Orthodoxy and the Papacy.

[bobzills]

What a teaching actually means is seen in the practical world as the teaching is given a doctrinal exposition. Abuse of the taught teaching cannot change what the teaching actually is. In fact, if abuse of doctrine that is clearly taught changes the actual teaching, the ancient Church’s teaching on simony would have changed during the latter part of the first millennium, as this teaching was discarded in the action of various Western prelates.

God bless,

Adam

Is the USA annulment process an abuse or not?
It is either one way or the other. In either case, it really doesn;t matter in the real world situation, because when a couple obtains an annulment, this annulment is recognised throughout the entire Catholic world, and the each person is free to marry in the RCC. So it really is not much different from the recognition of divorce by other Churches. It is only an exercise in semantics, because the results are the same in either case.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Maybe I missed it. What was the ex cathedra statement? Actions aren’t ex cathedra, statements and proclamations are.

Yes it was a dogma written by Pope St. Leo I

 

[holdencaulfield]

Good point. Who proclaimed that Pope Leo’s tome was a dogma? Many Roman Catholic apologists still don’t see it as dogmatic. Our friend seems to be engaging in creative historical analysis here.

An Ecumenical Council proclaimed it was dogma after Pope St. Hormisdas I told them too. This meets all of the requirements of an Ex Cathedra statement.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I agree with you. The horrible abuse of the annulment system in the Western Church doesn’t change the fact that the doctrine of Catholicism remains that a marriage can only be proved non-existent and not ended by divorce. This doctrinal principle remains constant even if its application is clouded by abuse. And since we ought to discuss objective doctrine on this forum and not subjective abuse of application, I think we should cease bringing up the annulment abuse issue, as this proves nothing regarding the actual teaching of Catholicism (which is what matters in a discussion of what truth entails).

God point. This is not about abuses, it’s about doctrine.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Ex cathedra is an idiom or expression meaning the definition of doctrine by supreme apostolic authority. In the pre-1054 days, this was done in a different way, when the popes enforced their teachings under penalty of anathema. Holden is correct; the formula of Pope Hormisdas is an example (see link), and I would submit that the Lateran Council of 649 was another.

I’m somewhat confused. Most Roman Catholic apologists say that there are only two examples of papal infallibility in Church history. The first was the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the second was the proclamation of the Assumption in 1950. Are these apologists mistaken?

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

Is the USA annulment process an abuse or not?

It is an abuse, even by Orthodox standards.

It is either one way or the other. In either case, it really doesn;t matter in the real world situation, because when a couple obtains an annulment, this annulment is recognised throughout the entire Catholic world, and the each person is free to marry in the RCC. So it really is not much different from the recognition of divorce by other Churches.

It doesn’t matter only if you carry a non-religious worldview. However, if you are looking for the true Christian teaching on marriage, an abuse isn’t going to deter you. In such cases, the actual teaching of a Church on marriage is going to be more important. Since we are concerned with matters of faith on the forum, I think we should stick to the truth/falsity of the beliefs, themselves, and not their subjective application.

It is only an exercise in semantics, because the results are the same in either case.

But the results don’t change the actual teaching, which must be evaluated in what it says, not how people apply it. Doctrinal truth or error is found in the doctrinal proposition, not in how well it is applied.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

I’m somewhat confused. Most Roman Catholic apologists say that there are only two examples of papal infallibility in Church history. The first was the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the second was the proclamation of the Assumption in 1950. Are these apologists mistaken?

Technically there are no Ex Cathedra statements. The Church has never defined what statements are Ex Cathedra and what aren’t. It is arguable on many statements whether they are Ex Cathedra or not. There are at least five or six commonly accepted statements, however there is probably more that are lesser remembered. St. Peters letters could be considered Ex Cathedra as well because they are written by the Bishop of Rome, and concern the entire Church. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption are always almost accepted as Ex Cathedra.

 

[wynd]

Technically there are no Ex Cathedra statements. The Church has never defined what statements are Ex Cathedra and what aren’t. It is arguable on many statements whether they are Ex Cathedra or not. There are at least five or six commonly accepted statements, however there is probably more that are lesser remembered. St. Peters letters could be considered Ex Cathedra as well because they are written by the Bishop of Rome, and concern the entire Church. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption are always almost accepted as Ex Cathedra.

So what is the point of even having this teaching if no one knows when it’s in effect?

 

[holdencaulfield]

So what is the point of even having this teaching if no one knows when it’s in effect?

To know that the Pope can teach Infallibly. The Council of Vatican I stated this as dogma, so that therefore we know that the Pope can and always has taught Infallibly. I would suggest reading the documents of Vatican I if you would like to learn more. We do also know when it’s in effect, because if meets certain conditions, however my point was that there is no list of Ex Cathedra statements, one must discern that, sometimes it is east and other times it is hard.

 

[wynd]

To know that the Pope can teach Infallibly. The Council of Vatican I stated this as dogma, so that therefore we know that the Pope can and always has taught Infallibly. I would suggest reading the documents of Vatican I if you would like to learn more. We do also know when it’s in effect, because if meets certain conditions, however my point was that there is no list of Ex Cathedra statements, one must discern that, sometimes it is east and other times it is hard.

I have read the documents. My point is, this teaching is supposed to give the pope the ability to clear up doubt and give assurance that certain beliefs are absolutely eternally correct. Now, if one cannot even figure out which beliefs have this special protection, how does this clear up doubt? We’re back to square one at best and being misled at worst.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I have read the documents. My point is, this teaching is supposed to give the pope the ability to clear up doubt and give assurance that certain beliefs are absolutely eternally correct. Now, if one cannot even figure out which beliefs have this special protection, how does this clear up doubt? We’re back to square one at best and being misled at worst.

No we are not. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption are two excellent examples of an Ex Cathedra statement. Because of the way they are worded, with the guidelines set forth by Vatican I we can know that they are Infallible. My only point was towards our Orthodox brethren was that there is no list of Ex Cathedra statements and thus there were several that were made before 1054 (at least two). The Pope does not say they are teaching something Ex Cathedra, we merely know because of context.

 

[bobzills]

Now, if one cannot even figure out which beliefs have this special protection, how does this clear up doubt? .

It would be nice to have a list of exactly what is and what is not to be held infallibly.

 

[bobzills]

It is an abuse, even by Orthodox standards.

That’s strange that the current annulment process in the USA is an abuse, according to your opinion, but the Vatican accepts the annulment declarations of the US tribunals at the recent rate of more than 50,000 per year in some cases. Why would the Vatican accept all of these marriage annulments if they are given by what you seem to be saying is a supposedly abusive process? If it is an abuse, and it has been going on for so long, why does the Vatican accept the second marriages of these couples as valid?

 

[Mickey]

A Pope can be a heretic. Popes are not always Infallible. When a Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra, if he said something that contradicts previous Tradition, even though he is speaking in a Infallible manner what he says is fallible and not true if it contradicts previous Tradition.

So the Pope is infallible when speaking ex-cathedra, unless he is fallible because he has contradicted Tradition–in which case he is not really speaking infallibly because his fallibility has trumped his infallibility.

And we are really not sure what is meant by an ex-cathedra statement.

Sounds like a fail safe system to me. :whacky:

 

[zagjames]

That’s strange that the current annulment process in the USA is an abuse, according to your opinion, but the Vatican accepts the annulment declarations of the US tribunals at the recent rate of more than 50,000 per year in some cases. Why would the Vatican accept all of these marriage annulments if they are given by what you seem to be saying is a supposedly abusive process? If it is an abuse, and it has been going on for so long, why does the Vatican accept the second marriages of these couples as valid?

Because the Vatican does not question the cannonical authority of the dioceses in doing this, the dioceses have the authority to anull marriages. The Vatican is and has been pressuring US dioceses to be stricter on anullments. But each dioceses is in some ways autonomous.

The Vatican is not some big watch dog, or police agent. They lead the church spiritually and give some practical direction. Rarely do they intervine on things that are a diocesian perogative. Correct me if Im wrong on this, but this is how I understand it.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Sounds like a fail safe system to me. :whacky:

Well, in a way it is. Because many Popes have spoken Infallibly in the past and have been taken with Ex Cathedra statements we know that if something contradicts Tradition then it is false. This is just the same as Ecumenical Councils being Infallible. I doubt that you would say a Council that Contradicts Tradition is Infallible you would be contradicting something. It’s just the same as your belief on Councils.

 

[holdencaulfield]

The Vatican is not some big watch dog, or police agent. They lead the church spiritually and give some practical direction. Rarely do they intervine on things that are a diocesian perogative. Correct me if Im wrong on this, but this is how I understand it.

True good point.

 

[Mickey]

Well, in a way it is. Because many Popes have spoken Infallibly in the past

Infallibility/ supremacy was not known in the first millenium. Then Pius IX and the ultramontanes invent and define this odd doctrine in 1870 and the Latin Church proceeds to retroactively apply it to all of Church history. I would say that the doctrine of infallibility /supremacy is against “Tradition” and hence Pius IX was a fallible Pope who was defining a new and strange doctrine. Oh the irony!

 

[Mickey]

The Vatican is not some big watch dog

Are you sure about that?

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_2_8.gif%between%

 

[zagjames]

ultramontanes

But Micky from Rome you are ultramonane!