What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

[byeveryword]

Surely a man with no Army would consider himself supreme today. He does understand the responsibility of sitting in Peters Chair though. Basically he is a slave in Christ as St Paul so clearly stated also, or Matthew in regards to Peters Chair thus Rome.

I would have to agree with Posts #669 and #673. The collegiality of bishops was the prevailing method of determining controversial doctrines since the beginning. Cyprian for one, makes that very clear. If there is ever going to be unity between the west and east, she will have to return to that principle.

 

[KathleenGee]

It is all about context…and it is true the local churches had their own jurisdiction. But interposing was the rise of temporal rulers wanting to control the Church.

 

[byeveryword]

It is all about context…and it is true the local churches had their own jurisdiction. But interposing was the rise of temporal rulers wanting to control the Church.

Well, they did control the church, the wealthiest often became the bishops and cardinals of the church. History never changes. Generally, the wealthy rule the world, unless God intervenes with one of His own. (Ps.2:1-9).

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Jon,

I understand what Duns Scotus is saying, though I’m not sure there is any way to know that this is how God views it. As I said before, is the IC possible? Yes. But then, so is the idea that her sinlessness by God’s grace began at or even with the Angel’s words at the Visitation.

My point remains that we lack a certainty from scripture and, yes, Tradition as to when God chose to fill her with His grace. We also lack a truly ecumenical council that defines it.

Jon

Another point I would like to make is that these discussions (particularly here, but in many other places in general as well) tend to start from a western point of view, with western assumptions, and it colors the discussion.

For instance, to most eastern Christians grace is not a ‘thing’ to fill one up with (as if I were filling my glass with apple juice here just now). Grace is ‘uncreated’, it is God.

It is not so clear that to be ‘full of grace’ is to be sinless. That too is an assumption. We can accept it as an idea for purposes of discussion, but we cannot assume that is the only explanation.

The corollary to that is that to be sinful is to be graceless, or ‘out of grace’, which to Orthodox implies ‘bereft of God’. I don’t know that such a thing is possible - maybe yes - maybe no. But this makes the point where God filled her with Grace (Himself) open to some completely different possible interpretations than what one normally assumes here at CAF.

St Paul did say ‘where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more’.

But the biggest problem here, as I am sure you have seen before and remember, is the basic assumption of what Original Sin really is. I think Lutherans, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are very close on this all-important point, so close that it is rarely discussed before the arguments about an Immaculate Conception commence.

In this case Orthodox do not see a need for such a dogma, but probably not for the same reasons most non-Roman Catholic westerners do. Orthodox do not see a need for such a dogma because they do not see the First Sin committed by Adam being attributable to anyone else, not contractually nor any other way, and thus not an obstacle to Saint Mary giving birth to Jesus Christ. In fact, any woman potentially could, and even the idea that Saint Mary may have been (or may not have been) preselected for the task does not imply that another woman could not have done so.

For our part, Orthodox see Saint Mary as a very good person of heroic stature, no wonder she was chosen to bear the Son. Most of us wish we could have been so good in our lives, be she stands as an example to us, someone to emulate.

So what about this Orthodox notion of ancestral sin, Adam’s fall and all that?

It’s real alright.

As far as Orthodox are concerned, Adam and Eve are forgiven already long since (depicted in popular iconography with Jesus grasping the two and pulling them out of hell). People innocent of any personal sin are not destined for hell (nor limbo) because of the sin of another person, even of an ancestor, and they are not thereby automatically assumed to be unfit to bear the Incarnate Lord.

So why then do we have baptism?

Baptism is dying with Christ and rising with Him. Dying to an old sinful world and rising to a life in Christ, partaking in the Divine nature. This has strong connections to Theosis.

This kind of talk seems odd to western Christians, probably even disturbing. If there ever is to be a reconciliation between our churches (Lutheran-Roman Catholic-Orthodox Catholic) this will be an enormous challenge to us all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Offthecross.jpg

 

[KathleenGee]

Referring to context, you have to look at the times people lived in.

The times were and are always changing…there was a period of time that this did happen…but there were movements to correct it…going way back on this thread to a pope in regards to Unam Sanctum…, back to Pope Boniface up to Innocent III, these were attempts at reform and redefining parameters…

But it in no way meant on the universal level, to invalidate or abdicate the seat of Peter.

The rise of the papacy is perpendicular to the growth of the Church, the world, and countless issues and politics. All the more today that we need one central figurehead who represents all of us and our faith in Jesus Christ.

One of the duties of the Holy Father is unity, and this is what popes back in that time were also attempting to declare in the face of the forthcoming dismantling of Christianity.

 

[KathleenGee]

Michael, you sound like a protestant fundamentalist who considers Mary a very good person.

We consider her the Christian par excellence.

The papacy holds the keys to the Blood of Christ…and it is in His sacrament that has no brokenness is where we grow to learn about the mysteries of our faith.

Again, for Roman Catholic theologians to even debate among themselves for centuries—and it will in no way be resolved here on this site with amateurs, – the Holy Spirit is at work…and after almost 2,000 years of debate…we must accept in faith and conclusion…that Mary was indeed conceived without sin, to become the perfect tabernacle, flesh and blood to our Lord Jesus.

 

[Hesychios]

Michael, you sound like a protestant fundamentalist who considers Mary a very good person.
.

I’d say she was a good person.

Is that what Protestant Fundamentalists think?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I’d say she was a good person.

Is that what Protestant Fundamentalists think?

Absolutely.

I don’t how I’d register on the “Fundamentalism” spectrum, and hate to speak for everyone, but I’d venture to say that Mary is considered not only a “good person,” but as KathleenGee described her: “the Christian par excellence.”

(That’s why, for my part, I have no real quarrel with the doctrine of the Assumption, lack of Biblical citation notwithstanding–if it was good enough for Enoch & Elijah, it’s good enough for her.)

And to Protestants, this is WHOLLY consistent with believing that she had children by Joseph, and that she wasn’t free of original sin. That’s a point that seems to cross Catholic & Orthodox wires consistently. I’m not going to debate the accuracy of those beliefs here; I’m just trying to illustrate the corresponding confusion of Protestants AND their Fundamentalist varieties, who don’t understand how those beliefs could possibly amount to an insult or want of respect.

So long story short: YES, the Fundamentalists I’ve known think the world of Mary. Now, debating Catholics on issues like the Perpetual Virginity and Immaculate Conception forces them into a kind of “contra” stance to the Catholic/Orthodox "pro,’ which makes it difficult in those contexts to express their positive feelings about her. That may be another reason why Catholics underrate Protestants’ love for her.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Hi Jon, Another point I would like to make is that these discussions (particularly here, but in many other places in general as well) tend to start from a western point of view, with western assumptions, and it colors the discussion.

I have noticed this. In discussions of reunion, I always see things phrased like “In a reunified Church, will Orthodoxy have to accept…”. Never once have I seen it go the other way, where the assumption of compromise falls to the West: “In a reunified Church, will Catholicism have to accept…”

I think that’s pretty telling.

 

[KathleenGee]

This is a Roman Catholic forum, so you should see a Western perspective…

But the tragedy is that the differences are actually political, geographical, cultural…that is the reality of it…in spite of the contest between whether or not one believes in Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

The truth is that irregardless of conditions, the seat of Peter has always been here…that we need one head, one person to represent the unity of faith.

And this unity of faith found in one person taking the place of the original Peter also affirms Mary’s immaculate conception…and this no rash conclusion either…a point debated within Roman Catholic theologians…so I am not intending to get into it here because my contribution will be amateur…and the decision was already defined in my early childhood.

Peter and Mary…together…you will only see these elucidated and practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Likewise, I find it ironic that people can note that we had bad popes or that they were put in by their families…this particularly so during the time of St. Catherine of Siena…but they do not read up as to how this situation was corrected and reformed and a better structure beginning to develop.

Yet, no one finds issue with nationalistic Orthodox churches tied to their political, temporal governments rather than to the rock of Peter that continues up to today while our issues were resolved at the Council of Trent after the Protestant Reformation.

The Church reformed, but the Protestants did not in regards to restoring Christian unity.

The Orthodox will not forgive the Latin Church for the Norman Crusaders and what they did to the Greeks hundreds of years ago…that shows ethnic passions vs the universal Catholic church that is one of the signs of the Roman Catholic Church…

 

[kylemccloughan]

Hi Jon, Another point I would like to make is that these discussions (particularly here, but in many other places in general as well) tend to start from a western point of view, with western assumptions, and it colors the discussion.

For instance, to most eastern Christians grace is not a ‘thing’ to fill one up with (as if I were filling my glass with apple juice here just now). Grace is ‘uncreated’, it is God.

It is not so clear that to be ‘full of grace’ is to be sinless. That too is an assumption. We can accept it as an idea for purposes of discussion, but we cannot assume that is the only explanation.

The corollary to that is that to be sinful is to be graceless, or ‘out of grace’, which to Orthodox implies ‘bereft of God’. I don’t know that such a thing is possible - maybe yes - maybe no. But this makes the point where God filled her with Grace (Himself) open to some completely different possible interpretations than what one normally assumes here at CAF.

St Paul did say ‘where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more’.

But the biggest problem here, as I am sure you have seen before and remember, is the basic assumption of what Original Sin really is. I think Lutherans, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are very close on this all-important point, so close that it is rarely discussed before the arguments about an Immaculate Conception commence.

In this case Orthodox do not see a need for such a dogma, but probably not for the same reasons most non-Roman Catholic westerners do. Orthodox do not see a need for such a dogma because they do not see the First Sin committed by Adam being attributable to anyone else, not contractually nor any other way, and thus not an obstacle to Saint Mary giving birth to Jesus Christ. In fact, any woman potentially could, and even the idea that Saint Mary may have been (or may not have been) preselected for the task does not imply that another woman could not have done so.

For our part, Orthodox see Saint Mary as a very good person of heroic stature, no wonder she was chosen to bear the Son. Most of us wish we could have been so good in our lives, be she stands as an example to us, someone to emulate.

So what about this Orthodox notion of ancestral sin, Adam’s fall and all that?

It’s real alright.

As far as Orthodox are concerned, Adam and Eve are forgiven already long since (depicted in popular iconography with Jesus grasping the two and pulling them out of hell). People innocent of any personal sin are not destined for hell (nor limbo) because of the sin of another person, even of an ancestor, and they are not thereby automatically assumed to be unfit to bear the Incarnate Lord.

So why then do we have baptism?

Baptism is dying with Christ and rising with Him. Dying to an old sinful world and rising to a life in Christ, partaking in the Divine nature. This has strong connections to Theosis.

This kind of talk seems odd to western Christians, probably even disturbing. If there ever is to be a reconciliation between our churches (Lutheran-Roman Catholic-Orthodox Catholic) this will be an enormous challenge to us all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Offthecross.jpg

I think your posts are very insightful and enjoyable to read.

 

[kylemccloughan]

I have noticed this. In discussions of reunion, I always see things phrased like “In a reunified Church, will Orthodoxy have to accept…”. Never once have I seen it go the other way, where the assumption of compromise falls to the West: “In a reunified Church, will Catholicism have to accept…”

I think that’s pretty telling.

I think you really see the core of this thing for what it is. Rome has always wished for other churches to come to them but they refuse to reach out for unity with others. This is why it hasn’t and never will happen in my opinion.

 

[kylemccloughan]

I’d say she was a good person.

Is that what Protestant Fundamentalists think?

I agree. St. Mary was the model Christian. That is why God chose her to be the mother of Christ. I have no qualms about calling her a saint because that is rightfully what she is. She is the greatest human example besides Christ that we could ever immitate.

 

[KathleenGee]

Well, I am getting ready for a family gathering up in the hills above the Columbia River…the sun is finally coming out…

And today is the feast day of Our Lady of Mt Carmel…and I say that in noting a Protestant commentator who can acknowledge Mary being assumed as was Elijah…he is looked upon as the beginning charism of the Carmelites…

The Church affirmed itself in that Christ established only one Church. And while we had unity of faith in the various jurisdictions, in some ways there were miscommunications between Rome and the Orthodox.

The Roman Catholic Church affirms its role, and it always works to inculturate to retain its universal character, and it invites the world to come to know Jesus Christ.

But the Church will not allow women priests or ever acknowledge sex outside of marriage as legitimate. Some think this is then the sign that the Church has shut the door on unity. John Paul II went back to the Orthodox, and to Greece for strengthening relations, but he was pretty much rejected.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Likewise, I find it ironic that people can note that we had bad popes or that they were put in by their families…this particularly so during the time of St. Catherine of Siena…but they do not read up as to how this situation was corrected and reformed and a better structure beginning to develop.

Yet, no one finds issue with nationalistic Orthodox churches tied to their political, temporal governments rather than to the rock of Peter that continues up to today while our issues were resolved at the Council of Trent after the Protestant Reformation.

The Church reformed, but the Protestants did not in regards to restoring Christian unity.

The Orthodox will not forgive the Latin Church for the Norman Crusaders and what they did to the Greeks hundreds of years ago…that shows ethnic passions vs the universal Catholic church that is one of the signs of the Roman Catholic Church…

That’s the thing though, Orthodox don’t view the papacy as a rock of anything. To an Orthodox, Protestants and Catholics are just two sides of the same coin. To the East, the Pope was the first Protestant that left the Orthodox faith. So it really makes no difference to them what happened at Trent or that the Reformation occurred or how Catholics reacted to it. Protestants are just Rome’s wayward children, and Rome is a large, wayward See.

And I think you’re painting with a pretty broad brush in regards to the Orthodox attitude about the sack of Constantinople. I’m sure there are Orthodox who still hold it against Catholics, but from what I can tell- they’re a minority.

 

[KathleenGee]

Well, the Orthodox and Latin breath with two lungs…but if we have a dispute…there will be two ways of looking at things…and then who has the final say…

Rome has its history of being the final authority…but after much time … as the Church always works to resolve issues within their own jurisdictions and episcopates.

From what I have been studying, the Roman Catholic Church has merit and the spirit of universality and witness to the world, especially since its own inner reformation at Trent.

 

[kylemccloughan]

Well, the Orthodox and Latin breath with two lungs…but if we have a dispute…there will be two ways of looking at things…and then who has the final say…

Rome has its history of being the final authority…but after much time … as the Church always works to resolve issues within their own jurisdictions and episcopates.

From what I have been studying, the Roman Catholic Church has merit and the spirit of universality and witness to the world, especially since its own inner reformation at Trent.

I don’t see how you can say that. The popes served as advisors in the councils, not the final authority. And as far as Trent goes, it was merely just a clearing of the Catholic throat so to speak after Luther left.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am referring to local jurisdictions resolving their own issues…

But the whole point in regards to the issues regarding the proclaimations and bulls brought out here by Anna awhile back was to avoid the very issue I see prevalent in the Orthodox churches is that they come across more ethnic bound…and in being ethnic…there are these stubborn attitudes where people refuse to forgive…

The Latin Church works very hard to see the local people develop their own charisms,…a long as these charisms bear the totality of truth of Who Jesus Christ is in the deposit of faith. But it is also the reason why the Church takes so long to address cases and resolve them within the universality of faith…

I should be able to go into any Roman Catholic Church, see beyond the local charisms and customs, but know the norms of the Mass, and have full confidence that I am receiving the totality of the Word of God in the context of the Catholic faith–that looks at Scripture from the context of its whole as the Word of God…which is no other than Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God…and that we profess together the Nicene Creed, and that I am receiving proper Eucharist…the Word Made Flesh.

The beauty of Christianity is to see how many people, saints, cultures…in working with the full deposit of faith in the Church bear truth to Jesus Christ present in the world…

We will accept the Orthodox to receive our Eucharist…but we are instructed to go to the Orthodox priest, introduce ourselves and wait for permission from him to receive the Eucharist…but from what I have read…and I do not know if this is true or not, but that in many cases, Roman Catholics are refused the Eucharist…excuse me…and correct me if I am wrong here…

But we were taught from childhood that the Orthodox Eucharist is licit…because the beginning founders of Orthodox were among the original 12 apostles…

And we as Catholics, when we look for authenticity of doctrine…look to faith that only comes from the apostles.

I would also say that the Holy Spirit must be at work in the role of the Holy Father because the presence of the Pope does communicate to the world…and the world does respond and acknowledge him…I do not see such reaction to other religious leaders in the world.

 

[JonNC]

=Hesychios;8123914]Hi Jon, Another point I would like to make is that these discussions (particularly here, but in many other places in general as well) tend to start from a western point of view, with western assumptions, and it colors the discussion.

No doubt, Michael. In terms of Original sin, and many other things, Lutherans mirror the western mindset.

For instance, to most eastern Christians grace is not a ‘thing’ to fill one up with (as if I were filling my glass with apple juice here just now). Grace is ‘uncreated’, it is God.

It is not so clear that to be ‘full of grace’ is to be sinless. That too is an assumption. We can accept it as an idea for purposes of discussion, but we cannot assume that is the only explanation.

The corollary to that is that to be sinful is to be graceless, or ‘out of grace’, which to Orthodox implies ‘bereft of God’. I don’t know that such a thing is possible - maybe yes - maybe no. But this makes the point where God filled her with Grace (Himself) open to some completely different possible interpretations than what one normally assumes here at CAF.

St Paul did say ‘where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more’.

But the biggest problem here, as I am sure you have seen before and remember, is the basic assumption of what Original Sin really is. I think Lutherans, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are very close on this all-important point, so close that it is rarely discussed before the arguments about an Immaculate Conception commence.

In this case Orthodox do not see a need for such a dogma, but probably not for the same reasons most non-Roman Catholic westerners do. Orthodox do not see a need for such a dogma because they do not see the First Sin committed by Adam being attributable to anyone else, not contractually nor any other way, and thus not an obstacle to Saint Mary giving birth to Jesus Christ. In fact, any woman potentially could, and even the idea that Saint Mary may have been (or may not have been) preselected for the task does not imply that another woman could not have done so.

For our part, Orthodox see Saint Mary as a very good person of heroic stature, no wonder she was chosen to bear the Son. Most of us wish we could have been so good in our lives, be she stands as an example to us, someone to emulate.

So what about this Orthodox notion of ancestral sin, Adam’s fall and all that?

It’s real alright.

As far as Orthodox are concerned, Adam and Eve are forgiven already long since (depicted in popular iconography with Jesus grasping the two and pulling them out of hell). People innocent of any personal sin are not destined for hell (nor limbo) because of the sin of another person, even of an ancestor, and they are not thereby automatically assumed to be unfit to bear the Incarnate Lord.

So why then do we have baptism?

Baptism is dying with Christ and rising with Him. Dying to an old sinful world and rising to a life in Christ, partaking in the Divine nature. This has strong connections to Theosis.

This kind of talk seems odd to western Christians, probably even disturbing. If there ever is to be a reconciliation between our churches (Lutheran-Roman Catholic-Orthodox Catholic) this will be an enormous challenge to us all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Offthecross.jpg

Thanks, Michael, for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Jon