Question for Catholics and Orthodox: would you follow your Church?

[JRKH]

Trust me on this, NOBODY in the pre-schism church, certainly no one in the east, believed that the bishop of Rome himself was infallible. That idea came much later whether you want to believe it or not.

And you kind of answered my question. Catholics are intent on circling the wagons to defend papal infallibility because to give it up (in their minds) would mean the surrender of their religion. As if going to the pre-1870 Catholic Church would be the end of their faith. The schism is permanent. Alexius, choose your side.

I wouldn’t say that we are in some sort of “till the last man” mentality on the issue of infallibility, but — This is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Therefore we must hold to it and defend it. Just as the orthodox must hold and defend their docrines.

The greatest thing about both sides is the recognition of authority. Whether it be Papal/Magisterium, or Counciliar, we all recognize that we need to let the “powers that be do their thing”. The people charged with these explorations know better than any of us how difficult it will be. Perhaps there will never be a complete reunification, but any progress is good progress. It’s good because we can be assured it is of the Spirit. - God’s Spirit.

If these discussions bear fruit and obsticles are overcome; if the Patriarchs and the Pope arrive at an understanding of doctrines, definitions, heirarchy etc that is acceptable to both sides, how can we call ourselves Catholic if we dissent on these things.

To dissent on these efforts, even now, calls into question the strength and fidelity of ones faith in God’s Holy Church.

If anyone says they will never submit to reunification, they are already making themselves apostate because the only way they can hold that opinion is if they believe God’s Church can err in Doctrines, Faith and/or Morals. Whether you are East or West, you must believe that the Church (RCC or Orthodox) is infallible. If you would bolt over the issue of reunification, what does that say about your faith in God and His Church.

None of the above is directed against any individual or side, but just my opinion and understanding of being a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Catholic.

Peace
James

 

[Harpazo]

I wouldn’t say that we are in some sort of “till the last man” mentality on the issue of infallibility, but — This is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Therefore we must hold to it and defend it. Just as the orthodox must hold and defend their docrines.

The greatest thing about both sides is the recognition of authority. Whether it be Papal/Magisterium, or Counciliar, we all recognize that we need to let the “powers that be do their thing”. The people charged with these explorations know better than any of us how difficult it will be. Perhaps there will never be a complete reunification, but any progress is good progress. It’s good because we can be assured it is of the Spirit. - God’s Spirit.

Think of it this way. If these discussions bear fruit and obsticles are overcome; if the Patriarchs and the Pope arrive at an understanding of doctrines, definitions, heirarchy etc that is acceptable to both sides, how can we call ourselves Catholic if we dissent on these things.

To dissent on these efforts, even now calls into question the strength and fidelity of ones faith in God’s Holy Church.

If anyone they will never submit to reunification, they are already making themselves apostate because the only way they can hold that opinion is if they believe God’s Church can err in Doctrines, Faith and/or Morals. Whether you are East or West, you must believe that the (RCC or Orthodox) Church is infallible. If you would bolt over the issue of reunification, what does that say about your faith in God and His Church.

None of the above is directed against any individual or side, but just my opinion and understanding of being a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Catholic.

Peace
James

Beautifully said. The thing that bothers me in discussions like this is the understanding that the Orthodox seem to have on Papal Infallibility. It is NOT the Pope of Rome acting in and of himself, but with his brother bishops on behalf of the whole Church. Is that a good way to say it?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Peter_J]

Harpazo et al,

I think 031064 might have a good point when he/she says that the pope does not have too much power. In particular, whatever the pope currently has the power to do, he presumably always had the power to do (even if he didn’t exercise such power).

 

[Harpazo]

Harpazo et al,

I think 031064 might have a good point when he/she says that the pope does not have too much power. In particular, whatever the pope currently has the power to do, he presumably always had the power to do (even if he didn’t exercise such power).

The Patriarch of Rome had the ability to choose Bishops for other Churches? I think that is overstepping bounds. I know this isn’t a dogmatic thing and is subject to change, but the other Patriarchs in the Catholic Church should be able to appoint their own Bishops.

For example, in the Maronite Church outside of Lebanon, the Patriarch gets to pick 3 candidates and the Pope of Rome is the one that chooses which one is Bishop. Recently, when three were chosen, the Pope picked someone that wasn’t even a candidate. This is why I think these powers need to be returned to the Patriarchs.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[JRKH]

Beautifully said. The thing that bothers me in discussions like this is the understanding that the Orthodox seem to have on Papal Infallibility. It is NOT the Pope of Rome acting in and of himself, but with his brother bishops on behalf of the whole Church. Is that a good way to say it?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

The Orthodox are not the only ones who have trouble with the infallibility issue. Most protestant groups have the same issues.
I do agree with your statement though. The Pope never makes statements in a vacuum, or without much prayer and consultation with the magisterium. In the case of some sort of reunification, the complexion of the Magisterium would probably the biggest change with representatives from the Eastern Churches being in evidence. The variety of aspects that the east and west would bring to each other would be most interesting to the universal Church.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The Patriarch of Rome had the ability to choose Bishops for other Churches? I think that is overstepping bounds. I know this isn’t a dogmatic thing and is subject to change, but the other Patriarchs in the Catholic Church should be able to appoint their own Bishops.

For example, in the Maronite Church outside of Lebanon, the Patriarch gets to pick 3 candidates and the Pope of Rome is the one that chooses which one is Bishop. Recently, when three were chosen, the Pope picked someone that wasn’t even a candidate. This is why I think these powers need to be returned to the Patriarchs.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

As you say, this falls into the area of practice and as such would be easily changable. However I believe I can see the logic behind this practice. By allowing the local patriarch, or Archbishop or whomever select some number of candidates and then having a central authority make the final selection, the Church assures that the candidate selected is most in accordance with teachings etc. If the appointment of bishops is left entirely to the “Local” Church, it could lead to partisanship and, ultimately schism.
By having another Body, in this case the Holy Father, look over and make the selection the Church remains more unified in it’s teachings.

I do not know how often the Holy Father bypasses all of the proposed candidates, but I suspect it is not often.

Perhaps the disccussions will make alterations to the practice.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

I do agree with your statement though. The Pope never makes statements in a vacuum, or without much prayer and consultation with the magisterium.

In theory, according to Vatican I dogma–the Pope of Rome can declare doctrine apart from a council by virtue of his charism of infallibility–in essence rendering the Ecumenical council impotent.

There was no such unilateral papal powers in the undivided Church.

 

[JRKH]

In theory, according to Vatican I dogma–the Pope of Rome can declare doctrine apart from a council by virtue of his charism of infallibility–in essence rendering the Ecumenical council impotent.

There was no such unilateral papal powers in the undivided Church.

You may well be correct. I won’t dispute this. At the very least we can clearly say that no such doctrine had been declared in the “undivided Church”. I admit to having some concerns within myself regarding this doctrine. However, as a Roman Catholic I am bound to accept the teaching.

Now having said this, I would ask all of us, east and west, protestant and catholic, to examine how this doctrine has been implemented. Has any of the 11 Holy Fathers since the declaration come up with any “off the cuff” doctrines? By that I mean doctrines seemingly “pulled out of thin air” or declared without due diligence? Or rather have doctrines since the decree of infallability been the result of careful and prayerful consideration by the whole of the Church under the leadership of the Holy Father.

We, as humans tend to think in terms of power, and we fear this “Power” in the hands of a single man. I doubt that the Holy Father, or any of the cardinals (potential popes) think of “Infalliblity” as being a Power, but rather as a Huge and Heavy Responsibility. This, of course, places an entirely different light on the subject.

Think of oneself in the position of having such a power/responsibility. The Position of “Speaking” for God as it were on matters of faith and morals. Your eternal soul, charged and repsonsible for leading, or misleading the faithful of the world. Plus the eyes of the world, from world leaders to the lowliest of the lowly, hanging on your words and actions.
Given this, would you consider this authority a “power” or a “burden”.

Another aspect of this doctrine is the effect it has on the election of a Pontiff. Because this person will carry this huge responsibility, the conclave must be conscious of the character, abilties and stability of temperment of whomever they choose to sit on the Chair of Peter. This means that “political” considerations must take second place to holiness spirituality, and learning.

Perhaps, within the various discussions about reunification, there will arise a new definition and understanding of the role of infalliblity in the Chair of Peter.

 

[Mickey]

Now having said this, I would ask all of us, east and west, protestant and catholic, to examine how this doctrine has been implemented. Has any of the 11 Holy Fathers since the declaration come up with any “off the cuff” doctrines? By that I mean doctrines seemingly “pulled out of thin air” or declared without due diligence? Or rather have doctrines since the decree of infallability been the result of careful and prayerful consideration by the whole of the Church under the leadership of the Holy Father.

I believe the problem exists with the doctrine of papal infallibility itself. It is well documented that the ultramontanists tried to champion this dogma at the council of Constance and Basel–to no avail. Pius IX eventually defined it as dogma in 1870 amidst much controversy. (I have debated the workings of the Vatican I Council many times and will not rehash it).

But I do have one curiosity. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (1854)—was it retroactively declared as an infallible doctrine of the Church after the doctrine of infallibility (1870) was defined?

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
Now having said this, I would ask all of us, east and west, protestant and catholic, to examine how this doctrine has been implemented. Has any of the 11 Holy Fathers since the declaration come up with any “off the cuff” doctrines? By that I mean doctrines seemingly “pulled out of thin air” or declared without due diligence? Or rather have doctrines since the decree of infallability been the result of careful and prayerful consideration by the whole of the Church under the leadership of the Holy Father.

I do not know the answer to this. Perhaps someone else can clarify.

Is this something you are proposing as being “off the cuff” doctrine as I asked about in my post?
I wonder because you don’t really seem to be answering the section of my post that you chose to quote.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Harpazo,

First let me say that I posted my last post with some reluctance, since I think it’s partly a matter of semantics.

The Patriarch of Rome had the ability to choose Bishops for other Churches? I think that is overstepping bounds. I know this isn’t a dogmatic thing and is subject to change, but the other Patriarchs in the Catholic Church should be able to appoint their own Bishops.

I didn’t say that the pope has the authority to choose Bishops for other Churches, neither did I say that he doesn’t.

What I am saying is that if he has that authority now, then presumably he always had it even if he didn’t always use it.

 

[peary]

I can’t believe a Catholic would say something like this. It sounds good as if you want to be “nice” to everyone. There is nothing wrong with showing kindness to others but we cannot be complacent when it comes to our Catholic beliefs.

The Catholic Church will never change her doctrines when it comes to faith & morals, NEVER. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God will NEVER change.

As far as discipline, that can change and it has over time. But I would never settle for a change in doctrine as I know that it will never change anyway. It can’t change. The Church does not have the power to change anything concerning doctrine & dogma.

**If you want my opinion (probably not but you’ll get it anyway ) I don’t see reunification as an either/or issue. Rather, it is both/and.
Nothing is said that the western Catholic Church must change its doctrines. Every doctrine in the western Church has its compliment in some form within the Orthodox church, whether fully developed or not. Common ground is what a true ecumenism between the east and west Church is striving for. The eastern Church has much to offer as far as enriching spirituality and theology, and this goes vice versa too.

There are, of course, some major stumbling blocks but these can be hammered out - most have been anyway. There is the eastern rite Catholics who basically have the same liturgy and structure as the orthodox, but who have accepted the Chair of Peter and all that entails. As for solving major issues still on the table, well, that can be handled too in a special ecumenical council to finalize matters if necessary.

I still believe that it is the Eucharist that will reunify the Church in the final analysis.**

P.S. I use black type because I can see what I am typing. My eyesight is quite poor. Don’t get the idea that I am cyber-yelling at anyone!

 

[JRKH]

The way you frame your question is pretty offensive. The Orthodox Christians who would resist a reunion with Rome over infallibility are not doing it out of pride. You are trying cram a Catholic reaction into an Orthodox mind. We are not as similiar as some would think.

Actually, if any individual calling themselves Cathoic or Orthodox rejects reunification they would automatically make themselves apostate. We, whether East or West, recognize the primacy of the Church over the individual. Therefore if the Church reunites, regardless of the specifics, we should be bound to follow for Christ is in His Church and We Follow Christ.

For you the answer is simple. You will accept anything the pope commands regarding reunion.Obeying the pope is part of being catholic. If the pope tells you to do something even if you think it would be bad for the Church you must do it anyway. Papal authority is the most important aspect in catholicism because it trumps individual conscience. Please don’t get me wrong. **I’m not trying to misrepresent your faith. But catholics believe as a matter of faith that obedience to the pope is necessary for salvation **and if there was a scenario in which a person genuinely disagreed with the pope in an important matter of faith then that person must ignore his own conscience and obey the pope because it is an impossibility for the pope to lead the church away from the truth (or so catholics believe).

I realize you are not trying to mis-represent, but you are in any event.
Obedience to the Pope, as a man, is not an issue. Rather it is obedience to the Church. Because the Church has declared various doctrines and disciplines we obey them. Papel obedience is one of these, but it is not THE issue.
As to “Trumping” individual conscience I would suggest looking at an on-line catechism and looking up the term “Conscience”

A perfect example is Archbishop Lefebvre. No matter what you’re opinion is as to whether or not he should have disobeyed JPII, no reasonable person can say that he did what he did out of pride.

I am a reasonable person and I CAN say that he did so out of pride. As a member of the Clergy and a Bishop, his duty and his vows required obedience to the will of the Church.

Lefebvre saw the church headed down the wrong path in the wake of Vatican II. And when he had to make a choice between being excommunicated or allowing the traditional Roman Liturgy die, he sacrificed his membership in the Church in order to save the Church’s liturgical tradition. And beacuse he illicitly consecrated those 4 bishops, the Vatican created the FSSP and eventually liberated the traditional Roman liturgy 20 years later. There would be no FSSP, motu proprio, or any Traditional masses in the RCC today if not for him. But, nevertheless, he is excommunicated and burning in Hell according to the letter of Rome’s law.

While these actions certainly can be seen as affecting liturgical decisions in a historical perspective, it is impossible to know how history would have unfolded under different circumstances.
I find it interesting that your post is an arguement against Papal primacy and infallibility, yet your “Perfect” example is of a man who defied the decisions of a COUNCIL. If anything it seems to prove the desirability of a central authority to deal with such issues.

Contrast the image of Lefebvre to the Orthodox Mark of Ephesus. Mark and the orthodox christians united to him stood up to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the “orthodox” heirarchs that pushed for false union with Rome and Mark was not excommunicated but rather canonized as a pillar of Orthodoxy. Obedience to the bishops takes a back seat to believing the same faith as was always believed and handed to us by the Fathers. And papal supremacy (and especially infallibility) were not a part of the Faith in Mark’s time so the orthodox had a duty to resist the EP and union with Rome.

Since I am not familiar with this part of our history, I cannot comment. However, I will say that, if the Holy Spirit did not wish the two to be one then it would not be. If He wishes it to be so now, then it Shall be.

Pride doesn’t figure into the equation at all. Since 1870, it is part of your faith to hold and defend papal infallibility or you will cease to be Catholic. It is part of the orthodox faith to reject every novelty that was not received through the Tradition on the Apostolic Fathers including papal infallibility or we cease to be Orthodox.

I am very sorry. The schism is permanent.

Well I guess that means that the Pope and the Patriarchs can quit talking then. Varc has settled the question!!

Sorry. I’m just being a smart - you know what.

Personally I will let those who are charged by the Church(s) heirarchy do what they are charged to do. Discuss and explore and seek closer ties.

 

[Peter_J]

If you want my opinion (probably not but you’ll get it anyway ) I don’t see reunification as an either/or issue. Rather, it is both/and.
Nothing is said that the western Catholic Church must change its doctrines.

I’m not really sure what you mean here. The Orthodox are most certainly saying that the Catholic Church must change its doctrines.

 

[Lilyflower]

The Orthodox are not the only ones who have trouble with the infallibility issue. Most protestant groups have the same issues.
I do agree with your statement though. The Pope never makes statements in a vacuum, or without much prayer and consultation with the magisterium. In the case of some sort of reunification, the complexion of the Magisterium would probably the biggest change with representatives from the Eastern Churches being in evidence. The variety of aspects that the east and west would bring to each other would be most interesting to the universal Church.

Peace
James

I do not see how there can be a reasonable objection to the idea of Infallibility. To suggest otherwise would be to say that actually Christ has not kept true to His promise.

 

[JRKH]

I do not see how there can be a reasonable objection to the idea of Infallibility. To suggest otherwise would be to say that actually Christ has not kept true to His promise.

This is precisely what the commssions are trying to deal with. Each side must come to terms with the others understandings of Christs Will for His Church.

I’m not sure what part of my post you are addressing with your response.

May God bless and Keep these people charged with discerning these issues.

Peace
James

 

[Mickey]

Is this something you are proposing as being “off the cuff” doctrine as I asked about in my post?

Yes, I suppose you could say that the strange 1870 dogma is “off the cuff”.

 

[johnnykins]

I believe the problem exists with the doctrine of papal infallibility itself. It is well documented that the ultramontanists tried to champion this dogma at the council of Constance and Basel–to no avail. Pius IX eventually defined it as dogma in 1870 amidst much controversy. (I have debated the workings of the Vatican I Council many times and will not rehash it).

But I do have one curiosity. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (1854)—was it retroactively declared as an infallible doctrine of the Church after the doctrine of infallibility (1870) was defined?

You make the same mistake that Protestants make: you believe a dogma becomes valid only when declared. The Pope ALWAYS was infallible as defined in VI. That the infallibility was not formally declared is irrelevant. To say otherwise would be to say that the Trinity was not consubstantial - or even a fact - until declared so at Nicea.

So Mary was always Immaculately Conceived, but the Church through Pope Pius IX declared it so for the preservation of the faith and help to the faithful only in 1854. The Trinity was always a consubstantial Trinity but the Church through the 1st Ecumenical Council declared it so for the preservation of the faith and help to the faithful. The dogma of the Theotokos was always fact, but declared only at Ephesus.

You may reject VI as you are Orthodox, but from the Catholic point of view the fact of Papal infallibility was always there - it was just declared so at Vatican I.

So your answer is, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was infallible at the time of its declaration - and was always true.

 

[johnnykins]

In theory, according to Vatican I dogma–the Pope of Rome can declare doctrine apart from a council by virtue of his charism of infallibility–in essence rendering the Ecumenical council impotent.

There was no such unilateral papal powers in the undivided Church.

Your interpretation of Vatican I as well as your bland assertion are wrong on both counts. Certainly a Pope can declare dogma apart from a council - meaning without a council called and voting. However, the Pope is never separated from the Church in his capacity as Pope when asserting a magisterial matter of faith and morals as divinely revealed. The Papacy does not make a council impotent - it completes and validates one when called. When the Orientals rejected Chalcedon - it is precisely the ratification of Chalcedon by Rome that gave it validity. Frankly, the Orthodox have no consistent method exercised through all 7 councils that apples to determine validity. It is, from an orthodox historical practice, voluntarism.

Finally, simply because the exercise of separate papal power to declare dogma was not exercised in the early Church does nothing to prove it wasn’t there. In fact certain actions first taken by the Pope and then ratified by Council supports the independent power. Obviously, if you demand an actual exercise exactly in the manner of 1854, it’s not there. However, there were no ecumenical councils before Nicea. So I suppose you will have to agree that the Church of the 4th century had no power to call councils since one wasn’t called earlier. (Perhaps you’d like to explain why this power arose in the 4th century and not before.?) Otherwise, if the Church had the power to call councils, I submit the Pope had the power to declare dogma - exercised or not.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, I suppose you could say that the strange 1870 dogma is “off the cuff”.

Hmmmmm - a doctrine proposed and ratified by council is off the cuff.

Sorry - doesn’t fly.

Why is it that, given the Orthodox view of the supremecy of the Councilior Church, you are holding up a Councilior decision for such scrutiny?

Peace
James