Papal Problems...:(

[East_and_West]

This is just more myth-making.

The gathering in 1870AD at the Vatican was a pseudo-council

Blatantly false. The Catholic Church knows it is an ecumenical council so it must be one.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexius

What I still fail to see is a separate Infallibility granted to his office.

The Pope’s infallibility is NOT separate from the infallibility of the Church. In fact, it is one and the same infallibility shared by the Church - the infallibility of God. This is one of the many misconceptions I had to let go of before I became Catholic. The fact is that the Pope has never failed to act collegially, even in the few ex cathedra pronouncements he has made… The Council is NOT the only vehicle of infallibility the Church possesses. There is also the episcopate speaking with one voice on a particular matter of the Faith even when dispersed throughout the world; and of course, there is also the Pope speaking ex cathedra with the advice and (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops. The error of EO and Protestant polemicists is their inability to understand all this. I would love to hear your comments. Why do you think that the Pope’s infallibilty is “separate” and what do you mean by “separate?”

I do not see him as at any time being granted authority to act over an Ecumenical Council or in its sted in matters pertaining to the Church catholic (other than jurisdictional issues and hierarchical schisms when called upon).

Why do you think the Church can only teach infallibly in Council? You don’t think the Church can act infallibly in a merely collegial context? In any context, the head bishop must give his confirmation, we can’t escape that, if we are to remain faithful to the apostolic practice (the other option is to go the EO way:knight2: ).

BTW, what makes you think the Pope acts “over” an ecumenical council, and is not simply its head bishop?

After reading more about Vatican I and the Pope’s actions within this council, I find myself drifting further from this doctrine.

1. Did you know that the Pope was not even certain that the Council should be held at all?
2. Did you know that DURING the Council, the rush to define infallibility was brought on NOT by the Pope, but was forced because of the possibility of impending war in Europe. There was debate about which should take precedence - definitions regarding the episcopate (topics which were completed at Vatican 2, or the definitions regarding the papacy. AT THIS POINT, the Pope made a push to go forward with the definitions regarding the papacy.
3. You have read a lot, I’m sure, about how the Pope was for the definition. Polemicists like to argue that the Pope unfairly used his influence on the Council. But let me ask you this - i) why is not the Pope as bishop allowed to give his opinion on the matter? ii) Since about three fourths of the Catholic bishops of the world were proponents of the definition already when the Council commenced, can we really say that the Pope’s personal opinion would have mattered in the long run anyway?

(I know that is not enough to dismiss it outright), but that desenters were given little room to speak their objections and others to express their views.

There are pages upon pages upon pages upon pages, etc, etc, etc, of speeches by the Minority party given at the Council as recorded in Mansi. Why don’t you read or read about these before repeating such a statement? THAT is how I was able to prove to MYSELF that the statement you repeated here is just a blatant lie given by opponents of the Council. And BTW, and this is really important for you to keep in mind. BEFORE THE VOTING SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL, ALL THE SPEECHES MADE BY THE BISHOPS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE VOTING BODY. These are the selfsame speeches contained in Mansi, and it definitely proves not only that the minority bishops had their say (and then some). but also that the polemicsts are simply liars.

The minority of Easterners had little say as well and perhaps their views were the more pertinent.

As I stated, check out Mansi. Further, it might interest you to know that the minority party had great representation in the theological commissions.

Among the earlier teachers, I find that the earliest clearly pro-Papal Infallibility writing comes from the 1300’s, a time when Rome was very much alone. From the time of many of the reunions to Vatican I, the few who proposed such a doctrine were a couple monastic groups. I see not one word from the Easterners in union with Rome–they seem to hold to a more pre-Schism conception of the Papacy…

I don’t understand this. Are you talking about the WORD “infallible?” For certainly, there are MANY quotes from the Fathers that indicate that Rome/its bishop was the source of doctrine for the Church (not in those exact words, but you know what I mean), and other such quotes from which one can readily deduce belief in papal infallibility. Would you like those quotes? I gave two of them in the Honorius thread - do you want the link?

Please respond to everything I’ve stated here so we can continue this discussion. Don’t leave a stone unturned. Thank you brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

 

[East_and_West]

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

What’s your point?

 

[Mickey]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
Joseph Ratzinger****

 

[East_and_West]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
Joseph Ratzinger****

So? A. Ratzinger is wrong. and B. When the EOs return to the preschism model we’ll talk.

 

[mardukm]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
Joseph Ratzinger****

The other side of the coin is that the EO must divest itself of the innovation that the primacy of a head bishop is one of mere honor, but rather admit that it is one of actual jurisdiction (just check out the canons of the Ecumenical Councils). It must also clean up house and not let some (many? most?) of her members keep thinking that there is no such thing as a head bishop in the Church. They must also admit to the universal appellate authority of the Bishop of Rome. This is, after all, the way it was in the first millenium. Regarding ecclesiology, that’s just for starters.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Orthodoxy strives to remain faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. As can be seen from a study of the
decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise anything close to the kind of power now claimed by the Popes during this crucial period of Church history. In addition to defining the doctrine of the ancient undivided Church, the councils adopted canons, or rules, to regulate the
administration of the Church. Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325, only granted the Bishop of Rome authority over Churches in the West and affirmed the independence of the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch. In time,
the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem joined the list of independent or autocephalous Churches. Thus, instead of a centralized Church built on the person of the Pope, the canons of the Ecumenical Councils treat the Church as a federation of autocephalous or independent local Churches. The First
Ecumenical Council also mandated that bishops should be elected locally, not appointed by the Bishop of Rome, as in modern Roman Catholic practice, at least in America. As described by the canons, the bishop of each province
governed the affairs of his province, led by the chief bishop, or Metropolitan, of the capital of the province. However, the Metropolitans did not have unlimited authority like the modern Pope, but were required to submit to the authority of a
council of all the bishops of the province. The canons further stipulated that the council of bishops, now called a Holy Synod, must meet at least twice a year. The Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus, established the principle that when a local Church reaches maturity, it should receive its independence
and the right to govern its own affairs, by recognizing the independence of the Church of Cyprus in 431.
Father John W. Morris, Ph.D

 

[East_and_West]

Orthodoxy strives to remain faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church.

It doesn’t mean that they succed at this.

 

[Mickey]

It doesn’t mean that they succed at this.

We all strive not to sin–but how many of us succeed? I am the most wretched of all sinners–a worm in the dirt.

 

[East_and_West]

We all strive not to sin–but how many of us succeed? I am the most wretched of all sinners–a worm in the dirt.

My point exaclty.The EO Church may strive to maintain the beliefs and practices of the Early Church, but they, in fact, fail at many points with regard to this matter. For example, Mardukm has shown over and over how the EO view of the Papacy is not that of the Early Church.

 

[Mickey]

My point exaclty.The EO Church may strive to maintain the beliefs and practices of the Early Church, but they, in fact, fail at many points with regard to this matter. For example, Mardukm has shown over and over how the EO view of the Papacy is not that of the Early Church.

My dear friend–Marduk has shown me nothing.

Polemics fly back and forth.
Accusations fly back and forth.
In the end we both pledge allegience to the Church we believe is the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church–and the reformed churches say we are both crazy.
I am convinced that Holy Orthodoxy remains the the Church of the undivided faith. I am convinced that Rome has innovated doctrines and added to the Creed.

That’s life!

 

[East_and_West]

I am convinced that Holy Orthodoxy remains the the Church of the undivided faith. I am convinced that Rome has innovated doctrines and added to the Creed.

That’s life!

In which case you are simply wrong.
That’s life.
Boy, we miss you guys and wish you would come home.

 

[Mickey]

In which case you are simply wrong.

I love it when you guys close out a discussion with “you are wrong”.

That cracks me up. :dancing:

 

[Swan]

This is just more myth-making.

The gathering in 1870AD at the Vatican was a pseudo-council (to borrow a description of it from a well known Melkite Catholic bishop). That pseudo-Council did not decide anything of substance for the church at large, a faction of individuals (now long gone to God) engaged in church-jacking. Not for the first, and possibly not for the last time such a thing would be tried.

So in a sense you are merely their victim, defending the outcome because you think you have no other option.

Marduk is in one way right to say that the Pope has a limited scope of powers, because in Truth he would. The privilege of powers confirmed for the Bishops of Rome at Vatican I are the de facto reality of your church, but not by right or truth.

Your church’s problem, right now, is how to back away of these claims without alarming the faithful, who are not ready to see such a reversal and might not understand that it was all a mistake, undertaken by overzealous bishops at one point in history.

The peoples understanding of church is so bound up with these ideas that moving too rapidly could cause a serious crises in Faith for them. A quick move away from the Papal dogmas could jeopardize their Faith, we must be understanding of this and work slowly to correct the error.

Michael

I must say that I am enjoying this thread to no end. It is rare to see so much to agree with (such as the above) on this board. Many of my own thoughts have been expressed far more eloquantly that I could hope to do - and the tapdancing around this issue, the semantics, etc., are all here, rightly shown to be the nonsense that they are. Even the issue of the less-than-holy popes of the past is here. And, as could have been predicted, there is once again no rational, logical, believable (at least by me) explanation for any of the complains against papal infallability. I have been reading (though not posting) on this forum for a long time and I have lost count of the posts I have seen that declare that the pope, and thus the RC church, have never made an error regarding dogma. That regardless of how sinful (and evil, IMO) some of these popes have been - they get their moral teaching correct?!!! The entire “Rome is right and you must agree or be wrong” attitude is IMO arrogant and one that Christ would not condone. The fact that Christ said his church would stand against sin doesn’t led to the conclusion, at least for me, that the current Roman church is still Christ’s church. Indeed, I feel that the true church founded by Christ got jettisoned by Rome long ago in favor or worldly power - but again, this is just my personal view. I converted to RC almost 18 years ago after being raised a Baptist. I am no longer a practicing RC due in large part to this issue. I feel that Rome has fallen into the sins of the Pharisees by making a false idol out of the institution of the church - it is this they worship, not the God who founded it. It seems that everything they do is just a grab for wordly power. The church founded by Jeus is made up of the people of God, the body of Christ, it is not an “insitution” to be ruled over by some kind of infallible monarch. The rule of the law has taken the place of the sprit taught by Christ - IMO. I find this realization painful, sad and tragic. I realize that my viewpoint will be offensive to many and I am not attempting to attack anyone personally and I respect the beliefs of all. But for me personally, this issue is a deal breaker.

 

[East_and_West]

I love it when you guys close out a discussion with “you are wrong”.

That cracks me up. :dancing:

Isn’t that what you did in your last post? OH MY!

 

[Mickey]

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.
Keenan Catechism

 

[East_and_West]

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.
Keenan Catechism

So this catechism is wrong. So what? The EO council of Jerusalem accepted trasubstantiation.

 

[Hesychios]

Blatantly false. The Catholic Church knows it is an ecumenical council so it must be one.

Circular logic.

The term pseudo-Council is from a Melkite Catholic bishop. I just happen to agree with him and I think the term he chose for it fits. You are entitled to your opinion as well.

Michael

 

[Mickey]

If the accusations of the OrientalChurch are well founded, it follows that it is the Roman Church which is guilty. In order to enlighten ourselves upon this point, we have investigated the relations of the two churches before their separation. It is, indeed, necessary to establish clearly the nature of these relations in order to see from which side has come the rupture. If it be true that the Roman Church sought in the ninth century to impose upon the whole Church a rule unknown to the previous ages and therefore unlawful, we must conclude that she alone should bear the responsibility of the schism. We have pursued the study with calmness and free from prejudice: it has brought us to these conclusions: (1.) The bishop of Rome did not for eight centuries possess the authority of divine right which he has since sought to exercise.
(2.) The pretension of the bishop of Rome to the sovereignty of divine right over the whole Church was the real cause of the division.
Abbe Guette