www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Rome & Constantinople

Dear Andrew you said:

"The fact is though no doctrine existed before the schism assigning infallibility to the Pope. There is however dogma now that effectively has closed the door to returning to the pre-schism state because it has assigned personal infallibility to the Pope."

I say:

Actually the Pope has made only two or three 'dogma's' with his infallible status. They would have to be studied by the Orthodox. Other than that, there is no problem because if an ecumenical council cannot come to a conclusion over an issue, the Pope of Rome would be the last word. Basically the same as he would have been doing in the first four or five hundred years of Christianity.

Zenovia

Then, his All Holiness have to establish a huge curia to administer it for him, and then perhaps diplomatic relationships with other states. An official representative at the E.U. and the U.N., not to mention every other organization made up of mostly initials.

No, the cathedral was taken, because of the large population of moslems, and they needed the large space for prayer. When the population of Istanbul is again Christian (hasten the day), and they worship in the streets, for lack of a building large enough to hold the assembly, then they might have a claim on the building.

In the mean time, the present churches of the city are more than adequate to hold the assembled baptized.

What about a meeting of the evangelization team in istanbul?

Nick

Zenovia

It�s actually beside the point to me if Popes since Vatican I have declared ex cathedra ten, a hundred, or no dogmas to be infallible. The point is the underlying principle.

You�re talking about a mediating or appellate exercise of the Papacy. Infallibility is a different story. Let me quote from a piece Bishop Hilarion wrote about The Orthodox Understanding of Primacy and Catholicity [orthodoxeurope.org] which explains the point better than I could

The dogma of the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra in doctrinal questions is unacceptable for the Orthodox consciousness. This dogma of the First Vatican Council, in the opinion of the Orthodox, places the pope over the Church, for it states that the resolutions of the pope are not subject to changes �due to the power inherent in them and independent of the acceptance by the Church.� In the Orthodox Church no bishop, including the primates of the Local Churches, possesses infallibility �independent of the acceptance of the Church�: it is precisely the acceptance by the Church that serves as the guarantor of truth and the main instrument of catholicity.

Andrew

The (mis)understanding of Pastor Aeternus offered here results from an overly simplistic reading of a document which is far from simple. Reading it with great care, in the context of the debate which produced it, will reveal that this document is nowhere near as problematic as some commentators claim.

To take a specific issue: no, it is not the "consent of the Church" which makes something true. Truth is its own criterion. Does anybody suggest that the Son was not "of one essence" with the Father until the Council of Nicea? There was a time when the Nestorians outnumbered all the rest of Christendom put together; did that mean that there were two persons in Christ?

Incognitus

The Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church in an Ecumenical Synod. Such synod, if ever needed to stop a heresy, would be incomplete, yet I believe that the Holy Spirit, knowing our divided situation, and knowing the sinfulness of man, and not being limited by OUR understandings of how He works, would still speak, and enlighten those Patriarchs.

The same conclusion, could therefore, be spoken for the Patriarch of Rome and the Holy Spirit enlightening him in order to keep the immense Western Church on course theologically.

We are all imperfect human beings. We are all in sin, yet, even as individuals, the Holy Spirit continues to enlighten us when we ask for such enlightenment and even, sometimes, when we don't.

He does this for us as sinful individuals, whether we are Orthodox, Protestant, or Catholic. He answers our prayers whether we are Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic....all we need to be is sincere, humble, repentant and loving in our hearts, our hearts which are in their very essence, the individual centers of all Christianity through the ages.

If the Holy Spirit will do this in our individual lives, why then, would the Holy Spirit NOT do this for His Apostolic Church, whether through the Pope in the West, or if needed, the Patriarchs in the East, even though the original brothers, because of the sins we all have, have gone their own way?

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

The problem that I see for the Orthodox with an Eucmenical Council is that they would feel out voted. And for the Catholics would be their Eastern Catholic Brothers would not tolerate being excluded from such a council, even those that have NO Eastern Orthodox ties such as my Church.

For such a reunion to occure, all sides must realize that it needs the other, before any progress can be made. This includes our brothers and sisters who belong to pre-Chalcedonian and pre-Epeshian Churches.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Hear, hear!

This idea, if it had ever existed, was decisively put to rest at Chalcedon.

I don't think this is really the issue. The issue is how does the church objectively identify what is true. The answers are because the Pope says so, or a council says so, or it enters the collective consciousness of the church in response to either of the first two.

I can't say how closely Bishop Hilarion has read the entire text of Pastor aeternus or the events that surrounded its composition. I'm guessing he is familiar with it though.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Well, speaking as a Catholic, I don't see how any pope or ecumenical council for that matter may define theological truth on the basis of "because I/we say so."

Both must refer to Scripture and Tradition as well as the faith held everywhere by all before speaking on matters.

Both are bound to refer to the universal faith of the Church, from the beginning and until now.

As someone who once thought of becoming Orthodox (out of communion with Rome), I wanted to ask you how and in what ways are the pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council different from that of a pope of Rome?

Alex

St James 2:10 - "And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all."

Ex Cathedra (infallible) statement is when the Holy Ghost does NOT INSPIRE a valid pope with the words to use, BUT PROTECTS him from declaring as true what is not true. How to identify an ex cathedra statement: 1. Exercised only when the Pope teaches the Universal Church a Truth of the Faith. It must be clear that he speaks as spriritual head of the Universal Church. 2. You are not allowed to argue the point, but you are bound to believe it. 3. The Pope must speak in an extraordinary manner. Some of the following words are indicators: "we define, we declare, and state," "We promulgate, we proclaim, and decree," or "The Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches," or "we believe," or "if anyone says....let him be anatheman." 4. An infallible definition is made when the Teaching Church arrives at the conclusion that God requires ALL men to believe the particular truth defined. 5. The Pope states this is an absolute truth, final and irrevocable.

FYI: Most popes do not even make ex cathedra statements. The pope is not infallibe in whatever he does or says. If he isn't making an ex cathedra statement or quoting a defined teaching of the Catholic Church, he can be in error.

Most recent defined and infallible pronouncements made were by Pope Pius XII's definition of the Assumption on Nov. 1, 1950 and Venerable Pope Pius IX's definition of the Immaculate Conception on Dec. 8, 1954.

Blind obedience to the Pope? No. Pope Innocent III said: "It is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed."

The Holy Ghost was not promised to the Successors of Peter for them to make a new doctrine known, but for them to maintain in a holy way the revelation transmitted by the Holy Apostles, that is, the Depost of Faith. At Vatican Council I, scholars discovered that more than 40 popes in the past have held wrong theological views.

**The Second Vatican Council was not infallible.

Yes, the Orthodox deny the primacy and infalliblity of the Pope. But they also - Accept ONLY the first seven Councils of the Roman Catholic Church and Reject the last thirteen. They deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. They deny the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception. They approve of divorce up to two times, when one of the parties is guilty of adultery. They deny the dogma of Purgatory. They do not believe that we carry the guilt of Adam and Eve in the form of original sin.

Among the factors which brought about the Great Schism of the Orthodox was the demand that the Papacy and the Patriarch of Constantinople be place on equal footing.

Example, Council of Florence, 1441, Bull Cantate Domino by Pope Eugene IV, EX CATHEDRA: "The Most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, AND SCHISMATICS, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined to Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his alsmgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he abide within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

We can not argue this point. It is irrevocable. It is final. It is for all time.

Dear Lida,

Greetings from a fellow Ukrainian Catholic!

I admire your Catholic zeal, to be sure, but we don't necessarily need to be hard on the Orthodox for things that aren't written in stone.

And the Seven Ecumenical Councils you mention are NOT the Councils of the Roman Catholic Church - they belong to the East as well at a time when to be "Roman" meant one was a citizen of Rome.

The later 14 Councils of the Latin Church, although universal in their application as far as the Particular Latin Church is concerned, had little to do with the Eastern Churches, except, of course, for Lyons and Florence when the issue of East-West reunion was discussed (and failed).

Pope Paul VI had, at one time, brought forward the notion that the later 14 Councils could be considered "Local" Latin Councils of the Western Church and the Orthodox East would not have to accept them - just as the Orthodox East has had its Local Councils.

I don't know about your insistence that things are written in stone with respect to papal infallibility and the Marian doctrines.

For one thing, the Marian doctrines, ie. that the Mother of God is All-Holy from her Conception and that she was assumed into heaven bodily, are things that East has always believed in accordance with its liturgical prayers.

And Vatican II presented a different face on the Papacy than was had in Vatican I - happily, the development of doctrine of the Latins works to everyone's benefit.

The Orthodox don't accept those doctrines for the simple fact that they were not at Vatican I and they are not in communion with the Pope to accept his pronouncements.

I think we can find a good number of Eastern Catholic theologians who would also argue in favour of the Orthodox position.

Again, it isn't written in stone.

Also, the quote from the Council of Florence is a most unfortunate one that would scarcely be repeated today.

The Roman Church has repudiated its calling the Orthodox "schismatics" in any sense. The same goes for the Jews and others.

That doctrine from the failed union council of Florence reflected an "immature" period in the Latin Church's history.

If that is "infallible," then we are all in big trouble.

Alex

There are obstacles to Constantinople (or the Phanar) being declared an independent "State" ala the Vatican:

1. Territory, people, and government: The first 2 pre-requisites can be complied with. The host country, Turkey, may agree to the accession of the entire enclave, centered in the Hagia Sophia, and extra-territorial areas like the site of the Halki Seminary as the "defined territory" of the "Byzantium City-State!" Within Turkey, Cathedrals and Churches OUTSIDE of the enclave are to be considered extensions of the territorial sovereignty of Byzantium.

The Patriarch and all the hierarchy and clergy residing within the "defined territory" would be considered as "citizens" of Byzantium.

The tricky part is qualifying for the definition of a "government." The central government headquartered in Byzantium should not only be preceived as extending worldwide but it must actually be so! As it is, the EP does not have the "command" nor the "loyalty" of the majority of worldwide Orthodoxy.

Whereas, the Vatican has diplomatic relations currently with at least 176 countries of the world, meaning these countries recognize the extension of the Catholic Church's government centered in the Vatican over the Catholic dioceses in their midst.

2. Granting the aforementioned criteria are met, herding the world's nations to agree for such an extraordinary grant of Byzantium's "independence" from the host country, Turkey, is an exercise of skillful international diplomacy in the highest degree.

At the outset, the EP needs the open and public support of the Vatican for the declaration and creation of an Eastern seat of the Church. (And this may necessitate the "formal" re-union of the Churches, East and West!).

The grant by the United Nations of the Vatican's "extraordinary" status as the only non-secular member State may not be duplicated. The U.N.'s recognition was based mainly on the fact that the Vatican, as the "Holy See," has been in international diplomacy much, much longer than the U.N. and its predecessor and her presence, through Papal or Apostolic Nuncios, in most of the world's nations long before the U.N. came into being!

Are the nations of the world, especially Turkey and other Muslim nations, prepared to have "another" Holy See? Personally, I don't believe so.

Amado

Vatican I is an infallible council - Vatican II is not.