Patriarch of Moscow Cyril - There is only One Church!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vaseljen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Papal infallability was the last nail in to coffin for possible reunion between the Rome and the Orthodox Church. That is the last thing Orthodox Church is willing to accept.
 
Vaseljen said:
Papal infallability was the last nail in to coffin for possible reunion between the Rome and the Orthodox Church. That is the last thing Orthodox Church is willing to accept.
Click to expand...
Nice try. More like rejection of Papal Infallibility is the last thing that the* Catholic *Church is willing to accept!
 
KathleenGee said:
So in papal infallibility, the pope then goes back and consults with all the bishops. And if they give their full consent to the pope, then the pope can declare a dogma of faith.

No pope can declare a dogma of faith without it lived out in the common people and with full consent by the local bishops.
Click to expand...
hmmm, that is not what Vatican I claimed. Pastor Aeturnus: "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

The Pope does not need the whole consensus of the Church to promulgate dogma. Vatican I also asserts that the Pope is the supreme authority–even over counsels. I appreciate that you’re trying to make the Catholic faith palatable to the Orthodox but let’s try to be honest.
 
Hmmm…interesting…I attended last fall a seminar at our regional seminary, and it was a top national theologian who had an entire session on infallibility.

I also went forward here on CAF to provide his written handouts, word for word.

The bottom line of papal infallibility is serving others, not domineering.

Papal infallibility was never defined until 1856 at Vatican I. And ironically, there are no more doctrines or dogmas to be defined! Papal encyclicals are the instructions for today.

Likewise, you bring up doctrines. Have you ever studied the Catholic Church Catechism? You will find references mainly to Sacred Scripture, then to councils, the saints. The universal Petrine church must have very clear doctrines and norms because it is evangelical bringing the Gospel to all peoples and cultures and languages. We are not determined by our region but by our sole ecclesial identity, different than the various Orthodox who are closely tied with their respective governments.

In some ways, I wish we could have a greater relationship as I see right now with Putin and the Russian clergy.

If you reduce leadership to councils or patriarchs, there comes about a human tendency to pick and choose what fancies you. I don’t consider it faith.

I am also not catering to particular Orthodox either, considering the attitude by some. I uphold the primacy of Peter in communion with all bishops and pray for the reunification with the East.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
hmmm, that is not what Vatican I claimed. Pastor Aeturnus: "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

The Pope does not need the whole consensus of the Church to promulgate dogma. Vatican I also asserts that the Pope is the supreme authority–even over counsels. I appreciate that you’re trying to make the Catholic faith palatable to the Orthodox but let’s try to be honest.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing this out, you are right it needs to be honest.

The Pope is the supreme authority and while he does consult with his Cardinals, in the end he is the one who makes the decision.

I appreciate the efforts for re-unification, I simply can’t see it happening. I try not to be a pessimist and although both churches share very strong similarities, the differences are not as small as what some hope to be and I just can’t some of these being “sorted” out.

I struggled with this before I ultimately decided on Catholicism.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
hmmm, that is not what Vatican I claimed. Pastor Aeturnus: "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."
Click to expand...
Hi Jon. You’re right, that is what Vatican I said. But the crucial question is, how many ex cathedra statements have there been? Answers to that range from very high to very low.
 
There are no more dogmas to define.

The popes speak to us through encyclicals, and not all encyclicals carry the same ‘truth’. We depend on our local bishops to provide us perspective on them.

Attending the class on papal infallibility there were several factions, and one of them were so extreme in their position towards the papacy, it was almost like, if the pope only liked chocolate, then we are only supposed to like chocolate…Montanists…our regent theologian stating as such.

Likewise i know church artist whose father is orthodox and the mother catholic and she says the Latins are more intellectual and the Orthodox more heart felt, emotional.

I just see reactions.

The instructor stated the pope must consult with all bishops reflecting on long held faith traditions held by the faithful, and cannot make dogma without full consent by them.

If not believing me, then take it up with the regent theologian.
 
KathleenGee said:
Hmmm…interesting…I attended last fall a seminar at our regional seminary, and it was a top national theologian who had an entire session on infallibility.
Click to expand...
Right. And Jon Mallory quoted an actual binding council, Vatican 1, which presumably trumps your national theologian, no? You can spin it however you wish, but the actual binding document says what it says, as proclaimed (presumably) immutable dogma.
If you reduce leadership to councils or patriarchs, there comes about a human tendency to pick and choose what fancies you. I don’t consider it faith.
Click to expand...
But your Catholic ecumenical councils are clearly binding on you (and anyone joining your ranks). I mean, the RC Church is also reduced to councils and patriarchs, only with a “superpatriarch” circa 1800s, who wields control over all without any limits, and no way to remove him. I’m seeing more & more use of the word “primacy” in Catholic writing, but until Vatican 1 is formally modified to reflect this, then it’s just spin. And if Vatican 1 can’t be changed…then this is that corner that Rome has painted herself into.
 
From what I have studied in class…and our instructor is a well known scholar, none of us thought he was teaching us American understanding.

I also worked with Roman Catholic priests over seas who were not American and I think this perception that we lock in with the pope as such is similar to perceptions held by anti pope Protestants.

So we are in dispute.

Primacy of Peter is always there and will be, the sign of universality of faith that takes us beyond our own regional interests. Perhaps there is some projection?

We also learned the establishment of the Roman Church by SS Peter and Paul were soley for the ecclesia independent of imperialism, and when disputes came up from Byzantine churches, Rome always trumped because they approached such with ties to their governments.

That is my basic problem with Orthodoxy is its ties to particular cultures. So if you are not a member of that cultural church, then you are more on the outside…and this goes against my Latin sense of universality…and the Gospel.
 
KathleenGee said:
From what I have studied in class…and our instructor is a well known scholar, none of us thought he was teaching us American understanding.

I also worked with Roman Catholic priests over seas who were not American and I think this perception that we lock in with the pope as such is similar to perceptions held by anti pope Protestants.

So we are in dispute.

Primacy of Peter is always there and will be, the sign of universality of faith that takes us beyond our own regional interests. Perhaps there is some projection?

We also learned the establishment of the Roman Church by SS Peter and Paul were soley for the ecclesia independent of imperialism, and when disputes came up from Byzantine churches, Rome always trumped because they approached such with ties to their governments.

That is my basic problem with Orthodoxy is its ties to particular cultures. So if you are not a member of that cultural church, then you are more on the outside…and this goes against my Latin sense of universality…and the Gospel.
Click to expand...
But how do you reason from “Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable” to your claim that the Pope has gain the consent of the Church?
 
Hi KathleenGee. I don’t know you too well, but I happened to see that you posted
KathleenGee said:
There are no more dogmas to define.
Click to expand...
and I was wondering if you could elaborate further. Also, can you provide a Catholic (but, preferably, not SSPX) source for this idea?
 
Roman-Catholic Church today in general is trying to depict some of it’s “odd” teachings as a bit more mild than they might actually be.
 
I am repeating what we were taught. And if this theologian is teaching American spin, then it is not Catholic.

He instructed us that many Catholics do not even understand papal infallibility and he was quite clear…the pope looks on the tradition of faith long held by the laity, consults with all bishops…and if they agree, then he can make a dogma.

But there are no more doctrines of Christ because all of Christ was finalized at the Council of Nicea. There are no more revelations of Christ to be revealed, no more doctrines.

Regarding dogmas, there are as of yet, no long held traditions that are to be held as a statement of faith.

Today the popes teach in encyclicals, and each encyclical carries its own weight. Our local bishops instruct us in what they contain and how much they pertain to us.

The pope can never contradict the doctrine of faith in Christ. The papacy is the sign of universal unity.

And many Catholics likewise did not like the false reforms of Vatican II either. It is a matter of knowing where to put our faith and we greatly recall the gift of Pope John Paul II who is now a saint.

Yes…many degrees of papal pronouncements. It is quite complicated. But the pope can never contradict our tradition of faith contained in the catechism. So he is not above the doctrine of faith. And in such context, for a pope to make some decree…he cannot do so as a self serving lone ranger.

The final ending of the class is that the pope and bishops are to be Servants of God, not dictators or bosses.

And you all need to realize we are working within a universal church that reaches out to many cultures of peoples. There is constant work of implementing the Gospel into the native populations I am not very familiar with Orthodox outreach that much. But we need great organization for serving all the many countless people of many different countries to exist as Church.

My seminar was taken at a regional seminary in the fall of 2014, the Roots of the Papacy.
I shared with the Protestants last fall the hand outs but I cannot remember the thread’s name, and I think it was done in December, 2014, and don’t have the time right now to do a search.

But I don’t appreciate at all the ill will and lack of Christian charity or the ongoing put downs by the Orthodox. Not at all.
 
KathleenGee said:
I am repeating what we were taught. And if this theologian is teaching American spin, then it is not Catholic.

He instructed us that many Catholics do not even understand papal infallibility and he was quite clear…the pope looks on the tradition of faith long held by the laity, consults with all bishops…and if they agree, then he can make a dogma.

Regarding dogmas, there are as of yet, no long held traditions that are to be held as a statement of faith.

Today the popes teach in encyclicals, and each encyclical carries its own weight. Our local bishops instruct us in what they contain and how much they pertain to us.

The pope can never contradict the doctrine of faith in Christ. The papacy is the sign of universal unity.

And many Catholics likewise did not like the false reforms of Vatican II either. It is a matter of knowing where to put our faith and we greatly recall the gift of Pope John Paul II who is now a saint.

Yes…many degrees of papal pronouncements. It is quite complicated. But the pope can never contradict our tradition of faith contained in the catechism. So he is not above the doctrine of faith.
Click to expand...
As far as I am concerned your instructor is incorrect. There is no requirement that making an ex cathedra statement requires the consultation of other bishops and viewing the tradition as held in time by the laity. It is good to do so but does not require it. A pope can always make an ex cathedra statement unilaterally. It’s just that the belief is the Holy Spirit will protect the Pope from error (even if it takes the Pope to suddenly drop dead) which some apologists on caf have used. So it is useful and practical to consult others before a doctrine is defined but does not require it.

And your statement regarding:
But there are no more doctrines of Christ because all of Christ was finalized at the Council of Nicea. There are no more revelations of Christ to be revealed, no more doctrines.

That is most definitely not true as there are the later ecumenical councils Ephesus, Chalcedon and II/III Constantinople which dealt with Christ’s natures and wills (each council fighting heresies such as Appollinarianism, Monophysitism,monotheletism, and Nestorianism). So no, it was not “finalized” at Nicaea as that only dealt with Arianism primarily.

And your post contradicts Catholic teaching, saying that there are no more doctrines to be revealed, having been finalized at Nicaea. Catholic teaching says that there is “for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3, NKJV). This is reflected by Catholic teaching that there is the original deposit of faith, sacred tradition and sacred scripture (see Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 74), both which constitute public revelation. This is why private revelation is not binding on Catholics because it is only public revelation, which comes from the original deposit of faith, which must be believed by all the faithful. And the councils would be the articulation of the faith already held by the faithful. This is why at the councils they say “this is the Orthodox faith” etc because the councils are not meant to define new articles of faith but articulate them in response to heresy. This new articulation of the faith, the better understanding of the faith with time, would then be referred to as the Catholic teaching of the development of doctrine, where the faith is more abundantly understood as the doctrine is articulated over time. That is why at Vatican I, papal infallibility was not seen as a new article of faith but something that was divinely revealed in the original deposit of faith that was articulated and understood as fully until Vatican I. This belief that it was always part of the faith and part of deposit of faith is why Catholic apologists use previous popes such as Pope Leo and his tome during the council of Chalcedon and scripture to support infallibility, saying that it was excersized in the past and is a belief held then as well. It’s why every Catholic teaching (papal ex cathedra statements included) is always tried to be justified by apologists by scripture, tradition, history etc.

So the faith concerning Christ was definitely NOT finalized in Nicaea but in the original deposit of faith as defined by Catholic teaching. And councils and ex cathedra statements is not for the revealing of new doctrines but articulations of what is believed by the faithful as part of the unchanging apostolic faith. So it is false to say that the Pope won’t use his infallibility again since there are no more doctrines to be revealed, since that’s not what infallibility is meant for at all (and anyways, no authority, council, Pope with infallibility, etc. can make a new article of faith by making private revelation into public revelation that must be held by all the faithful). It’s the reason why Marian apparitions such as Fatima is not binding but only “worthy of veneration,” and can’t be changed to make it part of public revelation even if the Pope wanted to.
 
KathleenGee said:
But I don’t appreciate at all the ill will and lack of Christian charity or the ongoing put downs by the Orthodox. Not at all.
Click to expand...
RyanBlack said:
Then perhaps you should not engage in put-downs against the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
A small (well, maybe not-so-small) voice in my head is telling me not to get between you two; nevertheless, I’m going to stick my neck out and say Let’s be careful not to oversimplify.

I believe that Catholic-Orthodox relations are a lot better in “real life” then the internet. And I’m speaking here as someone who has spend a lot of time on both Catholic forums and Orthodox forums, regardless of whether you see it terms of forums having a lot of “baggage”, or of being caught in what one Catholic author called “a net of warring duties that you did not weave”, or whatever.
 
Peter_J said:
Hi Jon. You’re right, that is what Vatican I said. But the crucial question is, how many ex cathedra statements have there been? Answers to that range from very high to very low.
Click to expand...
Thousands, if one is to believe the official relatio.
 
Peter_J said:
What … You guys old-fashioned or something. 🤷
Click to expand...
P.S. heh 🙂 … But seriously, it strikes me that some would say just the opposite, ie they’d claim that you’ve abandoned the “traditional” Catholic practice of trying to get Orthodox to be ICWR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top