Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[jmj1984]

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Amongst other things, what the Council of Florence says on the subject is particularly important.

However I’d rather get back to the topic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, the Orthodox who are not in communion with the Pope of Rome, can never be saved. I wonder where all their saints came from, many whom are recognized by the Catholic Church to be saints as well

 

[Elijahmaria]

Sorry are you saying infallible dogma contradicts itself?

Either what the two said are reconciliable with the infallible teaching of the church or they’re wrong.

…nevah!

As I say to the Orthodox…meaning is often more than what is there in black and white before your very eyes. Seek meaning and you will find truth.

 

[jmj1984]

Yes, the Orthodox who are not in communion with the Pope of Rome, can never be saved. I wonder where all their saints came from, many whom are recognized by the Catholic Church to be saints as well

Again you are reading something that is not there. I have merely stated the Churchs doctrine on the subject.

 

[Anthony_V]

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Correct me if I’m wrong (and I very well may be), but I believe we must realize that we’re dealing with the mystical body of Christ here. The authority that the Orthodox patriarchs have is indirectly aligned with the chair of Peter; not by common doctrine, but by succession. In terms of the vessel of grace that the Church is, we have a common identity as the body of Christ. Thus Peter, the successor, who has been passed the keys from Christ, the head, is the head of the mystical body of Christ on earth. At least, that’s my speculation. I’m not a theologian! There’s bound to be an answer out there. Those knuckleheads that sit around all day and study church history, in Rome, wouldn’t have overlooked such a trivial mistake as canonizing Orthodox people without sufficient reasoning on behalf of Unam Sanctam.

 

[steve_b]

Perhaps we ought to lend ear and nod to the fact that Orthodox have apostolic succession.

I don’t see anyone denying that. The question is, where in scripture, or Tradition was division in the Church okay? It isn’t okay in either.
A:

They are still part of the mystical body of Christ, regardless of their lack of communion with Rome.

When you say “regardless of communion” with Peter, that lack of communion to me, is a big deal. It’s not something imo, to dismiss with “regardless”.
A:

There are many many many Orthodox saints that are acknowledged by the Roman Church!

I’m familiar with Saints who weren’t “Orthodox” saints when the Catholic Church acknowledged them. Which saints are you refering to?
A:

With all due respect, yes the Roman Church is the safer choice in regards to doctrine, but the sacraments are the same across the board (within the respective communion). The goal is unity, not "proving to the Orthodox that they are wrong".

Q’s

• you’re saying picking doctrine is a “safer” choice with the Catholic Church. Re: your earlier point, about apostolic succession, why do you acknowledge doctrine within one Church is safer, i.e. not safe with the other, but at the same time, saying at least the others have apostiolic succession and sacraments? Please explain
• You suggest we don’t want to use certain words, for fear of offending someone? I don’t recall Paul mincing words on the subject of division so as not to offend his listeners.
• Re: the subject of the thread [papal infallibility]. Are you suggesting rejection of papal infallibility is not so bad if at least the one’s who reject it have apostolic succession?

A:

Orthodoxy isn’t a heresy like protestantism. It’s a snowballing of miscommunication, political boundaries, cultural differences, philisophical connotations and denotations, etc

Schism is schism. Division is division. Sedition is sedition…true? Orthodoxy is NOT in union with the Catholic Church. They are NOT Catholic, and they are NOT the Catholic Church. To avoid confusion, the moderators step in to be very clear about the language and terms we use, and do it tactfully and charitably.



forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8664137&postcount=110
A:

Be fervent about being Catholic, by all means, but try and be tact about how you say things.

Please show me where I was not being tactful? By that I think you meant sensitive. If you think it was not being sensitive, how could I have restated it…more sensitively? I’m always trying to communicate more effectively

 

[Elijahmaria]

Schism is schism. Division is division. Sedition is sedition…true? Orthodoxy is NOT in union with the Catholic Church. They are NOT Catholic, and they are NOT the Catholic Church. To avoid confusion, the moderators step in to be very clear about the language and terms we use, and do it tactfully and charitably.

Then they need to step in right here because nowhere in the papacy of Blessed John Paul II nor in the papacy of Benedetto the Wise are the Orthodox referred to as “schismatics”…nor “heretics”…nor “heterodox”. The Orthodox are Orthodox Catholics and they are recognized as such by the very fact of the recognition of Apostolic Succession.

…speaking of effective communication.

 

[steve_b]

There are any number of comments that he’s made.

Like? please give references.
E:

He’s suggested that if we return to a common date of Easter we should follow the Orthodox reckoning.

And what date is THAT?

And where did he say that?
E:

He’s said that we can ask no more of Orthodoxy than to profess the faith as they have professed it since the first 1000 years. This one takes a bit of explaining, of course]

not too much though
E:

He has said that the model of the unia will NOT be the model for resumption of communion with Orthodoxy.

Those sorts of things. When I find others or references for those, I’ll post them.

I look forward to your references. Then we can handle things specifically.

 

[steve_b]

Honestly, unless one is just incredibly Holy, I’m positive that being in union with Peter or professing the filioque will be last on God’s list of things to ask us about on the day of judgment (if we are so inclined to believe that’s what the day of judgment will be like). He will probably ask us why we murdered so many people in our hearts with our anger, and lusted after so many people with our eyes, contrary to the admonishment of Jesus not to entertain such thoughts.

I think it’s all of that.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Like? please give references.

As someone who loves Orthodoxy and who is an eastern Catholic and also who spent most of their lives in the Roman rite, I have no real need or reason to spend much time on the posts you bring to the table here. They are unduly contentious and very often woefully under informed.

I am required to be polite to you. I am NOT required to cater to the kind of aggressive ignorance of the current state of affairs between Orthodoxy and the Vatican that is evidenced in many of the things that you say.

 

[Elijahmaria]

bump

Then they need to step in right here because nowhere in the papacy of Blessed John Paul II nor in the papacy of Benedetto the Wise are the Orthodox referred to as “schismatics”…nor “heretics”…nor “heterodox”. The Orthodox are Orthodox Catholics and they are recognized as such by the very fact of the recognition of Apostolic Succession.

…speaking of effective communication.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again you are reading something that is not there. I have merely stated the Churchs doctrine on the subject.

Then perhaps you misunderstood Church doctrine. Remember the principle, “we know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not.”

 

[Anthony_V]

I don’t see anyone denying that. The question is, where in scripture, or Tradition was division in the Church okay? It isn’t okay in either.

When you say “regardless of communion” with Peter, that lack of communion to me, is a big deal. It’s not something imo, to dismiss with “regardless”.

I’m familiar with Saints who weren’t “Orthodox” saints when the Catholic Church acknowledged them. Which saints are you refering to?

Q’s

• you’re saying picking doctrine is a “safer” choice with the Catholic Church. Re: your earlier point, about apostolic succession, why do you acknowledge doctrine within one Church is safer, i.e. not safe with the other, but at the same time, saying at least the others have apostiolic succession and sacraments? Please explain
• You suggest we don’t want to use certain words, for fear of offending someone? I don’t recall Paul mincing words on the subject of division so as not to offend his listeners.
• Re: the subject of the thread [papal infallibility]. Are you suggesting rejection of papal infallibility is not so bad if at least the one’s who reject it have apostolic succession?

Schism is schism. Division is division. Sedition is sedition…true? Orthodoxy is NOT in union with the Catholic Church. They are NOT Catholic, and they are NOT the Catholic Church. To avoid confusion, the moderators step in to be very clear about the language and terms we use, and do it tactfully and charitably.



forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8664137&postcount=110

Please show me where I was not being tactful? By that I think you meant sensitive. If you think it was not being sensitive, how could I have restated it…more sensitively? I’m always trying to communicate more effectively

1)It most certainly is not. But that’s not the topic we’re discussing.

2)I was not dismissing communion with Rome as an unimportant element, but rather emphasizing the fact that we are still connected, even if in a disjointed manner, as the mystical body of Christ.

1. Feel free to have a look for yourself:
   byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/363795/Post-Schism%20Orthodox%20Saints%20ac
2. I acknowledge the sacraments, though not all the doctrines, of the Orthodox faith. To put it this way, I find that they have the resources to be a saint (through the sacraments), but not all of the correct instructions (pertaining to doctrines). Thus, communion with Rome will give you an edge in working towards salvation because you have all the correct doctrines.
3. My apologies on my wrongly using the word heresy in this way. I was trying to prove a point, but alas I am not as charitable, wise, or humble as God (and myself) would like me to be.
   Again, here I was emphasizing the importance that we recognize the Orthodox churches as part of the ONE mystical body of Christ. Unlike protestant churches, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches are united, if even in a loose manner. I find it important that we distinguish the Catholic-protestant and Catholic-Orthodox relationships very clearly. It might be easy for the passerby to think Orthodoxy is just “some other church that isn’t Catholic, so it doesn’t matter”. Hopefully that thoroughly explains my cautiousness. I didn’t mean to nip at your heels, I’m just rather sensitive when it comes to giving credit where credit is due; In this case, the Orthodox churches.
4. Condemning someone to answer for their lack of communion with Rome, whilst they might otherwise be in a state of grace, is a bit judgmental. Again, I find it important to distinguish the Orthodox (who have the sacraments) from all the other faith traditions that don’t. I understand it’s so easy to jump on people’s cases, because you want to help them! I get that, and that’s extremely charitable and courageous of you. The way you present yourself comes across uncharitable in some ways, though. I would advise saving bluntness as a last resort. Calling a spade a spade is a risky thing to do sometimes. Even if you say all the right things, but in an extremely outspoken manner such that it hardens them to what you have to say, both sides have lost, even if you win.

 

[ZDHayden]

I have been watching this thread since I returned to these forums. I have done some reflection and study on my own and these are some observations, based upon the extant records:

1. The Pope of Rome first claimed to be supreme head of the Christian Church several centuries after the institution of the Church.
2. 68 of the first 90 Popes of Rome (if I am not mistaken, Pope St. Zacharias was the last) are revered as saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Less than half a dozen later Popes of Rome are revered as saints in the West.

• of the later Popes canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, two of them were aggressors against the East.
• of the 68 commonly held Pope-Saints, not one claimed papal supremacy or infallibility.

1. The Roman Catholic Church claims the Eastern Orthodox Church split from it.
2. The Eastern Orthodox Church claims the Roman Catholic Church split from it.
3. Most historians who are neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox tend to simply say the two Churches schismed.
4. Following the East-West Schism, the West underwent a drastic change in ecclesiastical architecture: from the Romanesque to the Gothic and religious artwork went from two-dimensional to three-dimensional.
5. Following the East-West Schism, the East remained largely unchanged in its expressions.

(These two are simply interesting and do not necessarily say anything about the truth of one or the other.)

1. A century after the Greek Church rejected, via the overwhelming majority of those lay and clergy who were not present at the proceedings, Florence, the West experienced the Protestant Reformation.
2. The East, unless one takes the perspective of certain voices within it (i.e., that Rome and the Oriental Orthodox before her broke away), never experienced a “Protestant Reformation” after the East-West schism.
3. Martin Luther originally did not wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church, but was given the ultimatum of excommunication or the recanting of his views.
4. Martin Luther was eventually excommunicated.
5. Western Christianity has since broken into several thousands of competing groups.
6. During the proceedings of Vatican I, the Roman Pontiff was declared infallible.
7. There is currently dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. In this dialogue, the Eastern Catholic Churches have shown if not proof of their value, potential of being irreplaceable to the understanding in Rome of the Orthodox.
8. The Orthodox Church will not any time soon reunite with Rome until Papal Infallibility and Supremacy are resolved.
9. The Roman Catholic Church will not any time soon relinquish the above elements of its ecclesiastical identity.

I submit these elements, which are various historical modes which may have effected the development of either the Papal claims or the rejection of those claims.

That, and I needed an excuse to conveniently follow this thread.

 

[Ghosty]

I will say that I agree with Unam Sanctam. Schism is a terrible sin, more damaging than heresy in many cases, and it is rightly condemned.

There is a difference, however, between the sin of schism and the state of schism. I believe Unam Sanctam is addressing the former and not the latter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Elijahmaria]

I will say that I agree with Unam Sanctam. Schism is a terrible sin, more damaging than heresy in many cases, and it is rightly condemned.

There is a difference, however, between the sin of schism and the state of schism. I believe Unam Sanctam is addressing the former and not the latter.

Peace and God bless!

As Pope Benedict notes: material schism, rather than formal schism.

Granted many Internet Orthodox will scoff at one more instance of Vaticanese…nonetheless…not all are scoffing and there’s truth and thereby merit in the distinction.

 

[Anthony_V]

I will say that I agree with Unam Sanctam. Schism is a terrible sin, more damaging than heresy in many cases, and it is rightly condemned.

There is a difference, however, between the sin of schism and the state of schism. I believe Unam Sanctam is addressing the former and not the latter.

Peace and God bless!

Thank you for clarifying. My brain is in less of a frenzy now. Could you elaborate on the difference between heresy and schism? I’ve known they are different, but not specifically how.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have been watching this thread since I returned to these forums. I have done some reflection and study on my own and these are some observations, based upon the extant records:

1. The Pope of Rome first claimed to be supreme head of the Christian Church several centuries after the institution of the Church.
2. 68 of the first 90 Popes of Rome (if I am not mistaken, Pope St. Zacharias was the last) are revered as saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Less than half a dozen later Popes of Rome are revered as saints in the West.

• of the later Popes canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, two of them were aggressors against the East.
• of the 68 commonly held Pope-Saints, not one claimed papal supremacy or infallibility.

1. The Roman Catholic Church claims the Eastern Orthodox Church split from it.
2. The Eastern Orthodox Church claims the Roman Catholic Church split from it.
3. Most historians who are neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox tend to simply say the two Churches schismed.
4. Following the East-West Schism, the West underwent a drastic change in ecclesiastical architecture: from the Romanesque to the Gothic and religious artwork went from two-dimensional to three-dimensional.
5. Following the East-West Schism, the East remained largely unchanged in its expressions.

(These two are simply interesting and do not necessarily say anything about the truth of one or the other.)

1. A century after the Greek Church rejected, via the overwhelming majority of those lay and clergy who were not present at the proceedings, Florence, the West experienced the Protestant Reformation.
2. The East, unless one takes the perspective of certain voices within it (i.e., that Rome and the Oriental Orthodox before her broke away), never experienced a “Protestant Reformation” after the East-West schism.
3. Martin Luther originally did not wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church, but was given the ultimatum of excommunication or the recanting of his views.
4. Martin Luther was eventually excommunicated.
5. Western Christianity has since broken into several thousands of competing groups.
6. During the proceedings of Vatican I, the Roman Pontiff was declared infallible.
7. There is currently dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. In this dialogue, the Eastern Catholic Churches have shown if not proof of their value, potential of being irreplaceable to the understanding in Rome of the Orthodox.
8. The Orthodox Church will not any time soon reunite with Rome until Papal Infallibility and Supremacy are resolved.
9. The Roman Catholic Church will not any time soon relinquish the above elements of its ecclesiastical identity.

I submit these elements, which are various historical modes which may have effected the development of either the Papal claims or the rejection of those claims.

That, and I needed an excuse to conveniently follow this thread.

Very interesting, quite in depth. Many of your information here I’ve known only the surface of it but in a short summary, I gotten to know a bit more. Thanks!

I do agree that the East resembles the first century more as development stagnated after the schism. I believe part of the reason is that the East was too afraid of any developments that will resemble the West lest they copy the “heretical schismatics”, which is of course the viewpoint at that time from both sides of each other.

I don’t quite get what you are saying in #8, can you expound on it? What was rejected?

 

[ZDHayden]

Very interesting, quite in depth. Many of your information here I’ve known only the surface of it but in a short summary, I gotten to know a bit more. Thanks!

I do agree that the East resembles the first century more as development stagnated after the schism. I believe part of the reason is that the East was too afraid of any developments that will resemble the West lest they copy the “heretical schismatics”, which is of course the viewpoint at that time from both sides of each other.

I don’t quite get what you are saying in #8, can you expound on it? What was rejected?

Certainly, as you know, the Council of Florence was an attempt at reconciliation between East and West. A small number of bishops from the Greek-speaking Church attended the meetings and eventually these bishops agreed to accept the propositions of Rome (namely, the Filioque and the Papal claims). And so, on paper, East and West was reunified. Almost as soon as these bishops returned home with the news, the overwhelming majority (I do not wish to say a consensus, as that is rarely ever the case, but it seems to have been more than enough to veto a Presidential decision in the United States) of Christian people of their lands, both lay and clergy, demanded the Council be revoked due to the above concessions. The bishops in question, however, did not seem to take much convincing to do so. As such, there is some speculation that there was a bit of coercion at the Council or that the Bishops were weak-minded or that the concessions were made to speed along discussion, or perhaps all three or none.

Regarding the stagnation in development: that occurred primarily after the Turkish conquest of Constantinople than after the Great Schism, although, excluding the heretics based in the East, Eastern Christianity seems to always have had a more conservative tendency than their Western contemporaries. (This is seen especially in the fact that the primary Orthodox Divine Liturgy is 1000 years older or so than the Tridentine Mass.) There does seem to be quite a bit of spiritual growth and development in Russia after the Turkish conquest, however, though this was eventually stemmed and eventually stopped after the Bolshevik Revolution. Whereas the developments in the West are primarily theological (and the devotions such as the Rosary take from those developments), the East is not devoid of development. Eastern development tends to be spiritual and devotional, rather than theological.

The whole history of the matter is far muddier than either the average devout Catholic or the average devout Orthodox are generally willing to admit.

I hope this helps!

 

[jmj1984]

Then perhaps you misunderstood Church doctrine. Remember the principle, “we know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not.”

No, I’m afraid I did not, this is not a thread on the subject but suffice to say the teaching is clear and the only exception is invincible ignorance.