Christian Forums

I found these interesting and have been wondering how on earth! this could happen.   I don't see the Orthodox budging on these issues.  And I don't see the Roman Catholics budging on theirs. 


I pray that I am wrong.  What kind of things do you think the Orthodox would have to do to commune with Rome?  What do you guys think Rome would to to commune with the Orthodox? 






God bless. 

If the video's beliefs are those of the Orthodox churches in general, then it will never happen...ever.  We Catholics cannot have unity with those who believe in and promote what are patent lies about us, especially when they use the most uncharitable and slanderous lies as the Protestant heretics do in using the "Pope is held to be a God on Earth" claptrap, as just one example, and in misrepresenting doctrines of the Holy Church.  That is a lit match to the dynamite for us Catholics and convinces us that the Orthodox, who deny their own history of adherence to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, are not serious about the unity of the Church.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere."    Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."   Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface I, to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

"Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter...For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat...Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision."   Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418).

After listing a series of doctrinal changes that the Catholic Church would have to make, the speaker then says:
The Orthodox would have to make some concessions as well, though not in matters of faith. The Orthodox simply cannot compromise when it comes to faith.

So it boils down to we are right and you are wrong and you are the ones that have to change.

However from the little I have read those Catholics & Orthodox that are discussing these issues aren't as dogmatic as this, and are looking to ways to get closer.

Personally I think the Othodox have some valid points to make about some Catholic practices, but not about doctrine..

Desert,

I agree with you and forgive me for not thinking of you when I posted the video.  I think that the language used, "God on earth," was stronger than necessary.  It wasn't in my mind when I finished the video because I was only thinking about what obstacles stood between us and what it would take to overcome them.  But you make a valid point that if unity is to be had then of course we should be completely! respectful and not give in to taking digs.  Again, I apologize for the language used there. 

In regards to the doctrines the "modalist" comment too can be considered to be a bit strong.  While the filioque is a hard sell for Orthodox because of her view on both the right to revise creeds unilaterally and both for theological reasons, I don't think that Orthodox view Roman Catholics as modalists.  Again, sorry for the strong language there.  I'll try to be more aware of such language in the future. 

But in regards to our "denial of our own history" there is a problem.  It's not that we deny the authority or office of the successor of St. Peter in Rome but that we believe that the reach and power of that office had a different context in history.  We don't deny Papal Primacy but do deny Papal Supremacy.  To touch on the Fathers you used here:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere."    Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Again, you won't disagree here.  A matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church but it's "on account" of its pre-eminent authority.  This authority is, from the Orthodox perspective, based! on "the faithful" inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved "continuously by those faithful". 

So what we read here from the Orthodox perspective is not that we just go along with whatever should come out of Rome but insofar as she has preserved the apostolic tradition/teaching.  This is the source for any authority.  So it's not that we deny Rome of an office with certain functions but that those functions are more limited than what Rome sees herself as having. 

"Can you be ignorant," writes Julius, "that this is the custom, that we should be written to first, so that from here what is just may be defined" (Epistle of Julius to Antioch, c. xxii)

If we look at this, Rome might use this to say that they have Papal Supremacy but again, the context here would be that they should be written to first as befitting of the conduct of honor.  Julius here does not say, 'written to us alone'.  And the other implication here is that certain terms be defined but to what end?  The end would be in the councils, synods.  Plus St. Athanasius sort of goofed here by writting first to those would have him deposed.  Since this was an issue that went beyond the local level and because the cards so heavily stacked against St. Athanasius, Rome is the only place to get a fair hearing and this is apostolic. 

The other context at tug here is the fact that we have the Imperial decrees.  We know that the Emperor of Rome sides with St. Athanasius but flash forward to when the new Emperor then become an Arian.  Now what?  This authority and reach and power has to be balanced and under the way we see "supremacy" defined this gives too heavy handed a deal to Rome.   


"The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."   Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

From an Orthodox perspective, I don't see this as problematic.  I mean, that we are to report to Rome isn't really the issue.  The historical context here is, if I remember, the Arius controversy and then the deposition of St. Athanasius.  Rome is seen as a place where we can file an "appeal".  It's a place where we have a sort of (in legal terms) a mediator.  The See that can help iron out differences.  But again, we have to understand that this "power" or "authority" was not unilateral.  Actions were done in tandem with the synods, the council.  And the other thing we have to recognize at this time is that part of the reason Rome is enjoying this primacy is because of her wonderful track record.  Many of the most wonderful stewards had gathered there and so she was mightily protected by her protectors.  But imagine if the Arius controversy swung the other way.   What would have happened if it was as you say it is now in regards to Papal Supremacy and the Pope sided with the Arians.  Of course this is hypothetical but it's the "system" that is debated in regards to her reach and amount of power.   It's not her place of honor and function that we dispute but the reach. 


"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface I, to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

This is a hard one too.  In regards to the creed, we have an 8th century Roman Pope saying that if anyone should at to or take away from the creed, let him be anathema.   And he doesn't say this independent from his own office but in concert with a wider council.  So to say that Papal Supremacy gives the Pope power and reach even over former Popes and even over those who came before him in regards to the Fathers etc. this is, for the Orthodox, an overreach of power and authority.  From an Orthodox perspective, we don't see how the above statement can be true from an apostolic tradition's point of view if the seat of the successor of St. Peter is not bound to the very same truth.   

"Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter...For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat...Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision."   Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418). 

I think you have the crux of the Orthodox argument here.  If the Pope is not bound to that which all are bound then this goes beyond even herself as depicted by herself in her early years. 


But my point here is not to debate the issues so much as to sort of look at what concessions would be made. 

I half wonder if the Pope of Rome would limit himself power and reach only insofar as the Orthodox go.  Like, the way the Pope defines his power and reach for those willing to submit to that power and reach could remain binding to those in submission to that definition. 

But I wonder if he could then limit that for those not willing to submit to that definition.  Like, agree not to have the authority to depose a Bishop unilaterally when it comes to the Eastern Orthodox.  He could keep it in the West for those willing and erase the possibility of it concerning the Orthodox. 

The Orthodox would then grant (maybe) that those willing to submit to Rome's definition could do so but not make it a "dogmatic" issue.  By dogma, I mean something you must believe in regards to one's salvation. 

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 04:57:18
After listing a series of doctrinal changes that the Catholic Church would have to make, the speaker then says:
The Orthodox would have to make some concessions as well, though not in matters of faith. The Orthodox simply cannot compromise when it comes to faith.

So it boils down to we are right and you are wrong and you are the ones that have to change.

However from the little I have read those Catholics & Orthodox that are discussing these issues aren't as dogmatic as this, and are looking to ways to get closer.

Personally I think the Othodox have some valid points to make about some Catholic practices, but not about doctrine..

Yeah, the conversations have not been as hard-lined as the speaker in the video.  But I mean, that's what I keep thinking about.   How can we have unity at the expense of our doctrine.  We can't. 

I mean, we could but then we would only be like the protestants who call disunity unity.  And that's impossible because The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.   It's also supposed to be an image of the Holy Trinity.  To be of One Mind. 

Part of the reason I think that the Orthodox believe they would not have to change in matters of Faith is because we don't have as many dogmas.  I mean, if you reject Papal Supremacy/Infallibility it's not like you're just disagreeing from a Roman Catholic perspective.  You are going against dogma.  This from Rome's perspective is damaging to your soul and could even compromise your salvation. 

The reason the video mentions the ascension I think is because we view it as something born out of your models of Original Sin but I don't think that it wouldn't necessarily be a problem if not for the fact that it's dogma. 

To have Eastern Orthodox who celebrate the dormition turn around and embrace a dogma that contradicts is a hard one.  And if Rome decided to just allow us to celebrate the dormition but kept her dogma of the ascension then again we wind up like the protestants in that we aren't really "catholic" or "one" or "apostolic" if we do such a thing. 

It's so hard for me to see how on earth this can be done. I do Trust God who can do such things but I just know that the Holy Spirit wouldn't have us embrace contradictory doctrines on who Christ is. 

I don't think the Orthodox would have a problem with the liturgy so much because it sort of looks like Rome is re-vamping their liturgy again.  I know they are working on going back to the traditional Mass but I think still working on making it more accessible. 

But yeah, doctrine is the biggy.  I mean, we both have different views on the Holy Trinity, Original Sin, Marion Theology, Ecclessiology, Episcopate practice, definitions for function office authority, Salvation theology, (I don't understand the merits thing but here too there seems to be a contradiction between us). 

I guess what I'm looking at is that if we are to have any kind of true unity then we all have to agree to be of One mind and hold the same doctrines. 

I don't really see the filioque as a huge issue only because I don't think that Rome teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two sources but sort of just sees, "being sent" and "proceeds" as synonymous.  And in that sense I understand.  But if we were to unite and yet we were saying two different creeds that would rain on our unity. 

For me, I don't see practice so much as a big deal if we agree in doctrine.  So you guys have the individual unleavened wafers and the wine and we the one loaf of leavened.  I don't really see too much problem there but the doctrines and theology around them are so different that it's hard to call that 'attaining to the unity of the faith'. 

Dunno dunno.  Lots of stuff stands between us there.  Seems like both sides are sticking to their doctrines and dogmas. 

Again, sorry for the offense.  I just was wondering about what it might take to get 'er done. 



ICXC

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 09:17:46
I half wonder if the Pope of Rome would limit himself power and reach only insofar as the Orthodox go.  Like, the way the Pope defines his power and reach for those willing to submit to that power and reach could remain binding to those in submission to that definition. 

But I wonder if he could then limit that for those not willing to submit to that definition.  Like, agree not to have the authority to depose a Bishop unilaterally when it comes to the Eastern Orthodox.  He could keep it in the West for those willing and erase the possibility of it concerning the Orthodox. 

The Orthodox would then grant (maybe) that those willing to submit to Rome's definition could do so but not make it a "dogmatic" issue.  By dogma, I mean something you must believe in regards to one's salvation. 

Hi Ryan,

I think there is something like you evisiage regarding the Eastern Rite Catholics. These Rites have their own synods that appoint bishops, which the Pope then gives his assent. Here are a couple of quotes from sources I fount on the internet.:

Pope Benedict XVI on Friday acknowledged the election of Fr. Abraham Kackanatt as the new bishop of Muvattupuzha by the synod of the Syro-Malankara church. As a major archiepiscopal church, the Syro-Malankara Church is granted the highest level of self-government under the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in the Catholic Church. One area of autonomy is the appointment of its own bishops by the synod, the apex body of the Eastern rite Catholic Church, to which the Pope gives his assent.

In the year 2004, the Vatican granted the Syro-Malabar Church autonomy in naming bishops. The synod of the Syro-Malabar Church was accorded full powers in deciding on liturgy and appointing bishops, with the episcopal appointments (bishops) only needing the Vatican's ratification.

The various Eastern Rites also have their own liturgies which are much closer to Orthodox liturgies.

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 09:50:56

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 09:17:46
I half wonder if the Pope of Rome would limit himself power and reach only insofar as the Orthodox go.  Like, the way the Pope defines his power and reach for those willing to submit to that power and reach could remain binding to those in submission to that definition. 

But I wonder if he could then limit that for those not willing to submit to that definition.  Like, agree not to have the authority to depose a Bishop unilaterally when it comes to the Eastern Orthodox.  He could keep it in the West for those willing and erase the possibility of it concerning the Orthodox. 

The Orthodox would then grant (maybe) that those willing to submit to Rome's definition could do so but not make it a "dogmatic" issue.  By dogma, I mean something you must believe in regards to one's salvation. 

Hi Ryan,

I think there is something like you evisiage regarding the Eastern Rite Catholics. These Rites have their own synods that appoint bishops, which the Pope then gives his assent. Here are a couple of quotes from sources I fount on the internet.:

Pope Benedict XVI on Friday acknowledged the election of Fr. Abraham Kackanatt as the new bishop of Muvattupuzha by the synod of the Syro-Malankara church. As a major archiepiscopal church, the Syro-Malankara Church is granted the highest level of self-government under the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in the Catholic Church. One area of autonomy is the appointment of its own bishops by the synod, the apex body of the Eastern rite Catholic Church, to which the Pope gives his assent.

In the year 2004, the Vatican granted the Syro-Malabar Church autonomy in naming bishops. The synod of the Syro-Malabar Church was accorded full powers in deciding on liturgy and appointing bishops, with the episcopal appointments (bishops) only needing the Vatican's ratification.

The various Eastern Rites also have their own liturgies which are much closer to Orthodox liturgies.

Yeah, see, that's a start.  But does the Pope have the power to unilaterally depose one of the Eastern Bishops?

I'm aware of the liturgy and Rome even allows the Eastern Rite priests to marry (though they make it increasingly hard to do so but won't go there). 

I really would like to be a fly on the wall when our Bishops meet with your Pope.  Wonder if they talk doctrine. 


Thanks winsome

Blessings

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 09:58:42

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 09:50:56

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 09:17:46
I half wonder if the Pope of Rome would limit himself power and reach only insofar as the Orthodox go.  Like, the way the Pope defines his power and reach for those willing to submit to that power and reach could remain binding to those in submission to that definition. 

But I wonder if he could then limit that for those not willing to submit to that definition.  Like, agree not to have the authority to depose a Bishop unilaterally when it comes to the Eastern Orthodox.  He could keep it in the West for those willing and erase the possibility of it concerning the Orthodox. 

The Orthodox would then grant (maybe) that those willing to submit to Rome's definition could do so but not make it a "dogmatic" issue.  By dogma, I mean something you must believe in regards to one's salvation. 

Hi Ryan,

I think there is something like you evisiage regarding the Eastern Rite Catholics. These Rites have their own synods that appoint bishops, which the Pope then gives his assent. Here are a couple of quotes from sources I fount on the internet.:

Pope Benedict XVI on Friday acknowledged the election of Fr. Abraham Kackanatt as the new bishop of Muvattupuzha by the synod of the Syro-Malankara church. As a major archiepiscopal church, the Syro-Malankara Church is granted the highest level of self-government under the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in the Catholic Church. One area of autonomy is the appointment of its own bishops by the synod, the apex body of the Eastern rite Catholic Church, to which the Pope gives his assent.

In the year 2004, the Vatican granted the Syro-Malabar Church autonomy in naming bishops. The synod of the Syro-Malabar Church was accorded full powers in deciding on liturgy and appointing bishops, with the episcopal appointments (bishops) only needing the Vatican's ratification.

The various Eastern Rites also have their own liturgies which are much closer to Orthodox liturgies.

Yeah, see, that's a start.  But does the Pope have the power to unilaterally depose one of the Eastern Bishops?

I'm aware of the liturgy and Rome even allows the Eastern Rite priests to marry (though they make it increasingly hard to do so but won't go there). 

I really would like to be a fly on the wall when our Bishops meet with your Pope.  Wonder if they talk doctrine. 


Thanks winsome

Blessings

Hi Ryan,

I don't know much about Eastern Rites so I don't know about deposing bishops. My guess would be no he can't,  since they seem to have a fair amount of autonomy.

One other point regarding "papal infallibilty". This is a generally used term but a little misleading and in this case we need to understand it correctly. It's not exactly that the Pope is infallible in himself, but that the Church has the charism of infallibility. There are three ways of the Church exercising that charism and the third one is that the Pope can in certain circumstances exercise that charism on behalf of the Church. You might say this is playing with words, but words are important in our understanding.

There three ways are:
1.   "when the whole People of God unhesitatingly holds a point of doctrine pertaining to these matters [faith and morals]

QuoteHi Ryan,

I don't know much about Eastern Rites so I don't know about deposing bishops. My guess would be no he can't,  since they seem to have a fair amount of autonomy.

One other point regarding "papal infallibilty". This is a generally used term but a little misleading and in this case we need to understand it correctly. It's not exactly that the Pope is infallible in himself, but that the Church has the charism of infallibility. There are three ways of the Church exercising that charism and the third one is that the Pope can in certain circumstances exercise that charism on behalf of the Church. You might say this is playing with words, but words are important in our understanding.

There three ways are:
1.   "when the whole People of God unhesitatingly holds a point of doctrine pertaining to these matters [faith and morals]

Hi Ryan,

I'm not sure if I can answer these questions adequately. I'll have a go but I might regret this. I might be getting out of my depth here.  

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 12:25:07
I know that Papal infallibility isn't a general proclamation.  But again, it's so blurry to me.  I mean, if you look at one and two who do these definitions which are not within the person of the Pope but require participation with other bishops then fall on?  The Pope.  To call The Church's infallibility, "papal" infallibility is confusing.  I mean, why not just say that The Church is infallible?  

I don't know how the popular term papal infallibility arose but it expresses one of the three modes of the Church expressing its infallibility.

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 12:25:07
It also concerns me that this formula doesn't become doctrine until the late 18th? century?  I mean, why does this become present so late in the game and what were the conditions that surrounded the doctrine's issue?  I mean, why not the seventh century?  What is going on at the time this was issued that this needed to be issued and why is the Pope then the centerpiece of the doctrine's title?  

And from an outsiders point of view when Papal Supremacy doesn't appear to be apostolic and then Papal Infallibility becomes, not merely a doctrine but dogma?  It just adds to the weight of doubt.

The First Vatican Council was called to address contemporary errors and was to look at two main areas – the Catholic Faith and the Church of Christ.

The decree of the Council where the position of the Pope came up is part of a whole section on the Church entitled "Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus on the Church of Christ.

QuoteWhy so late?

According to the decrees of the first Vatican Council where these matters were defined it wasn't something new:

Hm.  I'm looking for continuity with the councils and the canons and measuring them against the doctrine of Papal supremacy and infallibility according to the definitions as Rome understands it.   

So just for clarity's sake here is Rome's definition on infallibility:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Quote....So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

Already my ears perk here because it was the fourth council of Constantinople that they anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome for his false teaching. 

Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870

Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize  Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these,  Honorius of Rome

And in this same exposition of faith they refer to the Pope of elder Rome:

This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein. But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose--namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further  Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome


If the Pope in his "office" here has fallen to heresy then it stands to reason that we don't meet the requirements 1-3 of papal infallibility.  This puts the following into context as well.

•   The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.


For the Orthodox it's not that they see the rule of the true faith in the rule of the Pope but instead in the very proclamation of faith insofar as it is true.  This sort of goes back to the definition of Papal Supremacy.  I won't tackle this now but it takes Rome's definition and juxtaposes it onto the past.  More than this, it's the see that has been "preserved unblemished".  The see is the jurisdiction not necessarily the person in the office of Pope.  Otherwise why would they in the very same explanation of faith then label Pope Honorius a heretic?   

It's the "sacred faith and doctrine" that is the whole and true strength. 

Also, look at the language of the fourth council and consider the Filioque against the doctrine of Supremacy and Infallibility as Rome defines it: 

  And the same of the 150 saintly fathers assembled in Constantinople. This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord's becoming human to those who faithfully accept it.

Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod, now in session, in its desire to exclude all their tricks against the truth, and teaching what has been unshakeable in the proclamation from the beginning,

decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it

ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city

--the teaching they made known to all,

not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit by the use of scriptural testimonies against those who were trying to do away with his sovereignty.

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

To have the Pope unilaterally add to that which was handed down by the 150 saintly fathers in a "complete, perfect for understanding and establishment, unshakable in proclamation, not introducing anything left out, with all possible accuracy and attention" is hard to reconcile.  Especially when a Roman Pope puts his very own signature on the decisions of this council. 

QuoteWhat is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:

•   "The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."  

Well, the second council of Lyons was in 1274.  I half wonder who "the Greeks" here are and in what context this is being said. 

I mean this same Roman council (Lyons) is the one that wrote in her canons that Rome has always believed in the Filioque and that the Pope is the ruler of the universal Church.  That "the Greeks" would affirm that which kept them divided seems strange to me here.  Something else is probably going on.  I'll have to research this.


Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:
•   "The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church." [/color]

To read on the council of Florence click here: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Council_of_Florence

They don't really go over it in detail but there was a whole lot of sideways going on in that council.  But more importantly, Rome and the Orthodox didn't come into communion.  For those of us outside of Rome we would have to see something much earlier than what is being presented in order for us to see its Apostolicity.  I mean, even at the council of Florence there were newer heresies foreign to Orthodoxy and Rome even at the time of the schism.  The idea that you were "separated" from God in hell etc. was on the menu at Florence. 

What people may not also realize is that the Orthodox were smooshed between Rome and the Muslims and Islam was about to squash the Orthodox so the Orthodox wrote to Rome for help.  Rome then said that they would help but only upon the condition that the Orthodox accept all her doctrines. 

Providentially this did not happen and the Orthodox got smoshed by the Muslims (but obviously survived). 

Quote
Incidentally bishops from the Orthodox Church were invited to the Council but did not come.

The council that the Orthodox did not attend was the one in the mid 18th century.  I don't know but at this time I think they were again under heavy heavy persecution. 

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 12:25:07
Is the Pope able to over turn the decisions of entire councils and to also overturn the decisions of the Popes that came before him?  The doctrine of infallibility seems to ignore Tradition.  It sounds like so long as there is general agreement and like-minds then the Pope can then implement things irrespective of that which came before him.  The three matters under the "faith and morals" doesn't seem to hold throughout the ages or in regards to Apostolic Tradition but in regards to present circumstance.  

QuoteNo, the Pope cannot overturn previously infallibly defined doctrines. Infallibility is not that the Pope or Church will always teach the truth, but that it will never teach error. So if a Pope was minded to overturn an infallibly defined doctrine God would prevent him (somehow).

Yeah, for me I can't see how this didn't happen with the creed.  It was considered complete and infallible.  Rome said that it wasn't "specific" enough but read the language and you can tell that The Church did believe it to be specific enough. 

Quote
Is there an example of the Pope speaking from the chair (infallibly)?  

Yes, the dogma of the Immaculate conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950) are the only ones I am aware of.

Oy.  Dunno.  We're in pretty tight here. 

Quote
Papal infallibility means (#3) that the pope can define a doctrine dealing with faith and morals without the consent of the Church.  Or no?  

Looking at the definition it doesn't say he can't.

But I mean, look at Pope Honorius?  I definitely don't agree with Dawkins but that the office has been given this reach and power (which I honestly can't find in the Tradition of our shared history) just seems out of place.


Lord have mercy...


ICXC
NIKA

Not sure I see why they would even want to...

Quote from: Frank_N_Sense on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 16:31:52
Not sure I see why they would even want to...

Same reason why Christ prayed that we might attain complete unity.  Same reason why Orthodox hope to seek communion with the protestants. 

We are called to be one.  You want to teach and believe the same things.  True unity.  It's not a Christian teaching to embrace pluralism or reduce the teachings of Christ to something that seems subjective or relative. 

Do you not hope that all will attain to the unity of the faith? 

True love does not call disunity unity but seeks that we might all be of one mind.  An image of the Holy Trinity.  Just as Christ is One with the Father so too are Christians called to be an image of that unity. 

John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Anything less is counter to the good news. 


ICXC

Just another thing on the council of Sardica:

Sardica produced 21 Canons. In addition to the attempt to resolve the Arian issue, other major points were:

   1. Bishops should not attempt to recruit from diocese other than their own
   2. Bishops should be permanent residents of their own diocese
   3. Bishops should spend most of their time in their own diocese (not at the court in Rome)
   4. Bishops should not be transferred to another diocese

Also the council of Sardica had been called expressly for the purpose of reopening the case in regard to those who had been excommunicated.  So the context in the Sardica quotes above in regards to writing and all having to report to Rome lines up with Rome functioning as a place to monitor appeals between churches instead of a proclamation of an unilateral authority and reach over them. 


Sorry, doing research and found this noteworthy*




God bless

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 15:55:54

QuoteWhy so late?

According to the decrees of the first Vatican Council where these matters were defined it wasn't something new:

Hm.  I'm looking for continuity with the councils and the canons and measuring them against the doctrine of Papal supremacy and infallibility according to the definitions as Rome understands it.  

So just for clarity's sake here is Rome's definition on infallibility:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Quote....So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

Already my ears perk here because it was the fourth council of Constantinople that they anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome for his false teaching.  

Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870

Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down that in the two natures of the one Christ there are, as a consequence, two principles of action and the same number of wills. So, we anathematize  Theodore who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the unholy prelates of the church of Constantinople, and with these,  Honorius of Rome

And in this same exposition of faith they refer to the Pope of elder Rome:

This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein. But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose--namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further  Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome


If the Pope in his "office" here has fallen to heresy then it stands to reason that we don't meet the requirements 1-3 of papal infallibility.  This puts the following into context as well.

•   The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.


For the Orthodox it's not that they see the rule of the true faith in the rule of the Pope but instead in the very proclamation of faith insofar as it is true.  This sort of goes back to the definition of Papal Supremacy.  I won't tackle this now but it takes Rome's definition and juxtaposes it onto the past.  More than this, it's the see that has been "preserved unblemished".  The see is the jurisdiction not necessarily the person in the office of Pope.  Otherwise why would they in the very same explanation of faith then label Pope Honorius a heretic?  

It's the "sacred faith and doctrine" that is the whole and true strength.  

Also, look at the language of the fourth council and consider the Filioque against the doctrine of Supremacy and Infallibility as Rome defines it:  

 And the same of the 150 saintly fathers assembled in Constantinople. This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord's becoming human to those who faithfully accept it.

Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod, now in session, in its desire to exclude all their tricks against the truth, and teaching what has been unshakeable in the proclamation from the beginning,

decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it

ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city

--the teaching they made known to all,

not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit by the use of scriptural testimonies against those who were trying to do away with his sovereignty.

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

To have the Pope unilaterally add to that which was handed down by the 150 saintly fathers in a "complete, perfect for understanding and establishment, unshakable in proclamation, not introducing anything left out, with all possible accuracy and attention" is hard to reconcile.  Especially when a Roman Pope puts his very own signature on the decisions of this council.  

QuoteWhat is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:

•   "The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."  

Well, the second council of Lyons was in 1274.  I half wonder who "the Greeks" here are and in what context this is being said.  

I mean this same Roman council (Lyons) is the one that wrote in her canons that Rome has always believed in the Filioque and that the Pope is the ruler of the universal Church.  That "the Greeks" would affirm that which kept them divided seems strange to me here.  Something else is probably going on.  I'll have to research this.


Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:
•   "The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church." [/color]

To read on the council of Florence click here: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Council_of_Florence

They don't really go over it in detail but there was a whole lot of sideways going on in that council.  But more importantly, Rome and the Orthodox didn't come into communion.  For those of us outside of Rome we would have to see something much earlier than what is being presented in order for us to see its Apostolicity.  I mean, even at the council of Florence there were newer heresies foreign to Orthodoxy and Rome even at the time of the schism.  The idea that you were "separated" from God in hell etc. was on the menu at Florence.  

What people may not also realize is that the Orthodox were smooshed between Rome and the Muslims and Islam was about to squash the Orthodox so the Orthodox wrote to Rome for help.  Rome then said that they would help but only upon the condition that the Orthodox accept all her doctrines.  

Providentially this did not happen and the Orthodox got smoshed by the Muslims (but obviously survived).  

Quote
Incidentally bishops from the Orthodox Church were invited to the Council but did not come.

The council that the Orthodox did not attend was the one in the mid 18th century.  I don't know but at this time I think they were again under heavy heavy persecution.  

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 12:25:07
Is the Pope able to over turn the decisions of entire councils and to also overturn the decisions of the Popes that came before him?  The doctrine of infallibility seems to ignore Tradition.  It sounds like so long as there is general agreement and like-minds then the Pope can then implement things irrespective of that which came before him.  The three matters under the "faith and morals" doesn't seem to hold throughout the ages or in regards to Apostolic Tradition but in regards to present circumstance.  

QuoteNo, the Pope cannot overturn previously infallibly defined doctrines. Infallibility is not that the Pope or Church will always teach the truth, but that it will never teach error. So if a Pope was minded to overturn an infallibly defined doctrine God would prevent him (somehow).

Yeah, for me I can't see how this didn't happen with the creed.  It was considered complete and infallible.  Rome said that it wasn't "specific" enough but read the language and you can tell that The Church did believe it to be specific enough.  

Quote
Is there an example of the Pope speaking from the chair (infallibly)?  

Yes, the dogma of the Immaculate conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950) are the only ones I am aware of.

Oy.  Dunno.  We're in pretty tight here.  

Quote
Papal infallibility means (#3) that the pope can define a doctrine dealing with faith and morals without the consent of the Church.  Or no?  

Looking at the definition it doesn't say he can't.

But I mean, look at Pope Honorius?  I definitely don't agree with Dawkins but that the office has been given this reach and power (which I honestly can't find in the Tradition of our shared history) just seems out of place.


Lord have mercy...


ICXC
NIKA

Hi Ryan,

I said earlier

Quote from: winsome on Thu Apr 22, 2010 - 13:30:06
I'm not sure if I can answer these questions adequately. I'll have a go but I might regret this. I might be getting out of my depth here.  

I do this - try to answer a question that I don't know enough about; do a bit of research and then get out of my depth.   

So I'm going to throw in the towel on this one. I just don't know enough about about the history of this.

Ryan,

Leaving aside doctrinal issues, if the Orthodox and Catholics came together how could such a large group function without some central organisation? At the moment Orthodoxy is relatively small (210 million) split between several autonomous Patriarchies. But the combined Church would be over1.4 billion. I can't see the current Orthodox model working on that scale.

Also it's not all sweetness and brotherhood in Orthodoxy. There was quite a row here in England a few of years ago when some churches wanted to move out from under the jurisdiction of Moscow to Constantinople who they saw as more liberal. I don't know what the result was but it showed up tensions within the system

God bless

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 04:21:23
Ryan,

Leaving aside doctrinal issues, if the Orthodox and Catholics came together how could such a large group function without some central organisation? At the moment Orthodoxy is relatively small (210 million) split between several autonomous Patriarchies. But the combined Church would be over1.4 billion. I can't see the current Orthodox model working on that scale.

Also it's not all sweetness and brotherhood in Orthodoxy. There was quite a row here in England a few of years ago when some churches wanted to move out from under the jurisdiction of Moscow to Constantinople who they saw as more liberal. I don't know what the result was but it showed up tensions within the system

God bless

But see, this is what people, I think, are confusing.  The Orthodox do not reject Papal Primacy in the Apostolic sense.  Rome's Bishop, the Pope, would still reside as President as it were.  He would have Primacy.  First among equals.  What the Pope would not have is unilateral control.  He couldn't overturn general councils.  He couldn't depose a Bishop in a jurisdiction outside of Rome unilaterally.   He would be appealed to settle disputes between jurisdictions, not have unilateral control over them.  It's the difference between a Monarch and a President.  The difference would be that he would work in concert according to the whole (which is the most literal of definitions for the term, "catholic").  

The schism really began in about the second century and became compounded with the Frankish invasion and then the Pope's refusal to recognize Constantinople even though all the other jurisdictions accepted the promotion of Constantinople.  This is why there was so much politics behind the schism in 1054.  The Frankish King knew that the Greeks weren't in submission and so pressured the daylights out of the Pope of Rome to insert the creed.  The addition to the creed had already been attempted earlier and the Pope rejected based on the upheaval it caused in the other jurisdictions.  Plus the Pope admitted he didn't have unilateral control to do such a thing.  

When Constantinople threatened the political monarchy of the Franks, the King saw the Creed as a way to diffuse the power and pushed and pushed.  The Pope I think only saw fit to add to the creed against the Goths (which is why the filioque was even used to begin with).  But when the new Pope overturned the former Pope's decision to reject the addition it caused all the other jurisdictions to ignore the addition.  In an effort to assert herself over Constantinople this is when Papal Primacy was defined as Supremacy and this is probably the means to the end of the creed's addition.  This definition cause the other jurisdiction to reject the claim of unilateral control (which was bound up in the Frankish presence.  The Franks then set out to destroy the Greeks.  

Prior to the Franks, Romans and Greeks were synonymous.  To be Roman was to be Greek, to be Greek was to be Roman but the Franks made to be Roman a higher thing.  The Romans spoke Greek and the Greeks were Roman prior to this.  It was an ethnic line that was being drawn, not by the Pope but by the Franks.  This is why the letter to the Romans is written not in Latin but in Greek.  There was a huge shift in cultural presence and the Pope at that time was only trying to diffuse the promotion of Constantinople but wound up alienating his jurisdiction from Antioch, Alexandria, Jersusalem and Constantinople.

The schism was more the result of the reaction of an enemy's invasion from a Germanic peoples than it was about their love for their Greco*-Roman brothers.  

Flash forward to today you are right.  The Orthodox have their issues too.  We still have issues with synthesizing our jurisdictions.  Throw in the fact that you have some Orthodox who are so tied into their cultures and national pride that they are becoming un-Orthodox.  Some of the Old Believers who rejected the reforms broke away and refused communion with other Orthodox.  Others not.  We need another council but we have road blocks.  

This isn't going to go away if we merely accept Papal Supremacy.  The RCC has the same issues with their version of Old believers who reject anything after Vatican II and you have groups in the south mostly who are not unlike Pentecostals (Charismatic Pentecostals).  They too are in communion with Rome but they are rejected by certain jurisdictions within Roman Catholicism.  You also have other groups that have been absorbed into Rome who are so liturgically backwards that it's scary.  More and more Rome seems to be becoming like the protestants.  I say this with love because what I am able to tell is that despite having Papal Supremacy there is still a lack of unity and direction.  This isn't to say that it's the systems fault but the fact that people are people.  

If I were to look at some Serbian Orthodox churches for instance, they are quite bound up in their national affairs.  Culture, politics and all that stuff can pollute the reality that we are called to be citizens of heaven.  A Pope Supreme or even a Pope Prime isn't going to be able to unilaterally rip asunder those bonds.  

Another sad fact is that according to the councils, if one of our Patriarchs were to leave a certain jurisdiction, say due to severe persecution, then that See would be abandoned and therefore lost.  That's kind of the spooky reality we are facing in Cappodecia (Turkey) right now.  But this reality just like all the councils that take place would bring about a call to act.  In our lifetime we may live to see an 8th Ecumenical Council.  

It's true that the Orthodox are much more resistant to change but this too is one of her greatest strengths.  After all we are called to preserve that which we received from the Apostles.  We are called to KEEP the faith.  If we changed course every time a wind was blown or were gathered to decide based on one bishops desire then we would wind up having too small a rudder for such a large boat.  

If you just look back over Rome's canon and councils the ones that precede often get thrown out and declared invalid.  The way that Rome sees tradition is that which comes after is superior to that which came before it.  For example, the teachings of today are seen as superior to the teachings of even the early Fathers.  That the Orthodox seek to keep that which came before it (according to the whole) so that we are just as in communion with those that came before us as in communion with those that come after, you can see why our doctrines have remained so unchanged for so long.  If you look at the council of Florence, Rome had such a list of new doctrines that were foreign to Rome even two hundred years prior to that, that it's hard to see continuity.  

I think Orthodox would welcome the Primacy but for Orthodox, I can't see that happening unless she were to return to her roots and re-evaluate some of what we would call innovations built on doctrines and dogmas that were often just reactions to cultural problems (filioque under Frankish pressure and in response to the Goths as an example).



Just read read read that first thousand year history, those early fathers, the canons, councils.  It's all there.  Really.  I pray that Rome return to who she is truly is because if she doesn't she's going to wind up looking more and more like this (I pray that I'm wrong):






I'm not knocking the charismatic movement but that tongues are being used and it's so diverse and has led to in some cases what was a God centered liturgy to a man centered service.  And there are is a lot of contemporary music in place of St. Andrews liturgy, St. James etc...   I don't know.   None of my business but I do wonder if this is what the Apostles handed down to us. 



God bless

ICXC
NIKA

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for posting that. I'm not going to comment on the historical analysis because my church history isn't up to it. Yes I must read some more.

Personally I would agree that the central control of the Pope & Vatican has grown too much. One of the moves of the second Vatican Council (early 1960's) was to restore a more conciliar structure. Unfortunately the Vatican seems to have neutralised that move and restored it's grip. It's not healthy (IMO).  It's partly due to things that happened in history, like the Reformation and the multitudinous wars in Europe over the centuries.

There are few things that you said I'd like you to expand on if you are willing.

1.   What the Pope would not have is unilateral control.  He couldn't overturn general councils. Can you give an example of when then Pope has done this – or is this the filioque thing again?

2.   What you mean by we have groups in the south mostly who are not unlike Pentecostals (Charismatic Pentecostals). They too are in communion with Rome but they are rejected by certain jurisdictions within Roman Catholicism.

3.   You also have other groups that have been absorbed into Rome who are so liturgically backwards that it's scary. Can you give an example of which groups you are referring to.

Thanks

These topics are interesting. I have often wondered what Orthodoxy was like. It is as I suspected though. They  are hung up on outward forms of Religion also. Grand Cathedrals ceremony and lavish garments and such. I don't don't see the early church that I know an understand anywhere. That is what i understand of Christ and the apostles from scripture. Where did our humble beginnings go and why have we not held on to them. Just look at the Pope and the orthodox bishop together. i think I feel ill.
god bless   

These people worship me with their lips but their hearts are far from me

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 11:25:43
These topics are interesting. I have often wondered what Orthodoxy was like. It is as I suspected though. They  are hung up on outward forms of Religion also. Grand Cathedrals ceremony and lavish garments and such. I don't don't see the early church that I know an understand anywhere. That is what i understand of Christ and the apostles from scripture. Where did our humble beginnings go and why have we not held on to them. Just look at the Pope and the orthodox bishop together. i think I feel ill.
god bless    

Yes, you've mention it many times before.

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 11:42:34
These people worship me with their lips but their hearts are far from me

Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Now perhaps you could push off and let Ryan and I continue our discussion.

Thanks

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 09:40:51
I'm not knocking the charismatic movement but that tongues are being used and it's so diverse and has led to in some cases what was a God centered liturgy to a man centered service.  And there are is a lot of contemporary music in place of St. Andrews liturgy, St. James etc...   I don't know.   None of my business but I do wonder if this is what the Apostles handed down to us. 
God bless

ICXC
NIKA

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a whole topic in itself. I believe it is truly a movement of the Holy Spirit. It is approved of by both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is a great gift to the Church. But is is a gift that has not always been properly pastored and some practices have been questionable. But I believe the fruits have, for the most part, been very good. However that's a bit off topic.

Quote
Personally I would agree that the central control of the Pope & Vatican has grown too much. One of the moves of the second Vatican Council (early 1960's) was to restore a more conciliar structure. Unfortunately the Vatican seems to have neutralised that move and restored it's grip. It's not healthy (IMO).  It's partly due to things that happened in history, like the Reformation and the multitudinous wars in Europe over the centuries.

This might relate to dogma though.  The thing about the Pope having the ability to, independent of a council, issue forth dogma binds the entire church.  Now, in Vatican II Pope John could very well have made those proclamations, "dogma" but because he said that they not to be made dogma Vatican II is basically just proclamations that characterize Roman Catholic disposition - the way they carry themselves, present themselves.  They were not dogmatic and the dogmas pre-Vatican II still stand. 

QuoteThere are few things that you said I'd like you to expand on if you are willing.

1.   What the Pope would not have is unilateral control.  He couldn't overturn general councils. Can you give an example of when then Pope has done this – or is this the filioque thing again?

590-604 Pope St. Gregory the Great rejects the title of "universal bishop" for any bishop.   Now this isn't a council or anything but in regards to continuity it's a good starting point perhaps. 

The filioque doesn't seem important today to a lot of people but it certainly was and is because it was though this that the frame of Papal Supremacy was laid.

809 Pope Leo III forbids addition of Filioque to Creed and has original Creed in both Greek and Latin inscribed on silver tablets displayed in Rome

879-880 Council in Constantinople (endorsed by papacy) reinstates St. Photius and anathematizes any changes to Nicene Creed, including the Filioque.

1014 First use of Filioque by Pope of Rome, at coronation of Holy Roman Emperor Henry II

1054 Excommunication of Ecumenical Patriarch Michael Cerularius by Cardinal Humbertus, papal legate, the conventional date point of the Great Schism. Michael returns the favor by excommunicating  the Pope (who had died, rendering his legate's authority null).

This is why the schism wasn't really "official" because the Pope never actually excommunicated Patriarch Michael.

1059 Beginning of the use of the term transubstantiation in West.

This is important because transubstantiation later becomes dogma.  Now, the fact that the Orthodox don't have transubstantiation and yet we believe the same, minus the trying to create a formula to explain the Mystery shows that Rome often injects her explanation into the very thing that is already dogmatic.  So now, it's not just that you have to believe in the Mystery as those who came before us do but also in the scholastic efforts to "explain" the Mystery. 

It is the Pope who despite the "whole" can do this based on the Roman definition of Papal Supremacy.  When I say "whole" I mean that whatever the dogma or doctrine, it must be believed by all for all throughout all time.  But because the Pope can issue forth independent from the whole, the whole becomes subject to the person in the office of Pope.  The office itself becomes subject to the person in the office. 

1073-1085 Hildebrand becomes Pope Gregory VII and institutes Gregorian Reforms, the largest increase of papal power in history, including the claim to be able to depose secular rulers.

Now I don't know if you read the Papal Dictates thingamajob but you have to admit that St. Peter had he had this power probably wouldn't have been martyred in Rome. 

1075 Pope Gregory VII issues Dictatus papae, an extreme statement of papal power. 

1078-80 Council of Burgos reorganizes national Church of Spain as Roman Archbishopric, replaces use of Mozarabic rite with Roman.

I won't go into what happens to the Bishops that refuse to comply.  But again, this would be a case wherein "supremacy" gives the elbow room for such things to take place.  It's still in place and thank God we don't have a person acting like this in the office of Pope but the elbow room is still there. 

1274 Council of Lyons fails to force Orthodox capitulation to papacy.

1302 Papal bull Unam Sanctam declares submission to pope necessary for salvation.

Now, this isn't just saying that we should obey our leaders/bishops but submission to the pope as defined in the context of supremacy.  From this point on how on earth can you do anything outside of the Pope's reach?  But where there's power there's competition...

1379 Beginning of Western "Great Schism," during which there are eventually 3 rival popes.

1414-1418 Council of Constance ends Western "Great Schism;" this council emphasized the Conciliar Movement over the authority of the pope.

Conciliarism, or the conciliar movement, was a reform movement in the 14th and 15th century Roman Catholic Church which held that final authority in spiritual matters resided with the Roman Church as corporation of Christians, embodied by a general church council, not with the pope. The movement emerged in response to the Avignon papacy[citation needed]; the popes were removed from Rome and subjected to pressures from the kings of France— and the ensuing schism that inspired the summoning of the Council of Pisa (1409), the Council of Constance (1412–1418) and the Council of Basel (1431–1449). The eventual victor in the conflict was the institution of the Papacy, confirmed by the condemnation of conciliarism at the Fifth Lateran Council, 1512-17.

Sooo close, but no tomatoes...

1423-24 Council of Siena in the Roman Catholic Church was the high point of conciliarism, emphasizing the leadership of the bishops gathered in council, but the conciliarism expressed there was later branded as a heresy.

1439 Council of Florence fails to force Orthodox capitulation to papacy and confesses Purgatory as dogma.

Now, it's interesting that Rome out of all the ancient traditions have defined Purgatory in such a specific way that is even foreign to those who share the same history with her.  But that the Pope can reject or assent to such doctrines independent from the "whole" shows how "top heavy" Papal Supremacy is... 

1611 Gallican French theologian Edmund Richer (1559-1631), author of De ecclesiastica et politica potestate, held the view that ecclesiastical councils, not the papacy, was the method by which doctrinal truth was established, but his work was censured at the Council of Aix-en-Provence in 1612; this 'richérisme' strongly influenced 18th century Jansenism.

1763 The Jansenist Provincial Council of Utrecht, seed of the future Old Catholic movements, affirmed every Roman Catholic dogma and pronounced the Orthodox Faith to be schismatic and false, signalling not so much a rapprochement with Orthodoxy, but rather a refusal to drift yet further from her, as much of the Roman fold was doing.

1854 Declaration of Immaculate Conception of Mary as dogma.

1870 Declaration of Papal Infallibility to be dogma at First Vatican Council.

1950 Declaration of Bodily Assumption of Mary as dogma.

1962-1965 Vatican II institutes major reforms, especially liturgical, into Roman Catholic Church.

2001 Pope John Paul II apologizes to Orthodox for Fourth Crusade.

I put this in just because this is really what seemed to have clinched the "schism". 

The Fourth Crusade lasted from 1201-1204. Though the Crusades were for the most part an entirely Western phenomenon, this one affected Eastern Church history because the invading Crusaders took Constantinople on April 12, 1204. After defeating the Byzantine Emperor Alexius V (who had usurped the throne from his predecessor Alexius IV, put in power by the Crusaders), they conquered the city and famously looted and desecrated numerous churches, icons, and relics.[1]  They then set up the Latin Empire, based in Constantinople, lasting over 57 years until Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus recaptured Constantinople in 1261. This Crusade is widely regarded as having finalized the Great Schism, as much bitterness towards the West remained even after the restoration of Byzantium.


2.   What you mean by we have groups in the south mostly who are not unlike Pentecostals (Charismatic Pentecostals). They too are in communion with Rome but they are rejected by certain jurisdictions within Roman Catholicism.

I meant South America because that's where a lot of charismatic (speaking in tongues and really contemporary liturgies) are flourishing.  They're causing a lot of Catholics to question the movement or maybe I should say "some" Catholics.   Plus if you have a charismatic Catholic speaking in tongues in a Roman Catholic church where the priest or whoever is against such things then they usually get transferred, removed etc. 


3.   You also have other groups that have been absorbed into Rome who are so liturgically backwards that it's scary. Can you give an example of which groups you are referring to.

Well the one I posted up there is liturgically pretty whoa.  I mean, do you think the Apostles had the women incense the Altar and spin it around to a lion king soundtrack?  I know that sounds a little harsh but I mean, if the Apostles showed you to do a thing you would do that thing as it was done and you would have to be quite bold to think that you could just change that which was shown.  Perhaps I am being too firm here.  I don't know.  But coming from a protestant background, I don't react well to this stuff well.  If I were to go to a protestant service today it would feel more like a rock concert or a lecture. 

Even in the "traditional" protestant churches their hymns go back to the eighteenth century and are often filled with theological dispositions but I'm seeing in some of the Roman Catholic services these very same dispositions which are based on philosophies and scholasticism. 

They're experimenting with forms and varying expressions which seems more often than not to make the participant more "central" - man-centered if you know what I mean. 

Take a look at "emergent church" services and you'll see where a lot of this stuff is heading (i think). 


ICXC
NIKA

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55

Quote
Personally I would agree that the central control of the Pope & Vatican has grown too much. One of the moves of the second Vatican Council (early 1960's) was to restore a more conciliar structure. Unfortunately the Vatican seems to have neutralised that move and restored it's grip. It's not healthy (IMO).  It's partly due to things that happened in history, like the Reformation and the multitudinous wars in Europe over the centuries.

This might relate to dogma though.  The thing about the Pope having the ability to, independent of a council, issue forth dogma binds the entire church.  Now, in Vatican II Pope John could very well have made those proclamations, "dogma" but because he said that they not to be made dogma Vatican II is basically just proclamations that characterize Roman Catholic disposition - the way they carry themselves, present themselves.  They were not dogmatic and the dogmas pre-Vatican II still stand.  

I think you worry too much about the Pope issuing infallible declarations. Pope John Paul II was probably the most prolific Pope on record for the number of teaching documents he produced. Yet he made not a single new infallible declaration (though he made have re-iterated existing ones). In the last 150 years there have only been two such declarations and I don't know of any before that. It's a very rare occurrence.  

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55

QuoteThere are few things that you said I'd like you to expand on if you are willing.

1.   What the Pope would not have is unilateral control.  He couldn't overturn general councils. Can you give an example of when then Pope has done this – or is this the filioque thing again?

590-604 Pope St. Gregory the Great rejects the title of "universal bishop" for any bishop.   Now this isn't a council or anything but in regards to continuity it's a good starting point perhaps.  

The filioque doesn't seem important today to a lot of people but it certainly was and is because it was though this that the frame of Papal Supremacy was laid.

809 Pope Leo III forbids addition of Filioque to Creed and has original Creed in both Greek and Latin inscribed on silver tablets displayed in Rome

879-880 Council in Constantinople (endorsed by papacy) reinstates St. Photius and anathematizes any changes to Nicene Creed, including the Filioque.

1014 First use of Filioque by Pope of Rome, at coronation of Holy Roman Emperor Henry II

I'm going to leave out the filoque issue.

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55
1054 Excommunication of Ecumenical Patriarch Michael Cerularius by Cardinal Humbertus, papal legate, the conventional date point of the Great Schism. Michael returns the favor by excommunicating  the Pope (who had died, rendering his legate's authority null).

This is why the schism wasn't really "official" because the Pope never actually excommunicated Patriarch Michael.

These are not examples of the Pope overturning council decisions.

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55
1059 Beginning of the use of the term transubstantiation in West.

This is important because transubstantiation later becomes dogma.  Now, the fact that the Orthodox don't have transubstantiation and yet we believe the same, minus the trying to create a formula to explain the Mystery shows that Rome often injects her explanation into the very thing that is already dogmatic.  So now, it's not just that you have to believe in the Mystery as those who came before us do but also in the scholastic efforts to "explain" the Mystery.  

It is the Pope who despite the "whole" can do this based on the Roman definition of Papal Supremacy.  When I say "whole" I mean that whatever the dogma or doctrine, it must be believed by all for all throughout all time.  But because the Pope can issue forth independent from the whole, the whole becomes subject to the person in the office of Pope.  The office itself becomes subject to the person in the office.  

The term transubstantiation may have been tossed around by theologians but it was the Council of Trent that made it an official term, not a Pope.

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55

1073-1085 Hildebrand becomes Pope Gregory VII and institutes Gregorian Reforms, the largest increase of papal power in history, including the claim to be able to depose secular rulers.

Now I don't know if you read the Papal Dictates thingamajob but you have to admit that St. Peter had he had this power probably wouldn't have been martyred in Rome.  

1075 Pope Gregory VII issues Dictatus papae, an extreme statement of papal power.  

I'll come to the Papal Dictates in your other thread rather than here.

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55

1078-80 Council of Burgos reorganizes national Church of Spain as Roman Archbishopric, replaces use of Mozarabic rite with Roman.

I won't go into what happens to the Bishops that refuse to comply.  But again, this would be a case wherein "supremacy" gives the elbow room for such things to take place.  It's still in place and thank God we don't have a person acting like this in the office of Pope but the elbow room is still there.  

1274 Council of Lyons fails to force Orthodox capitulation to papacy.

Again not examples of the Pope overturning councils

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55
1302 Papal bull Unam Sanctam declares submission to pope necessary for salvation.

Now, this isn't just saying that we should obey our leaders/bishops but submission to the pope as defined in the context of supremacy.  From this point on how on earth can you do anything outside of the Pope's reach?  But where there's power there's competition...

I'll make separate post on this one. It is widely misunderstood. But it will have to be later on tomorrow. I'm off to bed now.

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55
1379 Beginning of Western "Great Schism," during which there are eventually 3 rival popes.

1414-1418 Council of Constance ends Western "Great Schism;" this council emphasized the Conciliar Movement over the authority of the pope.

Conciliarism, or the conciliar movement, was a reform movement in the 14th and 15th century Roman Catholic Church which held that final authority in spiritual matters resided with the Roman Church as corporation of Christians, embodied by a general church council, not with the pope. The movement emerged in response to the Avignon papacy[citation needed]; the popes were removed from Rome and subjected to pressures from the kings of France— and the ensuing schism that inspired the summoning of the Council of Pisa (1409), the Council of Constance (1412–1418) and the Council of Basel (1431–1449). The eventual victor in the conflict was the institution of the Papacy, confirmed by the condemnation of conciliarism at the Fifth Lateran Council, 1512-17.

Sooo close, but no tomatoes...

1423-24 Council of Siena in the Roman Catholic Church was the high point of conciliarism, emphasizing the leadership of the bishops gathered in council, but the conciliarism expressed there was later branded as a heresy.

1439 Council of Florence fails to force Orthodox capitulation to papacy and confesses Purgatory as dogma.

Now, it's interesting that Rome out of all the ancient traditions have defined Purgatory in such a specific way that is even foreign to those who share the same history with her.  But that the Pope can reject or assent to such doctrines independent from the "whole" shows how "top heavy" Papal Supremacy is...  

Come one Ryan – this is the Council defining a doctrine not the Pope. It was not independent from the "whole

Quote

I think you worry too much about the Pope issuing infallible declarations. Pope John Paul II was probably the most prolific Pope on record for the number of teaching documents he produced. Yet he made not a single new infallible declaration (though he made have re-iterated existing ones). In the last 150 years there have only been two such declarations and I don't know of any before that. It's a very rare occurrence.  

Well, that it's rare is a good thing but that this "power" is there to exercise is a concern.  If only because it doesn't fit in with the very mark of The Church - catholic (according to the whole)

QuoteI'm going to leave out the filoque issue.

I mean, this is sort of the crux.  If the pope defines his right to do what he did and then calls that definition apostolic it doesn't add up. The Pope used Supremacy to justify his actions.  To overturn the decisions of the entire Eastern and Western Christians including Popes that came before him shows exactly how this power can be used. 

That a Pope might restrain himself is good but that he has the power which is not apostolic but born out of such a political event departs. 

QuoteThe term transubstantiation may have been tossed around by theologians but it was the Council of Trent that made it an official term, not a Pope.

But you have to agree that had the Pope said, no then this would not have been a dogma.  Had the pope not made transubstantiation dogma, Rome would still believe dogmatically in the presence is my point. 

The belief in real presence that St. Ignatius and all the early church fathers spoke of.  Now, the fact that real presence as understood by the early church fathers does not become dogma but instead the "explanation" and "formulaic understanding" of that which was taught is what I'm pointing out here. 

Of course this isn't out of concert with the council of Rome but that's because the 'explanation" is what becomes dogmatic.  It compounds. Supremacy becomes the vehicle through which this occurs.  Otherwise, Coptics, Orthodox etc. would all hold transubstantiation to be dogma. 


1078-80 Council of Burgos reorganizes national Church of Spain as Roman Archbishopric, replaces use of Mozarabic rite with Roman.

QuoteAgain not examples of the Pope overturning councils

But that a Pope can replace even the liturgical rites of any jurisdiction?  No cigar?  you have no problem with this?  What if the Pope said that all RCC would had to go back to pre-Vatican II liturgies?  Would you believe he had the right to exercise this power over all Christendom?  It might not be a council but again, you have a council made up of people who all the Pope has to do is give them the boot and they aren't in council..

Not saying the Popes exercise this power but to call it apostolic seems like a stretch, no? 

QuoteI'll make separate post on this one. It is widely misunderstood. But it will have to be later on tomorrow. I'm off to bed now.

Thanks.  Is this seen as apostolic btw?  Not sure how it fits into the mind of the church. 

Quote
Come one Ryan – this is the Council defining a doctrine not the Pope. It was not independent from the "whole

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 16:18:35

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55
This is important because transubstantiation later becomes dogma.  Now, the fact that the Orthodox don't have transubstantiation and yet we believe the same, minus the trying to create a formula to explain the Mystery shows that Rome often injects her explanation into the very thing that is already dogmatic.  So now, it's not just that you have to believe in the Mystery as those who came before us do but also in the scholastic efforts to "explain" the Mystery.  

It is the Pope who despite the "whole" can do this based on the Roman definition of Papal Supremacy.  When I say "whole" I mean that whatever the dogma or doctrine, it must be believed by all for all throughout all time.  But because the Pope can issue forth independent from the whole, the whole becomes subject to the person in the office of Pope.  The office itself becomes subject to the person in the office.  

The term transubstantiation may have been tossed around by theologians but it was the Council of Trent that made it an official term, not a Pope.

Not only that, but the doctrine and the very word that we Catholics use to describe it, transsubstantiatio, is an exact translation from the Greek or the ECF's, μετουσίωσις, metousiosis, or in English, "transubstantiation" that the Eastern Orthodox use.  Same doctrine, same exact word used in Greek, which the Church uses when it expresses that doctrine in that language, i.e., Eastern Rite Catholics.  

Quote from: Winsome on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55

Quote from: Ryan2010
1302 Papal bull Unam Sanctam declares submission to pope necessary for salvation.

Now, this isn't just saying that we should obey our leaders/bishops but submission to the pope as defined in the context of supremacy.  From this point on how on earth can you do anything outside of the Pope's reach?  But where there's power there's competition...

I'll leave these for the moment. Perhaps come back to them later. There is enough to cope with Unum Sanctum & Dictatus Papae (unless DK or Selene or someone answers them  ).

I've just been reading through this and not commenting as I think you are doing a bang-up job on your own, Winsome.  

I have also not seen any evidence of any Pope overturning the findings of a council on matters of faith and morals.  

As to Unam Sanctum, The basic teaching of Unam Sanctam can be summarized as follows:

(1) There is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.

(2) The Church represents the Mystical Body whose head is Christ and in which there is one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism (Eph 4:5); therefore this one visible Body on earth has one head, Christ (who is the invisible head) and His vicar, St. Peter and his successors (the visible head). This is not two heads (like a "monster") but one. And if anyone says that he is not subject to the vicar of Christ, Peter's successor he necessarily declares he is not of Christ's sheep (i.e. he is not in the Catholic Church).

(3) In the power of the Church are "two swords," (from Luke 22:38 and Matt 26:52 interpreted allegorically), the spiritual and the temporal, to be used by and for the Church. The first is in the hand of priests; the second is in the hand of kings and knights, but is to be used at the direction and permission of the priest (ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis).

(4) It is fitting that the temporal power be subject to the spiritual since the latter excels the former in diginity and nobility as spiritual things are superior to temporal things. The spiritual power can establish (instituere) the temporal power and judge it if it is "not good" (i.e. when it does evil or a matter of sin is involved, taken directly from Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, II,2,4). If the supreme spiritual power errs, it will be judged not by man but by God alone since the authority although given to men and exercised by them, is not human but divine. Unlike the Manichean heretics who argue for two original principles of power, there is only one.

(5) Finally, in its only infallible definition the Bull concludes that it is absolutely necessary for salvation (omnino esse de necessitate salutis) for all human beings (omni humanae creaturae) to be subject (subesse) to the Roman Pontiff.

I will assume that only the fifth point is the one that is usually the object of debate. The old version of the Catholic Encyclopaedia-AD1913 summerized it this way...

The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."

Obedience to the Chief Bishop, the Pope, is obedience to the Church and that is the only thing that the Bull is saying.

To resist a power ordained by God is to resist God Himself, unless one wants to revive Manichean dualism. Furthermore, the same 'necessity for salvation' that binds all men without exception to the Church equally imposes on them the strict duty of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Such is the doctrine that Boniface VIII sanctioned with every rigorous clause that characterized the acts of his supreme doctrinal magistracy.

The Church Fathers were clear on the necessity of obedience to those who posses the authority of the Church and the it's purpose as the universal means of man's salvation.

IGNATIUS  Letter to the Smyrnaeans (AD 110).

"Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper  Eucharist, which is [administered] either  by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."  

ORIGEN (c. 249 - 251 AD)

"If someone of that people wishes to be saved, let him come into this house [Rahab's house as a figure of the Church], so that he may be able to obtain his salvation....Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved. For if anyone go outside, he shall be guilty of his own death." (Homilies on Josue 3:5)

LACTANTIUS (c. 304 - 310 AD)

"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from here, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation....Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known: that is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance, and which takes a salubrious care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject." (The Divine Institutions 4:30:11,13)

ST. JEROME (c. 374 - 379 AD) Letter to Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the Rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah [the Church] will perish when the flood prevails..." (Letters 15:2)

Outside of the Ark, there is nothing but the flood.  How true.  

Quote from: winsome on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 12:10:10

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 11:25:43
These topics are interesting. I have often wondered what Orthodoxy was like. It is as I suspected though. They  are hung up on outward forms of Religion also. Grand Cathedrals ceremony and lavish garments and such. I don't don't see the early church that I know an understand anywhere. That is what i understand of Christ and the apostles from scripture. Where did our humble beginnings go and why have we not held on to them. Just look at the Pope and the orthodox bishop together. i think I feel ill.
god bless    

Yes, you've mention it many times before.

Perhaps you could tell me Winsome, When did the church lose sight to put on the big show. Do you think that Peter or any of the apostles would do this?. Be honest with yourself. Do you not know what it says that to be carnally minded is enmity against God. Will Either of these men stand in that day having all their grand array 
Even as Steven said of the Lord " the earth is but my foot stool, what building shall you build for me.
God bless

QuoteNot only that, but the doctrine and the very word that we Catholics use to describe it, transsubstantiatio, is an exact translation from the Greek or the ECF's, μετουσίωσις, metousiosis, or in English, "transubstantiation" that the Eastern Orthodox use.  Same doctrine, same exact word used in Greek, which the Church uses when it expresses that doctrine in that language, i.e., Eastern Rite Catholics.  

Yeah, I'm not taking issue with transubstantiation but that the formulaic expression itself becomes attached to it and then becomes dogma.   KnowwhatImean?  Like, the very expression of "how" the bread and wine become the body becomes synonymous "with" the actual belief that the bread and wine "become" the body. 

SeewhatImean? 

Quote
I have also not seen any evidence of any Pope overturning the findings of a council on matters of faith and morals.  

Does the filioque not count being as the council anathematized anyone that should add to or take away and then even later was reaffirmed by another Pope? 

And then also that Rome would ignore and reject canons that all the other churches adhered to such as 28 in the Constantinople creed?   Article 28 I think. 

QuoteAs to Unam Sanctum, The basic teaching of Unam Sanctam can be summarized as follows:

thank you for this, desert.   It does affirm Supremacy though and below I don't quite see Supremacy implied.

Quote
To resist a power ordained by God is to resist God Himself, unless one wants to revive Manichean dualism.

But see, this is where I see a disconnect.  I don't see obedience to your bishop as Manichean dualism. 

Quote
The Church Fathers were clear on the necessity of obedience to those who posses the authority of the Church and the it's purpose as the universal means of man's salvation.

Well true but again it was in the context of the bishop, not bishop of bishops or universal bishop. 

QuoteIGNATIUS  Letter to the Smyrnaeans (AD 110).

"Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper  Eucharist, which is [administered] either  by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."  

To say that St. Ignatius defined Papal Supremacy when it expressly refers to the local bishop doesn't seem to jive.  St. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch after all. 

Quote
ORIGEN (c. 249 - 251 AD)

"If someone of that people wishes to be saved, let him come into this house [Rahab's house as a figure of the Church], so that he may be able to obtain his salvation....Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved. For if anyone go outside, he shall be guilty of his own death." (Homilies on Josue 3:5)

But see here this is in regards to "the whole" the "Church".  Again how does this lend itself to Papal Supremacy?  The idea that bishops are subject to the bishop of bishops? 

QuoteLACTANTIUS (c. 304 - 310 AD)

"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from here, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation....Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known: that is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance, and which takes a salubrious care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject." (The Divine Institutions 4:30:11,13)

Well, again this is not speaking about the jurisdiction of Rome because at this time we all were in communion.  Rome was just as Catholic as Antioch, just as Catholic as Alexandria etc.  Again, where is Papal Primacy here?  I don't see how this affirms the explanation of Unam Sanctum?  Where in the terms of Unam Sanctum does this lend itself to "supremacy"?

ST. JEROME (c. 374 - 379 AD) Letter to Bishop of Rome, Pope Damasus

Quote
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the Rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah [the Church] will perish when the flood prevails..." (Letters 15:2)

Again, is St. Jerome saying that he is not in communion with Antioch?  Jerusalem?  Or is he seeing the jurisdiction of Rome as the first among equals.  And did St. Jerome say that he should be in communion with the chair outside of the continuity of the faith?  Would St. Jerome pledge his undying allegiance to, say, Pope Honorius? 

We can't juxtapose Supremacy onto these statements.  It's kind of like sola scriptura in that you need tradition to inform the text.  No?  Wasn't St. Jerome's quote here in response to the Novation argument? 

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, 'He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!' . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

And this is interesting too:

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven' [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

-Cyprian of Carthage

Now St. Cyprian here says this! but at the same time holds fast that the Pope had no right to meddle in the affairs of the Church in Africa...   How does this equate to Supremacy as currently defined? 

The other interesting thing here is that St. Cyprian says if anyone should not hold fast to this unity of Peter, anyone that should "desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built" can he still be confident that he is the Church. 

I guess the big question is, what if the Pope should desert this chair?  What if the Pope does not hold fast to this unity? 

The Fathers speaking of St. Peter and then Rome seem to approach it in different ways and in different contexts.  If you have eighty percent of the Church Fathers saying that the "rock" was St. Peter's proclamation of faith vs the 14 Fathers who say it's St. Peters person we should take that into account when we hear the Father's talking about Rome. 

Oy, Lord have mercy.  Difficult stuff.  Going to read up on this more.  Thanks for the responses guys.   


....  and we nearly made it through without people trying to degrade individuals and call names.  A new gracecentered forum record! 

And just to encourage the good dialogue between us...


Blessed are the peacemakers

1 Corinthians 13:6
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

Galatians 5:23
gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Philippians 4:5
Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

1 Corinthians 13:4-6

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.






ICXC
NIKA

I just finished reading the thread in the Eastern Orthodox section linked below and the explanation that CD offers is far more Orthodox than my ramblings. 

So I figured I'd just link there.  You guys do know that I'm a catechumen, right?  Much of this is still quite new to me and so please don't take what I say as 100% Orthodox.  Part of the reason I have been trying to be so active here is that I find that wrestling with this issues in forums such as these is that it forces me to look for answers. 

Having said this it's clear to me that I need to go back into prayer/meditating mode.  I apologize if what I've said was at all perceived as calloused or if I have offended.  It's not at all my intention to offend but to seek the answers to who Christ is, what God requires, who God is to humanity and what humanity is to God. 

Thank you for your patience dear brothers.

God bless

Patristic Sources on the Papacy: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/eastern-orthodox-forum/patristic-sources-on-the-papacy/


ICXC
NIKA,

Ryan

Quote from: RyanHaving said this it's clear to me that I need to go back into prayer/meditating mode.

Well, that is always good, but don't stop posting here Ryan.  I am not mad, I was only angry at the video you had posted due to the fact that it seemed to repeat some of the very erroneous charges that are simply not true or gross mischaracterisations of Catholic belief that I've heard over the years from the Protestants.

Please do not think that I am basing any feelings for you from that.  I know you are Orthodox and respect your beliefs. 

I am just busy with other stuff and can't always get back to answering your post very quickly some times.  I actually spend most of my time with this sort of thing posting on a Catholic board so I miss this one for a couple of days or more, every so often.   I will try to answer your last post tonight or tomorrow.  We're good.   

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 19:14:25
Yeah, I'm not taking issue with transubstantiation but that the formulaic expression itself becomes attached to it and then becomes dogma.   KnowwhatImean?  Like, the very expression of "how" the bread and wine become the body becomes synonymous "with" the actual belief that the bread and wine "become" the body.  

SeewhatImean?

No.  I am not sure what you are referring to as regards to the Catholic doctrine.  Which expression of "how" do you mean, specifically?  What formulaic expression?  

Quote from: RyanDoes the filioque not count being as the council anathematized anyone that should add to or take away and then even later was reaffirmed by another Pope?

Like Winsome, that topic deserves, and has, it's own thread, but suffice it to say that no pope overturned anything there, and the filioque existed even before later councils endorsed it.  It was inserted by no pope.  It is not used by either eastern rite Catholics nor is it used in the Greek translations of the liturgy in the West.  Why?  In that answer is the reason why it is viewed by the west as a bit of a "red herring", but as I said, that could fill ten pages of another thread, dedicated to the matter.

I will try to deal with your comments on Unam Sanctum in one or more bigger groups rather than comment by comment.

Quote from: Ryan
Well true but again it was in the context of the bishop, not bishop of bishops or universal bishop.  


To say that St. Ignatius defined Papal Supremacy when it expressly refers to the local bishop doesn't seem to jive.  St. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch after all.

And as such, he demanded obedience and loyalty to him, why?  Because he does not simply represent Antioch, but the Church.  The Bishop of Rome was acknowledged from the earliest records as having the place of primacy.  They exercised that position of universal authority in the post canonical record begining with Clement's epistle to the church at Corinth.  Although some may question it's conciliatory language as not definitive proof that Pope Clement was demonstrating his full papal authority that is claimed, that is defeated by the fact that it reads exactly as most such interventions by the Holy See are written today.  Contrary to popular opinion by the anti-Catholic, Popes do not generally issue commands but act within the collegiality of other bishops and in light of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, always.  Almost any letter by any modern pope reads exactly as Clement's does.  His letter, btw, was deemed so important by the universal Church that it was read as part of the cannon by many churches up until the final cannon of the NT was decided on.  The point I am getting at which I will make again is that the pope is not separate from the loyalty and obedience owned any bishop as he represents the universal Church.  That only leaves the question of what is his role within that Church?  In most of the rest of my quotes you stated that it did not prove Papal supremacy.  a.  They were  not intended to.  They were intended to prove that obedience to the Church cannot be separated from obedience to her authorities.  b.  How are you defining, "Papal Supremacy"?  Lets look at what I posted earlier and your response to it...

Quote from: Ryan

Quote from: From DKThe reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."   Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

From an Orthodox perspective, I don't see this as problematic.  I mean, that we are to report to Rome isn't really the issue.  The historical context here is, if I remember, the Arius controversy and then the deposition of St. Athanasius.  Rome is seen as a place where we can file an "appeal".  It's a place where we have a sort of (in legal terms) a mediator.  The See that can help iron out differences.  But again, we have to understand that this "power" or "authority" was not unilateral.  Actions were done in tandem with the synods, the council.  And the other thing we have to recognize at this time is that part of the reason Rome is enjoying this primacy is because of her wonderful track record.  Many of the most wonderful stewards had gathered there and so she was mightily protected by her protectors.  But imagine if the Arius controversy swung the other way.   What would have happened if it was as you say it is now in regards to Papal Supremacy and the Pope sided with the Arians.  Of course this is hypothetical but it's the "system" that is debated in regards to her reach and amount of power.   It's not her place of honor and function that we dispute but the reach.

I don't follow the logic here.  If it is a place to file and appeal, and you are correct, what good does it do to file one if when you loose that appeal, you simply then disavow the power of the judge to rule anyway, and go home?  The whole purpose of filing an appeal, or of going to a mediator, is to take it to a higher authority, i.e., "the Head", and let the chips fall where they may.  Yes action are done in tandem and in consultation with synods and councils, but a head is not a head if he is but a figurehead, and that deserves neither loyalty nor respect from anyone.  It is nothing but a sham window dressing.  No one would logically appeal to that.

You mention that it may have been done as Rome had a wonderful track record.  Pardon me, Ryan, but that seems awfully close to the Protestant concept that if one does not like the authority that one is presented with, simply move on and find one that renders decisions more to your liking.  We do not owe obedience to any bishop, including the chief bishop, based on the criteria that they must agree with what we decide is orthodoxy, or all bets are off.  Authority is from God.  It is not for us to diminish or disobey because we may or may not, personally agree with it's decisions.

Quote from: Ryan

Quote from: From DK"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface I, to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

This is a hard one too.  In regards to the creed, we have an 8th century Roman Pope saying that if anyone should at to or take away from the creed, let him be anathema.   And he doesn't say this independent from his own office but in concert with a wider council.  So to say that Papal Supremacy gives the Pope power and reach even over former Popes and even over those who came before him in regards to the Fathers etc. this is, for the Orthodox, an overreach of power and authority.  From an Orthodox perspective, we don't see how the above statement can be true from an apostolic tradition's point of view if the seat of the successor of St. Peter is not bound to the very same truth.

a.  Here is one big, big, big, misconception and problem you are having with this whole "Papal Supremacy" issue.  The authority of the Pope is not independent of the Church as a whole!  It is exercised in concert with wider council.  The pope's infallibility is a inseparable part of and an extension of, the infallibility promised by Christ for the whole Church.  It exist only within the area of "faith and morals" for that very reason.  It is only in speaking for, not as, the Universal Church, that the pope exercises such infallibility and has such authority.

b.  It is a hard one, because it, and others like it, point to the first point that I made.  If what was to become the Orthodox churches did not adhere to it's belief that issues were, "never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See", then why in blazes did they continue to assent to such decisions and the dogmatic justification they were based on, for hundreds of years?  

I know the answer why and stated so in my first post in this thread.  The question is, given that there is clear history of the Popes exercising their full and universal authority over the whole Church long before AD1054, why did what would become the Eastern Orthodox not depart or object strongly, long before then?  I hope your prayer and meditation will lead you to that same answer that I have and cause you to have it both ways, which you can, and meet us at the Eastern Rites.    

My prayers for you and the Peace of Christ be with you!

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 17:00:55

QuoteThe term transubstantiation may have been tossed around by theologians but it was the Council of Trent that made it an official term, not a Pope.

But you have to agree that had the Pope said, no then this would not have been a dogma.  Had the pope not made transubstantiation dogma, Rome would still believe dogmatically in the presence is my point. 

Come on. The Council not the Pope defined dogma.

You complain that the Pope has the power define doctrine independantly of a Council  or that he could over-rule a council. Now you are complaining that he didn't over-rule a Council. Don't you think that is a little inconsistent?

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 17:05:24
I've just been reading through this and not commenting as I think you are doing a bang-up job on your own, Winsome.  

That's very kind of you but I felt I was sinking.

Perhaps we need a special "smiley" that says "help me out someone I'm sinking here" 

Quote from: Ryan2010 on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 15:39:55

Well the one I posted up there is liturgically pretty whoa.  I mean, do you think the Apostles had the women incense the Altar

When did the apostles allow women to do anything?

But consider this

Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. (Rev 8:3)

Don't you think the women looked angelic? No?