ORTHODOX-VATICAN - Bartholomew: With Francis, we invite all Christians to celebrate the first synod of Nicaea in 2025 [AN]

[dvdjs]

Yes, there is a sense in which Orthodox ecclesiology is “even to this day” a little imprecise and messy.

Excellent. But then why point someone to " Orthodox resources clarifying exactly what the Orthodox mean by this"? The reality is that the Orthodox cannot this clarify exactly, because they disagree. And at this time the EP and MP disagree rather starkly.

To my mind, that is better than having a collection of dogmatic (some even “infallible”) definitions, which are precise to the utmost degree, and with respect to which Catholic apologists have to have go through frightful verbal gymnastics to make them square with contemporary Catholic ecclesiology. Dictatus Papae and Unam Sanctam are examples. In other words, better to leave things a little messy than to overdefine and overreach and then have to retract. At least to my mind.
The idea that there are definitions that are precise to the utmost degree is over-exaggerated, as is the idea of “frightful” verbal gymnastics, or retractions. The simple reality is that that is scarcely possible to write a text on a complex subject whose meaning is precise to the utmost degree, hence volumes of writings follow interpreting, clarifying, amplifying. This is normal.

 

[PatrickC]

Yes, there is a sense in which Orthodox ecclesiology is “even to this day” a little imprecise and messy. To my mind, that is better than having a collection of dogmatic (some even “infallible”) definitions, which are precise to the utmost degree, and with respect to which Catholic apologists have to have go through frightful verbal gymnastics to make them square with contemporary Catholic ecclesiology. Dictatus Papae and Unam Sanctam are examples. In other words, better to leave things a little messy than to overdefine and overreach and then have to retract. At least to my mind.

You’d think a Pope might just once and for all come right out and say exactly which statements are infallible. Catholics can’t even seem to agree how many, if any, there have been. What’s the use of infallibility if no one is quite sure when you’re exercising it? It kind of makes me wonder why the Emperors bothered calling all those ecumenical councils when they should have been aware they need only consult the infallible Pope of Rome.

 

[Wandile]

You’d think a Pope might just once and for all come right out and say exactly which statements are infallible. Catholics can’t even seem to agree how many, if any, there have been. What’s the use of infallibility if no one is quite sure when you’re exercising it? It kind of makes me wonder why the Emperors bothered calling all those ecumenical councils when they should have been aware they need only consult the infallible Pope of Rome.

Why the need for,the list? All our teaching from the past is already kept in the CCC and other documents. The only relevant ones to know are the immaculate conception and assumption.

This must be some of the worst reasoning I’ve ever come across. The idea that the Pope says something and everybody will listen is unrealistic. Even today in the CC the pope official says something and yet not everybody listens. Can somebody 500 years from now look back and say “see, the pope didn’t have such authority because nobody obeyed him”?

If you think the ecumenical councils were what caused all the other heresies to disappear, you are mistaken. It was the sword of emperor that caused the heretics to disappear. The councils had authority but nobody obeyed them (on the side of the heretics) until the emperor waved his sword at them. Just because you have authority or even an infallible mouth piece does not mean people will listen.

I personally believe the tome of Leo was an Ex Cathedra statement and proof of this is that after the commission examined the letter, it was shown to be Orthodox and was the symbol of Chalcedon. He dared to send a letter to the council to end all debates and have bits teaching binding on the church. A risky move considering he could’ve taught heresy. But the holy spirit will never let such a thing happen and the tome was sound orthodox doctrine.

 

[MichaelinMD]

Why the need for,the list? All our teaching from the past is already kept in the CCC and other documents. The only relevant ones to know are the immaculate conception and assumption.

This must be some of the worst reasoning I’ve ever come across. The idea that the Pope says something and everybody will listen is unrealistic. Even today in the CC the pope official says something and yet not everybody listens. Can somebody 500 years from now look back and say “see, the pope didn’t have such authority because nobody obeyed him”?

If you think the ecumenical councils were what caused all the other heresies to disappear, you are mistaken. It was the sword of emperor that caused the heretics to disappear. The councils had authority but nobody obeyed them (on the side of the heretics) until the emperor waved his sword at them. Just because you have authority or even an infallible mouth piece does not mean people will listen.

I personally believe the tome of Leo was an Ex Cathedra statement and proof of this is that after the commission examined the letter, it was shown to be Orthodox and was the symbol of Chalcedon. He dared to send a letter to the council to end all debates and have bits teaching binding on the church. A risky move considering he could’ve taught heresy. But the holy spirit will never let such a thing happen and the tome was sound orthodox doctrine.

It’s not an uncommon practice amongst Netodox to demand a certified, notarized “list” of infallible papal statements and then, when one isn’t instantly (or ever) produced (mainly because it’s irrelevant to anything) take that as proof positive that there is no such thing as papal infallibility via Ex Cathedra statements or via anything else for that matter. I can’t help but wonder if someone did put such a “list” together, if any Orthodox Christian would even accept it anyway, and if they did, would they ask to be received into the Catholic Church on the strength of it?

(My, how we have digressed from the OP !)

 

[wynd]

It’s not an uncommon practice amongst Netodox to demand a certified, notarized “list” of infallible papal statements and then, when one isn’t instantly (or ever) produced (mainly because it’s irrelevant to anything) take that as proof positive that there is no such thing as papal infallibility via Ex Cathedra statements or via anything else for that matter. I can’t help but wonder if someone did put such a “list” together, if any Orthodox Christian would even accept it anyway, and if they did, would they ask to be received into the Catholic Church on the strength of it?

We just wonder why bother with such a church-dividing dogma if you can’t even know when it’s used?

(My, how we have digressed from the OP !)

You must be new here

 

[MichaelinMD]

We just wonder why bother with such a church-dividing dogma if you can’t even know when it’s used?

Well, Wandile provided a pretty good answer above. Also, did you know, too, that every canonization of a saint is infallible? (Did someone already mention that here, or am I getting confused with another thread or board?) So…the “list” could be pretty long…Besides, unless I’m mistaken, the Church was divided long before 1870.

 

[josie_L]

It’s not an uncommon practice amongst Netodox to demand a certified, notarized “list” of infallible papal statements and then, when one isn’t instantly (or ever) produced (mainly because it’s irrelevant to anything) take that as proof positive that there is no such thing as papal infallibility via Ex Cathedra statements or via anything else for that matter. I can’t help but wonder if someone did put such a “list” together, if any Orthodox Christian would even accept it anyway, and if they did, would they ask to be received into the Catholic Church on the strength of it?

(My, how we have digressed from the OP !)

Apparently, there are thousands, but again, it serves no purpose to have such a list, i.e., papal infallibility exists regardless of a list.

p.s. Jesus prayed that St. Peter’s faith would never fail.

 

[PatrickC]

Well, Wandile provided a pretty good answer above. Also, did you know, too, that every canonization of a saint is infallible? (Did someone already mention that here, or am I getting confused with another thread or board?) So…the “list” could be pretty long…Besides, unless I’m mistaken, the Church was divided long before 1870.

There wasn’t always a canonization process the way there is now. Would that mean Saints like St Nicholas or St George could be somewhere other than heaven? Is that a possibility, no matter how remote?

 

[PatrickC]

It’s not an uncommon practice amongst Netodox to demand a certified, notarized “list” of infallible papal statements and then, when one isn’t instantly (or ever) produced (mainly because it’s irrelevant to anything) take that as proof positive that there is no such thing as papal infallibility via Ex Cathedra statements or via anything else for that matter. I can’t help but wonder if someone did put such a “list” together, if any Orthodox Christian would even accept it anyway, and if they did, would they ask to be received into the Catholic Church on the strength of it?

(My, how we have digressed from the OP !)

I’d say it’s absolutely critical to know what dogmas have been infallibly defined. Take the Assumption of the Mother of God: I’ve been assured by plenty of Catholics that they aren’t required to believe that she died at all, that it isn’t part of the dogma, despite numerous references to it in the document pronouncing it. That’s quite confusing, don’t you think? Not only can no one be sure when the Pope of Rome is making an infallible statement; when they’re pretty sure he has, they can’t even be sure how much of his statement is infallible. Of course we wouldn’t accept Papal infallibility even if a list was produced, but it would at least make make the concept a bit more coherent.

By the way, if I’m “Netodox”, what do we get to call you?

 

[phil19034]

Well, maybe instead of ridicule a little more good-faith effort might be called for. There is no lack of Orthodox resources clarifying exactly what the Orthodox mean by this. Three I would suggest are: Christ’s Broken Body by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck (which deals with all the issues surrounding the schism); You Are Peter by Olivier Clement and the essays collected in The Primacy of Peter, collected by Fr. Meyendorff.

Despite what has been said here, “first among equals” is a very ancient concept and does not mean the Bishop of Rome has no unique authority among bishops. Very briefly, “first” means that the Bishop of Rome has unique privileges on account of his succession to the Patriarchate founded by Sts. Peter and Paul. Among these privileges would be a unique place of persuasive leadership such as exercised by St Peter at the Council of Jerusalem, and perhaps some final appellate authority. “Equals” means that he received from Christ the same essential powers given to all the Apostles at John 21. This is nothing but what was taught by St. Cyril of Carthage, among other church fathers. Excluded from this title would be any power to unilaterally bind the whole Church to dogmas which was seemingly given to him by the western bishops at Vatican I.

More or less, this is the role of the Pope from a Catholic prospective and how the Pope functions with his Brother Bishops. People often wonder why the Vatican doesn’t get involved with issues in the Dioceses… It’s because the local Bishop is in charge.

Vatican I did not create a new role for the Pope. It defined what was already there. The Church is supposed to be infallible on issues of Faith and Morals (nothing more), protected by Christ and the Holy Spirit. If the Church is infallible regarding the teaching of Faith and Morals, then you can’t have the Pope teaching heresy. If the Pope cannot teach heresy because Christ will not allow it, then hence the Pope is infallible in regards to the teaching of Faith and Morals. Not due to his office, but due to Christ.

Just like the first 7 councils didn’t create anything new, Vatican I simply defined articles of Faith.

The way you describe “First Among Equals” above would most-likely be ok with the Pope. Each Church could have its own leader and the Pope only gets involved when there is disagreements, in which his word is final. Just like Peter’s in Acts.

There are only 3 ordinations: Deacon, Priest & Bishop. Popes and Cardinals are not another level of Ordination.

Lets compare the Church to an American law firm. The Bishops are like the Partners in a firm. Some have more primacy or responsibility over others, but they are all Partners. The Pope is like the Managing Partner. The buck stops with the managing partner, but he is still a partner. However, the Managing Partner has the ability to iron out issues among the partners and when needed remove partners. The priests are like the associates and the Deacons like paralegals. In reality, this is very much how the Church runs.

When (and I say when) we reunite, I expect the Pope to act like a Managing Partner and the patriarchs to act like a the Managing Partner of every individual office of in a multi-office law firm.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

There wasn’t always a canonization process the way there is now. Would that mean Saints like St Nicholas or St George could be somewhere other than heaven? Is that a possibility, no matter how remote?

No, because the canonizations of Saints is an infallible act by the Church. The method used to learn about the saint can differ. But Christ will not allow the Church to declare or define dogmatically something which is not true.

It’s like the different Rites of the Liturgy. Each are different expressions of the same Truth.

God Bless.

 

[PatrickC]

More or less, this is the role of the Pope from a Catholic prospective and how the Pope functions with his Brother Bishops. People often wonder why the Vatican doesn’t get involved with issues in the Dioceses… It’s because the local Bishop is in charge.

Vatican I did not create a new role for the Pope. It defined what was already there. The Church is supposed to be infallible on issues of Faith and Morals (nothing more), protected by Christ and the Holy Spirit. If the Church is infallible regarding the teaching of Faith and Morals, then you can’t have the Pope teaching heresy. If the Pope cannot teach heresy because Christ will not allow it, then hence the Pope is infallible in regards to the teaching of Faith and Morals. Not due to his office, but due to Christ.

Just like the first 7 councils didn’t create anything new, Vatican I simply defined articles of Faith.

The way you describe “First Among Equals” above would most-likely be ok with the Pope. Each Church could have its own leader and the Pope only gets involved when there is disagreements, in which his word is final. Just like Peter’s in Acts.

There are only 3 ordinations: Deacon, Priest & Bishop. Popes and Cardinals are not another level of Ordination.

Lets compare the Church to an American law firm. The Bishops are like the Partners in a firm. Some have more primacy or responsibility over others, but they are all Partners. The Pope is like the Managing Partner. The buck stops with the managing partner, but he is still a partner. However, the Managing Partner has the ability to iron out issues among the partners and when needed remove partners. The priests are like the associates and the Deacons like paralegals. In reality, this is very much how the Church runs.

When (and I say when) we reunite, I expect the Pope to act like a Managing Partner and the patriarchs to act like a the Managing Partner of every individual office of in a multi-office law firm.

God Bless

There’s the problem: the idea that the Pope cannot teach heresy does not automatically flow logically from the idea that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. We don’t believe the Bishop of Rome enjoys any special charisma of the sort, nor do we believe any such charisma was bestowed upon any one Bishop by Christ. We don’t see Christ’s “on this rock” statement as implying anything like what Catholics say it implies.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Excellent. But then why point someone to " Orthodox resources clarifying exactly what the Orthodox mean by this"? The reality is that the Orthodox cannot this clarify exactly, because they disagree. And at this time the EP and MP disagree rather starkly.

To my mind, that is better than having a collection of dogmatic (some even “infallible”) definitions, which are precise to the utmost degree, and with respect to which Catholic apologists have to have go through frightful verbal gymnastics to make them square with contemporary Catholic ecclesiology. Dictatus Papae and Unam Sanctam are examples. In other words, better to leave things a little messy than to overdefine and overreach and then have to retract. At least to my mind.

The idea that there are definitions that are precise to the utmost degree is over-exaggerated, as is the idea of “frightful” verbal gymnastics, or retractions. The simple reality is that that is scarcely possible to write a text on a complex subject whose meaning is precise to the utmost degree, hence volumes of writings follow interpreting, clarifying, amplifying. This is normal.

As to your first question, if you would look back at the post I was responding to, the poster was ridiculing the notion of “first among equals” as nonsensical. I merely told him/her that he/she needed to do their homework, and I would say the same to you.

As one who has been involved in the past in protracted attempts to reconcile Unam Sanctam with Lumen Gentium and the contemporary idea of “implicit faith”, I stand by my characterization of frightful verbal gymnastics.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

It’s not an uncommon practice amongst Netodox to demand a certified, notarized “list” of infallible papal statements and then, when one isn’t instantly (or ever) produced (mainly because it’s irrelevant to anything) take that as proof positive that there is no such thing as papal infallibility via Ex Cathedra statements or via anything else for that matter. I can’t help but wonder if someone did put such a “list” together, if any Orthodox Christian would even accept it anyway, and if they did, would they ask to be received into the Catholic Church on the strength of it?

First of all, “certified, notarized list” is the usual internet hyperbole. Nobody here has demanded that, of course.

It’s quite a reasonable concern that Roman Catholics give widely divergent accounts of the occasions when what is supposed to be highest exercise of ecclesial authority, supposedly absolutely indispensable for the guidance of the Church, was actually exercised. If Catholics can’t agree on what is or isn’t an infallible statement, it pretty much defeats the purpose of the “gift” in the first place.

 

[phil19034]

There’s the problem: the idea that the Pope cannot teach heresy does not automatically flow logically from the idea that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. We don’t believe the Bishop of Rome enjoys any special charisma of the sort, nor do we believe any such charisma was bestowed upon any one Bishop by Christ. We don’t see Christ’s “on this rock” statement as implying anything like what Catholics say it implies.

1. We agree, the Bishop of Rome does not enjoy any special charisma. He is a man.
2. the idea that the cannot teach heresy does flow logically from the idea that the Church is infallible. Reason, if Peter’s successor has the final say in disagreements regarding Faith and Morals, and Christ promised that He would always protect the Church from teaching error, then the Pope is infallible because the Church is infallible. Christ will not let the Pope error in regards to Faith and morals. The last time one was about to teach Heresy, he dropped dead on the day he was going to proclaim the heresy.
3. the idea of infallibility does NOT mean that all Popes are Holy, DOES NOT mean they were all good people, and does NOT mean that they are even always right when it comes to decisions regarding bishops, Church government, discipline, methods of teaching, pastoral advise, etc. The Pope is human. The Pope can even believe in heresy and talk about heresy. But the moment a Pope would attempt to define a heresy as Dogma, God will intervene.
4. The Pope is part of the Magisterium of the Church, just like the other Bishops. However, the Pope is the recognized leader of the Church. If the faithful listen carefully to what the Pope says and teaches, and if the Church is the Living Body of Christ, then you can be sure that Christ will not allow one man to steer his sheep into the wrong direction and will makes sure that the successor of Peter will continue to fees His sheep.
5. Finally, the Pope does not have any special gifts that the other Bishops do not have. But it is Christ who allowed Peter to walk out to him on the water and it was Christ who picked him up when he started to sink. Christ works through His Church and continues to hold up the Chair of Peter and picks him up when he falls.

Thanks be to God!

 

[phil19034]

First of all, “certified, notarized list” is the usual internet hyperbole. Nobody here has demanded that, of course.

It’s quite a reasonable concern that Roman Catholics give widely divergent accounts of the occasions when what is supposed to be highest exercise of ecclesial authority, supposedly absolutely indispensable for the guidance of the Church, was actually exercised. If Catholics can’t agree on what is or isn’t an infallible statement, it pretty much defeats the purpose of the “gift” in the first place.

The reason “Catholics can’t agree on what is or isn’t an infallible statement” as you mention is because many people get confused (even some apologists) when a teaching has Dogma has been declared by the magisterium after the Pope unofficially defined it. Also, Dogma is rarely defined unless it is attempting to counter a heresy.

Example: There is some question regarding whether St. Pope John Paul II infallibly defined the notion that women cannot be ordained. St John Paul didn’t define or declare it. The magisterium and universal church already believed that women cannot be ordained. St. JPII simply addressed it. He was not sitting on his cathedra when he declared it, and he didn’t not put it in writing that he declared it. The Pope did not specifically say he was defining dogma. But it is dogma because the magisterium of the Church has always believed this.

Pope cannot define new dogma on a whim. The pope cannot declare that all Christians must now worship the sun or worship Mary. It doesn’t work that way because we have never done those things in 2000 years.

But the pope and/or councils (and usually via a council) can define a dogma which is being questioned or contains disagreements. Disciplines on the other hand can be different from Rite to Rite and Church to Church.

God bless

 

[Seraphignatius]

You’d think a Pope might just once and for all come right out and say exactly which statements are infallible. Catholics can’t even seem to agree how many, if any, there have been. What’s the use of infallibility if no one is quite sure when you’re exercising it? It kind of makes me wonder why the Emperors bothered calling all those ecumenical councils when they should have been aware they need only consult the infallible Pope of Rome.

This is a ridiculously common error. The conditions for infallibility are clear.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

 

[PatrickC]

1. We agree, the Bishop of Rome does not enjoy any special charisma. He is a man.
2. the idea that the cannot teach heresy does flow logically from the idea that the Church is infallible. Reason, if Peter’s successor has the final say in disagreements regarding Faith and Morals, and Christ promised that He would always protect the Church from teaching error, then the Pope is infallible because the Church is infallible. Christ will not let the Pope error in regards to Faith and morals. The last time one was about to teach Heresy, he dropped dead on the day he was going to proclaim the heresy.
3. the idea of infallibility does NOT mean that all Popes are Holy, DOES NOT mean they were all good people, and does NOT mean that they are even always right when it comes to decisions regarding bishops, Church government, discipline, methods of teaching, pastoral advise, etc. The Pope is human. The Pope can even believe in heresy and talk about heresy. But the moment a Pope would attempt to define a heresy as Dogma, God will intervene.
4. The Pope is part of the Magisterium of the Church, just like the other Bishops. However, the Pope is the recognized leader of the Church. If the faithful listen carefully to what the Pope says and teaches, and if the Church is the Living Body of Christ, then you can be sure that Christ will not allow one man to steer his sheep into the wrong direction and will makes sure that the successor of Peter will continue to fees His sheep.
5. Finally, the Pope does not have any special gifts that the other Bishops do not have. But it is Christ who allowed Peter to walk out to him on the water and it was Christ who picked him up when he started to sink. Christ works through His Church and continues to hold up the Chair of Peter and picks him up when he falls.

Thanks be to God!

I have to point out that number two which you mention is nothing more than an Internet legend. I’ve read it a handful of times on this forum. The truth is that no one can back it up with any facts whatsoever. I’d like it if you would provide proof of your claim that a Pope dropped dead before teaching a heresy. I’m well aware of the difference between impeccability and infallibility.

 

[Honorius]

Getting back on topic, anyone know whether or not the Oriental Orthodox Churches will be in attendance?

 

[Wandile]

I have to point out that number two which you mention is nothing more than an Internet legend. I’ve read it a handful of times on this forum. The truth is that no one can back it up with any facts whatsoever. I’d like it if you would provide proof of your claim that a Pope dropped dead before teaching a heresy. I’m well aware of the difference between impeccability and infallibility.

Actually its real :

Pope Sixtus V, 1585 - 1590 was, in most repects, a very successful pope. He eliminated lawlessnes in northern Italy, re-filled the Vatican treasury by the use of good business sense and gained control of a rambunctious college of cardinals.
What he was not was a Latin scholar. Nevertheless, he re-translated the Vulgate. The result was a Bible of errors.
He had already issued the bull on his new Vulgate and had it printed. The night before it was to be issued, he died, apparently of natural causes.
St. Robert Bellarmine re-re-translated the Vulgate, correctly, and it was issued properly.
newadvent.org/cathen/14033a.htm
This is a great example to illustrate the protection the Holy Spirit exerts over the Church and the pope, to protect them from error in faith and morals.