head should be the spokesman of the church.

First, no votes were cast at the Council of Jerusalem. There was debate, and then the head bishop of the local Church gave his judgment – he wasn’t simply “speaking on behalf of the Church.” Thenceforth, the decision was promulgated in the name of the entire Church. That’s all that the Scripture records. You can’t add details to it (i.e., a vote took place; St. James merely spoke on behalf of the Church) just to accommodate the Eastern Orthodox position.
Second, there are four explanations I’ve heard from Catholics on the issue, all given with a view to Petrine primacy:

1. There was more than one leading figure in the Council – Sts. Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James. I can agree with this, but it does not negate the fact that St. James made the final judgment.
2. St. Peter was really the head of the Council, and St. James just gave an opinion. Though I can agree that St. Peter was the head of the apostolic college, I can’t agree that he was the head of the Council for the very fact that St. James did not give a mere opinion, but an actual judgment.
3. The Council gave a merely disciplinary decree; the doctrinal matter had already been decided by St. Peter prior to the Council. St. Peter indeed made a prior doctrinal decision for the Church (that the Gentiles should be included among the people of God), but the Jerusalem Council was not called upon for mere disciplinary practices. The matter was an issue with ramifications for salvation – i.e., were or were not certain Jewish practices required of Gentiles for them to be saved?
4. The Council was not ecumenical, but local. I find this to be the conclusion that fits all the facts. It would explain why Peter, the head of the Apostles, did not give the final decision. It also fits well with the teaching of St. John Chrysostom that though St. James was the teacher of Jerusalem, St. Peter was the teacher of the whole world. Further, the synodical letter was not addressed to the whole Church, but only to the “Gentile brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.”

1. 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.”

My point is not that the Orthodox accept the authenticity of both letters, but that the Orthodox simply ignore the evidence contained in the first letter, whereas the Catholic position takes BOTH letters completely into account in our apologetics.

1. 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 the Council had the Emperor on their side, so practicality would have little to do with the issue, correct? And from a theological standpoint, if they really felt Pope Vigilius was heretical (as some here have claimed), then practicality once again should not be an impediment for them to do the right thing, correct? My point is that they in fact recognized Pope Vigilius as wholly orthodox, and, as I stated elsewhere, the issue involved at the Fifth Ecumenical was one of discipline – the Council was called to judge on the condemnability of certain persons, and was not called to judge on doctrine. The doctrinal matters were ALREADY decided at the previous Ecumenical Councils (more specifically, the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon).

My quote from St Vincent of Lerins was supposed to show that St Vincent did not consider St Peter as infallible. He believed the angels were infallible and “could not sin”, but as for St Peter, he puts him under the same anathema as the others if he had taught error. St Peter to St Vincent of Lerins was a man and could err, but he does not consider him to have any special gift of the holy spirit to keep him from error. (please read it again).

I don’t agree with your conclusion. St. Vincent was giving a hypothetical situation, utilizing an argument reductio ad absurdum to teach his readers the utter importance of keeping the correct faith. But note what he states before the final clause in your quote: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen… Seems pretty clear, no?

But it doesnt say anything against it either.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that this is a proper paradigm with which to approach the life of the Church? What does Sacred Tradition teach us about artificial insemination, or genetic manipulation? Can we go about doing whatever we like simply because it is not SPECIFICALLY addressed by the existing laws of the Church?

But there is a greater argument against your way of thinking. The Canon Law of both the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches declare that if there is any doubt as to the meaning of a canon, the best interpreter is CUSTOM. So I ask you this: Can you show me a single instance in Church history when the Pope made a DOGMATIC decree ALONE, without ANY recourse to his brother bishops?

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?

The question is really moot. I ALREADY believe that Mary played a singularly special and pivotal role in the salvation of mankind. This is according to the Fathers, and I daresay it is a basically unanimous teaching of the Fathers from St. Justin Martyr to the present. This would be one of those instances when the Sacred Tradition is so obvious that the Pope need not even resort to an ex cathedra pronouncement, nor the counsel of his brother bishops, to declare it as the de fide teaching of the Church (as for instance, with the issues of women’s ordination and artificial birth control, which were decreed not by recourse to an infallible ex cathedra statement, but only by recourse to the infallible Sacred Tradition).

But I know your question is really more general – that is, “If the pope taught without consulting any other bishops in an official papal bull directed at the whole Church, would I accept the definition as a dogma?” I’ll answer in three ways: 1) Since such a thing has never occurred in the history of the Church, I daresay it will never happen. 2) Since the ONLY time it could ever happen is if the matter is one that is abundantly clear from Sacred Tradition anyway (as is indicated by commentaries on Vatican I by members of the Council itself), yes I would accept it. I think you may be asking (not explicitly) about what happens in a situation where the matter is DOUBTFUL (i.e., not abundantly clear from Sacred Tradition) – in such a situation, will I accept a dogmatic decision by the Pope who has not consulted his brother bishops? I can only respond guided by the commentaries of the Vatican Council Fathers. They have stated that the Pope need not consult his brother bishops only in matters that are abundantly clear from Sacred Tradition. It is impossible, then, that in a doubtful matter, the Pope will make a decision without his brother bishops. Does that clarify it?

Can you answer this question: “If 99% of the Eastern Orthodox Church taught that abortion is OK under any circumstances, would you accept it?” Why or why not?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ematouk]

mardukm:

As a matter of fact, though I unreservedly believe an Ecumenical Council is infallible when judging a doctrine as heretical, I don’t believe that an Ecumenical Council is infallible when it judges whether a PERSON is condemned for that heresy.

Ok, I understand what you mean now.

mardukm:

The honor of a patriarchate IS the honor of the head bishop of that patriarchate. They are intimately and indivisibly connected, as the canons of the early Church indicate (I’m certain you know what I’m talking about). A patriarchate cannot have any other patriarch aside from the one it has, and a patriarch cannot have any other patriarchate except that one he has.

Agreed. What I was trying to say is that the honour belongs to the patriarchate or local diocese. And it is only by extension that it flows to its bishop. A patriarch is only a patriarch because he is the head of a patriarchate, a metropolitan because he is the head of a metropolis, etc…

The title of ‘Pope’ means he is he head of a major see such as Rome. But I do not think it accords him jurisdiction over the whole church. (1) Otherwise we would also have to attribute this to the Pope of Alexandria who also was given the same title in the Early church. (2) The Pope of Rome would not be called the Pope “of Rome”, but simply “Pope” since his jurisdiction would be the whole world.

mardukm:

I agree with the “immediate” part (as discussed thoroughly in the old “Papal Prerogatives” thread/poll forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…rerogativ es), but I cannot agree with the “universal” part. If the Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, then his authority to hear appeals from all bishops East and West makes no sense.

Well not really. If you look at it from a Eucharistic Ecclesiology standpoint, then it does make sense.

The Patriarch has the right to hear appeals from any bishop within his patriarchate. This does NOT necessarily mean he has jurisdiction WITHIN the other bishops territory. The patriarch can make a mediated decision with the bishop of a ‘particular church’ and if disagreement still persists, it may be resolved in a local council.

The Bishop of Rome may hear appeals from all over the world since he also has a primacy among his brother patriarchs. If a patriarchate can not resolve the problem by itself, it can appeal to the first among bishops in the world - The Pope of Rome. If the Pope of Rome can not resolve the dispute and the dispute is serious enough, then it will be called before an Ecumenical council to be resolved.

The Pope does not need to have ‘universal’ jurisdiction in order to hear appeals from all over the world, just as a patriarch does not need a pan-patriarchate jurisdiction in order to hear appeals from other bishops in his patriarchate. {be aware that I might be using the wrong technical terms here}

But, after reading that link - and I might be wrong about this - but my first impression of your explaination of “immediate” quite correct to me, but using a different terminology. BUT, I’m not so sure that it is the Catholic faith. In 1998, Pope John Paul II unilaterally inserted several paragraphs into the code of Canon law AND the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches Motu Proprio. If he can change canon law in the Eastern Church, surely he believed he had “immediate” powers in discipline in the East as well. (see vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html )

I have never seen the distinction you draw between “theological” immediate and “practicle” immediate to prove your case either. Frankly this distinction makes little to no sense to me either. It seems to me to be applying hermaneutical principles to avoid the fact of what the council is actually saying.

mardukm:

I have already discussed that here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…87&postcount=1.
And WE have discussed that in THIS VERY thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…4&postcount=89. I don’t know why you bring it up again. Your interpretation does not accord with the ACTUAL teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter. If you have concerns and criticisms of Catholic teaching, then base them on the actual teaching of the Catholic Church, not on what you (or non-Catholics in general) think it is. Would you agree that is a proper principle in discussions between people who have different ideologies?

Sorry, long time between posts. Been very busy.

What you say is nice in practicle and I do admit Vatican 2 has tried to accord more importance to the local bishop, however, as a matter of practicality I do not think it is realistic.

When a Pope and local bishop disagree, the Pope can always TRUMP his brother bishop, censor his brother bishop etc… As a matter of fact, the colleagiality of the Catholic church is now bent on a monarchy that can not be broken as a matter of practice. (I’m not talking about in theory).

[CONTINUED]

 

[ematouk]

[CONTINUED]

(this last argument of yours is actually altogether invalid and inconsistent, for belief in the episcopacy is easily open to the same charge of splitting your allegiance between Christ and a bishop).

That is not always true. There are some cases when it is true (a bishop committing heresy), but in most cases it is not true.

In normal circumstances, a bishop is a vicar of Christ of Earth. There is no split allegiance. “If they obey you, they obey Me”.

mardukm:

Ecumenical Council is a COLLECTIVE infallible authority, and does not depend on the infallibility of the Pope alone. THAT is the TEACHING of the Catholic Church.

This is something I can not get around. How is it that the is infallible by himself and not of the consent of the church, yet, the church is included in this infallibility?

You said the decrees of an Ecumenical council only become definitively infallible once agreed upon by the Pope. Doesn’t this denegrate an Ecumenical Council to a mere advisory committee to the Pope? I can not see how the same infallibility can be applied to the Pope on an individual level and (Church including Pope).

This doctrine is a real stumbling block. It would have been much easier had it not been defined. I’m pretty sure there are hardly any Catholics who actually understand this doctrine.

mardukm:

And the Church is founded on the Faith of Peter, which cannot be falsely dichotomized from Peter nor Jesus Christ, wouldn’t you agree?

I would agree that the church can not be dichotomized from the faith of Peter. But, the rock is not an office of the church and should not be treated as such. By Peter, I’m assuming you mean the Pope - but when a pope dies there is a short period without a pope - Are you suggesting the devil provails against the church each time a pope dies, then the church revitalises again? I know you are not saying that.

There is no dichotomy between the church and the faith in Christ or Christ Himself, BUT there sometimes is a dichotomy between the Pope and the Church, that even you would admit to (when a pope dies). *.

mardukm:

Though I believe he denied that he knew Jesus out of fear, and that Jesus is the center and foundation of our Faith, I am not absolutely certain that one can say St. Peter denied the FAITH.

Jesus is the faith. Denying Christ IS denying the faith.

mardukm:

Certainly, Christ’s singular prayer would not prevent Peter or any Pope from sinning, and that is not what Christ’s prayer was about. But to be able to confirm the other Apostles/the rest of the Church in the Faith against which the Gates of Hades will not prevail is another thing altogether.

I know that it would not keep him from sinning - I know that is not what the prayer is about. That wasnt my argument at all.

If sin can keep Christ’s other prayers from being fulfilled (read what I said again), why can’t sin prevent this prayer being fulfilled? Peter is supposed to confirm his brethren, but sin can prevent him from doing so.

Do you have younger brothers? Isn’t it the duty of an older brother to confirm his younger brothers and ensure they behave rightly? And hasn’t Christ created the situation for you to be an older brother? But sin can still prevent you from doing your duties as an older brother.

mardukm:

Besides, this portion of your response is inconsistent with the next portion of your response. Here you claim that man’s sinfulness can overcome Christ’s prayer. Yet you simultaneously claim (in the next portion of your reply) that SOME GROUP will never fail from the Faith. Apparently, the sinfulness of THAT UNidentifiable group of people will somehow not overcome the Faith, yet to the very person for whom Christ SPECIFICALLY prays that his Faith will not fail so that he can confirm others in it, you simply and perhaps blithely assume his sinfulness will? Do you see the UTTER inconsistency of your position?

Christ PROPHESIED that Hades will not provail against His Church. This is not a prayer, this is a prophecy. We KNOW this can not happen because told us it wont happen. I’m sure you know different text types should be treated differently - a prayer is not a prophecy.

[CONTINUED]*

 

[ematouk]

[CONTINUED]

mardukm:

1. If the solid distinguishing factor is just the teaching, how does a prospective believer know if the teaching is true or false?
   …

The church is visible and one. I do apologise, but you are asking the wrong questions. You are seeking to find something in a fallen world to cling to as your criterion of faith - you seek the Pope, the Protestants seek the bible - both are essentially two sides of the same coin. With the Protestant perspective, you get many different ‘mini-popes’ and interpretations of the bible. With the Catholic position, you get one interpretation - that is at a single point in time.

St Vincent of Lerins answered your question, long before the Gregorian reforms and ultramontanism. Rather then me quoting them in full, read chapters 2, 3, 4 and 20 over here.

By the way, I would have brought up the 3 popes, had you not mentioned it. But I think we can give that episode a skip for now.

(say, do you know how to make a link with just one word? For instance, I would have liked to insert the aforementioned link with the word “here” in my sentence)

Replace {} with ], you do it like the example below:

{URL=“http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm”}here{/URL}

mardukm:

no votes were cast at the Council of Jerusalem. There was debate, and then the head bishop of the local Church gave his judgment – he wasn’t simply “speaking on behalf of the Church.” Thenceforth, the decision was promulgated in the name of the entire Church. That’s all that the Scripture records. You can’t add details to it (i.e., a vote took place; St. James merely spoke on behalf of the Church) just to accommodate the Eastern Orthodox position.

The exclusively Roman Catholic “Ecumenical” councils also had votes, and also has the pope ratifying the decisions of the council. The Pope speaks on behalf of the entire Catholic Church. So I do not see how I am just validating my EO beliefs by “reading into the text”.

Looking at Acts 15 again I see the following phrases “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church” (v 22) “it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord” (v 25) “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us” (v 28). It doesnt seem like it was only James’ judgement to me. We do not know they didnt cast a vote, or didn’t poll the participants, we just hear 3 arguments, james judgement, and that the whole church was pleased. There must of been some means by which Luke knew the whole church was pleased with the decision.

As for your comment that it was a local council, that is not justified. “Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia” could have been the only places preached to at the time of the council. Paul and Peter had not yet gone to Rome, Philipi, Corinth, Galatia etc… There were only a few churches around. Antioch, Syria and Cilicia could have well encompassed all the churches that existed at the time.

mardukm:

My point is not that the Orthodox accept the authenticity of both letters, but that the Orthodox simply ignore the evidence contained in the first letter, whereas the Catholic position takes BOTH letters completely into account in our apologetics.

I know your point, but I dont agree with you.

mardukm:

if they really felt Pope Vigilius was heretical (as some here have claimed), then practicality once again should not be an impediment for them to do the right thing, correct?

I have never claimed Pope Vigilius was heretical, so I’m not even going to defend that position. Pope Vigilius is an example of a Pope being reprimanded by a council. I use this example to show that even the head bishop is subject to a council held by the universal church. I also use this to show how decrees by Popes were not merely accepted because they were written by Popes - they were thoroughly scrutinised for orthodoxy before being accepted. Something which is unfortunately lost today I feel.

mardukm:

But note what he states before the final clause in your quote: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen… Seems pretty clear, no?

The last clause was referring to the angels “Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning.”. Notice how St Vincent defends the angels instantly after suggesting the reductio ad absurdum but doesn’t defend St Peter. St Vincent was willing to say that all the apostles could have erred, but he instantly defends the angels after his comments about the angels. August Bernard Hassler says there were over 60 church fathers quoted by the minority against papal infallibility, and only scant quotes from a few fathers in favour of papal infallibility at the Vatican 1 council.

mardukm:

Can you show me a single instance in Church history when the Pope made a DOGMATIC decree ALONE, without ANY recourse to his brother bishops?

I can not. But neither can I show you any ex cathedra pronouncement made without the thorough scrutiny of an Ecumenical Council before Infallibilis Dues or possibly Unam Sanctum at the earliest.

mardukm:

It is impossible, then, that in a doubtful matter, the Pope will make a decision without his brother bishops. Does that clarify it?

Ok, beautifully put.

mardukm:

Can you answer this question: “If 99% of the Eastern Orthodox Church taught that abortion is OK under any circumstances, would you accept it?” Why or why not?

I would not, because it contradicts the code of St Vincent of Lerins of Antiquity, Universality and Consent. Abortion is explicitly condemned in the Didache.

“The Church can become extremely small” said the Roman Catholic canon lawyers of the 11th century “but it can not be nothing at all”.

BTW, sorry for the late response, I was very busy.

God bless you Marduk.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk,

I feel blessed by this wonderful discussion. I will have a response by this Sunday (I’ll be very busy with real-world obligations for the next several days).

BTW, of all the responses you gave, I was most eagerly expecting the one on how to assign a link to one word. Thank you for that.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk,

Ok, I understand what you mean now.

Thanks for understanding. To be even more clear, neither does the Pope possess the infallibility to declare that a particular PERSON is condemned for a heresy. In fact, the infallibility of the Church in general does not extend to the condemnation of PERSONS, but only to the condemnation of heresy (i.e., determination of what is or is not Truth).

Agreed. What I was trying to say is that the honour belongs to the patriarchate or local diocese. And it is only by extension that it flows to its bishop. A patriarch is only a patriarch because he is the head of a patriarchate, a metropolitan because he is the head of a metropolis, etc…

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. I believe it is the other way around. Though the honor of a bishop (of whatever grade) is one and the same the honor of his See, the honor of the See flows from the Apostolicity of the bishop. I think it is the EO understanding that the honor of the See was by virtue PRIMARILY of the secular honor of the metropolis (which, by your standard, then passes to the bishop of that See). But the OO and the CC solidly disagree with this view, and always have since the earliest times. The OO and CC believe it is apostolicity that determines the honor of a See, and this apostolicity is inherent and transmitted in the episcopal Order, NOT in the location of the sedis.

For any who are interested in the matter, this is just another belief that distinguishes the OO from the EO, but is shared between the OO and CC.

The title of ‘Pope’ means he is he head of a major see such as Rome. But I do not think it accords him jurisdiction over the whole church. (1) Otherwise we would also have to attribute this to the Pope of Alexandria who also was given the same title in the Early church. (2) The Pope of Rome would not be called the Pope “of Rome”, but simply “Pope” since his jurisdiction would be the whole world.

The title itself has nothing to do with the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. I don’t think much can be made from an argument based on the title itself.

ematouk:

mardukm:

I agree with the “immediate” part (as discussed thoroughly in the old “Papal Prerogatives” thread/poll forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…rerogativ

es), but I cannot agree with the “universal” part. If the Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, then his authority to hear appeals from all bishops East and West makes no sense.Well not really. If you look at it from a Eucharistic Ecclesiology standpoint, then it does make sense.

Can you explain this a bit more? I know that the Eucharist is the source of our unity, as the Council of Trent taught, but I don’t see how a Eucharistic ecclesiology determines the manner in which jurisdiction is exercised. In fact, as a visible focal point of unity, I see the papacy as more representative and reflective of the unity that the Eucharist intends. We are united in the Eucharist because there is ONE Eucharist and ONE Lord Jesus Christ, and a visible focal point of unity through ONE is more representative and reflective of that unity. From my understanding, the Eucharist is the thing that actualizes the ontological and spiritual unity of the Church. In distinction, the unity represented by the bishop in his diocese, the Metropolitan/archbishop in his metropolical See, the Patriarch in his Patriarchate, and the Pope in the whole Church are merely the visible representations of that unity at different levels of the hierarchy that is already achieved ontologically and spiritually by virtue of the Eucharist. And this visible unity (to be distinguished from ontological/spiritual unity) is indeed important theologically and ecclesiologically by virtue of Christ’s teaching that 1) the Church is as a light set on a hill, and 2) the unity itself is to be a witness that Jesus was sent by the Father.

The Patriarch has the right to hear appeals from any bishop within his patriarchate. This does NOT necessarily mean he has jurisdiction WITHIN the other bishops territory. The patriarch can make a mediated decision with the bishop of a ‘particular church’ and if disagreement still persists, it may be resolved in a local council.

Canon VI of Nice:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these…etc.

This is a universal canon of the ancient Church established by an Ecumenical Council. As far as I know, there have been no Ecumenical Councils that have abrogated this most ancient and trustworthy Canon. If your opinion is the actual teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church, can you please show me/us when this ancient Canon of the Church was cancelled?

The Bishop of Rome may hear appeals from all over the world since he also has a primacy among his brother patriarchs. If a patriarchate can not resolve the problem by itself, it can appeal to the first among bishops in the world - The Pope of Rome. If the Pope of Rome can not resolve the dispute and the dispute is serious enough, then it will be called before an Ecumenical council to be resolved.

The Pope does not need to have ‘universal’ jurisdiction in order to hear appeals from all over the world, just as a patriarch does not need a pan-patriarchate jurisdiction in order to hear appeals from other bishops in his patriarchate. {be aware that I might be using the wrong technical terms here}

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Your reasoning is not satisfactory. Jurisdiction by its very definition refers to authority established by law (divine and ecclesiastical), and the ways and means by which that law is asserted and applied. Consider this analogy: in the day to day administration of the law in the United States (and in every country which has a code of jurisprudence), each local court has full authority over its own jurisdiction. In certain circumstances, the case requires appeal to a greater court, which has a greater area of jurisdiction than the lower court, and on and on up to the Supreme Court of the State or the Country. The higher the level, the greater the jurisdiction both horizontally (its geographical or quantitative extent) and vertically (its qualitative extent). The analogy is almost exact in both practice and principle, except that 1) secular courts can appeal to methods of military or police enforcement, whereas ecclesiastical courts can (and should) only appeal to spiritual authority and conscience; 2) secular law can change by virtue of the will of the people, but Divine Law cannot (ecclesiastical law may also change but not at all easily).

The jurisdiction of a Metropolitan indeed extends throughout his Metropolitan See, the jurisdiction of a Patriarch indeed extends throughout his Patriarchate, and The Pope’s jurisdiction is indeed universal. He is the only bishop that has both the ecclesiastical and divine prerogative to settle issues THROUGHOUT the Church. But, to repeat what I have often stated, that jurisdiction is immediate insofar as it is from God, and not delegated (this is its theological relevance), but its exercise in patriarchal jurisdictions not immediately his own is indeed mediated through the proper, ordinary and immediate exercise of his brother bishops’/Patriarchs’ own solicitude over their own particular jurisdictions.

But, after reading that link - and I might be wrong about this - but my first impression of your explaination of “immediate” quite correct to me, but using a different terminology. BUT, I’m not so sure that it is the Catholic faith. In 1998, Pope John Paul II unilaterally inserted several paragraphs into the code of Canon law AND the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches Motu Proprio. If he can change canon law in the Eastern Church, surely he believed he had “immediate” powers in discipline in the East as well. (see vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html )

On a matter of faith or morals, I affirm the Catholic Faith that the Pope has universal jurisdiction immediate not only theologically but also practically. As St. John Chrysostom taught, St. James was the teacher of Jerusalem, but St. Peter was the teacher of the whole world. This prerogative and charism of being teacher of the whole world is passed down in the apostolic succession to the Pope’s unique Petrine ministry. The Canonical revision you mentioned was on a matter of the universal doctrine of the Church, and certainly in content is not objectionable to Eastern/Oriental Catholics. If you are looking for agreement from his brother bishops, it was freely given afterwards, so no viable objection can be given to the motu proprio. Perhaps you are simply looking for issues where there is none?

I have never seen the distinction you draw between “theological” immediate and “practicle” immediate to prove your case either. Frankly this distinction makes little to no sense to me either. It seems to me to be applying hermaneutical principles to avoid the fact of what the council is actually saying.

You’ve seen the distinction before, but the language might be different as it is presented in the EOC. Ponder these questions:1) Do the prerogatives of bishops/priests come from God? Do charisms in general come from God? 2) Are the use of episcopal/priestly prerogatives and charisms (ALL utilized for the edification of the Church) exercised within the Church according to laws established by the Church? If your answer to all the questions is “yes” then you will understand the distinction between “theologically” (i.e., by Divine establishment) and “practically” (i.e.,by ecclesiastical law) immediate.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

What you say is nice in practicle and I do admit Vatican 2 has tried to accord more importance to the local bishop, however, as a matter of practicality I do not think it is realistic.

When a Pope and local bishop disagree, the Pope can always TRUMP his brother bishop, censor his brother bishop etc… As a matter of fact, the colleagiality of the Catholic church is now bent on a monarchy that can not be broken as a matter of practice. (I’m not talking about in theory).

Really? Can you demonstrate when the Pope has ever actually “trumped” the collegial authority of an ecumenical body of bishops? Or can you demonstrate when the Pope has ever actually “trumped” the authority of a bishop not within his (i.e., the Pope’s) own Patriarchate? You talk about “practice” as if it regularly happens. Your argument needs proof to be valid, wouldn’t you agree?

In any case, I don’t see the EO model very reassuring. EO ecclesiology permits lay people to judge and depose its bishops even without the benefit of a council or synod. The will of the people TRUMPS the authority of bishops in the EO Church. I don’t find any comfort in a Church which permits mob rule.

So we have the option of a Church which offers a tyrannical monarchy (which has not occurred in practice), or a Church which offers a tyrannical mob rule (which has occurred in practice). Which is better? If the caricatures we offer of each others’ Churches is valid, then I propose we all become Oriental Orthodox.

That is not always true. There are some cases when it is true (a bishop committing heresy), but in most cases it is not true.

In normal circumstances, a bishop is a vicar of Christ of Earth. There is no split allegiance. “If they obey you, they obey Me”.

Amen. The exact same case applies to the Pope. So if you feel allegiance to the Pope is allegiance to “two heads” then allegiance to any bishop is also allegiance to “two heads.”

This is something I can not get around. How is it that the is infallible by himself and not of the consent of the church, yet, the church is included in this infallibility?

Here is a very important point you need to understand about infallibility. Infallibility is the infallibility of God. GOD is the DIRECT and IMMEDIATE source of infallibility. The Pope is NOT the source of infallibility. Sacred Tradition is NOT the source of infallibility. The Church is NOT the source of infallibility. The Ecumenical Council is NOT the source of infallibility. ONLY GOD IS THE SOURCE OF INFALLIBILITY. The charism of infallibility (in whatever form it is exercised in the Church) is always IMMEDIATELY obtained from God HIMSELF.

You said the decrees of an Ecumenical council only become definitively infallible once agreed upon by the Pope. Doesn’t this denegrate an Ecumenical Council to a mere advisory committee to the Pope? I can not see how the same infallibility can be applied to the Pope on an individual level and (Church including Pope).

I have never claimed that the Ecumenical Council is infallible once agreed upon by the Pope. NO Catholic apologist has EVER claimed that an Ecumenical Council is infallible once agreed upon by the Pope. And the Catholic Church has NEVER claimed or taught that an Ecumenical Council is infallible once agreed upon by the Pope (feel free to offer any evidence to the contrary from the official documents of the Catholic Church). This is a clear example of how non-Catholics, failing to understand Catholic teaching, inject erroneous assumptions into the teachings of the Catholic Church. The ONLY thing that the Catholic Church has EVER proclaimed about this issue is that an Ecumenical Council is VALID once agreed upon by the Pope. It’s not about the Council’s infallibility, but about the Council’s status AS an Ecumenical Council – in other words, as a Council whose doctrinal teachings and canons have UNIVERSAL application THROUGHOUT the entire Church.

THE ISSUE OF THE NECESSARY CONSENT OF THE HEAD BISHOP (i.e., the Pope in the context of our discussion) IS SEPARATE FROM THE ISSUE OF INFALLIBILITY. Getting rid of that confusion may help in your understanding of the matter.

In any case, the idea that the consent of the head bishop of the bishops of every nation on a matter relevant to the entire Church is necessary is simply Apostolic Canon 34. As I’ve stated before, I don’t understand why the EO are always objecting to that. Perhaps it is because of the confusion that I mentioned in the previous paragraph? You might also want to read/participate in (I hope you do) the discussion I am having with brother Jimmy in the “Vatican I” thread regarding this very issue of consent between the head bishop and his brother bishops.

This doctrine is a real stumbling block. It would have been much easier had it not been defined. I’m pretty sure there are hardly any Catholics who actually understand this doctrine.

I’m sure there are more non-Catholics who misunderstand the doctrine than there are Catholics who misunderstand it, but in both cases, the misunderstanding is strangely the same – that the Pope has more power and authority than he actually has. The only difference is that the non-Catholic will use the misunderstanding to demean the papacy, whereas the Catholic will use it to invalidly bolster the papacy. Ironic, huh? In any case, the stumbling block is not the doctrine, but the misunderstanding of the doctrine.

I would agree that the church can not be dichotomized from the faith of Peter. But, the rock is not an office of the church and should not be treated as such. By Peter, I’m assuming you mean the Pope - but when a pope dies there is a short period without a pope - Are you suggesting the devil provails against the church each time a pope dies, then the church revitalises again? I know you are not saying that.

There is no dichotomy between the church and the faith in Christ or Christ Himself, BUT there sometimes is a dichotomy between the Pope and the Church, that even you would admit to (when a pope dies). .
First, I agree that the Rock is not an office. But I disagree if by it you mean that the Rock is not or cannot be represented (theologically and ecclesiastically) by the organs of infallibility that God has set over his Church to teach it.

Second, there is no dichotomy created by the Pope’s death. The dichotomy is, unfortunately once again, only in the minds of non-Catholics who do not understand what papal infallibility or, apparently, infallibility in general, is. As stated numerous times, infallibility is the infallibility of God, and the Pope is not the only expression of God’s infallibility in the Church. Hence, the devil does not prevail against the Church when a Pope dies.

Now, I assume you will ask, “If the Pope is not the only expression of God’s infallibility in the Church, then why do we need a papacy?” And I will answer in three ways.

First, we need the papacy because it was established by God to confirm the Faith…

Second, the papacy fulfills the Apostolic injunction given in their Canon 34.

Third, if one can deny the papacy because of the existence of other infallible authorities in the Church, what possible need would there be for Ecumenical Councils if the Church as a whole is also infallible? Or what possible need for infallibility in the Church at all if we have the infallible Scripture?

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Jesus is the faith. Denying Christ IS denying the faith.

I agree. But I can’t comprehend how denying that he knew Jesus out of fear is the same thing as, for instance, denying that Jesus is God, or the Trinity, or Salvation by Grace and Faith, or a host of other things that comprise our Faith.

I know that it would not keep him from sinning - I know that is not what the prayer is about. That wasnt my argument at all.

If sin can keep Christ’s other prayers from being fulfilled (read what I said again), why can’t sin prevent this prayer being fulfilled? Peter is supposed to confirm his brethren, but sin can prevent him from doing so.

Thanks for the explanation, but it doesn’t answer my objection. Catholics believe the ability to confirm the brethren is part of the divine mechanism by which God ensures that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against His Church.

Btw, what other prayer of Christ do you feel that human sinfulness has brought to no effect? I can only think of two options:

1. Christ’s prayer for the unity of the Church as recorded in John 17. If you are referring to this, do you seriously expect any apostolic Christian to believe your claim? The EOC professes that one of the marks of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is ONENESS; the Oriental Orthodox Churches profess the same; the Ancient Church of the East professes the same; the Catholic Churches profess the same. Our Creed (regardless of context) teach us that Christ’s prayer for unity is and always has been effective.
2. Christ’s prayer for each individual to be saved. To this, I would respond that you need to be perfectly sure what this prayer is. It is Christ’s intercession as our Mediator. Christ’s prayer for the individual believer is a prayer for the Father to forgive our sins, AND THIS IS ALWAYS FRUITFUL – our sinfulness can never cancel this prayer. In any case, the Church has always taught that forgiveness is dependent on the willful act of the individual to ask for forgiveness. Christ’s prayer for the individual believer consists of the forgiveness of his/her sins upon volitional contrition/attrition, not the forcing of an individual to confess.

Perhaps you are thinking of some other prayer of Christ? So, to repeat, what prayer of Christ do you feel has been rendered ineffective by human sinfulness?

Christ PROPHESIED that Hades will not provail against His Church. This is not a prayer, this is a prophecy. We KNOW this can not happen because told us it wont happen. I’m sure you know different text types should be treated differently - a prayer is not a prophecy.

The prophecy is fulfilled BECAUSE of Christ’s prayer for his Church, and that prayer inherently includes the special prayer for the head of the apostolic college to be able to confirm his brethren in the Faith.

The church is visible and one. I do apologise, but you are asking the wrong questions. You are seeking to find something in a fallen world to cling to as your criterion of faith - you seek the Pope, the Protestants seek the bible - both are essentially two sides of the same coin. With the Protestant perspective, you get many different ‘mini-popes’ and interpretations of the bible. With the Catholic position, you get one interpretation - that is at a single point in time.

St Vincent of Lerins answered your question, long before the Gregorian reforms and ultramontanism. Rather then me quoting them in full, read chapters 2, 3, 4 and 20 over here.

I don’t understand your response here. Aren’t you as an Eastern Orthodox Christian ALSO seeking “to find something in a fallen world to cling to as your criterion of faith?”

And your appeal to St. Vincent or Lerins doesn’t challenge the Catholic position in any way, for the Vincentian principle is the same one used by the Catholic Church.

Replace {} with ], you do it like the example below:

{URL=“http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm”}here{/URL}

I actually wanted to use this to reduce the number of characters in the text, but I guess it instead requires more characters than simply indicating the link itself. Thanks for the info anyway.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

The exclusively Roman Catholic “Ecumenical” councils also had votes, and also has the pope ratifying the decisions of the council. The Pope speaks on behalf of the entire Catholic Church. So I do not see how I am just validating my EO beliefs by “reading into the text”.

I’m just saying that the Scriptural text does not mention “votes.” It only mentions 1) debate, 2) that they were silenced by St. Peter’s authoritative teaching, 3) that Sts. Paul and Barnabas gave witness to signs and wonders, 4) that St. James gave a judgment based on St. Peter’s authoritative teaching and Scripture, 5) that the whole Church agreed that a letter should be sent to the Churches in Antioch, Syria ,and Cilicia, and 6) that the letter was sent in the name of the Church in Jerusalem. Neither of us has the option of imposing the LATER, normative practice of voting into the text.

Looking at Acts 15 again I see the following phrases “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church” (v 22) “it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord” (v 25) “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us” (v 28). It doesnt seem like it was only James’ judgement to me. We do not know they didnt cast a vote, or didn’t poll the participants, we just hear 3 arguments, james judgement, and that the whole church was pleased. There must of been some means by which Luke knew the whole church was pleased with the decision.

I know it does not SEEM that way to you, but that is what Scripture records. And, to repeat, it was a judgment based on nothing else but St. Peter’s authoritative teaching and Scripture. So from the text itself, it appears the Jerusalem Church was pleased with the decision simply because it was the authoritative decision of their head bishop, based on the authoritative teaching of St. Peter and Scripture. Btw, I don’t think there were three arguments. There was only one argument that silenced everyone, and we know from whom that argument came. And St. James is very clear about the basis for his decision – St. Peter’s teaching and Scripture. He does not mention Sts. Paul and Barnabas in the basis for his judgment. I think you forget that the Apostles, and especially St. Peter, held an authority that was unparalleled in the NT Church. Do you suppose the Church doubted their authority to speak for the Lord to such an extent that they would have to vote on the matter?

As for your comment that it was a local council, that is not justified. “Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia” could have been the only places preached to at the time of the council. Paul and Peter had not yet gone to Rome, Philipi, Corinth, Galatia etc… There were only a few churches around. Antioch, Syria and Cilicia could have well encompassed all the churches that existed at the time.

About twelve years had elapsed between the Great Commission and St. Paul’s first missionary journey. Are you saying the Apostles were just sitting around doing nothing after Jesus instructed them to go out to all the world to preach the Gospel? Just because Paul and Peter had not yet gone to any of the places you mentioned, why should you assume there were no Churches there, or anywhere else for that matter? For instance, St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans indicates that the church already existed there prior to St. Paul’s own ministry in Rome. Indeed, Antioch, Syria and Cilicia were singled out precisely because these were Sts. Paul and Barnabas’ mission fields, and they were the ones who brought the complaint to the Church in Jerusalem. So it should come as no surprise that these regions were singled out, but they by no means indicate that the Church existed only in those areas.

Btw, what happened to Cyprus and Galatia, which were evangelized during St. Paul’s FIRST missionary journey BEFORE the Jerusalem Council? Did the Council just forget that there were churches established there? I think it’s safe to say that the council at Jerusalem was a local council.

I know your point, but I don’t agree with you.

Can you please explain how the first letter is utilized by EO apologists in their rhetoric? When I was a CO not in communion with Rome, I recall that the rhetoric normally utilized was merely to ignore it, and assume that the second letter was the TRUE intention of St. Cyprian. If you can offer me any other rhetoric that the EO utilize using the first letter, I would appreciate it.

I have never claimed Pope Vigilius was heretical, so I’m not even going to defend that position. Pope Vigilius is an example of a Pope being reprimanded by a council. I use this example to show that even the head bishop is subject to a council held by the universal church. I also use this to show how decrees by Popes were not merely accepted because they were written by Popes - they were thoroughly scrutinised for orthodoxy before being accepted. Something which is unfortunately lost today I feel.

I’m blessed to hear that you are not one of those EO who claim that Pope Vigilius was heretical. But I can’t agree with you that this is an example of the head bishop being subject to a council. This episode simply demonstrates what kind of interfering authority the Emperor had in the affairs of the Church. I don’t think we should base the ecclesiology of the Church on instances when the interference of the Emperor into the affairs of the Church had too much weight. It just muddles the issue. I’m willing to hear other evidences you may have, but this instance is too fraught with caeseropapism to have a definite bearing on the matter of whether the head bishop is subject to a council.

To be clear, my position is that if and when the head bishop is judged, it is not a matter of a synod judging OVER him, but rather of a constant correspondence between head bishop and his brother bishops, perhaps the head bishop changing his mind in the process, perhaps the rest of the bishops changing their mind in the process. Without the interference of the Emperor, all we would have is the constant correspondence that I have just mentioned.

In the end, it is the existing laws of the Church that is the judge. So it cannot be said that a council/synod judges OVER its head bishop, nor can it be said that a head bishop judges OVER his brother bishops. The only time that it can TRULY be said that one party judges OVER the other party is when the existing laws of the Church are totally set aside to extend the whim of one party over the other. This recently occurred within Oriental Orthodoxy, where the Synod of the Eritrean Church made a judgment over its head bishop and removed him from office. It also occurred after the Council of Florence among the Eastern Orthodox where the lay people made judgment over the head bishop, and other bishops besides, and ousted them. I’m not aware of a single instance in the history of the Church when a Pope made a final judgment that was not based on the laws of the Church. I’m willing to consider any proof you may have to the contrary.

But there was no existing law in the Church that could have condemned Pope Vigilius for his position, because he was simply following (and defending) the judgments of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon on the matter. This was new ground that the Church at the time was treading on (btw, the actions of the Fifth Council demonstrate my earlier mentioned position that an Ecumenical Council is not infallible in its judgment on PERSONS, for the Fifth Council sought to condemn certain persons that the Fourth Council had exonerated). The fact that the Fifth Council did not excommunicate Pope Vigilius demonstrates they made no judgment over him. You might attempt to bring up the idea that Pope Vigilius was removed from the diptychs of the Eastern Churches. On the contrary, we only have a record of the Emperor’s request that such an action be taken, but there is no record that the Council actually acceded to the Emperor’s wishes – again, a demonstration that all that can be proven from this particular Council (i.e., the Fifth Ecum) is NOT that a Council can judge a Pope, but that the Emperor felt he was powerful enough to interfere in ecclesiastical matters.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

The last clause was referring to the angels “Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning.”. Notice how St Vincent defends the angels instantly after suggesting the reductio ad absurdum but doesn’t defend St Peter. St Vincent was willing to say that all the apostles could have erred, but he instantly defends the angels after his comments about the angels. August Bernard Hassler says there were over 60 church fathers quoted by the minority against papal infallibility, and only scant quotes from a few fathers in favour of papal infallibility at the Vatican 1 council.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. St. Paul is including BOTH the Apostles and angels in his reductio ad absurdum. His explanation beginning with “what he means is this:…” refers to the entire reductio ad absurdum statement “Though we, he says, or an angel from heaven.” Your interpretation is downright inconceivable. Which Father (aside apparently from St. Vincent of Lerins – or at least according to you) has ever claimed that the Apostles erred or could have erred in handing on the Faith that Jesus charged them to do? But even if St. Vincent taught that the Apostles could have erred (which I believe is a wrong interpretation), the singular testimony of a Father certainly cannot be considered enough to establish a de fide teaching.

I can not. But neither can I show you any ex cathedra pronouncement made without the thorough scrutiny of an Ecumenical Council before Infallibilis Dues or possibly Unam Sanctum at the earliest.

What is your point in the statement “But neither can I show you any ex cathedra pronouncement made without the thorough scrutiny of an Ecumenical Council?”

Collegiality does not need to be exhibited particularly in a formal council/synod. As you might know, one of the expressions of infallibility (in the Catholic Church) is the teaching of the bishops united and on a matter of faith and/or morals even when dispersed throughout the world. If you look at Apostolic Canon 34, it certainly does not dictate that the bishops of every nation should recognize their head bishop only in the formal setting of a council/synod. It seems to me the injunction of the Apostolic Canon applies at all times in the day-to-day life of the Church. Thus, your concern with Ineffabilis Deus is answered, for it was promulgated with the advice and agreement of the bishops of the world.

As regards Unam Sanctam, though its contents had a universal character (i.e., its doctrinal portions reflected the teaching of the Church), it was not addressed to the whole Church, but rather to the King Phillip of France, perhaps to France in general - one of the reasons many do not regard that Bull as an ex cathedra decree. What need is there for an Ecumenical Council for something that the Pope did not intend to address to the whole Church? In any case, it was formulated and promulgated in a Synod of 80 bishops. So the criterion of collegiality was certainly met.

I would not, because it contradicts the code of St Vincent of Lerins of Antiquity, Universality and Consent. Abortion is explicitly condemned in the Didache.

“The Church can become extremely small” said the Roman Catholic canon lawyers of the 11th century “but it can not be nothing at all.”

Thank you for your answer. If this were to happen, how would the world know who taught the actual truth? How do we know that these few are not actually the ones who have strayed from the Truth? If we cannot trust the infallibility of one (according to your understanding of papal infallibility anyway), why should anyone trust the infallibility of a few?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mark_a]

Our community is mixed Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite (generally from mixed marriages), and it’s typical for families to go between Catholic and Orthodox Liturgies and events, and generally they will receive the Eucharist at whichever Church they happen to be at with no hackles raised by anyone.

Hope that helps! Peace and God bless!

Interesting.

 

[mark_a]

In the remote areas, many Russian Orthodox pastors in Alaska consider Catholics sufficiently orthodox to be communed if they have been to confession at the same parish. Economia… They generally consider Eastern Catholics close enough. It doesn’t happen at the major Urban churches. It has happened at remote ones. Then again, we also have non-OCA Russian Orthodox, and also Old Believers, scattered throughout the state. (We have a former Evangelical Orthodox parish that is now Antiochian, and Greek Orthodox in Anchorage.)

On the other hand, we at St. Nicholas often have Orthodox who attend. One parishioner didn’t realize we were Catholic for over 10 years (and 8 kids baptised)… and it was a non-issue for all involved, including her family.

We permit them, if they themselves permit themselves, to receive.

Also interesting.

 

[ematouk]

Dear Mardukm,

I’m currently very busy, so I might have to delay a response. I will probably respond by the end of next week when things in my real life start slowing down again.

That will probably be my last response on this thread (my response to your last post). Thankyou very much for that interesting discussion. I feel I understand papal infallibility far more then I did previously (though I’m still hazy about it).

God bless.