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

[PatrickC]

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.

So you’re telling me that Papal Infallibility covers faulty translations as well? I’ve never heard that one before.

 

[Nine_Two]

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

From the title it sounds like they will be invited. Whether or not they decide to attend will be something else. I suspect some of their leaders will come.

 

[Wandile]

So you’re telling me that Papal Infallibility covers faulty translations as well? I’ve never heard that one before.

Declaring an erroneous bible as official version of the church is a matter of faith. The Council of Trent having stamped the Vulgate as “authentic,” ordered that a correct edition of the authentic, authorized Vulgate Bible should be published. Pope Sixtus V undertook this task. In his preface he claims supremacy over the group of translators, because he had authority as successor to Peter. He tells of the endless hours he spent reading the opinions of others and judging the validity of their arguments. When the work was printed he corrected the press-proof personally. Most certainly, then, we should expect the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible to be totally error-free, right? After all, it was a work approved and published by a Pope. Pope Sixtus’s edition appeared in 1590. In the front matter, Sixtus affirmed the plenary authority of the edition for all future time in these words:

“By the fullness of apostolic power we decree and declare that this edition, approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned, in all public and private discussion, reading, preaching, and explanations.”

Pope Sixtus pronounced that all readings in other editions and manuscripts, which might vary from these of this Vulgate edition, should have no credit or authority for the future. It was forbidden to alter the version in the smallest particle; and anyone who thought or did otherwise was condemned to excommunication. Here was an ‘ex-cathedra’ declaration on a matter of faith, from the Pope. Linguists and scholars who were really competent to judge that the edition found it full of errors. Yet they could say or do nothing for fear of being excommunicated.

 

[MichaelinMD]

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 a saint is in heaven irrespective of any formal canonization process. But, I think you probably knew that.

 

[MichaelinMD]

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?

Are you “Netodox”? Wow! Well, if you are, you get to call me anything you like–just not late fore dinner!

I know many Catholics are confused about any number of things. Unfortunately, Catholic catechesis, esp. in this country, hasn’t been all that great the last 40-50 years. And the Church is suffering mightily as a result. But, a list of infallible statements, of which, as has already been said, there are probably thousands, won’t fix that. If you have questions about what Catholics do and don’t believe, there is an abundance of resources available to you. You could start here: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm or here: amazon.com/dp/0895556421/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=291NOHX69788R&coliid=I13MEMN56T1HY3

 

[Vico]

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?

The Assumption definition does not state one way or the other the The Blessed Virgin Mary died. That is not part of the dogma… we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
however it is taught, as shown outside the definition: … this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[Tomdstone]

I not even sure what first among equals means

Would it mean that he has the right to chair a meeting of the bishops, but that his vote on Church matters is equal to everyone else’s?

 

[Tomdstone]

Along these lines, does anyone believe that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, would be willing to accept the title of “First Among Equals” for the sake of reunification? Just asking.

This is the big stumbling block which is preventing reunion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible and has universal jurisdiction. “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Boniface VIII (ca. 1235–1303), in Unam Sanctam. The Orthodox Church does not recognize this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Would it mean that he has the right to chair a meeting of the bishops, but that his vote on Church matters is equal to everyone else’s?

When you have more time to chat please show the patistric writing on “First among equals”. I’m sure you have the writings from antiquity to confirm this ideal?

 

[Tomdstone]

When you have more time to chat please show the patistric writing on “First among equals”. I’m sure you have the writings from antiquity to confirm this ideal?

See:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
paragraphs 35, 40, and 41 are relevant.

 

[KathleenGee]

The more I read about Pope Pius XII, the more I am impressed with all that he did in the most difficult times of the 20th century, and the special graces he received while most faithfully leading the Church.

He used the word, ‘assumed’…we Assume Mary was taken into heaven because she did not sin and the wages of sin are death. Likewise as Mary followed our Lord into glory, we too some day will join with them in heaven.

Likewise as my pastor said one time, ‘When the pope speaks, the world listens’.

The Holy Father is the sign of unity and communion in the Church. He can only draw back on the deposit of faith in Jesus Christ. He cannot teach beyond Christ, the Alpha and the Omega.

Pope Benedict in his papal writings, was clear when stating his own personal opinion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

relevant.

There is no mention of “first among equals” and I have to assume you didn’t find these words anywhere in Church history? They don’t exist my friend so let us not talk falsely here.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no mention of “first among equals” and I have to assume you didn’t find these words anywhere in Church history? They don’t exist my friend so let us not talk falsely here.

The document does say this:
" Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs."

 

[Seraphignatius]

The document does say this:
" Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs."

First (protos) among the patriarchs is not first among equals. First among equals is a term refering to the most senior member of those holding the same office. When Peter was made Prime Minister of the eternal Davidic kingdom he wasn’t simply made the most senior of the ministers, he was the guy with the keys.

Further this document holds no more authority than the balamand statement, i.e. (for those not actually negotiating at these dialogues.) none.

 

[Wandile]

The document does say this:
" Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs."

All that says is that the Pope is first among the patriarchs. That’s believed even today. But first among the equals? There is no such wording in the texts of the fathers. Although the fathers do make mention the the pope being “head” of the church

 

[Tomdstone]

All that says is that the Pope is first among the patriarchs. That’s believed even today. But first among the equals? There is no such wording in the texts of the fathers. Although the fathers do make mention the the pope being “head” of the church

See: Pope Benedict XVI: The Light of the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald (2010) p. 88-89:
where this is discussed.

 

[Wandile]

I will read it. In the meantime can you provide me a quote from at least 1 father saying the pope is first among equals?

 

[Seraphignatius]

I will read it. In the meantime can you provide me a quote from at least 1 father saying the pope is first among equals?

He can’t because they didn’t say it. Just like they didn’t say that Ecumenical Councils only count if the people listen to them. (In fact, I seem to recall the canons of the apostles having some negative statements towards rebellious flocks.) Hopefully, by Gods grace, within our lifetime the bulk of the Non Florentine Apostolic Churches will cease their second millennium innovations.

 

[Cavaradossi]

All that says is that the Pope is first among the patriarchs. That’s believed even today. But first among the equals? There is no such wording in the texts of the fathers. Although the fathers do make mention the the pope being “head” of the church

Yet St. Basil the Great called Antioch the head of the Church. Furthermore, kephale (head) was a title of honor and affection used commonly in Greek writing. For example, St. John Climacus in the Ladder of Divine ascent addresses Abba John of Raithu (by whose request the Ladder was written) ‘dear and holy head,’ though he was not under Abba John’s authority.

 

[Tomdstone]

I will read it. In the meantime can you provide me a quote from at least 1 father saying the pope is first among equals?

According to St. ignatius of Antioch: “In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
There is no indication that the Bishop of Rome is somehow above the other bishops. The implication here is that the apostolic bishop is supreme by himself, not because he is under Rome. IOW, the bishops are equal.
When St. Basil wrote to the west for help against Arianism he addressed his letter thusly:
“To his brethren truly God-beloved and very dear, and fellow ministers of like mind, the bishops of Gaul and Italy, Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia”
If the Bishop of Rome (or Italy) was the head of the Church, why then did St. Basil not address him as such? He places him on equal terms with the bishop of Gaul.
Once again we see and indication that the bishops are equal.