Orthodox Archbishop meets SSPX abbot

[tilis]

Fr Ambrose:

I have noticed that the ultimate authority is the Catholic lay people.

For example, some of them have decided that Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on contraception is infallible and they adhere to it. Others have decided that it is not infallible and they do not adhere to it. The Pope has not said anything either way.

Same thing happens with encyclicals like the one by John Paul II on the male only priesthood. Some Catholics accept it as infallible and the end of the discussion. Others don’t accept it as infallible and want the debate to continue. The Pope says nothing about whether he wrote it in infallible mode or not. So this kind of leaves it all in the hands of the laity - what is infallible and what is not. Maybe the Pope wants it this way?

It really doesn’t matter if it is infallible or not. When a Pope teaches as the Pope, and not as a private theologian, then what he teaches must be adhered to by all Catholics, under pain of sin. since encyclicals are not matters of private theology, but rather, are matters of the Pope’s universal pastorate, then what is taught in them is binding on all Catholics.

 

[tilis]

Palamite:

Andreas,

It’s the logic you provide which underlays the SSPX type position, which to be fair, is really only the position Catholicism held prior to Vatican II.

The difference now though, is that the recent Popes (and most serious Roman Catholic theologians) understand there’s quite a bit of hubris involved in chasing after the Orthodox for being “heretics”, in so far as they reject teachings which were “developed” after their “seperation from Rome”, or which they themselves never accepted as articles of faith.

Could you elaborate on this last sentence? What did they say?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

tilis:

It really doesn’t matter if it is infallible or not. When a Pope teaches as the Pope, and not as a private theologian, then what he teaches must be adhered to by all Catholics, under pain of sin. since encyclicals are not matters of private theology, but rather, are matters of the Pope’s universal pastorate, then what is taught in them is binding on all Catholics.

Under pain of sin? I doubt that very much! In the 16th century after the Union of Brest the Pope taught that people who refused to take up the sword and kill the Orthodox were excommunicated. How can the Vicar of Christ tell a man kill his own mother or father or brother or cousin because they happen to be Orthodox?

If you want to say that was his private theological opinion and not papal teaching, take it up with the people who were killed at the Pope’s command.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

tilis:

Could you elaborate on this last sentence? What did they say?

Take two concrete examples.

Immaculate Conception - this was denied by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century (and by the entire Dominican Order) and by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux in the 12th century. It is a new teaching, developed after the Schism.

You cannot call the Orthodox heretics for denying it because it was never part of Church belief to begin with. And if you call us heretics on this score then you have to call Thomas Aquinas and many other Catholic Saints and theologians heretics.

Papal Infallibility - the bishops of Ireland issued an Encyclical to their flock in 1826. They denied papal infallibility. The Catechisms for both Ireland and England at this time also denied papal infallibility.

You cannot label the Orthodox as heretical on this matter withour labelling all of the Catholics of England and Ireland heretical.

Sorry to jump in when your question was addressed to Palamite, but those two things came to mind.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is part of an old thread I made here: this is what the Lefebvrists said about the EO:
…the Orthodox, even if they have a valid Eucharist and a valid priesthood and apostolic succession, they have this apostolic succession only materially, not formally, because they are not linked to the Pope. Moreover, they do not recognize quite a lot of dogmas. … especially, they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope. They are schismatics and even, to a certain point, heretics.

 

[Freeway4321]

Palamite:

The “Lefebrvists” (SSPX and those who think like them) do not reject Papal Infallibility, so the article definately got this wrong.

Rather, it is fair to say that practically speaking they’re “Papal minimalists”, within the confines of the “dogmatic” definitions of Roman Catholicism, though this is more out of necessity than anything else (give their perception of how things have “turned out” since Vatican II - I highly doubt Archbishop Lefebvre, back in the days of Pope Pius XII, held the “minimalist” position). Obviously I think this is a problematic position - but I sympathize with them, because they’re simply tasting the tension of trying to be “orthodox” while having to rationalize their relationship to a Papacy which has obviously changed a great many things within Catholicism.

Being intimately familiar with the SSPX, it’s views, it’s politics, etc. (suffice it to say, I have several close family members who are “Lefebvrists”; for now, I don’t feel comfortable saying any more than this), I know full well that they are generally very anti-Orthodox. As someone previously mentioned, they view the Orthodox as not simply being schismatics, but heretics to boot. This is precisely why I was surprised that they (or in this case, their associates) would be having a friendly visit with an Orthodox hierarch of any sort.

The last I heard… it was called the “Great Schism” and I believe this is still held by the Popes, even if they decide to use “nice language” to describe the situation. The same goes for heretics. But it’s understandable, ecumenism is about making peace not letting everyone know that this group and that church and so forth are schismatical heretics.

There parishoners and or priests have (in my opinion) split between Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay. Those who like sanity and don’t have a *sedevacantist * lean go with Fellay, those who like irrational extremes go with Williamson. Bishop Fellay once said in an interview if a deal was reached with Rome all of the SSPX wouldn’t come. Which, is not surprising.

**Monsignor Fellay, your critical stances on the ecumenicalism encouraged by the Holy See after Vatican Council II are known. But do you have contacts with other Churches or ecclesial communities? **

FELLAY: There are contacts with Orthodox priests and bishops. It sometimes happens that they turn to us with sympathy because they consider us anti-Roman schismatics. We don’t like that at all. We are not schismatics and we care very greatly for the bond with Rome. And then there have been Orthodox bishops who have asked to belong to the Catholic Church through belonging to our Fraternity. To those I have always answered that they must address themselves to the Bishop of Rome, to the Pope. We are not and don’t want to be a parallel Church, and I am not an antipope!
30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9361

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

FELLAY: There are contacts with Orthodox priests and bishops… . And then there have been Orthodox bishops who have asked to belong to the Catholic Church through belonging to our Fraternity. 30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9361

All my respect for Fellay just died! Either he is being misreported about this or he is lying. Or he has been approached by some vagante type bishops and he is not clued in enough to realise they are not Orthodox.

 

[WBB]

Fr Ambrose:

I have noticed that the ultimate authority is the Catholic lay people.

For example, some of them have decided that Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on contraception is infallible and they adhere to it. Others have decided that it is not infallible and they do not adhere to it. The Pope has not said anything either way.

Same thing happens with encyclicals like the one by John Paul II on the male only priesthood. Some Catholics accept it as infallible and the end of the discussion. Others don’t accept it as infallible and want the debate to continue. The Pope says nothing about whether he wrote it in infallible mode or not. So this kind of leaves it all in the hands of the laity - what is infallible and what is not. Maybe the Pope wants it this way?

I suppose the issue I have with this is that these encyclicals were in some way promoting teachings on faith and morals which were not already believed prior to their issuance. That the church taught the immorality of contraception is nothing new. It certainly predated Pope Paul VI. If I am not mistaken, even the Protestant reformers were against contraception. And the teaching on a male only priesthood is a Tradition that is as old as the Church herself. And since Sacred Tradition has supported these teachings all along, we are required to assent to her wisdom. It is not the pope to whom I assent, it is the wisdom of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Freeway4321]

Fr Ambrose:

All my respect for Fellay just died! Either he is being misreported about this or he is lying. Or he has been approached by some vagante type bishops and he is not clued in enough to realise they are not Orthodox.

Who knows?

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9153/sittingonthefencelgwht4yg.gif

 

[tilis]

Fr Ambrose:

Under pain of sin? I doubt that very much! In the 16th century after the Union of Brest the Pope taught that people who refused to take up the sword and kill the Orthodox were excommunicated. How can the Vicar of Christ tell a man kill his own mother or father or brother or cousin because they happen to be Orthodox?

If you want to say that was his private theological opinion and not papal teaching, take it up with the people who were killed at the Pope’s command.

Woah. Why the attack? I was just articulating Catholic Teaching.

 

[tilis]

Fr Ambrose:

Take two concrete examples.

Immaculate Conception - this was denied by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century (and by the entire Dominican Order) and by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux in the 12th century. It is a new teaching, developed after the Schism.

You cannot call the Orthodox heretics for denying it because it was never part of Church belief to begin with. And if you call us heretics on this score then you have to call Thomas Aquinas and many other Catholic Saints and theologians heretics.

Papal Infallibility - the bishops of Ireland issued an Encyclical to their flock in 1826. They denied papal infallibility. The Catechisms for both Ireland and England at this time also denied papal infallibility.

You cannot label the Orthodox as heretical on this matter withour labelling all of the Catholics of England and Ireland heretical.

Sorry to jump in when your question was addressed to Palamite, but those two things came to mind.

Not to easy going are you Father. That’s ok. I can respect a man with passion. By my question, i meant, who has said that Catholics can’t expect the Eastern Orthodox to accept development of Dogma?

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve asked for clarification from the Ask an Apologist thread, but one thing I do know for certain: An individual doesn’t have the authority to decide if something is infallible or not - it either is or it isn’t.

It would be the same as someone saying that God’s existance is determined by individual belief. That’s nonsensical.
Fr Ambrose:

I have noticed that the ultimate authority is the Catholic lay people.

For example, some of them have decided that Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on contraception is infallible and they adhere to it. Others have decided that it is not infallible and they do not adhere to it. The Pope has not said anything either way.

Same thing happens with encyclicals like the one by John Paul II on the male only priesthood. Some Catholics accept it as infallible and the end of the discussion. Others don’t accept it as infallible and want the debate to continue. The Pope says nothing about whether he wrote it in infallible mode or not. So this kind of leaves it all in the hands of the laity - what is infallible and what is not. Maybe the Pope wants it this way?

 

[Kirane]

Fr Ambrose:

In the 16th century after the Union of Brest the Pope taught that people who refused to take up the sword and kill the Orthodox were excommunicated. How can the Vicar of Christ tell a man kill his own mother or father or brother or cousin because they happen to be Orthodox? .

This is sad that Roman Catholics are excommunicated unless they agree to “take up the sword and kill the Orthodox.” Are these excommunications still in effect and is there some independent reference verifying that this is the case?

 

[wannabee]

Going back to the original post

Fr Michael Mary the Superior of Golgotha Monastery on Papa Stour has posted on Byzcath about this meeting

I’m sure you would be very welcome to read his post

byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002580;p=1

 

[Hesychios]

Andreas Hofer:

I’m not trying to open a can of worms, but it doesn’t take any amount of ill-will for a Catholic to consider the Orthodox heretics. A heretic is, by definition, a baptized person who rejects an article that must be held with divine and Catholic faith. Since it’s been defined in ecumenical council, papal infallibility falls under that heading, so anyone who rejects it is a heretic, be it material or formal. Heretic isn’t a word that gets thrown around in this forum, which I think is good because of its loaded perjorative connotations, but when you get down to brass tacks it still applies. I like to think I have a great deal of respect for Orthodoxy, but that wouldn’t come through too well if the only test used were “Is it heresy to deny papal infallibility?”

I feel much the same.

If we use the term as a ‘technical’ one not meant as an insult it would be a lot easier to have discussions here. I am also glad the term is not tossed about loosely here.

I cannot imagine interfaith dialogs starting out with accusations of heresy every time they get together. No point in restating the obvious, we can get passed that to really discuss the issues intelligently (ideally).

+T+
Michael

 

[tilis]

Hesychios:

I feel much the same.

If we use the term as a ‘technical’ one not meant as an insult it would be a lot easier to have discussions here. I am also glad the term is not tossed about loosely here.

I cannot imagine interfaith dialogs starting out with accusations of heresy every time they get together. No point in restating the obvious, we can get passed that to really discuss the issues intelligently (ideally).

+T+
Michael

Good point.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

tilis:

Woah. Why the attack? I was just articulating Catholic Teaching.

You wrote that Catholics must obey the Pope under pain of sin. I pointed out that in the 16th century the Pope excommunicated all those who refused to take up the sword against the Orthodox. The Pope was ordering people to sin.

Do you think that Christ would really have said: “OK, you are my Vicar on earth and I have given you the power of binding and loosing so I have to heed your decision and send the Catholics to hell who refuse to kill the Orthodox. Of course, I’ll have to send you to hell too because you are the one commanding them to commit a mortal sin.”

Can it really be Catholic teaching that Catholics must obey the Pope when he is telling them to sin?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

tilis:

Not to easy going are you Father. That’s ok. I can respect a man with passion. By my question, i meant, who has said that Catholics can’t expect the Eastern Orthodox to accept development of Dogma?

We are not responsible for new dogmas (some of them heresies) formulated by the Church of Rome after Rome broke with the East. Why, even the Catholics Melkites claim that their Bill of Union with the Roman Catholics allows them to reject the teachings formulated by Councils in Western Europe which Rome call Ecumenical.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

rlg94086:

I’ve asked for clarification from the Ask an Apologist thread, but one thing I do know for certain: An individual doesn’t have the authority to decide if something is infallible or not - it either is or it isn’t.

So why is there this great debate among theologians over whether Humanae Vitae is infallible or not? It’s obviously not infallible, or there would be no debate at all.

There is no debate about the infallibility of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption -Catholic must give assent to these under pain of sin. But the same does not seem to apply to Humanae Vitae. Absent a papal pronouncement one must conclude that it is fallible and may be erroneous.

 

[rlg94086]

This is why I asked for some help from the apologists at CA. I believe it contains infallible teachings based on other explanations I’ve seen, but as a lay person I am unclear on when a given encyclical or teaching is considered infallible. I’ve seen some previous answers that recommend a book by Ott regarding fundamentals of Catholicism…apparently, Ott is infallible.

As far as theologians, I don’t know about Orthodox theologians, but there is a lot of error out there from Catholic theologians. The fact that they are debating among themselves doesn’t really impress me that much.

EDIT: Oh, I almost forgot…regarding the end of the first paragraph of your response: again, the fact that something is debated does not have any bearing on it’s underlying truth or infallibility. Otherwise, we would all agree and be one Church, no?
Fr Ambrose:

So why is there this great debate among theologians over whether Humanae Vitae is infallible or not? It’s obviously not infallible, or there would be no debate at all.

There is no debate about the infallibility of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption -Catholic must give assent to these under pain of sin. But the same does not seem to apply to Humanae Vitae. Absent a papal pronouncement one must conclude that it is fallible and may be erroneous.