www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Will the Real Rock Please Stand Up?

Are you talking about the Orthodox or about Rome? :p

LOL, neither. I was speaking fairly generally, but had in mind individual Catholics who wish to make a non-ex cathedra statement into an ex cathedra one.

I suppose these two would be informative:

http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve.cfm?recnum=3301

http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm

Mor, it's a pleasure dialogueing with you; you're always respectful of others' opinions yet not afraid to state your own.

ChristTeen287

Dear Mor Ephrem:

Ditto to CT287's remarks about you!

Apart from the dubious claim that Honorius' letter would fall within the definition of an infallible proclamation (evidently the delegates to Vatican I who defined the dogma held didn't think so), I just think Honorious gets a bum rap.

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001504#000000

About the worst you might say is that his words could be taken as "miathelitism" (a contention that I hope you would appreciate, or set me straight on. Perhaps after a third reading ).


In another thread Alex posted this:
This is not the way that St. Maximos saw it! While a vigorous opponent of Monothelitism, he was a staunch defender of the orthodoxy of Honorius.

djs

Dear Mor Ephrem,

This is a fair question. I was not clear in what I meant, allow me to now clarify.

When I referred to Papal Infallibility being a mute point I meant in Ecclesiastical Practice not in Ecumenical dialogue. In other words, I believe if unity between East and West is going to be achieved, based on the reasons I explained in my last post regarding the freedom of the Apostolic Churches, there can be no practical application of Papal Infallibillity as it was defined in Vatican I. This is not the way the common faith of the Catholic Church (by which I mean to include all Orthodox Churches) is proclaimed.

Now regarding Ecumenical dialogue, I totally agree with you. The reformulation of "Papal Infallibillity and Primacy" in a way acceptable to the Orthodox Churches must have a primacy (pun intended) in Ecumenical dialogue because it is really this issue which is keeping us divided. Apparently the Pope of Old Rome must think this also, because he has placed a historic emphasis on this issue in his Pontificate.

IN Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe

Cardinal Ratzinger has made very clear which elements of the exercise of papal primacy are up for debate and reformulation...and which aren't. The Pope himself has also made very clear that the dogma itself is not up for grabs. It is only the exercise of papal jurisdiction -- especially vis-a-vis the East -- that is on the table. And even here, there are parameters. It is not all up for grabs. It's important to clarify this.

Truth is truth. It cannot be compromised for any reason. The basic, essential doctrines of papal supremacy and papal infallibility are part of the Deposit of the Faith bequeathed by Jesus Christ. As such, they are (a) irreformable and (b) universally applicable.

However, the precise way in which papal primacy is exercised, especially with respect to the East, is (to some extent) open to discussion. This is what JPII said in Ut Unum Sint...as later clarified by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Blessings,

Diane

Well, there you go then. When should I start packing my bags? I stand by what I have written.

What, over to the Roman rite?

More seriously, why would one want to abandon this truth?

ChristTeen287

and they wonder why the Orthodox are still wary of Rome???

First of all "abandon" is your word. Reject, is a better one. Besides, what you call "truth" manifests you have no intention of respecting what others understand to be truth (especially those who are also of Apostolic heritages). YOU recognize it to be "truth," therefore those who do not, "abandon the truth." These are not attitudes which encourage dialogue, let alone communion.

You Roman Catholics (or those who talk like they're Roman Catholic) do a good job of convincing the Orthodox to keep their distance. Reading some of the posts on this thread, I can't say that I blame them.

Domination is not the proper role of the Pope. Those of you who seek to promote Papal domination do your own Patriarch a dis-service. Continue throwing papal infallibillity in the face of the East. That's good for ecumenism. Perhaps the Pope of Rome will take your cue and resume this time-honored papal practice too. Authority, even if its God-intended, if it is misused, will eventually be rejected.

Thank God the Latin Church still allows me to believe in accord with my conscience. I'm sure the "papal-dominators" will try to strip me of this right next.

Did you once believe in Papal Infallibility the way it is defined (I take it that now you do not)? If so, your new stance is an abandonment in the purest sense of the word. If this isn't the case, it would be better termed "rejection", as you say.

I do not see how repeating what the Church holds as true is unfaithful to ecumenism. On the contrary, compromising what the Church teaches would be against the spirit of ecumenism.

But I guess that's just that "Latin" mindset in me. :rolleyes:

ChristTeen287

Dear Brethern,
The Church consists of many members and if a honest & spiritual poll was taken I believe you would find the poll to be split 50/50 regarding the Pope's infallibility pertaining to certain issues. We however, are human and not perfect and are at tmes prone to make a few mistakes during our lifetime.

Pokoj wejsc Chrytus,
james

"papal domination"? Puh-lease!

Perhaps, in terms of jurisdiction, we could all agree that in a united church the Pope would exercise juridiction only within limits set by the precedents of the EP during the last millenium, i.e., the time during which he was "first among equals" within the Orthodox Church?

Or maybe not.

Djs,

Yes, Papal Domination. This is the way many Roman Catholics speak of the Pope: as if he is a dominating tyrant and spiritual dictator, so much so it is sickening. And, it wasn't too long ago the Popes themselves spoke this way. I don't see how such an intelligent person like yourself could've missed this?

As far as your suggestion goes, that's fine. As long as the key element you inadvertantly mentioned is there: agreement. This is what Papal Infallibillity excludes any need for: "agreement" among the anceint Churches.

This is what those with, as CT287 put it, "a Latin mindset" see vey little need for. It seems their idea of unity is one of subjugation. I can't accept this, nor will the Orthodox. The sooner those with a "Latin mind-set" realize this, as has the Pope, the sooner we can get on with working this thing out.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

reply:
Yes I did once believe it, blindly and uncritically. For me, this is no more an abandonment of the truth than is my rejection of "Sola Scriptura." By accusing me of "abandoning truth" you are making a moral judgment of my conscience and motives. I hope for you, you are right in your assesment of me.

reply: Thanks for putting words in my mouth. This too is another good practice in ecumenical dialogue. First dictate to others what is the truth. When they say they disagree, then accuse them of "abandoning the truth." Then you can finish them off by accusing them of saying ridiculous things they never said and beat them over the head with that too. Christ-Teen, keep up the good work, I think the Pope might want to make you in charge of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

reply: Its something in you.

Dear Wm. D-G,

Well I'm ignorant about many things, and one of them is the "Latin mindset". The idea of domination, tyranny, and subjugation seems to be way over the top to me. I frequently find this kind of language on tracts written by anti-Catholic apologists; is there really an authentic (non-fringe) Roman Catholic backing for this perspective?

My suggestion on jurisdiction was meant as a tease (with the wink). I don't think Orthodox would accept such an agreement, as there have been amazing displays of power and juridiction by the EP over the years. Your comment that Papal Infallability excludes the need for agreement sounds to me again either like the writings of anti-Catholic apologists or of the over-the-top "Latin mindset" that you write about. It certainly is not inferrable from the dogma itself.

It's interesting: there may a convergence of opinion on the meaning - however distorted - of Catholic teachings and their meaning by those most into this "Latin mindset" and by their most caustic opponents. It's good, IMO, for both and for all for the distortions to be pointd out.

djs