The reunited church

[John_of_Patmos]

The Orthodox didn’t ‘break away’ from anything.

A very strong argument can be made that Rome fell because of it’s new notions of papacy. The fact that the Cardinals did their daring and outrageous act at a point in time when there was no Pope and the western church had embarked on a reformation campaign is no coincidence.

The Pope is a safeguard against heresy. *The west would feel the same way if the Orthodox had the Pope (in Antioch presumably). *That was my point. I don’t understand why Papal infallibility is such a problem for the East, asides from the fact that the East generally disagrees from what has been declared as dogma. I know many Orthodox think it is some made up dogma (infallibility). Cyprian of Carthage stated in 256 “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”. Infact, without Papal infallibilty, we would all be arians. And besides, the pope very rarely issues an Ex Cathedra Statement. Quite a few are on Christ having two Natures (which we agree on), a few on Jansenism, the IC and the Assumption (which I think is compatible with EO theology).

I talked to a priest about the pope being “First among Equals”.

"The pope is superior to any other bishop in only one way: his ability to invoke the charism of infallibility contrary to discordant bishops (even when the discordance represents a numerical majority, as it did in the Arian heresy).

There is a balance, as I tried to explain in my previous email, in the Church’s understanding of the collegiality of all bishops and the hierarchy of the Church’s administrative structure, which is infused with the grace of governance even in its bureaucratic structure."

 

[BertBlyleven]

The Orthodox didn’t ‘break away’ from anything.

A very strong argument can be made that Rome fell because of it’s new notions of papacy. The fact that the Cardinals did their daring and outrageous act at a point in time when there was no Pope and the western church had embarked on a reformation campaign is no coincidence.

I hope you aren’t implying the Orthodox Church is without schism and division.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Pope is a safeguard against heresy. *The west would feel the same way if the Orthodox had the Pope (in Antioch presumably). *That was my point. I don’t understand why Papal infallibility is such a problem for the East, asides from the fact that the East generally disagrees from what has been declared as dogma. I know many Orthodox think it is some made up dogma (infallibility). Cyprian of Carthage stated in 256 “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”. Infact, without Papal infallibilty, we would all be arians. And besides, the pope very rarely issues an Ex Cathedra Statement. Quite a few are on Christ having two Natures (which we agree on), a few on Jansenism, the IC and the Assumption (which I think is compatible with EO theology).

I talked to a priest about the pope being “First among Equals”.

"The pope is superior to any other bishop in only one way: his ability to invoke the charism of infallibility contrary to discordant bishops (even when the discordance represents a numerical majority, as it did in the Arian heresy).

There is a balance, as I tried to explain in my previous email, in the Church’s understanding of the collegiality of all bishops and the hierarchy of the Church’s administrative structure, which is infused with the grace of governance even in its bureaucratic structure."

Some Catholic theologians believe there could be dozens of ex-cathedra statements. It is a wonder to me why Rome has not yet published a list of just what statements are ex-cathedra after 140 years, since believing in said statements is necessary for salvation. At any rate the idea that there could be dozens of said statements seems to indicate that the number of ex-cathedra statements may not be as low as one might think.

 

[BertBlyleven]

The Pope is a safeguard against heresy. *The west would feel the same way if the Orthodox had the Pope (in Antioch presumably). *That was my point. I don’t understand why Papal infallibility is such a problem for the East, asides from the fact that the East generally disagrees from what has been declared as dogma. I know many Orthodox think it is some made up dogma (infallibility). Cyprian of Carthage stated in 256 “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”. Infact, without Papal infallibilty, we would all be arians. And besides, the pope very rarely issues an Ex Cathedra Statement. Quite a few are on Christ having two Natures (which we agree on), a few on Jansenism, the IC and the Assumption (which I think is compatible with EO theology).

I talked to a priest about the pope being “First among Equals”.

"The pope is superior to any other bishop in only one way: his ability to invoke the charism of infallibility contrary to discordant bishops (even when the discordance represents a numerical majority, as it did in the Arian heresy).

There is a balance, as I tried to explain in my previous email, in the Church’s understanding of the collegiality of all bishops and the hierarchy of the Church’s administrative structure, which is infused with the grace of governance even in its bureaucratic structure."

You are putting a target on yourself.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I hope you aren’t implying the Orthodox Church is without schism and division.

What do you expect? That we should be members of the Orthodox Church, but believe that Rome is correct? That’s a rather farfetched expectation.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Some Catholic theologians believe there could be dozens of ex-cathedra statements. It is a wonder to me why Rome has not yet published a list of just what statements are ex-cathedra after 140 years, since believing in said statements is necessary for salvation. At any rate the idea that there could be dozens of said statements seems to indicate that the number of ex-cathedra statements may not be as low as one might think.

Ex Cathedra statments just “back up” (maybe not the right term) already accepted beliefs. Therefore, chances are a catholic already believes these truths before the are declared “ex Cathedra”.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ex Cathedra statments just “back up” (maybe not the right term) already accepted beliefs. Therefore, chances are a catholic already believes these beliefs before the are declared infallibable teaching.

I don’t think the statement that all living creatures must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation involved restating something that was already believed from time immemorial. That statement, from Unam Sanctam, is one of the debated infallible statements, by the way.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

You are putting a target on yourself.

Yes I am.

 

[Hesychios]

Ex Cathedra statments just “back up” (maybe not the right term) already accepted beliefs. Therefore, chances are a catholic already believes these truths before the are declared “ex Cathedra”.

I disagree.

Some of them are not in any way Apostolic, and are derivative of Latin western assumptions which probably should not be made. In short they are novel.

St Vincent of Lérins reveals a very Orthodox understanding of theology when he writes …

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

         (4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut               itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer               the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel               contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will               take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.               What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole               province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees               of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a               few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be               found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their               meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet               continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers               approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and               taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly,               frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest               hesitation.

Orthodox do not take their authority from this statement, but this Orthodox saint does express the common Apostolic understanding of theology very well and we hold to it even today. Many Papal dogmas and decrees do not pass muster here …

http://www.westernorthodox.com/images/vincent.gif

Saint Vincent, champion of Orthodoxy, pray for us!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

How many times in history has the Pope truly spoken ex Cathedra and single-handedly proclaimed dogma and / or doctrine?

 

[Nine_Two]

How many times in history has the Pope truly spoken ex Cathedra and single-handedly proclaimed dogma and / or doctrine?

That’s part of the problem. There are very few agreed upon times, but very convincing arguments for quite a few others. No one knows because the Catholic Church hasn’t told people which ones are and which ones are not.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

How many times in history has the Pope truly spoken ex Cathedra and single-handedly proclaimed dogma and / or doctrine?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

That’s part of the problem. There are very few agreed upon times, but very convincing arguments for quite a few others. No one knows because the Catholic Church hasn’t told people which ones are and which ones are not.

Agreed, and most of the recent Popes have spoken on the notion of infallibility, expressing a very reserved view on its exercise.

One might argue that the cause of reunification might actually prompt a healthy and welcome re-examination of papal infallibility.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I sense some fighting…
:slapfight::stretcher:
Lets not be like the monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre!
Peace, John
:byzsoc:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I sense some fighting…
:slapfight::stretcher:
Lets not be like the monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre!
Peace, John
:byzsoc:

LOL! - no, my broom is in the closet!

From my end, I’m simply stating that our Pontiffs themselves realize the gravity of exercise of infallibility. I’m Catholic, so I accept the “infallibility of infallibility”, if you will, but in the interest of honest dialogue on this subject, I do offer and submit that (i) we should look to the very men entrusted with the burden of this power as an indication of the discretion with which it is used and (ii) acknowledge that it has in fact been rarely used.

Our current Holy Father, Benedict XVI, is quoted as saying in July 2005: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”

Also, an intellectually honest look at papal infallibility would submit that confusion does exist as to when it is actually used. The decree Ordinatio Sacerdotalis provides a good example. While Pope Benedict XVI himself has referred to this as an infallible teaching, we don’t really know how he reached this conclusion. Did Pope John Paul II himself follow the rigid protocol for infallible ex cathedra infallible declaration? or did he simply reiterate the Church’s existing infallible teaching on the subject? That canon lawyers cannot agree on the subject is evidence of the complexity surrounding infallible teachings.

No “brooms out” here in my opinion - our Orthodox friend, Nine_Two, raises a fair point.

 

[twf]

How many times in history has the Pope truly spoken ex Cathedra and single-handedly proclaimed dogma and / or doctrine?

I think Mardukm and many others would argue that he never has. Take the two popular examples…the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of the Assumption… there was wide support from the college of bishops who encouraged the Holy Father to promulgate these dogmas… that’s hardly acting “single-handedly”.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

LOL! - no, my broom is in the closet!

From my end, I’m simply stating that our Pontiffs themselves realize the gravity of exercise of infallibility. I’m Catholic, so I accept the “infallibility of infallibility”, if you will, but in the interest of honest dialogue on this subject, I do offer and submit that (i) we should look to the very men entrusted with the burden of this power as an indication of the discretion with which it is used and (ii) acknowledge that it has in fact been rarely used.

Our current Holy Father, Benedict XVI, is quoted as saying in July 2005: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”

Also, an intellectually honest look at papal infallibility would submit that confusion does exist as to when it is actually used. The decree Ordinatio Sacerdotalis provides a good example. While Pope Benedict XVI himself has referred to this as an infallible teaching, we don’t really know how he reached this conclusion. Did Pope John Paul II himself follow the rigid protocol for infallible ex cathedra infallible declaration? or did he simply reiterate the Church’s existing infallible teaching on the subject? That canon lawyers cannot agree on the subject is evidence of the complexity surrounding infallible teachings.

No “brooms out” here in my opinion - our Orthodox friend, Nine_Two, raises a fair point.

Like I said earlier, Ex Cathedra Statements are typically believed by Catholics anyway, before declared so.
From my Priest friend:
The Church has a very balanced approach to this: the pope is the “final word,” in juridical and administrative decisions; but he is also just a bishop, the bishop of Rome. The charism of infallibility is rooted in the unity of the bishops, manifested then in the voice of the bishop of Rome.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think Mardukm and many others would argue that he never has. Take the two popular examples…the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of the Assumption… there was wide support from the college of bishops who encouraged the Holy Father to promulgate these dogmas… that’s hardly acting “single-handedly”.

Yes, indeed, and we Eastern Catholics can reflect on those two particular examples in a similar fashion as our Orthodox brothers and sisters, wondering why the declarations were even necessary, but those are separate thoughts and threads entirely (many out there to chose from …).

As it relates to the subject of this thread, the reunited church, I do think it would be fair (and perhaps somewhat obvious) to agree that the doctrine of papal infallibility will be central to and reconsidered as part of the ongoing ecumenical dialogue. That seems to be where things have landed, if one examines the progress made to date by (and the current agenda of) the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Like I said earlier, Ex Cathedra Statements are typically believed by Catholics anyway, before declared so.
From my Priest friend:
The Church has a very balanced approach to this: the pope is the “final word,” in juridical and administrative decisions; but he is also just a bishop, the bishop of Rome. The charism of infallibility is rooted in the unity of the bishops, manifested then in the voice of the bishop of Rome.

Yes, and I would agree with that, except to say that we have gone through some more “liberal thinking” times in recent past when some Catholics felt that unless something is expressly stated or declared infallibly in the extreme, then we are not bound. And IMO this is one of the reasons why this has become such a popular subject among Catholics. Did the Catholic Church think and teach that use of contraceptives was wrong before Humanae Vitae was published, for example? Without knowing the facts, I would still intuit as a faithful, practicing Catholic that this would be the case - Humanae Vitae simply reaffirmed in modern terms what was already taught and widely accepted.

BTW - your priest friend is wise, indeed!

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Yes, and I would agree with that, except to say that we have gone through some more “liberal thinking” times in recent past when some Catholics felt that unless something is expressly stated or declared infallibly in the extreme, then we are not bound. And IMO this is one of the reasons why this has become such a popular subject among Catholics. Did the Catholic Church think and teach that use of contraceptives was wrong before Humanae Vitae was published, for example? Without knowing the facts, I would still intuit as a faithful, practicing Catholic that this would be the case - Humanae Vitae simply reaffirmed in modern terms what was already taught and widely accepted.

BTW - your priest friend is wise, indeed!

Yes, of course I forgot the liberals…
and yes, Fr. T. =