T
Trebor135
Guest
If I may ask, what made you choose Oriental over Eastern Orthodoxy?
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
I agree with it, and it agrees with me. 
(I don’t go in for OO-EO polemics on an RC message board; that’d just be weird.)
(I don’t go in for OO-EO polemics on an RC message board; that’d just be weird.)
M
mardukm
Guest
I agree with it, and it agrees with me.
. Well said.Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Having been on “the other side,” I can say that I have never met a polemical Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) present the papacy in the way actually taught by the Fathers of Vatican 1. I’ve found their misgivings are actually based on misinterpretations of the Catholic teaching. In other words, I’ve yet to meet an Orthodox (polemic or otherwise) who has rejected the papacy for what it actually is. It’s exactly what Archbishop Sheen once said - there are not 100 people in the world who hate Catholicism for what she actually is, but many hate her for what they THINK she is.
Sure, if they believe that the papal dogmas gave the Pope a unilateral authority to create dogma, interfere in the affairs of local Churches, and overthrow Sacred Tradition at his mere discretion – I wouldn’t blame them for rejecting the teachings of Vatican 1 either. The upshot, of course, is that this is not what Vatican 1 taught.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
malphono
Guest
Marduk, we’ve sparred over this many times before (back in the days when we were both much more active around here), but I have to reiterate that the common “teaching” is quite the contrary. IOW, it is commonly taught that a Pope does indeed have unilateral authority. I have always agreed with you that that particular interpretation should be considered incorrect, but the fact is that’s what we have. And interestingly enough, the common teaching has never been publicly or officially repudiated by any Roman Pontiff. So may it’s not “incorrect” at all.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Malphono,
Here’s an article from Wikipedia on Neo-ultramontanism, which distinguishes it from the Ultramontanism of Vatican 1 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-ultramontanism). My sourcebook on Vatican 1 (Dom Cuthbert Butler’s The Vatican Council, 1869-1870) also has some additional information on that movement within the Council, distinguishing between the political Neo-ultramontanists and the theological Neo-ultramontanists.
Re: Manning, which the Wikipedia article mentions was a Neo-ultramontanist - Here’s an interesting excerpt from Dom Cuthbert Butler’s seminal book:
“With [bishops] Fessler [and Ullathorne] the central position is that the definition must be interpreted and applied on strict theological principles [but] some of the strong infallibilists [the new ultramontanists] were putting forward wider and looser interpretations…Such a one, naturally, was Manning. In October, 1870, he too issued a pastoral letter…In the elaborate explanation, of the force of the infallibility decree, he extends its scope so as to include dogmatic facts, censures less than heresy, canonizations of saints, approbations of religious orders: all this is roundly asserted even though Bishop Gasser, as official spokesman of the deputation de Fide, had laid down positively that these matters were not included by the definition…”
As you can see, even in matters of mere discipline, the NEO-ultramontanists granted to the Pope an infallibility that he does not possess. These are the same ones - as you’ve seen in the debates here between the Absolutist Petrine and High Petrine advocates - who claim the Pope has some unilateral authority to intervene in the affairs of local Churches. They think that way because the foundation of their belief (though they might deny it) is that the Pope is infallible in ALL things, even in matters of ecclesiastical discipline. But that is wrong and it is not what Vatican 1 taught.
Blessings,
Marduk
I agree with you wholeheartedely that the Absolutist Petrine view is “common” in the Catholic Church. But I would stop short of calling it a “common teaching.” I guess I’m using “teaching” in a very formal sense (i.e., dogma). I know the Absolutist Petrine view (NEO-ultramontanism) is not the dogmatic teaching of Vatican 1. Neo-ultramontanism was a novelty that crept into the Church only in the early 19th century, and Vatican 1 did as much to combat the excesses of that novelty, as it did the excesses of Gallicanism.Marduk, we’ve sparred over this many times before (back in the days when we were both much more active around here), but I have to reiterate that the common “teaching” is quite the contrary. IOW, it is commonly taught that a Pope does indeed have unilateral authority. I have always agreed with you that that particular interpretation should be considered incorrect, but the fact is that’s what we have. And interestingly enough, the common teaching has never been publicly or officially repudiated by any Roman Pontiff. So may it’s not “incorrect” at all.
Here’s an article from Wikipedia on Neo-ultramontanism, which distinguishes it from the Ultramontanism of Vatican 1 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-ultramontanism). My sourcebook on Vatican 1 (Dom Cuthbert Butler’s The Vatican Council, 1869-1870) also has some additional information on that movement within the Council, distinguishing between the political Neo-ultramontanists and the theological Neo-ultramontanists.
Re: Manning, which the Wikipedia article mentions was a Neo-ultramontanist - Here’s an interesting excerpt from Dom Cuthbert Butler’s seminal book:
“With [bishops] Fessler [and Ullathorne] the central position is that the definition must be interpreted and applied on strict theological principles [but] some of the strong infallibilists [the new ultramontanists] were putting forward wider and looser interpretations…Such a one, naturally, was Manning. In October, 1870, he too issued a pastoral letter…In the elaborate explanation, of the force of the infallibility decree, he extends its scope so as to include dogmatic facts, censures less than heresy, canonizations of saints, approbations of religious orders: all this is roundly asserted even though Bishop Gasser, as official spokesman of the deputation de Fide, had laid down positively that these matters were not included by the definition…”
As you can see, even in matters of mere discipline, the NEO-ultramontanists granted to the Pope an infallibility that he does not possess. These are the same ones - as you’ve seen in the debates here between the Absolutist Petrine and High Petrine advocates - who claim the Pope has some unilateral authority to intervene in the affairs of local Churches. They think that way because the foundation of their belief (though they might deny it) is that the Pope is infallible in ALL things, even in matters of ecclesiastical discipline. But that is wrong and it is not what Vatican 1 taught.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
malphono
Guest
All very true, yet while Vatican I may not have taught that (in the formal sense), we still have neo-ultramontanists spouting (and teaching, in the looser sense) their same tired spiel. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, we also have the fact that no Roman Pontiff has formally and officially repudiated their position. The silence of Rome on that point is deafening. And that silence does make one wonder.
M
mardukm
Guest
That’s true, I’ll grant you that, though INformally (i.e., in a public speeches) the have resoundingly espoused the principles of collegiality, which is opposed by the neo-ultramontanists.All very true, yet while Vatican I may not have taught that (in the formal sense), we still have neo-ultramontanists spouting (and teaching, in the looser sense) their same tired spiel. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, we also have the fact that no Roman Pontiff has formally and officially repudiated their position. The silence of Rome on that point is deafening. And that silence does make one wonder.
I’ve read them before, and I will do a google search on the matter of these public acknowledgement by the Popes and present them here (by this weekend if not sooner).
Blessings,
Marduk
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
Slightly related to this, brother Marduk:
If, in fact, Vatican I teaches the High Petrine interpretation of the Papacy, that is well and fine. The issue (for me, at least) isn’t whether or not Vatican I teaches a Low, High, or Absolute Petrine doctrine, but rather if any of these things are TRUE. That is to say, consistent with Scripture and Tradition, as found in historical realities. And that, unfortunately, is where the rubber hits the road, and the path becomes unclear.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Exactly.I invite you, MardukM, and other interested CAF members to take a look at and comment in this new thread about the doctrine of ecclesial (conciliar and papal) infallibility.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother ThatOneGuy,
Well, against the Absolutist Petrine view (where the head and body are set at odds and the head always wins out), I’ve yet to see a single instance in the history of the Catholic Church where the Pope acted unilaterally, without the concurrence of at least some portion of his brother bishops.
Against the Low Petrine view (where the head and body are set at odds and the body always wins out), I’ve yet to see a single instance in the history of the Church when any local Church, much less the Church universal, acted in their respective spheres without the approbation of a head bishop.
The High Petrine standard of collegiality (where the head and body are both necessary and just as important as the other, and work together for the good of the Church) is the only thing that matches the evidence of Scripture and Tradition.
Can you think of any examples in Scripture or the history of the Church that support the Absolutist or Low Petrine positions?
Blessings,
Marduk
Could you clarify? Do you mean, which of these three options are found to be most in line with Scripture and Tradition?
Well, against the Absolutist Petrine view (where the head and body are set at odds and the head always wins out), I’ve yet to see a single instance in the history of the Catholic Church where the Pope acted unilaterally, without the concurrence of at least some portion of his brother bishops.
Against the Low Petrine view (where the head and body are set at odds and the body always wins out), I’ve yet to see a single instance in the history of the Church when any local Church, much less the Church universal, acted in their respective spheres without the approbation of a head bishop.
The High Petrine standard of collegiality (where the head and body are both necessary and just as important as the other, and work together for the good of the Church) is the only thing that matches the evidence of Scripture and Tradition.
Can you think of any examples in Scripture or the history of the Church that support the Absolutist or Low Petrine positions?
Blessings,
Marduk
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
I apologize for the lack of clarity. The point I was trying to make was that, whatever the Catholic Church teaches concerning the Papacy, it must be true- consistent with Scripture and Tradition. Of course, the only way one can derive any teaching on the Papacy from Scripture is only through the lens of Tradition, so I suppose it comes down to seeing if the claims concerning the Papacy are true historically. Not always in exercising of authority (although that definitely helps, as it gives a clear witness to the scope of the Pope’s power), but also in the teachings of the Fathers, and the various interactions amongst the Churches. Which is where it gets difficult, as the evidence (as far as I have read and found) is contradictory, to say the least.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
If you’re looking for evidence that supports the catholic teaching on the papacy, you will find it. If you are looking for evidence that challenges the catholic teaching on the papacy, you will find that also. Catholicism teaches that the modern doctrine of papal infalibility took 18 centuries to develop as a reaction to heresy, like all doctrines. The orthodox stop the clock so to speak around the 10th century and then only look to the eastern church fathers to support their claims. There is plenty of evidence supporting the universal authority of the pope coming from the west, but not as much from the east.
If you are looking for the doctrine of papal infallibility spelled out clearly in the bible you won’t find it. You won’t find it explicitly spelled out by the eastern church fathers either. But for a catholic, that doesn’t matter as we believe doctrine will always develop and be better defined in light of the historical realities of the times. The important thing for catholics is that doctines can be shown to have a basis in both tradition and the scriptures. I don’t believe the EO hold this view in that they expect docrines to be spelled out explicitly within the first 1,000 years or hold to no more than whatever ecumenical council they recognize.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
And that is the problem, isn’t it. We aren’t supposed to be developing anything new. If it is not believed in and practiced by the Early Christians as evidence by the Church Fathers, what makes us think practicing it in the 1800s makes it real?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
The Orthodox Church is the true Church. The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is the true Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the true Church. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church are 2000 years old. The Oriental Orthodox, The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church are the true Church.
Excluding the Papacy, the view from the Orthodox side is different and not as defined as it regards Doctrine, same doctrine, pretty much, and on the Western Side the doctrines are defined in more detail.
In terms of age the see of Rome is the oldest and others follow from the Catholic or Orthdox side.
Splitting hairs over who is on first creates division and disharmony. The leaders are sorting this stuff out. On the faithful side of the fence we should just try to get along…
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Antioch is older.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
What makes your argument any different than a protestant who says if it isn’t in the bible it isn’t real? You draw your line at the year 1,000 or so, evangelical protestants about the 2nd centry. Catholics don’t draw one. Doctrine, will always develop as a result of heresy like it always has.
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
You have a point that if one is looking for a certain position, then one will likely find it. This is true, but only to an extent. I am merely examining the positions of each Church, and weighing their arguments.
I also understand the concept of doctrinal development. However, doctrinal development is supposed to clarify what was already there. If something isn’t there in the first place, it doesn’t work, and the “clarification” becomes an innovation.
I do not wish to derail the thread any further (if in fact I am derailing it), so I will bow out for the moment and merely observe.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
Like I said, there is plenty of evidence that presents a reasonable argument to support papal infallibility both scripturally and in tradition. It’s a matter of whether you want to see it or not.
H
Holly3278
Guest
No, the Catholic Church is the true Church. However, the Orthodox church does contain a lot of the same truths that the Catholic Church contains. Unfortunately the Orthodox church rejects the truths of the Papacy and papal infallibility as well as some other things that are definitely true teachings.
- Status