To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[josephdaniel29]

So you can’t answer the question.

But to be fair, may I ask what question I was supposed to ask?

Blessings

Why would I answer a question based on a flawed premise? I’ll ask you a question. If a Pope taught heresy, such as denying the real presence, would you follow him? If the answer is no then you understand the principle we are talking about.

No one said anything about submitting decisions for approval. Of course you knew better than that when you asked the question, you just wanted to ask a loaded question.

If you want to talk about it lets talk about the actual principles involved can we?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

His questions are valid. Christ leaving a Magisterum to determine the Truth (regardless of the opinions of laity) seems far more plausible then saying infallibilty lies in the opinions of laity. Frankly, given the state of the world today, I find your premise frightening.

You may find it frightening but the Orthodox Church has maintained doctrinal unity and consistency for almost 2,000 years, and all that without a Pope.

I always laugh when a Catholic makes a statement like this. The way you make it sound the whole world would fall apart under our system. That may be the case for you because you have put all of the responsibility for preserving the faith on the clergy. Catholics can’t handle freedom when they get it. Just look at what happened after a little control was relinquished after Vatican II with all the clown masses and such.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

It’s worked for this long, why change now?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

How is this different from Protestantism? This is no more than authority by your own lights rather than the authority of the Church.

I really don’t have the space to fully explain to you the conciliar nature of the Church. Suffice it to say the idea that episcopal decisions are “submitted” to the laity for “approval” is false. It is the role of the divinely instituted episcopacy to define the truth.

That being said no one is obligated to follow a bishop or even a council of bishops that teaches something clearly opposed to Apostolic Tradition. How it works is a great mystery. The Church’s unity is maintained by the Uncreated Grace of God. Whether you understand it or not you have to see that it works. Fifteen independently governed national Churches all maintaining complete doctrinal unity and all without a monarchical bishop. You see what happened in Anglicanism. Why has the same thing not happened to us? How else do you explain that except for the Grace of God?

I will bring the question a little closer to home. If your bishop all of a sudden began denying the real presence would you be obligated to follow him? What if the Pope taught that? Answer those questions and you’ll understand the principle we are talking about.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Can anyone give a statement from one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils where the Fathers stated something to the effect, “let’s wait to see what the laity say about this” or “these bishops have no God-given authority unless it is approved by the laity”?

Blessings

Yeah it’s right next to the part where the Councils taught the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, that Mary was born without original sin, purgatorial fire and that baptism is done by sprinkling.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[jam070406]

You may find it frightening but the Orthodox Church has maintained doctrinal unity and consistency for almost 2,000 years, and all that without a Pope.

I always laugh when a Catholic makes a statement like this. The way you make it sound the whole world would fall apart under our system. That may be the case for you because you have put all of the responsibility for preserving the faith on the clergy. Catholics can’t handle freedom when they get it. Just look at what happened after a little control was relinquished after Vatican II with all the clown masses and such.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

It’s worked for this long, why change now?

Yours in Christ
Joe

LOL!

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the modernist wolves that Pope Benedict alluded to when he asked the Faithful to pray for him.
Are you a former Catholic btw?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

It is not about the laity nor is it about the bishops. The Orthodox have a view of authority that emphasizes both but at the same time is ultimately dependant on the providence of God. A council is authoritative but only in so much as it is true. It isn’t authoritative simply because the bishops declare it so. The future will tell what is infallible because the Spirit of God will guide the Church (the whole Church, both bishops and laity) to accept the truth. You on the otherhand want to say that if the pope says it, it is infallible. If a council with the pope decrees it then it is infallible. The pope calls an ecumenical council. You have reduced authority to purely human terms.

So the authority of Popes and Ecumenical Councils are purely human in your view, and the Spirit is not involved. Gotcha. Thanks for letting us know where you are coming from, but you haven’t exactly contributed to the conversation except to misrepresent the Catholic position, ISTM?

Blessings

 

[Chellow]

I also don’t recall anywhere in the Bible where Christ gives any power to the laity to blind anything on Earth or Heaven.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

Why would I answer a question based on a flawed premise? I’ll ask you a question. If a Pope taught heresy, such as denying the real presence, would you follow him? If the answer is no then you understand the principle we are talking about.

IF the Pope taught the Church to follow heresy (a purely theoretical and impossible situation, I might add), then of course we are bound not to follow him, and, in fact, resist him. But you seem to blithely make such assumptions without applying it to your own position. If a multitude of people were to follow heresy, are you going to follow them? To what would you resort as a means to determine what is or what is not heresy?

No one said anything about submitting decisions for approval. Of course you knew better than that when you asked the question, you just wanted to ask a loaded question.

TBH, I believe you are merely presenting a sophism here. You claim that no one said anything about submitting decisions for approval, yet that is exactly the role the laity has taken in your Church. But let’s move beyond Ecumenical Councils (since you can’t respond to my question on that basis), and go to a more common basis for our faith -Scripture. Where do you find in Scripture anything close to your “let’s see what the whole Church says about it first, before we agree that this is infallible Truth” ideal?

True, I am asking a loaded question, but it is only because it is very important to the Faith.

If you want to talk about it lets talk about the actual principles involved can we?

If you’re willing to apply those same principles to your belief, then we can have a working blueprint.

Blessings

 

[josephdaniel29]

LOL!

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the modernist wolves that Pope Benedict alluded to when he asked the Faithful to pray for him.
Are you a former Catholic btw?

No I am not. I almost became Catholic but choose Orthodoxy instead. Please don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of admiration for Catholics and for the Catholic Church. For some reason many Catholics just have a hard time understanding how a Church could hold together without an infallible Pope. The bottom line is how the Orthodox Church has done it doesn’t fall into neatly defined definitions and that makes it almost impossible to explain except it’s through the Grace of God.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[jam070406]

No I am not. I almost became Catholic but choose Orthodoxy instead. Please don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of admiration for Catholics and for the Catholic Church. For some reason many Catholics just have a hard time understanding how a Church could hold together without an infallible Pope. The bottom line is how the Orthodox Church has done it doesn’t fall into neatly defined definitions and that makes it almost impossible to explain except it’s through the Grace of God.

Yours in Christ
Joe

I appreciate your charity. I really don’t want to debate. I also have a deep admiration for the Orthodox.
Perhaps, by the grace of God, we will be one again.

God bless!

 

[mardukm]

You may find it frightening but the Orthodox Church has maintained doctrinal unity and consistency for almost 2,000 years, and all that without a Pope.

Yet, for most of the first thousand years, the East couldn’t do it without the Pope.
And now, we’re supposed to believe you can? Hey, I’m the first to admit as an Orthodox in communion with Rome that the Orthodox have maintained the Faith of the Fathers, and that the Holy Spirit has done this. But I am also willing to admit that the Oriental and Eastern Churches have existed in a societal. cultural milieu that is very different from what the Western Church experienced. The societies in which the Oriental and Eastern Churches existed simply did not experience the same flowering of intellectual liberalism that the West experienced since the late Middle Ages. The Orient and the East simply never faced anywhere near the same level of heretical danger that the West faced (after the Great Schism).

It is only in the past century that the Orient and East has begun to face the same liberal dangers that the West has experienced. Can the Orient and East stand up to the same dangers that the West has experienced in terms of liberalism without the Pope? I believe the Oriental Orthodox have a better chance at it, since its ecclesiology is more Petrine than the EOC’s. Time will tell, but I believe EO’xy is already showing signs of weakness.

I always laugh when a Catholic makes a statement like this. The way you make it sound the whole world would fall apart under our system.

I agree with you there. The Catholic Church has just as many schisms and disobedient members as Orthodox (well, since there are so many more Catholics, I guess it would be fair to say that, statistically speaking, there may be more disobedient Catholics than Orthodox )

That may be the case for you because you have put all of the responsibility for preserving the faith on the clergy. Catholics can’t handle freedom when they get it. Just look at what happened after a little control was relinquished after Vatican II with all the clown masses and such.

Uh-uh. That’s a no-no. The disobedience of members has nothing to do with the rock-solid Faith of the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox Churches, for that matter). To be fair, some of the most long-lasting schisms (in EO’xy) have been over very small matters.

It’s worked for this long, why change now?

The Hindus could say the same thing, but that doesn’t mean a thing. It should change, simply put, because it’s not the order God established for His Church, as exemplified by the Apostles.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

IF the Pope taught the Church to follow heresy (a purely theoretical and impossible situation, I might add)

Well therein lies the crux of the difference. If I was required on pain of eternal damnation to believe a bishop was infallible then I would have no responsibility to preserve the faith. History teaches us that no person or group of people are inherently infallible. There have been false councils and heretical patriarchs. Is it your contention that the laity were under obligation to follow the iconoclast council or one of the Arian councils?

then of course we are bound not to follow him, and, in fact, resist him.

Then you understand our beliefs.

But you seem to blithely make such assumptions without applying it to your own position. If a multitude of people were to follow heresy, are you going to follow them? To what would you resort as a means to determine what is or what is not heresy?

A multitude did follow heresy during the Arian controversy. You have recourse to the councils and teachings of the Church. I know what the Church teaches because it has been passed on to me. It is the role of the bishops to define and preserve the truth, not make up new truth. If your bishop started teaching Calvinism would you need to consult the catechism or write the Pope to know it was heresy? What if most of the people in your diocese followed him?

TBH, I believe you are merely presenting a sophism here. You claim that no one said anything about submitting decisions for approval, yet that is exactly the role the laity has taken in your Church.

Does that mean the Popes’ teachings are “submitted” for the laity’s “approval”? Of course not. You just said yourself that if a Pope taught heresy you are under no obligation to follow him. It’s really no more complicated than that.

But let’s move beyond Ecumenical Councils (since you can’t respond to my question on that basis), and go to a more common basis for our faith -Scripture. Where do you find in Scripture anything close to your “let’s see what the whole Church says about it first, before we agree that this is infallible Truth” ideal?

A red herring. Where does the Scriptures say anything about how an “infallible” truth is determined? It says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church and that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. It gives no specifics as to the mechanisms of how that truth is determined. It certainly mentions nothing about an infallible Pope or even the infallibility of a council.

I have to say that’s a very Protestant way of looking at Scripture, trying to use it as a manual for ecclesiology.

If you’re willing to apply those same principles to your belief, then we can have a working blueprint.

Blessings

We do have a working blueprint and it’s worked for us quite well thank you very much.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Well therein lies the crux of the difference. If I was required on pain of eternal damnation to believe a bishop was infallible then I would have no responsibility to preserve the faith. History teaches us that no person or group of people are inherently infallible. There have been false councils and heretical patriarchs. Is it your contention that the laity were under obligation to follow the iconoclast council or one of the Arian councils?

I think your understanding of the crux of the difference is a misunderstanding. You (mis)understand papal infallibility to be separate from the Church’s infallibility, but that is not what it is. You (mis)understand papal infallibility as a means to create new teaching, instead of the fact that it is meant merely to PRESERVE the Faith once and for all delivered to the Saints. If you believe the temporal Church as a whole is infallible in the Faith, then it is impossible, to me as a Catholic, for the temporal head of that Church, as both spokesman and confirmer of the Faith, to be bereft of that same infallibility.

Then you understand our beliefs.

Yes, I understand your beliefs, yet HOW your Church expresses it and lives it out is inconsistent, IMHO. You may object to the Council of Florence all you want, but the way the EO laity rejected the Council of Florence was an aberration from the good order of the Church established by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church Fathers. The problem I see is that EO’xy has now formally accepted those aberrant actions as the basis for your ecclesiology.

A multitude did follow heresy during the Arian controversy. You have recourse to the councils and teachings of the Church. I know what the Church teaches because it has been passed on to me.

Teachings that were very often known to be orthodox by the early Church by recourse to the bishop of Rome.

It is the role of the bishops to define and preserve the truth, not make up new truth. If your bishop started teaching Calvinism would you need to consult the catechism or write the Pope to know it was heresy?

The role of the papacy is an exercise of the EXTRAordinary magisterium. The Pope is not a micromanager, and that you would even ask this question means you misunderstand the role of the papacy in the Church. We look to the Pope when it is necessary (as did the early Church). But MOST of the time (probably 99%), it is NOT necessary, and I would follow what my own bishop and/or Patriarch teaches. I figure it is the same for you, but to say that the Pope has NO role (contrary to the belief of the early Church, I might add) is unacceptable and unpatristic.

What if most of the people in your diocese followed him?

If conscience moves me, I would look to what other bishops say, and my Patriarch as the highest court of appeal.

Does that mean the Popes’ teachings are “submitted” for the laity’s “approval”? Of course not. You just said yourself that if a Pope taught heresy you are under no obligation to follow him. It’s really no more complicated than that.

But it is complicated, because EO’xy denies the role of the Pope in ANYTHING (aside from being a figurehead spokesman, though it seems the ROC won’t even grant that much). EO’xy’s understanding of the role of the Pope is simply unpatristic. Having said that, I can agree that some Latin Catholics have an excessive and equally unpatristic understanding of the role of the Pope.

A red herring. Where does the Scriptures say anything about how an “infallible” truth is determined? It says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church and that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. It gives no specifics as to the mechanisms of how that truth is determined. It certainly mentions nothing about an infallible Pope or even the infallibility of a council.

Well, yes. If your brother has a disagreement with you, you take it to him, and if he still can’t agree, you take it to two or three, and if he still does not agree, you take it to the Church. As Christ taught, Christ would be in their midst - that’s conciliar infallibility (if taken on a universal level). The Council of Sardica clarified, with the ratification of two Ecumenical Councils, that on the local level, the Pope has purview over even these decisions in the Church universal. A biblical example of papal infallibility would be St. Peter’s assertion that God spoke through him.

I have to say that’s a very Protestant way of looking at Scripture, trying to use it as a manual for ecclesiology.

Nah. Scripture is one of our legitimate sources of Sacred Tradition (as I’m sure you’ll agree). But since you cannot find anything from the Councils to support your democratic ecclesiology, I just wanted to see if you can appeal to Scripture.

We do have a working blueprint and it’s worked for us quite well thank you very much.

So far. We’ll see. How is the EOC going to address the fact that there are a lot of EO who do not view contraception as sin? I’m not talking about the beliefs of individual people, but the official position of your Church. The very fact that the EOC currently denies the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles despite the testimony of numerous Fathers that he was the coryphaeus of the Apostles, the very fact that so many EO deny that the Church can even have a temporal head - these are just some examples of how the Truth is bleeding from the EOC, IMO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother jimmy,

So the authority of Popes and Ecumenical Councils are purely human in your view, and the Spirit is not involved. Gotcha. Thanks for letting us know where you are coming from, but you haven’t exactly contributed to the conversation except to misrepresent the Catholic position, ISTM?

Blessings

Actually, it answers the question. You want to misrepresent the Orthodox by saying they believe the laity determine the truth but in fact they have a greater sense of divine providence than you. You believe that the pope simply calls an ecumenical council and the Spirit protects it because the pope has called it. This is shown by the fact that Catholic teaching says clearly that it is the prerogative of the pope to call an ecumenical council. As a result it is an element of a particular time period. If the bishops in any one time period come to a near universal opinion on an issue it is determined to be infallible dogma even if it doesn’t proceed from the fathers of the Church. The Assumption is an example of this.

I have not misrepresented anything.

What does ISTM mean?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Actually, it answers the question. You want to misrepresent the Orthodox by saying they believe the laity determine the truth but in fact they have a greater sense of divine providence than you.

I have not misrepresented the Eastern Orthodox understanding. You don’t find this idea of “let’s wait to see if the laity accept it” paradigm anywhere in the Bible or the early Church. The participation of the laity in the perservation of Truth has always been as guardians of the Faith presented to them by their God-appointed teachers, the bishops of the Church, not as judges of their bishops. If the laity object to something, it is through their God-appointed authorities that such grievances are made known to the Church, and the judgment is given by those same God-appointed authorities, where communication and respect between and among those God-appointed authorities is the God-established means of resolving such matters. This is not what happened after the Council of Florence within EO’xy. What happened there was an aberration against God’s order in and for the Church. And EO’xy has never repudiated that aberration, but rather hold it up as an exemplar for their democratic ecclesiology. Some EO have attempted to use the Alexandrian protest against Chalcedon to defend their novel ecclesiology. But what happened at Chalcedon among the Alexandrians was nothing like what occurred at Florence among the EO. At Chalcedon, the Alexandrians were DEFENDING their God-appointed Patriarch. At Florence - well, you know what happened.

You believe that the pope simply calls an ecumenical council and the Spirit protects it because the pope has called it.

We have debated this matter for so long, it is hard for me to believe that you could give such a simplistic and inaccurate statement of my belief on the matter.

This is shown by the fact that Catholic teaching says clearly that it is the prerogative of the pope to call an ecumenical council.

So what? EVERY head bishop has the canonical prerogative to call a council within their sphere of jurisdiction. Why is this so objectionable to you? Do you or do you not believe that the Pope is the head bishop in an Ecumenical Council? That he can CALL an Ecumenical Council has nothing to do with infallibility. It is, rather, all about his canonical prerogative as head bishop.

The infallibility of the Council is a separate question altogether from the Pope’s prerogative to call an Ecumenical Council. The infallibility of the Ecumenical Council is a collegial infallibility of all its members, not just the Pope’s. And it is not the Pope that gives an Ecumenical Council its infallibility, but rather God gives it directly to all its members collectively.

As a result it is an element of a particular time period. If the bishops in any one time period come to a near universal opinion on an issue it is determined to be infallible dogma even if it doesn’t proceed from the fathers of the Church. The Assumption is an example of this.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Please explain it a little more, and also how the Assumption relates to your statement. As it is, it doesn’t seem as though you have a full understanding of the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

I have not misrepresented anything.

You misrepresented when you implied that the teaching of the Popes and Councils do not involve the Holy Spirit, but was simply “human.”

What does ISTM mean?

You know, I wondered that for a very long time myself. Then one day - just 2 weeks ago I think - I found myself wondering about how to abbreviate a certain phrase that I would use often. The phrase was “It Seems To Me.” Only at that point did I realize that this is what ISTM means, which I’d seen others use so many times before.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

I really don’t have the space to fully explain to you the conciliar nature of the Church. Suffice it to say the idea that episcopal decisions are “submitted” to the laity for “approval” is false. It is the role of the divinely instituted episcopacy to define the truth.

That being said no one is obligated to follow a bishop or even a council of bishops that teaches something clearly opposed to Apostolic Tradition. How it works is a great mystery. The Church’s unity is maintained by the Uncreated Grace of God. Whether you understand it or not you have to see that it works. Fifteen independently governed national Churches all maintaining complete doctrinal unity and all without a monarchical bishop. You see what happened in Anglicanism. Why has the same thing not happened to us? How else do you explain that except for the Grace of God?

I will bring the question a little closer to home. If your bishop all of a sudden began denying the real presence would you be obligated to follow him? What if the Pope taught that? Answer those questions and you’ll understand the principle we are talking about.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Your arguments are well put.

The church is more than an institution, institutions rise and fall. The church is the Body of Christ. It shall never fail.

What is sometimes missed by questioners is that we are all responsible for preserving the Apostolic Faith. This is not just a job for bishops.

In fact, the first and most influential theologian a prospective bishop shall meet will probably be his own prayerful grandmother.

In Holy Orthodoxy, one rule prevails: to preserve and conserve the Faith once left to us, no additions nor deletions acceptable. We do not seek new interpretations, and do not anticipate them.

Relatedly, we pray what we believe (and believe what we pray). This is an absolute necessity. These are like the two rails of the iron road, which must be in perfect alignment always. Once one is out of line, the “train” is off the track! We need no general instructions for our liturgy from any central office.

It is difficult to the extreme to introduce any novel concept into this environment. The laity will not accept any suspicious concepts, they will reject the cleric and demand another, even should the suspect be a bishop… or a patriarch.

The clergy, for their part are equally as eager to preserve and conserve the Faith. They wouldn’t want to disappoint grandma, and they know they are accountable for the fate of souls in their care before the judgment of Christ. They will prayerfully nurture and guide this community, and cut off the unrepentant and the misbelievers if necessary.

I think the concept is a bond of trust, between generations… between clergy and laity… between Christ and His inheritance. It works… like a miracle.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Most of what you write has merit, and is just as applicable to Catholic teaching and belief. But there are some things in them that would require clarification or correction from the Catholic perspective, namely the following points:

The church is more than an institution, institutions rise and fall. The church is the Body of Christ. It shall never fail.

The problem here is that the Church IS an institution. It was established by Christ for the good order of the Church, an institution consistently preserved by the Church down through the ages because the Church has always believed it was established by Christ and/or His Apostles. That institution will not fail because it has the protection of the Holy Spirit. Without further explanation, doesn’t your statement sound more like a rallying point for Protestantism rather than apostolic Christianity?

What is sometimes missed by questioners is that we are all responsible for preserving the Apostolic Faith. This is not just a job for bishops.

Certainly, it is not merely the job of bishops, but neither is it merely a job for the laity. We need to give heed to the apostolic instruction that within the body of Christ, not everyone shares the same functions.

We need no general instructions for our liturgy from any central office.

That can’t be true. Who do you think gave us the Liturgy in the first place? Laymen?

It is difficult to the extreme to introduce any novel concept into this environment. The laity will not accept any suspicious concepts, they will reject the cleric and demand another, even should the suspect be a bishop… or a patriarch.

Indeed, but such actions are not governed by mob rule, but by the bishops.

I think the concept is a bond of trust, between generations… between clergy and laity… between Christ and His inheritance. It works… like a miracle.

It is a balance between obedience, service, and good order, all elements established by Christ and his Apostles for the upbuilding of the Church. Take away any one of those, and the Church will break down.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

So what? EVERY head bishop has the canonical prerogative to call a council within their sphere of jurisdiction. Why is this so objectionable to you? Do you or do you not believe that the Pope is the head bishop in an Ecumenical Council? That he can CALL an Ecumenical Council has nothing to do with infallibility. It is, rather, all about his canonical prerogative as head bishop.

The problem is not that a pope can call a council, the problem is that the pope can decide to call an infallible council. No where in history or in the scriptures do you see this.

I have not misrepresented the Eastern Orthodox understanding. You don’t find this idea of “let’s wait to see if the laity accept it” paradigm anywhere in the Bible or the early Church. The participation of the laity in the perservation of Truth has always been as guardians of the Faith presented to them by their God-appointed teachers, the bishops of the Church, not as judges of their bishops. If the laity object to something, it is through their God-appointed authorities that such grievances are made known to the Church, and the judgment is given by those same God-appointed authorities, where communication and respect between and among those God-appointed authorities is the God-established means of resolving such matters. This is not what happened after the Council of Florence within EO’xy. What happened there was an aberration against God’s order in and for the Church. And EO’xy has never repudiated that aberration, but rather hold it up as an exemplar for their democratic ecclesiology. Some EO have attempted to use the Alexandrian protest against Chalcedon to defend their novel ecclesiology. But what happened at Chalcedon among the Alexandrians was nothing like what occurred at Florence among the EO. At Chalcedon, the Alexandrians were DEFENDING their God-appointed Patriarch. At Florence - well, you know what happened.

Things have not always followed a specific order within the Church. You want it to be this simple order which can be easily understood but the fact is that the preservation of truth does not happen under human forms. You want the bishops to declare truth and the people to follow. But the fact of history is that the truth will be preserved by the Spirit of God, not by the bishops declaring it and the people being obedient.

It is not as simple as saying the laity never corrected the bishops. To say this would ignore history. Take for example during the controvercy with the ‘monophysites’. If the laity of Alexandria did not support the bishop, they drove him out of town. They didn’t simply submit to a bishop because he said they should.

You misrepresented when you implied that the teaching of the Popes and Councils do not involve the Holy Spirit, but was simply “human.”

It seems that there is no room for the Spirit. The pope declares it, therefore it is infallible. The council in communion with the pope declares it, therefore it is infallible. Vatican II was called by P. John XXIII and it was known ahead of time that it was going to be an infallible council because the pope had called an ecumenical council. There is no room for the Spirit. The Pope wants an ecumenical council therefore he is going to get one.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Please explain it a little more, and also how the Assumption relates to your statement. As it is, it doesn’t seem as though you have a full understanding of the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

My statement there probably has more to do with the development of doctrine than the current question but it is related. My point is simply that infallibity has become something that belongs to the pope rather than an element of the guidance of the Spirit. I say this because the pope says it and it is infallible simply because he said it was infallible. To see what I mean just look at the declarations of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. They follow a specific sentence structure and include certain words like ‘we declare’ therefore they are known to be infallible.

The council, which follows a similar pattern, is consequently of a specific time period. It is not open to an outside voice (whether it is of the Church of the past or future or that of the Spirit). For example, if the bishops of the present were to come to the conclusion that Mary is the mediatrix of all Grace it could be declared to be dogma even though it is not taught by the fathers of the Church. Simply because the bishops of the present came to this conclusion it is consequently infallible. It rejects the statement of St. Vincent of Lerins about the true faith being what was believed in all places at all times.

As I said, this is probably more associated with a discussion of the development of doctrine but since we are discussing how the faith is gaurded from error it is certainly pertinent to the current discussion.

 

[jimmy]

I think a problem with these discussions is that we assume different constants. One example is that the west assumes that there is development of doctrine as explained by John Henry Newman who uses the example of a caterpillar and butterfly as an example of the development of doctrine. In the east the conception of St. Vincent of Lerins is followed more closely. What was believed at all times and in all places is the true faith. There may be development but what we profess was always present even if in a less defined form.

Any good scientific experiment tries to control the variables and reduce them to as few as possible so that you can determine what factors affect the experiment. It seems to me, that the development of doctrine is an extra variable in our discussion that confusses all discussion of papal infallibility or infallibility of the Church or the guidance of the Church by the Spirit. By assuming different possitions on the development of doctrine we also come to different conclusions on the guidance of the Church by the Spirit and infallibility.

We can not have a proper discussion on the infallibility of the Church unless we first come to an agreement on development. Until we do that we will always approach the discussion with different assumptions and consequently there will be no way of actually discussing the issue at hand. We will simply be throwing out our own ideas that will no doubt seem completely wrong to the otherside.

 

[Chellow]

The Orthodox believe in doctrinal development as much as Catholic, if they don’t tell them to do away with

• The Trinity
• The Bible
• Theotokos
• Iconoclasm

The only reason that they do not have any, let say doctrinal refinement is due to the fact that they are unable to have an Ecumenical Council without the seat of Peter. The first thing they will say is that they haven’t had a Ecumenical Council due to no new heresy, funny since I thought that they think that were heretics, maybe were not big enough. It sad that they push division in light that we Catholics do not see any division in them.