Actually the RC has never agreed that Apostolic Canon 34 applies to it in the case of the Papacy that I am aware of (while Orthodox have always assumed that it did, but not in the way proposed at Ravenna).
I don’t mean to claim or imply otherwise. But Apostolic Canon 34 is certainly in great accord with the spirit of the full context of Catholic ecclesiology as clarified through the Vatican Councils.
Secondly, it does not apply to infallibility. It applies to jurisdiction, actual authority over the discipline and practices of some key responsibilities of the bishops. Infallibility as such and jurisdiction according to the RC are two separate charisms.
Of course. The principle is, however, helpful as a point of comparison for people to understand better that the pope is not infallible apart from and above the Church - or the faith that has been handed on to us.
Finally, it should be recognizable to most people who read them that the Apostolic Canons taken as a set (the context of Apostolic Canon 34) are actually contrary to universal jurisdiction.
I haven’t noticed that… but I’m no expert, I confess.
These specifically assign duties to Metropolitans and the other bishops of local synods powers that are claimed to be exclusive to the papacy in the modern RC.
Like what?
None of this addresses the declaration of dogma by one individual (something unthinkable in the early church) at all.
And yet even when the pope personally exercises the Church’s infallibility in declaring a dogma, he does not do so in isolation from Tradition, the Church, or the episcopate…
This is a good illustration of the problem.
If it was a dogma we would have believed it from the beginning as received from Christ through the Apostles…
I agree.
We didn’t. We can not make Truth out of popular opinion. The fact that the RC has a mechanism in place to facilitate that is extremely disturbing.
There’s no mechanism in the RCC by which we can add new truths to the faith…
I am not trying to troll here or be a meanie, but everything you just posted is outright heresy. Even the most Papal Supremacist would never claim the Pope can change Church teaching.
I agree. The pope is the servant of God’s Truth.
History is also very important and has to be reconciled with current Church teachings. How is it that popes of prior times taught against the filioque and current popes teach the filioque in light of our Church’s teaching that popes can not error in matters of faith?
“Filioque” is a word. Depending on one’s cultural, theological, and linguistic context, the word either expresses the orthodox Trinitarian faith accurately… or it doesn’t.
The dogma concerning the Holy Trinity, the faith, is the same as it’s always been.
In the judgment of earlier popes, adding the filioque was a bad, bad thing (and I do believe they were right).
In the judgments of later ones, it was necessary. You act as though we have to explain why they changed the teaching, the doctrine, the faith.
They didn’t. They expressed it differently.
They added a word.
Please recall that the eastern Catholic churches, in full communion with the Apostolic See, do
not use the filioque. The pope himself doesn’t want them to. Sometimes, if there’s an eastern Catholic parish that still uses older books that still have the filioque, it will even be crossed out with a pen. When Pope Benedict XVI recites the Creed with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, he does so
without the filioque.
Surely we can agree that there are “new” sins all the time…
