Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

In my opinion, there is a real difference between Eastern and Western thought. Each one of the heresies that had its origin in the East are far more philosophical than anything coming out of the Protestant Revot in the 16th Century.

Actually, some of the heresies you mentioned were scripturally based, not philosophically based. The Arians and Sabellians, for example drew their arguments from the scriptural emphases on monotheism (and the Arians also drew upon Christ’s words that He is lesser than the Father). It was in fact the Orthodox position, of three persons in one essence which is more heavily defined philosophically.

Also, I just noticed this, but you listed Pelagianism as being an Eastern heresy. Pelagius was a British monk, and the councils condemning Pelagianism were all conducted in the West, so would this not properly be a Western heresy?

For this Western heresy, we find Luther challenging the sale of indulgences … and then other items are tacked on so that they take on a life of their own: 'Scripture Alone", “Grace Alone”, “Faith Alone” all came much later. It did not take a 16th Century ‘rocket scientist’ to look to the East with a 500 year old track record and see what success they had in attacking the Catholic Church.

Attacking the Catholic Church? That’s a very distorted way to see things. Luther and the other Reformers certainly did not take their theology from the East. They were very much grounded in Latin thought.

Getting to the Great Schism of 1054 did not happen by accident - and its effects are with us to this very day. Everything really does have consequences and relationships - none of which may be visible immediately at the time of the act.

So then you think that people purposefully fomented schism by developing centuries of cultural, linguistic and philosophical differences? I think the Great Schism was much more of an accident than something done purposefully. Even the date commonly given for the schism, 1054, does not reflect reality. It was a long process of falling out of communion rather than an immediate breaking of communion because of a dispute between Patriarch Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert. The mutual excommunications of 1054 were in fact rather unremarkable, and the chroniclers of the time thought very little of it.

 

[Elijahmaria]

.

Also, I just noticed this, but you listed Pelagianism as being an Eastern heresy. Pelagius was a British monk, and the councils condemning Pelagianism were all conducted in the West, so would this not properly be a Western heresy?

Yabbut…Do not the Orthodox claim England and Ireland for their very own during these very centuries?..of course they do. So they can have Pelagius too!!..

 

[Cavaradossi]

That is a well stretched rubber band: It seems to me that St. John is saying that although the bodily successor to Peter has been given over to Rome, that Antioch retains the faith of Peter, and so thereby retaining Peter through the retention of his faith.

That is something quite different from claiming that the successor of Peter remains bodily in Antioch.

I’m not so sure.

In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me (viz. St. Flavian, his bishop) our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.

In the first sentence, he says that Flavian of Antioch, his bishop at the time, had, “succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair.” (strangely, the ‘viz. Flavian, his bishop’ was not edited out at all by the apologists, even though it weakens their case). That alone to me indicates that what he means to say is that even though Peter left Antioch and was martyred in Rome, the bishop of Antioch too is a successor of Peter, and of his seat, because the bishops of Antioch retain Peter’s faith.

 

[Hesychios]

That is a well stretched rubber band: It seems to me that St. John is saying that although the bodily successor to Peter has been given over to Rome, that Antioch retains the faith of Peter, and so thereby retaining Peter through the retention of his faith.

That is something quite different from claiming that the successor of Peter remains bodily in Antioch.

I have to wonder what you mean by this.

Saint John’s words and actions speak for themselves, all that is necessary is to read them, and when quoting cite them in full.

Orthodox honor saint Peter, naming many parishes after him (among other things) and preaching on him, of course we understand his role among the Apostles.

The point is, many RC apologists distort what he does say by deliberate omission, which is a lie. It destroys the credibility of the arguments they make today just as much as the ‘Donation of Constantine’ fabrication and the Pseudo-Isadorean ‘decretals’ massive fraud.

People who resort to this sort of deliberate lie and revisionist history should be ashamed, and people who are wiling to gain the benefit of the argument today by standing aside and saying nothing are no better.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yabbut…Do not the Orthodox claim England and Ireland for their very own during these very centuries?..of course they do. So they can have Pelagius too!!..

Lol, Perhaps we’ll just have to settle for joint custody. Would you like to have Pelagius over the weekends or over the weekdays?

 

[Elijahmaria]

Lol, Perhaps we’ll just have to settle for joint custody. Would you like to have Pelagius over the weekends or over the weekdays?

I hear Sundays don’t count for heretics…so we could do a Monday through Wednesday and Thursday through Saturday swap…

Or we could swap out one Pelagian for one Bogomil every week…

Whatever suits best…:tiphat:

 

[dcointin]

Hi, Dcointin,

This is what I meant when I said the majority of the major heresies came from the East and not the West. These heresies were nto randomly distributed - and that means that there was a reason for this disparity. Having their ‘… own way of understanding…’ is a good way to summarize this problem.

God bless

I have to strongly disagree with you about this. My point was that Eastern Catholics tend to interpret Catholic dogma in a way that is more consistent with historic eastern theology, not that they have a greater tendency toward heresy. The reason for the disparity in heresies was that the vasy majority of the Christian population in the early church lived in the east, not the west. For example, 4 of the 5 major patriarchates were in the east. You also can’t discount the manifold Protestant heresies that arose in the west.

 

[Elijahmaria]

I’m not so sure.

In the first sentence, he says that Flavian of Antioch, his bishop at the time, had, “succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair.” (strangely, the ‘viz. Flavian, his bishop’ was not edited out at all by the apologists, even though it weakens their case). That alone to me indicates that what he means to say is that even though Peter left Antioch and was martyred in Rome, the bishop of Antioch too is a successor of Peter, and of his seat, because the bishops of Antioch retain Peter’s faith.

That is true: but: if it were the only truth then there would be absolutely NO reason for St. John to have gone on and said very clearly, I might add:

“For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome.”

You cannot simply read that out of the pericope. It also makes direct reference to Barnabas and Paul in Antioch, there to build up the Church among the Gentiles. The spirit of Peter remains with the Apostles in Antioch. That is hardly contrary to Roman Catholic teaching.

 

[jwinch2]

The reason for the disparity in heresies was that the vasy majority of the Christian population in the early church lived in the east, not the west.

This.

I am in full support of Catholic interpretation of Infallibility as properly defined in this thread by Ghosty, Marduk, ConstantineTG, and others. However, the argument that more heresies have sprung up in one tradition versus the other doesn’t wash with me. Its a numbers game. In the early Church there were more people in the East. Now, there are more in the West.

None of this is new. Man has been running away from God’s teaching since creation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jwinch2,

I am really not familiar with the populations in the East vs the West in general terms much less when individual heresies, like the10 that I listed, took place and what was the specific census in each region.

I must admit that I had never thought of heresies being population based so that higher population densities produce more heresies. But that is one of the advantages of a discussion - different ideas can be discussed.

God bless

This.

I am in full support of Catholic interpretation of Infallibility as properly defined in this thread by Ghosty, Marduk, ConstantineTG, and others. However, the argument that more heresies have sprung up in one tradition versus the other doesn’t wash with me. Its a numbers game. In the early Church there were more people in the East. Now, there are more in the West.

None of this is new. Man has been running away from God’s teaching since creation.

 

[Hesychios]

I must admit that I had never thought of heresies being population based so that higher population densities produce more heresies. But that is one of the advantages of a discussion - different ideas can be discussed.

It is a bit more complex than that, but the general idea is correct.

The overwhelming majority of Christians was in the east for many centuries, and the Christians comprised a much higher percentage of the population in the east than in the west for centuries (western Europe was largely pagan for much longer).

It was also much more developed commercially. The great centers of education were clustered in the east, it was the home of the academies and the libraries. The eastern Roman empire was more cosmopolitan. While it had more businessmen, tradesmen and teachers, mayors and judges, it also had more philosophers, more bishops and priests, more academics, more monks, more educated thinkers of all kinds.

Conversion of the west was a bit slower, the region was largely rural over great distances punctuated by some very notable exceptions (Rome, Milan and some cities in Spain for starters). It has been fairly well established by historians that Christianity traveled the trade routes and was an urban phenomenon in it’s earliest manifestations, the conservative rural population would come along later.

This basically rural character of the western empire is also essentially why the Roman imperial government began to collapse in the west by the fifth century, but not in the east for another thousand years. The economy and tax base was pretty solid in the eastern empire, the west had a lot of wilderness and open spaces to police and maintain infrastructure (roads, aqueducts, forts and courts) without an adequate population to marshal or sufficient commercial tax base.

Likewise the east did not go through the ‘Dark Ages’ that the Irish monks were supposed to have so famously rescued Europe from. In the east there were economic problems, and wars and plagues, but laypersons were still getting classical educations throughout the period (provided their families could afford it).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hesychios,

Very intersting…and, it certainly makes sense. Now, is there a link with actual numbers tied to time frame and divided by East and West? I know this sounds terribly picky … maybe, even nit-picky … but, it is amazing how actual numbers really do go a long way to proving a numeric question.

For example, while I was aware that the East did seem to escape many of hte problems that the West encourtered as it marched toward the Dark Ages - it would seem to me that with all of the learning and basic infrastructure not only in place but doing well - there would be more learned people able to stop a heresy in its very beginning - rather than gather crowds to fan the flames of error. In short, as I see it, having fewer and less well educated people (proportional to the East) would seem to me to be the type of environment conducive to heretical development.

One technique that is used when different size populations are used (e.g., urban vs rural, or rich vs poor, or over age 65 vs under age 65, etc.) is to determine the incidence of a disease per 100,000 population. So, for example, if 10,000 got a particular disease out of a population of 5,000,000 the rate per 100,000 would be 200 (10,000/5,000,000 x 100,000 = 200) in one particular area and this can now be used to see if there is a different rate in another area.

The sheer difficulties that I imagine would be involved in having census data, by year and cross-matched by heresy would be a significant undertaking - especially when we now want to compare the East with the West.

While there have been posts that the larger number of major heresies from the 1st-10th Centuries have originated in the East because of a greater population, more advanced civilization, higher standard of living, etc - I really think this point was not really proven - just offered as a possible reason. Without putting too fine a point on it - my idea (just the opposite: population size had nothing to do with this) is of equal value and potential accuracy. I do not have the population numbers either…

Based on the response of one poster: “My point was that Eastern Catholics tend to interpret Catholic dogma in a way that is more consistent with historic eastern theology, not that they have a greater tendency toward heresy” there seems to be an agreement that there is a different way of looking at theology when considering East and West. The issue is: does this basic difference put one group more at risk for heresy devleopment than another? or, is there another variable at work here?

God bless

It is a bit more complex than that, but the general idea is correct.

The overwhelming majority of Christians was in the east for many centuries, and the Christians comprised a much higher percentage of the population in the east than in the west for centuries (western Europe was largely pagan for much longer).

It was also much more developed commercially. The great centers of education were clustered in the east, it was the home of the academies and the libraries. The eastern Roman empire was more cosmopolitan. While it had more businessmen, tradesmen and teachers, mayors and judges, it also had more philosophers, more bishops and priests, more academics, more monks, more educated thinkers of all kinds.

Conversion of the west was a bit slower, the region was largely rural over great distances punctuated by some very notable exceptions (Rome, Milan and some cities in Spain for starters). It has been fairly well established by historians that Christianity traveled the trade routes and was an urban phenomenon in it’s earliest manifestations, the conservative rural population would come along later.

This basically rural character of the western empire is also essentially why the Roman imperial government began to collapse in the west by the fifth century, but not in the east for another thousand years. The economy and tax base was pretty solid in the eastern empire, the west had a lot of wilderness and open spaces to police and maintain infrastructure (roads, aqueducts, forts and courts) without an adequate population to marshal or sufficient commercial tax base.

Likewise the east did not go through the ‘Dark Ages’ that the Irish monks were supposed to have so famously rescued Europe from. In the east there were economic problems, and wars and plagues, but laypersons were still getting classical educations throughout the period (provided their families could afford it).

 

[Aramis]

Also, I just noticed this, but you listed Pelagianism as being an Eastern heresy. Pelagius was a British monk, and the councils condemning Pelagianism were all conducted in the West, so would this not properly be a Western heresy?

Pelagianism starts in Rome, Takes hold the east, most strongly in Carthage (Egypt), and moves West. Pelagius himself spread it through Palestine. Pelagius was a long-time resident in Rome…

While he may or may not have been of British birth, he certainly fled there when condemned by the synods of Carthage and Numidia (the latter of which included Hippo, seat of now sainted Bp. Augustine)… both of whom appealed to Rome for final approval of their condemnations, which Pope Innocent I provided.

Pelagianism’s rejection in the later council of Carthage shaped the church.

newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, Hesychios,

Very intersting…and, it certainly makes sense. Now, is there a link with actual numbers tied to time frame and divided by East and West? I know this sounds terribly picky … maybe, even nit-picky … but, it is amazing how actual numbers really do go a long way to proving a numeric question.

For example, while I was aware that the East did seem to escape many of hte problems that the West encourtered as it marched toward the Dark Ages - it would seem to me that with all of the learning and basic infrastructure not only in place but doing well - there would be more learned people able to stop a heresy in its very beginning - rather than gather crowds to fan the flames of error. In short, as I see it, having fewer and less well educated people (proportional to the East) would seem to me to be the type of environment conducive to heretical development.

One technique that is used when different size populations are used (e.g., urban vs rural, or rich vs poor, or over age 65 vs under age 65, etc.) is to determine the incidence of a disease per 100,000 population. So, for example, if 10,000 got a particular disease out of a population of 5,000,000 the rate per 100,000 would be 200 (10,000/5,000,000 x 100,000 = 200) in one particular area and this can now be used to see if there is a different rate in another area.

The sheer difficulties that I imagine would be involved in having census data, by year and cross-matched by heresy would be a significant undertaking - especially when we now want to compare the East with the West.

While there have been posts that the larger number of major heresies from the 1st-10th Centuries have originated in the East because of a greater population, more advanced civilization, higher standard of living, etc - I really think this point was not really proven - just offered as a possible reason. Without putting too fine a point on it - my idea (just the opposite: population size had nothing to do with this) is of equal value and potential accuracy. I do not have the population numbers either…

Based on the response of one poster: “My point was that Eastern Catholics tend to interpret Catholic dogma in a way that is more consistent with historic eastern theology, not that they have a greater tendency toward heresy” there seems to be an agreement that there is a different way of looking at theology when considering East and West. The issue is: does this basic difference put one group more at risk for heresy devleopment than another? or, is there another variable at work here?

God bless

So basically you allege that Eastern Theology has a tendency towards heresy. How is that supposed to be in any way better than alleging that Eastern Christians have a tendency towards heresy? And Roman Catholics wonder why the Orthodox are reluctant to even think of any sort of union. Seeing how some Roman Catholics treat their Eastern Catholic coreligionists with suspicion is probably enough to make the Orthodox want to stay away for several millennia more, I should say.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Pelagianism starts in Rome, Takes hold the east, most strongly in Carthage (Egypt), and moves West. Pelagius himself spread it through Palestine. Pelagius was a long-time resident in Rome…

While he may or may not have been of British birth, he certainly fled there when condemned by the synods of Carthage and Numidia (the latter of which included Hippo, seat of now sainted Bp. Augustine)… both of whom appealed to Rome for final approval of their condemnations, which Pope Innocent I provided.

Pelagianism’s rejection in the later council of Carthage shaped the church.

newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

Carthage and Numidia weren’t part of the East, were they? Seems Pelagianism ran through both East and West, so I fail to see how it can be counted as a purely Eastern heresy.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

The conversation on who has more heresies is off-topic. Please abandon all talk of heresies and return to the subject of papal infallibility.

Peter, Flavian and St. John is where the conversation left off.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

I stand corrected, Pelagianism looks like it had a Western origin rather than Eastern. Sorry about that. Now, maybe this is just rationalizing on my part … … but, I thought Pelagianism had more of an impact on the East than on the West.

Yes, the Protest Revolt was definitely Western. What I meant was that their rejection of Papal Authority and the Primacy of Peter was not a new theory - but, one previously developed in the East that lead to the Great Schism.

You are right about 1054 not being that descriptive of the start of the Great Schism - I saw this date as more of a compromise trying to identify when the last ‘part of the roof fell in’ and not the cracks and holes that had begun to show in the roof leading to its failure.

God bless

Actually, some of the heresies you mentioned were scripturally based, not philosophically based. The Arians and Sabellians, for example drew their arguments from the scriptural emphases on monotheism (and the Arians also drew upon Christ’s words that He is lesser than the Father). It was in fact the Orthodox position, of three persons in one essence which is more heavily defined philosophically.

Also, I just noticed this, but you listed Pelagianism as being an Eastern heresy. Pelagius was a British monk, and the councils condemning Pelagianism were all conducted in the West, so would this not properly be a Western heresy?

Attacking the Catholic Church? That’s a very distorted way to see things. Luther and the other Reformers certainly did not take their theology from the East. They were very much grounded in Latin thought.

So then you think that people purposefully fomented schism by developing centuries of cultural, linguistic and philosophical differences? I think the Great Schism was much more of an accident than something done purposefully. Even the date commonly given for the schism, 1054, does not reflect reality. It was a long process of falling out of communion rather than an immediate breaking of communion because of a dispute between Patriarch Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert. The mutual excommunications of 1054 were in fact rather unremarkable, and the chroniclers of the time thought very little of it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

Probably a good idea to return to the topic.

God bless

So basically you allege that Eastern Theology has a tendency towards heresy. How is that supposed to be in any way better than alleging that Eastern Christians have a tendency towards heresy? And Roman Catholics wonder why the Orthodox are reluctant to even think of any sort of union. Seeing how some Roman Catholics treat their Eastern Catholic coreligionists with suspicion is probably enough to make the Orthodox want to stay away for several millennia more, I should say.

 

[Frank_J]

Papal Infallibility Roundtable

MEDIATOR DEI ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE SACRED LITURGY

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. (Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.)

 

[Ghosty]

This has no relevance to the discussion. Nothing in the quote is binding or infallible, and doesn’t even come close to being so.

Papal Infallibility Roundtable

MEDIATOR DEI ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE SACRED LITURGY

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. (Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.)