Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[GaryTaylor]

The Orthodox problem with the Catholic doctrine of original sin is that it is based on the Augustinian concept of original sin as inherited guilt. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine is that we inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, not the guilt.

We must first clarify that Catholic theologians have said many things about sin over the past two thousand years, not all of which adequately, or fully represents the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church.

No single theologian, no matter how influential, enjoys infallible authority.

The Catholic Church refuses to exclusively define herself by the teaching of St Augustine, St John Chrysostom or St Thomas Aquinas or even by “Western” theological reflection. St Augustine himself refers all readers to the Authority of the Catholic Church, not sola reading of his work as authority of the Church. Very much the opposite, Retractions.

Thus the Church does not teach inherited guilt as you are understanding and which also has been clarified by the CCC. Brother mardukm spoke on this also as did I and we posted the paragraphs from the CCC.

The perspective of the EO is simply incorrect as are the various sights as I have shown with Wiki-Pedia and others which attempt to wrongly state what the CC teaches, instead of simply appealing to what in fact the EO does teach.

 

[GaryTaylor]

However, Our Lady was not the only one taken directly to Heaven body and soul. You forget St. Elijah, who ascended into heaven in a fiery chariot and Enoch who walked with God.

Fr. John

Just to clarify though, your connection with St Mary, Enoch and Elijah taken body and soul into Heaven, could you elaborate?

 

[spina1953]

I do no know. It is a mystery. I do not have to understand everything. In fact it is very dangerous to try, because the human mind cannot comprehend the mysteries of God. The divinely inspired Scriptures tell us “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” Genesis 5:24 and that Elijah went to Heaven in a fiery chariot. II Kings 2:11. That is one of the major difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics rely far too much on human reason, when they should stand in silent awe before the mystery of God and recognize that God and the ways of God are beyond human understanding.

Fr. John

I agree! it is a mystery. There are many things in the Bible, Old as well as the New Testaments that are mysteries to us and no one person will ever understand it all. I agree that it can be dangerious to try to understand it all, that is one reson why Faith is so important. I do not know if Catholic’s rely to much on human reason, but for me personally, I stand in silent awe of the mysteries relying on the faith given to me by God. I do not pretend to understand everything about my faith, but put my trust in Christ and God who has never done me any wrong or lied to me. However, that being said He did give me a brain and free will to choose Him or not. God revealed Himself to man so that man might come to know Him and come to love Him, but He will never force us to believe or love Him, He gives us the choice to choose. God will always be beyond human reasoning or understanding.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

For all that, Father, the Councils still needed the confirmation of the head bishop of the Church universal for their authority to be truly Ecumenical. We have explicit historical records requesting such confirmation from the Pope of Rome by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th councils.

Should High Petrine advocates then concede to the Absolutist Petrine advocates who claim that the Popes are above Ecumenical Councils because the confirmation of the Popes was necessary? Absolutely not.

Or should High Petrine advocates concede to the Low Petrine advocates who claim that the Ecumenical Councils are above the Popes because the consensus of the bishops was necessary? Absolutely not.

In opposition to both camps, High Petrine advocates stand fast to the Tradition of the Fathers as enshrined in the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 - that both the consent of the head bishop, on the one hand, and the consent of his brother bishops, on the other, are equally necessary to ensure unanimity for the glory of God.

The full story is that his brother bishops appealed to Pope St. Leo on the matter, who thence initiated proceedings for the realization of the 4th Ecum. The facts of history do not demonstrate that the Ecum Council is above the Pope, but rather that there is a dynamic of cooperation between the head bishop and his brother bishops.

Humbly,
Marduk

Dearest Fr. John, bless

For all that, Father, the Councils still needed the confirmation of the head bishop of the Church universal for their authority to be truly Ecumenical. We have explicit historical records requesting such confirmation from the Pope of Rome by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th councils.

I RESPOND: The Ecumenical Councils sent their decisions to all 5 Patriarchs, not just the Patriarch of the West. There is no canon or any action of any Ecumenical Council that gave the Pope veto authority over the decisions of an Ecumenical Council or the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another Patriarchate. The historical record is clear that the Ecumenical Councils had authority over the Pope, not that the Pope had authority over an Ecumenical Council as Rome now claims.
Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council limits the actual authority of the Pope to Rome and the West and affirms the independence of Alexandria and Antioch. When Pope St. Leo objected to the Robber Council of Ephesus, he lacked the authority to veto the council, but had to request the emperor and the other Patriarchs to call another Ecumenical Council to overrule the decisions of Ephesus 449. They agreed and called the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon of 451. The council did not accept the Tome of Leo because it was written by a Pope, but sent the document to a committee to study it to determine if it is Orthodox. Only after the committee approved it was it submitted to the full council for ratification. Only after the council ratified the Tome of Leo did it become an official statement of the doctrine of the Church. This shows that the Council of Chalcedon did not recognize the authority of the Pope to proclaim the doctrine of the Church, “ex cathedra.” The 5th Council demanded that Pope Vigilius accept its decisions or be excommunicated.
Canon 39 of the Apostles does not refer to the papacy. It refers to the regional primacies. The ancient Church followed the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire, the Bishop of the provincial capital, the Metropolis, was the regional Primate and Metropolitan. The canon certainly cannot be used to justify papalism, because it does not give absolute authority to the Primate, but states that the he cannot “do anything without the consent of all.” If Rome followed this canon, the Pope would have a Holy Synod which had to ratify his major decisions for them to have authority. Since the Pope can make decisions unilaterally and is not subject to a Holy Synod, he is not following Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles.
The modern papacy makes the Pope an absolute monarch over the Church accountable to no higher authority. In the ancient Church the Bishop of Rome only had a primacy of honor. Like all other Bishops, he was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council and within his Patriarchate he presided over council of Bishops that made all important decisions. This pattern is still followed by the Eastern Orthodox Church. After the 1st Vatican Council, the Pope has all power and is answerable to no higher authority. That is not the way that the ancient Church understood the position of Rome.
The historical record is that like all other Bishops the Pope was subject to an Ecumenical. The Pope only had a primacy of honor much like the Ecumenical Patriarch has today in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

What do you think about those representatives of Eastern Orthodox Churches that did sign the Balamand Agreement?

According to this site:

“The Balamand Agreement was signed by representatives of the following Orthodox churches: the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Church of Russia, the Church of Romania, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Poland, the Church of Albania, and the Church of Finland.”

God bless,

Rony

First, I would be very careful regarding that site because it is allied with the most extreme anti-ecumenists in the Orthodox Church. In fact if you do a search using my name on that site you will find personal criticisms directed at me accusing me of being too ecumenical because I have written articles that they consider un-Orthodox particularly because I do not agree with their argument that all converts must enter the Orthodox Church through Baptism. The historical practice of the Orthodox Church despite the claims on this site is to receive a convert who was Baptized “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” through Chrismation. The site also quotes from schismatics who have left the Orthodox Church and formed groups that adhere to the Old Calendrist Movement, most of which consider the Sacraments of the canonical Orthodox Church lacking in grace.
It may be true that representatives of various Orthodox Churches signed the Balamand Statement. However, that does not make it official for Orthodox. It is like a treaty that the president signs. It is not official until it is ratified by the US Senate. The same is true of all ecumenical statements made by the various dialogues. These statements must be approved by the Holy Synod of the autocephlous Eastern Orthodox the person signing the statement represents. Most Orthodox Holy Synods have not accepted the Balamand Statement because it is premature and reflects a level of agreement that has not been yet achieved.

Fr. John

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

The Pope does not have to preside or send legates to a council. The Pope is head bishop of the universal body of bishops irregardless of whether he personally presides, or sends legates, to any one council, whether deemed ecumenical or not. All he needs to do as head bishop is to determine, along with his body of bishops in a collegial fashion, that the council is orthodox in her teachings. That determination can be made during the council, or after the council.

God bless,

Rony

There is where we Eastern Orthodox disagree. None of the 7 Ecumenical Councils recognized the right of the Bishop of Rome to veto its decisions. They all operated on the assumption that all Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, are required to obey its decisions. If the Bishop of Rome objected to the decisions of a council, he could do as Pope St. Leo did, appeal to the other Patriarchs for another council to reconsider the decisions of the council he rejected. When Pope St. Leo rightfully objected to the decision of the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449, he did not have the power to veto the decisions of the council. Instead, he appealed to the Emperor and the other Patriarchs to convene of another council to review the decisions of the Council of 449. That was the Council of Chalcedon of 451, which rejected the Council of 449 and after a committee examined it and recommended its acceptance approved the Tome of Leo. Thus, the Tome of Leo did not become a binding statement of the doctrine of the Church until after it was ratified by an Ecumenical Council. This incident alone shows that the ancient Church did not accept the authority of Rome to unilaterally decide on the doctrine of the Church. To be officially binding, an Ecumenical Council had to ratify the Tome of Leo. Thus the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council violate the practices of the ancient undivided Church by giving the Pope authority that he never had during the age of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

But the praxis of the Early Church did not seem to follow this organizational concept. Numerous times, bishops sent appeals to foreign sees, such as Rome, and the local synod told Rome to mind its own business. This was the case for example, with the synod of North African bishops in Carthage which passed canons forbidding appeals across the sea (meaning appeals to Rome) in reaction to the Pope attempting to reinstate a bishop which the synod had deposed. The Pope’s sole claim to have the authority to do so (at that time) were the Sardican Canons, which the Carthaginians believed to be spurious, for they themselves never had received or heard of such a collection of canons. And even granting the concession that the Sardican Canons were in fact authentic, the Pope in that case still would have overstepped his canonical prerogatives, because the Sardican canons only gave the pope the authority to demand a retrial in a neighboring province, not to annul the acts of the synod entirely.

This is not accurate.

Actually, the issue between the North Africans and Rome involved a priest (Apiarus), not a bishop. You are the 4th EO I’ve encountered on the I-net in as many years who has made this strange claim. I wonder (seriously) what the source of this inaccuracy is.

Further, the Carthaginians did not doubt the authenticity of the Sardican Canons. They simply rejected its applicability to the situation because the Sardican Canons were in relation to bishops, not priests.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SyroMalankara,

This is interesting. Before I translated to the Catholic communion (about 7 years ago), I was reading up on this matter on the I-net, and there were scores of online sources detailing the debate between the Syriac Orthodox and Malankara Orthodox. The Syriac Orthodox consistently accused the Malankara Orthodox of heresy for wanting to be independent of the SOC. That shows the doctrinal importance that the concept of primacy has among the Syriac Orthodox.

However, about 2 years ago, I wanted to invesigate the matter again, and the sources have all but disappeared. I believe some official moratorium was made on these acrimonious comments between brothers in the Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

The switch over from Syriac to Malankara Orthodox happens every once in a while in India, usually the Syriacs consider the priest switching to Malankara Orthodox excommunicate and his priesthood graceless and himself not even a layman in good standing. When the switch happens the other way, similar actions follow. There have even been bishops that have gone back and forth.

This is probably not a “norm” since the whole thing is uncanonical, considering the situation between the SOC and MOC, especially in India, but it transfer to wherever they have bishops and more than a tiny shared parish in the boonies.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I agree! it is a mystery. There are many things in the Bible, Old as well as the New Testaments that are mysteries to us and no one person will ever understand it all. I agree that it can be dangerious to try to understand it all, that is one reson why Faith is so important. I do not know if Catholic’s rely to much on human reason, but for me personally, I stand in silent awe of the mysteries relying on the faith given to me by God. I do not pretend to understand everything about my faith, but put my trust in Christ and God who has never done me any wrong or lied to me. However, that being said He did give me a brain and free will to choose Him or not. God revealed Himself to man so that man might come to know Him and come to love Him, but He will never force us to believe or love Him, He gives us the choice to choose. God will always be beyond human reasoning or understanding.

The Eastern Orthodox Church strongly affirms free will. All of the Holy Fathers affirmed free will until Augustine. Even Augustine affirmed free will until his conflict with Pelagius.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yet you cling to Augustine who doesn’t speak for the Magisterium as indicated which you have no response to, nor the following post. Pretty much the polemics of the EO in a nutshell?

 

[frjohnmorris]

I never claimed that Augustine was accepted without reservation by the West. However, there are sections in Augustine’s writings that clearly deny free will. Given some time, I can give you direct quotes in which Augustine denies free will. Every patristric scholar recognizes that on this issue Augustine broke with the Patristric consensus. The Calvinists argue that Augustine was the first person to understand St. Paul and that the Fathers before him were overly influenced by pagan ideas. It is not polemics to accurately report the historical facts. That last comment was unjustified.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

The Eastern Orthodox Church strongly affirms free will. All of the Holy Fathers affirmed free will until Augustine. Even Augustine affirmed free will until his conflict with Pelagius.

Fr. John

I understand all that you have stated. However, so far as I understand it, the Catholic Church has always stated and affirmed that man has free will to choose and is in our CCC. Having said that, I doubt very much that the Catholic Church ever accepted St. Augustine’s position concerning the non- free will at that time in question nor now in our present day and age.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, the issue between the North Africans and Rome involved a priest (Apiarus), not a bishop.

I suppose that I did not remember correctly. Though frankly if I am to be criticized for forgetting whether he was a priest or a bishop, then I likewise should be free to return the criticism by pointing out that the name is spelled “Apiarius” and not Apiarus. (but it would be quite petty, wouldn’t it?)

Apiarius was a priest, yes, and by the canons (which mandate clearly that bishops are not to receive men who have been deposed or excommunicated by other bishops), his deposition in North Africa should have been the end of the story. But twice the Popes attempted to reinstate him, and twice the Carthaginians rebuffed them, telling them to mind their own affairs.

You are the 4th EO I’ve encountered on the I-net in as many years who has made this strange claim. I wonder (seriously) what the source of this inaccuracy is.

Perhaps it is simply easy to mix up details concerning historical figures. What relevance does that hold to the topic of the Roman primacy? None, that I know of, though I suppose that would not matter to a polemicist with other motives than the pursuit of truth.

Further, the Carthaginians did not doubt the authenticity of the Sardican Canons. They simply rejected its applicability to the situation because the Sardican Canons were in relation to bishops, not priests.

Incorrect. Bishop Alypius of Tagaste challenged the authenticity of the Sardican Canons, noting that no such canons had ever been received in Africa. The Synodal letter from the African Synod of 418 to Pope Boniface likewise cast doubt upon the Sardican Canons, reprimanded the Pope for receiving Apiarius, and complained of Bishop Faustinius’ (the papal legate) insolence.

 

[ronyodish]

There is where we Eastern Orthodox disagree. None of the 7 Ecumenical Councils recognized the right of the Bishop of Rome to veto its decisions. They all operated on the assumption that all Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, are required to obey its decisions. If the Bishop of Rome objected to the decisions of a council, he could do as Pope St. Leo did, appeal to the other Patriarchs for another council to reconsider the decisions of the council he rejected. When Pope St. Leo rightfully objected to the decision of the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449, he did not have the power to veto the decisions of the council. Instead, he appealed to the Emperor and the other Patriarchs to convene of another council to review the decisions of the Council of 449. That was the Council of Chalcedon of 451, which rejected the Council of 449 and after a committee examined it and recommended its acceptance approved the Tome of Leo. Thus, the Tome of Leo did not become a binding statement of the doctrine of the Church until after it was ratified by an Ecumenical Council. This incident alone shows that the ancient Church did not accept the authority of Rome to unilaterally decide on the doctrine of the Church. To be officially binding, an Ecumenical Council had to ratify the Tome of Leo. Thus the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council violate the practices of the ancient undivided Church by giving the Pope authority that he never had during the age of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Fr. Morris,

Read my statement again from the previous post:

“All he needs to do as head bishop is to determine, along with his body of bishops in a collegial fashion, that the council is orthodox in her teachings.”

I am not saying that the Pope, as head bishop, should unilaterally decide the teachings of the Church, or that he should veto the teachings that are taught by the whole body of bishops.

My argument is this: Neither should the head oppose the body nor should the body oppose the head. I am arguing for collegiality. I am arguing for the necessity of the head bishop and the body of bishops, together, in collegial fashion, in determining the orthodoxy of councils.

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

I understand all that you have stated. However, so far as I understand it, the Catholic Church has always stated and affirmed that man has free will to choose and is in our CCC. Having said that, I doubt very much that the Catholic Church ever accepted St. Augustine’s position concerning the non- free will at that time in question nor now in our present day and age.

I never wrote that it did. I understand that the Catholic Church read Augustine in context with the rest of the Holy Fathers. Unfortunately, Luther and Calvin did not. They built their theology only on certain parts of Augustine’s writings. I doubt that he would recognize as his own what Calvin did to his writings.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

I never claimed that Augustine was accepted without reservation by the West. However, there are sections in Augustine’s writings that clearly deny free will

Point still is the Catholic Church doesn’t deny free will. So how is pointing out Augustine’s trials relevant to where we were at?

“However, Our Lady was not the only one taken directly to Heaven body and soul. You forget St. Elijah, who ascended into heaven in a fiery chariot and Enoch who walked with God.”

I believe we are at this point with grace and sin? And no guilt, blessed in my estimation. But as to denial of free will where does the Catholic Church teach this, show me in the CCC?

 

[frjohnmorris]

But the praxis of the Early Church did not seem to follow this organizational concept. Numerous times, bishops sent appeals to foreign sees, such as Rome, and the local synod told Rome to mind its own business. This was the case for example, with the synod of North African bishops in Carthage which passed canons forbidding appeals across the sea (meaning appeals to Rome) in reaction to the Pope attempting to reinstate a bishop which the synod had deposed. The Pope’s sole claim to have the authority to do so (at that time) were the Sardican Canons, which the Carthaginians believed to be spurious, for they themselves never had received or heard of such a collection of canons. And even granting the concession that the Sardican Canons were in fact authentic, the Pope in that case still would have overstepped his canonical prerogatives, because the Sardican canons only gave the pope the authority to demand a retrial in a neighboring province, not to annul the acts of the synod entirely.

The question then still remains: If the body cannot depose the head bishop, what are we to make of the numerous times when popes were deposed for moral failings in the first and even early second millennium? If the Church, after all should have invalidly deposed a Pope (because such a power does not belong to the body of the episcopacy, according to the theory in question), then the election of a new one would automatically have been invalid by virtue of there already being a living Pope, and it should stand to reason also that the body of bishops which united themselves to this new and invalid anti-pope would never be able to elect a new pope after the death of the old pope, by virtue of the fact that the body would be “lifeless” in its schism from the true and unacknowledged head according to the ideas laid out in post #359.

In fact, one must wonder what exactly happens during the interregnum. How does a lifeless and headless body elect a new head, if the power of the head does not reside also in its fullness in the body (though latently)?

On Sardica and Carthage
Canon CXXVI of the Council of Carthage of 419 allows Priests and Deacons condemned by their Bishop to appeal their case to “neighboring”Bishops but forbids them to carry their appeal “across the sea, ” i.e. to Rome.
Canon III of Sardica in 343 or 344 gave Pope Julius the authority to appoint “bishops of a neighboring province” to reconsider the case against a Bishop judged within his own province. Significantly, the canon does not give Pope Julius the authority to judge the case himself but only to appoint “arbiters.” Most commentators consider the canon a temporary measure to deal with the problems caused by the attacks of the Arians against St. Athanasius and his supporters because the canon does not give the Pope the authority to appoint the Bishops to settle the matter, but specifically names Pope Julius. In any case, the canon was from a local council not an Ecumenical Council. Whatever authority Canon III of Sardica, it was overridden by the 4th Ecumenical Council. Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 established a procedure a “clergyman” can appeal a sentence passed against him to the Metropolitan. If he is still dissatisfied with the decision, he then can appeal his case to the Patriarch of Constantinople not the Pope in Rome. Although Pope St. Leo I protested Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon that gave Constantinople equal rank with Rome, he did not protest this canon. Thus, Rome at this point in history did not claim universal jurisdiction, but recognized the right of Constantinople to act as the final court of appeal for clergy.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

The Pope does not have to preside or send legates to a council. The Pope is head bishop of the universal body of bishops irregardless of whether he personally presides, or sends legates, to any one council, whether deemed ecumenical or not. All he needs to do as head bishop is to determine, along with his body of bishops in a collegial fashion, that the council is orthodox in her teachings. That determination can be made during the council, or after the council.

God bless,

Rony

No where do the canons of the Ecumenical Councils grant the Pope the authority to overrule a general council. The councils all assumed authority over all Bishops, including the Bishops of Rome. The historical example of a Pope who rejected a general council, is the rejection of Pope St. Leo I of the Council of Ephesus of 449. However, in order to have the decision to exonerate Eutyches of heresy overturned, St. Leo had to appeal to the emperor and the other Patriarchs to call another council to consider his objections to Ephesus 449. That was the Council of Chalcedon of 451, which instead of Ephesus 449 is recognized as an Ecumenical Council. As I have mentioned, but no one seems to notice. The Council of Chalcedon did not accept the Tome of Leo simply because it was written by a Pope. The council appointed a committee led by the Patriarch of Constantinople which studied the document, pronounced it orthodox and recommended its approval by the council. If the ancient Church had recognized the Pope to declare doctrine “ex cathedra” it would not have appointed a committee to study it to determine its orthodoxy.

Fr. John

 

[ronyodish]

No where do the canons of the Ecumenical Councils grant the Pope the authority to overrule a general council. The councils all assumed authority over all Bishops, including the Bishops of Rome. The historical example of a Pope who rejected a general council, is the rejection of Pope St. Leo I of the Council of Ephesus of 449. However, in order to have the decision to exonerate Eutyches of heresy overturned, St. Leo had to appeal to the emperor and the other Patriarchs to call another council to consider his objections to Ephesus 449. That was the Council of Chalcedon of 451, which instead of Ephesus 449 is recognized as an Ecumenical Council. As I have mentioned, but no one seems to notice. The Council of Chalcedon did not accept the Tome of Leo simply because it was written by a Pope. The council appointed a committee led by the Patriarch of Constantinople which studied the document, pronounced it orthodox and recommended its approval by the council. If the ancient Church had recognized the Pope to declare doctrine “ex cathedra” it would not have appointed a committee to study it to determine its orthodoxy.

Fr. Morris,

If the general council is teaching the orthodox faith, then why should the Pope overrule it? The Pope and bishops, as a head to a body, are together responsible for the orthodoxy of councils. If the body is teaching truth, why should the head object? If the head is teaching truth, why should the body object?

Now, the head produces a document (in this case, Tome of St. Leo), and the body checks it to see if it confirms the orthodox faith… there is nothing wrong with that… it is an exercise in collegiality. Likewise, the body can produce a document, and the head confirms its orthodoxy (in this case, St. Leo accepts the confession of Chalcedon), again, an exercise in collegiality. Neither the head does all the work in opposition to the body, nor the body does all the work in opposition to the head.

Chalcedon was a case of conciliar infallibility, since both the head and body taught the orthodox faith.

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

If the general council is teaching the orthodox faith, then why should the Pope overrule it? The Pope and bishops, as a head to a body, are together responsible for the orthodoxy of councils. If the body is teaching truth, why should the head object? If the head is teaching truth, why should the body object?

Now, the head produces a document (in this case, Tome of St. Leo), and the body checks it to see if it confirms the orthodox faith… there is nothing wrong with that… it is an exercise in collegiality. Likewise, the body can produce a document, and the head confirms its orthodoxy (in this case, St. Leo accepts the confession of Chalcedon), again, an exercise in collegiality. Neither the head does all the work in opposition to the body, nor the body does all the work in opposition to the head.

Chalcedon was a case of conciliar infallibility, since both the head and body taught the orthodox faith.

God bless,

Rony

You miss the point. Pope St. Leo I did not have the authority modern Popes have to issue an “ex cathedra” declaration establishing the doctrine of the Church. For the Tome of Leo to have ecumenical authority, it had to be accepted by an Ecumenical Council which had the rigth to examine the Tome to decide if it was orthodox. Only after the committee of the council decided that the Tome was orthodox was it approved. It was not accepted automatically because it was written by the Pope, an authority claimed by the Popes since Vatican I. Have you read the decrees of Vatican I? They give the Pope absolute authority over the Church. According to Vatican I the Pope is not answerable to a general council or to any other authority in the Church. If a modern Pope teaches heresy, there is no way that he can be suspended or his decision overturned. If a Pope is corrupt as was Alexander VI, there is no way to remove him. That was not the case before the schism. The Popes were under the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, not over them. Ecumenical Councils even had the authority to declare a Pope heretical as the 6th Council did to Pope Honorius I. It is not healthy to give as much power and authority to one man as Vatican I gave to the Popes.
By giving the Pope the absolute authority given them by Vatican I, the Catholic Church has no real collegiality. Our system has real collegiality because a Patriarch can be overruled by the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate. A corrupt Patriarch can be thrown out of office, as happened in Jerusalem several years ago. If a Patriarch falls into heresy either the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate, or the other Patriarchs meeting in council can remove him. In the Catholic Church there is no way to remove a bad Pope. No one reading the history of the papacy can deny that there have been bad Popes.
There have also been Popes whose teachings the modern Catholic Church rejects. In 1302 Pope Boniface VIII issued a Papal Bull called “Unan Sanctam,” which claimed that the Popes have supreme authority even over the state, and stated, “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” In 1864, Pope Pius IX issued the “Syllabus of Errors” that condemned liberalism, which at that time in history meant democracy. The Catholic Church does claim authority over the state, teach that only Catholics can be saved or condemn democracy today. Thus even the Catholic Church, despite Vatican I, recognizes that even Popes can be wrong.

Fr. John