D
dzheremi
Guest
Yeah, it seems odd that the text would say “for example” if those are the only two times. That’s not generally how people use that.
- Status
“Some Catholics wrongly believe that only “ex cathedra” Papal Statements are infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that only the Extraordinary (aka pope speaking ex cathedra) Magisterium is infallible.” - Father John Trigilio, A Discussion of Infallibility
Source: ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM
Yes, people forget that the Extraordinary Magisterium (pope speaking ex cathedra) and Ordinary Magisterium (the teaching of the Church) are two different things. The Church has taught many infallible doctrines and the popes have only taught two infallible doctrines.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Uh…Zekariya…that quote seems to support the contention that infallibility cannot be defined as you have put it ("…wrongly believe that only ‘ex cathedra’ Papal Statements are infallible…"), in which case it doesn’t really matter if there are two or two thousand such statements, since the conditions you’ve put forth via Pastor Aeternus are apparently not enough to determine whether something is in fact infallible.
So I think Cavaradossi is right; it’s a matter of who you ask. You quote Pastor Aeternus to show that it is very restricted, and then another source which says that it is not. It’s not looking good for infallibility at this point…
T
truthseeker32
Guest
In my humbple opinion, I think the Roman Catholic Church needs to admit that historical evidence alone does not explicitly point to papal supremacy and infalliblity, and I think the Orthodox Communion needs to admit that there are indeed evidences that seem to suggest that the primacy of Rome goes beyond a simple primacy of honor, as some Orthodox thinkers such as Timothy Flanders and David Bentley Hart have done.
I noticed while reading St Cyril’s letters that St Cyril of Alexandria always addressed Pope St Celestine of Rome as father. Pope St Celestine of Rome always addressed St Cyril of Alexandria as brother. St Cyril doesn’t call any other bishop, father.
S
Schism_hater
Guest
It is certainly desirable to be in union with all the apostolic sees, and I for one would greatly desire to be back in union with the See of Rome.
However, there is a question related to yours that to me is even more pointed: if the Bishop of Rome is the “lodestar”, the “Rock”, and subjection to him is the sine qua none of being in the Faith, how is it that the Orthodox Church still exists today with seven valid sacraments and no deviations from the apostolic faith? Surely after a thousand years of separation from the “Vicar of Christ” Orthodoxy should have careened off into a ditch, so to speak, but there it is, still driving down the center of the road.
I would reconsider the notion the Orthodox having no deviations from the apostolic faith (and are you including the Oriental Orthodox in that description?).
- Some Orthodox Churches require protestants and Catholics to be re-baptised. Some Orthodox Churches require protestants and Catholics to not be re-baptised (from the notion that chrismation fills what is lacking in the baptism).
- Some Orthodox Churches require Eastern Catholics to be re-chrismated. Some Orthodox Churches do not require Eastern Catholics to be re-chrismated.
- The Orthodox Church allows divorce and remarriage.
- Some Orthodox Churches allow some forms of contraception and other forbid it.
- They cannot agree as to whether “Latin” figures such as Augustine are “saints,” or “venerable,” or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any ‘official’ EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, many don’t give the pre-schism Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers (though some of them are trying to fix this).
- They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one (via Christian emperor or Roman pope). Supposedly, they haven’t needed to define any teachings of doctrines or morality for 1,000 years. The first five points show that they do need an Ecumenical Council.
- Which Orthodox group constitutes the true faith and succession from the Apostles? Besides the Orthodox in communion with Constantinople (or Coptic Alexandria), there are tons of schismatic “True” Orthodox Churches. What to choose?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Zekariya…appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut on your popes. Can’t recall the actual spelling, ‘ceasara…’, but we also must avoid becoming nationalistic in our faith. It happened to Germany and England. Those that became nationalistic, likewise became Protestant.
I don’t mean to throw a flame, but some Orthodox appear more ethnic…so if you are not of the same ethnic background, you cannot be really a part of that particular rite.
The Seat of Peter holds the keys to the Blood of Christ. Peter was set aside as head. And there was a tossing back and forth in earliest administrative models, and what was practical and workable was one head, the bishop.
SchismHater…really share your sentiments. But likewise, I also support Zekariya’s demonstration of what Orthodox will allow and what we don’t and we don’t because, I believe we have the strength of the Blood through Peter.
Finally, what I know of theological differences between Latin and Orthodox…both appear correct but from different disciplines. Latin Church very intellectual…too intellectual at times. The Orthodox very mystical and most sacred liturgies but some times becomes too inward and ethnic oriented. Forgive me, I respect Orthodox.
I truly see both churches as equal. We need the Holy Father to unite us. That is one of his duties.
As JPII said, we need to learn from one another, the two lungs of the Church.
I don’t mean to throw a flame, but some Orthodox appear more ethnic…so if you are not of the same ethnic background, you cannot be really a part of that particular rite.
The Seat of Peter holds the keys to the Blood of Christ. Peter was set aside as head. And there was a tossing back and forth in earliest administrative models, and what was practical and workable was one head, the bishop.
SchismHater…really share your sentiments. But likewise, I also support Zekariya’s demonstration of what Orthodox will allow and what we don’t and we don’t because, I believe we have the strength of the Blood through Peter.
Finally, what I know of theological differences between Latin and Orthodox…both appear correct but from different disciplines. Latin Church very intellectual…too intellectual at times. The Orthodox very mystical and most sacred liturgies but some times becomes too inward and ethnic oriented. Forgive me, I respect Orthodox.
I truly see both churches as equal. We need the Holy Father to unite us. That is one of his duties.
As JPII said, we need to learn from one another, the two lungs of the Church.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Excellent.
H
Hasire
Guest
I don’t have much time to answer to other ones but this one is…ugh.
Which Catholic group constitutes the true faith and succession from the Apostles? Besides the Catholics in communion with Rome (or Utretch), there are tons of schismatic “Catholic” Churches (Old Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Reformed Catholics, Traditional Catholics, Liberal Catholics) What to choose?
In Communion and agreement with Rome the Apostolic See of St Peter defines Catholic. Does Constantinople define Orthodoxy? Not to my knowledge.
Isaiah 22: 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Eliakim is the vicar of King Hezekiah, the son of David. Eliakim alone is given the key of the house of David. Eliakim is a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Note: Only Eliakim has the key. There is no mention of eleven others also having the key.
Matthew 16: 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee [second person singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou [second person singular] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou [second person singular] shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Peter is the vicar of King Jesus, the Son of David. Peter alone is given the keys of the kingdom of the Son of David: heaven. Peter is a father to the inhabitants of Rome and to the Church of Christ. Note: Only Peter has the keys. There is no mention of eleven others also having the keys.
2 Maccabees 6:2 And to pollute also the temple in Jerusalem [Judah], and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius; and that [temple] in Garizim [Northern Israel/Samaria], of Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the place.
There were two temples. There was one on Mount Moriah, instituted by God, used by the Jews [Judah]. And there was another on Mount Gerizim, instituted by man, used by the Samaritans [Northern Israel].
In all the time that Judah was idolatrous, did God ever permit the righteous to break communion with Jerusalem and the son of David? No. Did idolatrous priests who changed the sacrificial rituals invalidate the sacrifices? No [read 1 Samuel 2:12-17].
The prophets worshipped in Jerusalem even though the anointed of God, the king, was idolatrous. No righteous Israelite would ever think of leaving communion with Jerusalem, the house of David. The Catholics worshipped in the Catholic Church even though anointed of God’s vicar, the pope, was idolatrous. No righteous Catholic would ever think of leaving communion with Rome, the See of Peter.
Judah became inhabited by idolatrous men and was sent into the Babylonian exile. Afterwards, the righteous re-entered Jerusalem. The Catholic Church became inhabited by idolatrous men and will be exiled by the Antichrist. Afterwards, the righteous will enter New Jerusalem.
One must not leave communion with the Son of David’s vicar, Peter, even though the Catholic Church militant has become corrupted. Note: Even today, the Samaritans follow the Law more strictly than the Jews. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that they went in schism away from Jerusalem.
1 Kings 19:16-18 16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. 17 And the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha put to death. 18 Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."
It does not matter how corrupt that “the powers that be” are. God preserves his Catholic Church just as he preserved 7,000 righteous Israelites in Elijah’s days.
Eliakim is the vicar of King Hezekiah, the son of David. Eliakim alone is given the key of the house of David. Eliakim is a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Note: Only Eliakim has the key. There is no mention of eleven others also having the key.
Matthew 16: 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee [second person singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou [second person singular] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou [second person singular] shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Peter is the vicar of King Jesus, the Son of David. Peter alone is given the keys of the kingdom of the Son of David: heaven. Peter is a father to the inhabitants of Rome and to the Church of Christ. Note: Only Peter has the keys. There is no mention of eleven others also having the keys.
2 Maccabees 6:2 And to pollute also the temple in Jerusalem [Judah], and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius; and that [temple] in Garizim [Northern Israel/Samaria], of Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the place.
There were two temples. There was one on Mount Moriah, instituted by God, used by the Jews [Judah]. And there was another on Mount Gerizim, instituted by man, used by the Samaritans [Northern Israel].
In all the time that Judah was idolatrous, did God ever permit the righteous to break communion with Jerusalem and the son of David? No. Did idolatrous priests who changed the sacrificial rituals invalidate the sacrifices? No [read 1 Samuel 2:12-17].
The prophets worshipped in Jerusalem even though the anointed of God, the king, was idolatrous. No righteous Israelite would ever think of leaving communion with Jerusalem, the house of David. The Catholics worshipped in the Catholic Church even though anointed of God’s vicar, the pope, was idolatrous. No righteous Catholic would ever think of leaving communion with Rome, the See of Peter.
Judah became inhabited by idolatrous men and was sent into the Babylonian exile. Afterwards, the righteous re-entered Jerusalem. The Catholic Church became inhabited by idolatrous men and will be exiled by the Antichrist. Afterwards, the righteous will enter New Jerusalem.
One must not leave communion with the Son of David’s vicar, Peter, even though the Catholic Church militant has become corrupted. Note: Even today, the Samaritans follow the Law more strictly than the Jews. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that they went in schism away from Jerusalem.
1 Kings 19:16-18 16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. 17 And the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha put to death. 18 Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."
It does not matter how corrupt that “the powers that be” are. God preserves his Catholic Church just as he preserved 7,000 righteous Israelites in Elijah’s days.
H
Hasire
Guest
Every Orthodox Bishop is responsible for Orthodoxy, not just one person. As it is naturally (compulsory) to occur, Orthodox Bishops will enter in communion with one another in a region and elect a Metropolitan to preside over them and help them preserve Orthodoxy. These whole regions at the same time will (naturally) enter in communion with other Orthodox regions and elect a Patriarch to preside over them and help them preserve Orthodoxy.
In Orthodoxy everyone is responsible for everyone. Even the laity.
(In cases of rampant heresy, in which whole regions or patriarchates are infected, the few remaining Orthodox bishops will create a [Ecumenical] Council to solve this problem. I.e Nicea I)
S
sharpag
Guest
I get that this was posted to show the Orthodox “deviations” from the faith but just listing them like this is a great way to hijack the thread that is supposed to be about the Pope and his role or lack thereof in Orthodoxy. Really only issue 6 is directly related to the Pope and even then it merely points out the difference in church structure and understanding of ecumenical councils that has existed since before the schism.
I see that Matthew 16:18 has been quoted as well but the quoting of it does not sway the Orthodox who have that same verse in their Bibles. I do not wish to come across as having an attitude but that verse is quoted in numerous debates and most Orthodox are fine with Peter having the keys… they are not fine with Peter holding the keys to Papal Infallibility when right after he gets said keys Jesus calls him Satan. I know there are Catholic explanations around this but to non-Catholic ears it rings false.
All of my post is relevant is because it shows that there is not full unity in the Orthodox Church such as Catholics have in union with Rome.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
To be fair, he is responding to another poster’s statement. It has to be seen in that context.
Papal infalliability is very much misunderstood by non-Catholics that sometimes it seems they are objecting to something that does not exist. From what I read here a more valid reason for the Orthodox to object to the Pope is the extend of his jurisdiction over all the churches in communion with Rome.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The vulnerability of Peter shows that Christ was big enough to entrust the founding and development of His Church to the apostles, and they were likewise fully capable of choosing their successors.
The Latin/Orthodox Churches are ecclesial deists…good article explaining this, [www.calledtocommunion.com. Look up ‘Ecclesial Deists’, 2009.
The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ. We may project our own understandings on the word, ‘superior’. The Holy Father along with the Bishops follow Christ, the greatest is the least. We are seeing Holy Francis reaching out to the humble, marginalized people, God’s people.
The work of the Holy Father is to preserve and represent the unity of all of us, both east and west, and the Holy Father speaks in the Living Revelation of Christ for today to all Christians and people of good will.
When the Holy Father speaks, the world listens.](www.calledtocommunion.com. Look up ‘Ecclesial Deists’, 2009.)
The Latin/Orthodox Churches are ecclesial deists…good article explaining this, [www.calledtocommunion.com. Look up ‘Ecclesial Deists’, 2009.
The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ. We may project our own understandings on the word, ‘superior’. The Holy Father along with the Bishops follow Christ, the greatest is the least. We are seeing Holy Francis reaching out to the humble, marginalized people, God’s people.
The work of the Holy Father is to preserve and represent the unity of all of us, both east and west, and the Holy Father speaks in the Living Revelation of Christ for today to all Christians and people of good will.
When the Holy Father speaks, the world listens.](www.calledtocommunion.com. Look up ‘Ecclesial Deists’, 2009.)
S
sharpag
Guest
I did read the post he was referring to but I will concede that my tone was probably a tad harsh.
The Orthodox do not conceive of unity in the same exacting standards as the Roman Church. So in a sense I have to agree with you but in another I must completely disagree as the Orthodox do not compromise dogmatic beliefs within the communion.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
A red herring which has nothing to do with the original point of contention. You contended that the passage you posted from Pope JPII constitutes an official list of ex cathedra statements, and that their number is limited at two. As both Dzheremi and I have pointed out, that reading of Pope JPII is untenable, because nowhere does he say that there were only two instances of the pope speaking ex cathedra in history, but rather he uses the two events of the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption as examples of times when the pope has spoken ex cathedra. The “correct” answer (for lack of a better term) to the question of whether or not Unam Sanctam’s teaching that all human creatures must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation is an ex cathedra statement is that you do not know, as this is a question which is debated amongst theologians and which has never been settled definitively.
- Status