Orthodoxy, Papacy

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes, yes, yes, and infallible. Happy? And your point is? Are you trying to imply that because the apostles who wrote epistles and who lived, were taught by, and inspired by the Holy Spirit to write epistles and lead the first churches and were infallible, this means that the pope is as well? If Paul was infallible and Peter, then I guess all the people who followed Paul in succession were infallible just like the pope is to Peter. What’s your point?

I asked simple questions.

did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly
did Paul teach fallibly or infallibly
are the scriptures fallible or infallible
are the selection of books in the canon a fallible collection or infallible collection
etc etc

Well?

I know full well the requirements. If it makes you happy to quiz and get answers, it’d be easiest to quote the First Vatican Council:
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

I’m not going to keep answering your pop quiz. I’m a teacher so I give out and answer enough quizzes all year long. Enough with the questioning, Socrates. There are Catholics in this forum and bishops and priests all over the place who interpret x, y, and z as infallible or not infallible using your criterion. It’s not as specific as you think.
Define the requirements that the Church says are required for infallibility. The Church names them and the requirements are specific and necessary, NOT general or non specific.

A controversialist being someone who disagrees with you, right? If they don’t see things your way, they’re controversial? And why do you always assume that people who have an opposing viewpoint from you are ignorant of the facts?
Only fascinating for controversialists. Probably because they haven’t read the requirements.

I answered your Socratic quiz above…
Again,

What are the requirements for infallibility?

Really? shaw:

Read the book, that is, if you’re allowed to. It might be on the Vatican not allowed to read list?
What theory of mine did Meyendorff poke 1000 holes in?

You know you’re in trouble when you’re comparing yourself to Jesus and putting yourself in his shoes…wowwwww! just wow!
Jesus didn’t convince everyone He spoke to face to face. Who am I, when I don’t convince someone

Dude, I don’t have to list jack squat for you. Hello, we’re not in a classroom with a quiz in infalliblity requirements. When speaking ex cathedra on behalf of the Church, infallibility is present. Honorius was indeed speaking on behalf of the Church sending a LEGATE to fight for the Monothelite position!! What part of that is so tough to grasp? Pope Honorius did express his love for Monothelitism in letters to Sergius. Now if that was all he had done, your little formula (that always has exceptions) would be in play. But when he sent a legate in an official capacity to fight for the heretical position he did, then it’s ex cathedra. He’s speaking to the Church through a legate advocating a position. The pope sent legates to Nicaea and all the other councils (the popes rarely attended important councils in person, weird isn’t it?) advocating for orthodox views of Christology that you would consider infallible, right? Why are they not infallible when he advocated heresy? Maybe because he doesn’t possess that charism in the first place? Obviously Honorius was “defining a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the Universal Church” in sending his legate to advocate Monothelitism? Or was he just sending him to advocate it for the heck of it? Isn’t monothelitism faith and morals? It’s a key piece of Christology, right? Part of the faith, right? Are you going to tell me that unless it came out of HIS mouth in front of an audience only can it be infallible? If I send someone to advocate a position I’m not really speaking?
I don’t defend Honorius. But neither do I accuse him of something he didn’t do. Again, Look up the specifics the Church teaches are necessary for infallibility for the pope. If these Aren’t there, your argument falls apart. I want to see you list them.

 

[steve_b]

I would delete “near”.

That was my experience when I got earnestly involved with Orthodoxy. My new acquaintances assured me that theirs was the true Church established by Christ. The true Church happened to be an Old Calendar church under ROCOR’s authority (ROCOR = Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), some 3 hours driving distance from my city of New Orleans. Although there was a Greek Orthodox church, and an Antiochian Orthodox church, right there in the city, those were “not really Orthodox”. Their main offense was that they adopted the New Calendar. Smaller but still significant offenses were the presence of pews in both churches, and musical instruments in the Greek EO church. Thus, the Old Calendar EO folks with ROCOR would rather drive 3 hours, two states away in Alabama, than attend those local “fallen away from true Orthodoxy” churches. At that time, they were also out of communion with the Moscow Patriarch’s churches. Later, when ROCOR and the MP reestablished communion, ROCOR said that they don’t want anything to do with the World Council of Churches, but they understand and agree that the MP should remain part of it, because… because otherwise the EP of Constantinople would gain higher power and influence, remaining part of the WCC while the MP would withdraw. In other words, the MP should stay part of the WCC in order to compete with and antagonize the EP’s influence. Before anyone jumps to condemn me - I’m not inventing this stuff. This is what ROCOR said. And ROCOR, it seems to me, stays as a body with its own structures intact and apart from the MP, after reestablishing communion with the MP. At that time I was considering converting to Orthodoxy (I was thinking that the papacy was some human invention ). Since I grew up in Romania, the question came up which church should I attend if I visited my family in Romania. I was told to attend the Romanian EO Church. Although, on the other hand, they were also clearly fallen away from true Orthodoxy. You see, the Romanian EO Church is also a New Calendar Church. I didn’t even dare to ask whether the Romanians had pews in their churches, whether they used musical instruments. :banghead:

Joseph,

I see what you mean.

I have a few questions and observations. Make corrections as necessary.

Fr Ambrose (ROCOR) used to post here. I had many conversations with him. Much is archived, most of it is not. I remember him saying the ROCOR worldwide was ~150,000 members. As I understand it, the ROC is the largest EO Church. ~150 million worldwide. The OCA is in the U.S, Mexico, Canada, and Australia. Apparant membership is between ~28,000 to 2 million depending as they say, how one counts, whatever THAT means. If the OCA and the ROCOR are at odds with each other, and you mention others as well, what role do patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople play anymore? And it seems those connected to them, want to become autocephelous.

Where then is

• the patriarchal system today in EO
• the unity in doctrine
• the unity in praxis
• even orthodoxy and who defines it

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But I hear the argument made in here that it infallibility was understood and a no-brainer from day one in the Church? If it were such a no-brainer and a given and a key piece of Christianity, in fact, the central issue of Christianity, why were there SO MANY people outraged and opposed to infallibility? Why did the Council of Constance advocate a strict conciliar church polity and scoffed at papal supremacy and infallibility? Why did the Orthodox rail at the idea from day one? Why did it take this long to get defined? And if it’s such a given, either they should’ve defined it centuries before or not at all since it’s so obvious? And furthermore, one can find catechisms that existed in the 1800’s pre-Vatican I that actually claim that the infallibility of the pope was a VICIOUS LIE cooked up by Protestants to discredit the Church!!!? Why were there so many varying opinions and tons of conciliar advocates and catechisms denying something that should be a no-brainer?

It took more than 1500 years to formally delineate biblical canon. . . . . . . .

 

[josephdaniel29]

If the OCA and the ROCOR are at odds with each other, and you mention others as well, what role do patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople play anymore? And it seems those connected to them, want to become autocephelous.

Well we are not at odds anymore. Seems the Holy Spirit was perfectly capable of working things out without an infallible pope.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Hiskid1973]

Just a comment from an elder in Christ…I am just a regular “christian” that had a powerful conversion experience when I was 21 about 40 years ago…I am not well learned or the sharpest pencil in the box, but I have let the Holy Spirit keep changing me daily into His image…I’ve learned from day one the church had problems with believers walking in the flesh rather that the Spirit…I’ve learned we reap what we sow in words, deeds, actions and attitudes…I can imagine them squabbling then as believers do today…I’ve always wondered why the split(modern day protestantism) came from the catholic side and not the orthodox…We’ve seen in the scriptures the church was conciliar and had no trouble rebuking those who were out of order…I can almost picture one bishop getting bent out of shape because others not agreeing with their idea and stomping out of the meeting…I know the orthodox has their share of walking in the flesh(thinking sticks/brooms and other schism issues), but the sees are basically intact…In the midst of it all, Christ is lifted up, people are daily choosing to follow Christ and the church is being built up of living stones…The gates of hell will never prevail, one day the body of Christ will one rise up victorious in Him, never to experience disagreements/ walking in the flesh again…May the Lord grant you the peace and agreement you desire in the matchless name of Jesus…

 

[steve_b]

Yes, yes, yes, and infallible. Happy? And your point is? Are you trying to imply that because the apostles who wrote epistles and who lived, were taught by, and inspired by the Holy Spirit to write epistles and lead the first churches and were infallible, this means that the pope is as well? If Paul was infallible and Peter, then I guess all the people who followed Paul in succession were infallible just like the pope is to Peter. What’s your point?

you answered: Infallible to the collection of books in the canon. Good. I agree. That infallible decision however was made by the Church.

Therefore when you say

“It makes one wonder why it took all the way until the first Vatican Council to decide on infallibility”

you prove infallibility was not invented by Vat I.
g:

I know full well the requirements. If it makes you happy to quiz and get answers, it’d be easiest to quote the First Vatican Council:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

• Did Honorius define a doctrine in that case? No
• AND based on the definition of infallibility, Honorius would need to not only define a doctrine there, he would have to state the doctrine was to be held by the universal Church. Did he do any of that? Nope!!

therefore, Honorius didn’t violate the issue of infallibility. Case closed!!!

See how easy that was?
g:

I’m not going to keep answering your pop quiz. I’m a teacher so I give out and answer enough quizzes all year long. Enough with the questioning, Socrates. There are Catholics in this forum and bishops and priests all over the place who interpret x, y, and z as infallible or not infallible using your criterion. It’s not as specific as you think.

By answering my silly little quiz, I answered your attack swiftly and without any problem.

 

[steve_b]

Well we are not at odds anymore.

What does that mean? Do you now confirm their teaching and they now confirm your teaching? IOW you’re both in agreement with each other on your teachings?
jd:

Seems the Holy Spirit was perfectly capable of working things out without an infallible pope.

I’ll be interested in how you answer my question above?

And what role do patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople play anymore since so many connected to them, want to become autocephelous

 

[Nine_Two]

What does that mean? Do you now confirm their teaching and they now confirm your teaching? IOW you’re both in agreement with each other on your teachings?

Yes. The calendar isn’t doctrine, and never has been except to a lunatic fringe.

And what role do patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople play anymore since so many connected to them, want to become autocephelous

They are Autocephelous. They play the same role they’ve always played, direct control over their own churches, just like the MP and the OCA.

 

[jam070406]

They are Autocephelous.

Unless of course, you are Macedonian Orthodox.

 

[Nine_Two]

Unless of course, you are Macedonian Orthodox.

Macedonia wasn’t mentioned in the above post, and is a whole other matter entirely. A bit of a double standard when Catholics bring up schismatic groups to prove we don’t have any unity while there are just as many, if not more, schismatic “Catholic” groups.

 

[jam070406]

Macedonia wasn’t mentioned in the above post, and is a whole other matter entirely. A bit of a double standard when Catholics bring up schismatic groups to prove we don’t have any unity while there are just as many, if not more, schismatic “Catholic” groups.

I didn’t mention fringe schismatic groups.
I was referring to the double standard in Orthodox ecclesiology when it comes to the idea of autocephelous churches. You rally against Rome but then Your own Patriarchs wish to keep a leash on churches such as the Ukrainian, Estonian or Macedonian Orthodox churces. Not really sure how one group can just declare the other schismatic either, when they’re just following the model of Orthodox independence of ethnic churches.

 

[Nine_Two]

I didn’t mention fringe schismatic groups.
I was referring to the double standard in Orthodox ecclesiology when it comes to the idea of autocephelous churches. You rally against Rome but then Your own Patriarchs wish to keep a leash on churches such as the Ukrainian, Estonian or Macedonian Orthodox churces. Not really sure how one group can just declare the other schismatic either, when they’re just following the model of Orthodox independence of ethnic churches.

Unlike the United Nations, Orthodox Churches certainly do not believe that self declared autocephaly makes it so. To do so is to create schism, thus any group that does it is as schismatic as a Catholic group declaring the Pope a heretic and setting up their own.

The Autocephaly of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Cyprus, and Rome, are all guaranteed through the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Those other Churches which are autocephalus have gained the status through the recognition of those churches which already held autocephalus status. Ethnic and territorial boundaries often play a role, but are not what it is based on.

 

[josephdaniel29]

What does that mean? Do you now confirm their teaching and they now confirm your teaching? IOW you’re both in agreement with each other on your teachings?

There was never a disagreement in teachings.

And what role do patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople play anymore since so many connected to them, want to become autocephelous

Well as a matter of fact at the most recent pre-conciliar conference preparing for the upcoming Great and Holy Council this very subject was addressed. The Mother Church’s Synod will make the decision on potential autocephaly and forward a favorable decision to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The EP will then notify and seek the consensus of the other Autocephalous Churches. If there is consensus the EP will issue a Tomos of Autocephaly signed by the other Autocephalous Churches.

Link

In Christ
Joe

 

[steve_b]

Yes. The calendar isn’t doctrine, and never has been except to a lunatic fringe.

I was talking about doctrines not calendar… Are you in agreement with each other doctrinally?
nt:

They are Autocephelous. They play the same role they’ve always played, direct control over their own churches, just like the MP and the OCA.

IOW, they (those patriarchs) don’t have a say in the autocephelous churches that break away from them?

 

[steve_b]

There was never a disagreement in teachings.

That’s all I was asking. Thanks
jd:

Well as a matter of fact at the most recent pre-conciliar conference preparing for the upcoming Great and Holy Council this very subject was addressed. The Mother Church’s Synod will make the decision on potential autocephaly and forward a favorable decision to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The EP will then notify and seek the consensus of the other Autocephalous Churches. If there is consensus the EP will issue a Tomos of Autocephaly signed by the other Autocephalous Churches.

What’s all that mean? Once everybody is autocephelous, why have patriarchs?

 

[steve_b]

The pope’s confirmation was necessary in order to validate ecumenical decisions, here are just a few examples of the fathers expounding the role of Rome vis a vis an ecumenical synod:

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516):

“Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that ‘such a** step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’”** (Macedonius, Migne PG 108:360a [Theophan Chronogr, pages 234-346])

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828), writes:

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles." (St. Nicephorus, Niceph Cpl pro s imag c 25)

St. Theodore the Studite (c. 759-826):

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (St. Theodore the Studite, Migne PG 99:1420)

St. Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, writes:

We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

:tiphat:great quotes, thanks

 

[josephdaniel29]

What’s all that mean? Once everybody is autocephelous, why have patriarchs?

I don’t understand what you’re asking.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t understand what you’re asking.

I believe he thinks that dealing with such matters is all a patriarch does.

Steve: The Patriarch is the head of the local church, much as prior to Benedict XVI the pope held the title “Patriarch of the West”.

 

[steve_b]

And what does that prove? All over Chicagoland Catholics are passing by other Catholic parishes to reach the SSPX chapel, and sometimes these types are the first ‘Catholics’ an inquirer will come to know…

Little anecdotal stories like this are not helpful at all.

Don’t you think you overreacted a little? There’s over 2 million Catholics just in Cook and Lake county. And there is 1 SSPXchapel in the entire state of Illinois.

 

[Nine_Two]

Don’t you think you overreacted a little? There’s over 2 million Catholics just in Cook and Lake county. And there is 1 SSPXchapel in the entire state of Illinois.

Old Calendarist extremists tend to be likewise outnumbered.