www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What Separates Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

One thing I would like to add to this discussion is the idea that all schism comes about as a failure to discern between "what is from heaven and what is from men." (cf. Mt. 21:23-27, Mk. 11:18-33, Lk. 20:2-8) The Pharisees were presented with the outward reality of the ministries of Jesus and John the Forerunner, as well as the inward witness of the Holy Spirit, but were so caught up in their theological definitions and rabbinical traditions that they were unable to recognize the working of God in their midst. They were also motivated by fear.

My point is that Christ continues to be the invisible Head of his Church, that it was never His perfect will for the Churches to be divided, and that only by the Churches renewing their focus on Him can the reunion come about.

The Church is an institution that is by its nature both human and divine. It is the human part that has brought about all these "irreconcilable differences," and by keeping the focus in the area of these differences no progress is possible. However, we have the assurances that "with God, all things are possible" and "if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can tell that mountain to move and be planted in the sea, and it shall be done."

Working together and thinking well of each other are important early steps on the road to unity, but the big step can only come about with a genuine spiritual renewal on both sides, so that each is able both to reflect the image of Christ and to recognize His image reflected in the other. At that point, many of the difficulties will have already been resolved, and the others will have ceased to be insurmountable.

Is not the real question, then, how we are to bring about this genuine spiritual renewal?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I think we have to find renewal in ourselves, and in our own way be leaders and not wait for others to do things for us. We have to expect the best, and look for the good in others.

What else can we do?

Okay,

Thanks Zenovia. I thought such was the case. My synapses just weren't firing properly.

Joe

Dear Mary,

This reply is a bit off-topic, but I wanted to make the observations below, and I don't know how else to reach you.
I agree about his usage of "scholastic captivity", which is his way of disallowing any strong defense of truth (as perhaps via the principle of contradiction), which is essential to what is his main point-of-view: human certainty is impossible; therefore infallibility (whatever it is) must be jettisoned.

Prof. Trakakis, a professor of philosophy, is philosophically skeptical about the ability of man to know "truth" at all:
Being a review of Bishop Harkianakis's book, the reviewer need not prove every assertion he makes; but the argument he uses is not even a religious one; an atheist could make the same claim. And the Bishop is indeed speaking about certain knowledge, that which is imparted by faith as we receive it from God through the Church. And since he is a skeptic (a better word might be 'agnostic') he doesn't just call the notion of certainty a myth; he is not even certain that his statement that it is a myth is true, so he adds "to a large extent".

So, I do not see this article as a theological reflection even; it is just a claim that any theories of infallibility (whatever theological merits they may have) founder because there can be no certainty in knowledge. Against his opinion, stands the Revelation of God, which we receive because it is God who speaks, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. "I am the Way the Truth and the Life."

My reply is off-topic because it does not address the issue under discussion. If one doesn't hold that some things can be known with certainty, then the topic of Christian re-unification is singularly uninteresting!

"The papal claims" is a vague phrase; too vague, in fact, to be the basis of a solid discussion. I assume, but don't know, that the phrase as used here does not refer to the claim that the Pope is the Sovereign of Vatican City State (which he is, and which international law recognizes), or the claim that the Pope is the final arbiter on the correct use of the Latin language (well, since he is indeed the Sovereign of Vatican City State, which in turn is the only state in the world using Latin as its official language, probably the Pope is the final arbiter in questions about the correct use of Latin).

Infallibility cannot be understood, much less discussed intelligently, without a careful study of the Vatican I decree Pastor Aeternus, which in turn must be read taking into account the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. This is a complicated topic. How many people realize, for example, that "infallibility" is not predicated of the Pope?

Then there arises the matter of the primacy - and no less an authority than John Paul II has stated clearly that this question must be addressed, urgently and together, to determine how the Roman primacy should be exercised for the good of the Church.

That in turn leads to the claim of "universal jurisdiction." This is of particular interest, since the New Testament attributes "jurisdiction" only to Pontius Pilate and King Herod.

I mention these problems, not to ridicule anyone or anything, but in an attempt to state that over-simplifying the matter will accomplish nothing.

Fr. Serge

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/

You can always reach me here.


Agreed.

Andrew's contentions lead to this very slippery slope of scepticism and relativism. How long is long enough to wait until something is "received" as true? Who validates that this waiting time has come, and gone?...etc.

The Church opperates on principles of legitimate authority established by divine mandate in the words of the Christ, and with divine assistance in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Appealing to authority in the Church is not considered to be bad form.

Receptionism is not something that can be found within the patristic or desert Fathers.

In fact they are quite clear about the Councils that they attested to Apostolic truth with certitude then, and for all time. I haven't taken the time to go and find texts but that would not be very difficult since most of it is available, here and there on the Internet.

But I agree with you completely here, and think it is quite germaine to the topic.

Mary

Thank you.

Father Serge,

Bless Master!

Would you be willing to explain further the last sentence of your paragraph?

Thank you!

In ICXC,

Gordo

The most airtight definition of infallibility will never solve the issue of skepticism and doubt, because one can never escape the circularity of proclaiming something "infallible". We take these things on faith, and where there is faith, you will find skepticism and doubt. That is reality.

The idea that things acquire infallible status through reception in the consciousness of the church may have no patristic support, or support in the councils themselves. The support it does have is its however is the support of what has actually occurred throughout history. We can only assess what we call truth in retrospect, and with the weight that they've stood the test of time. There is absolutely no precise definition for how long, how many people have to agree, etc. It doesn't exist I have stated. Again, that is the reality.

I would also say while it is a bad idea to reduce things to an unnecessary level of simplicity; I would say it is equally wrong to suggest that things that should and can be understood in fairly clear and concise terms simply can't be understood as they are, or in a way that is accessible to the common person. That it seems to me is an oft used recourse with these issues, and in it own way is a sower of skepticism and doubt.

Now what would I do if I won the lottery...

Here is the relevant text from Pastor Aeternus. It means that the any formally promulgated papal teaching on faith or morals that is taught ex cathedra, emerges as truth through Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, and the pope, in this teaching, is protected by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It can be said more simply:

The Church is infallible.

Ex Cathedra, the pope may teach what the Church teaches, infallibly.

or

What the pope teaches ex cathedra is known to be true because the Church has attested to its truth through Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and the Church is infallible.

Sorry Father,

My note started out as a simple cut and paste to make the text available and then I got carried away because I know how this text is treated.

I am surely open to additions, revisions and corrections!!...more or less. <smile>

Mary

To respond to Gordo's question, Pastor Aeternus nowhere attributes infallibility to the person of the Pope. Infallibility applies to the dogmatic content of certain pronouncements, some of which (very few in fact) have been made by one or another Pope. I could expand at great length, but that's the gist of it.

Fr. Serge

Thank you, Father Serge, for your explanation. I agree with your distinction.

Blessings this weekend on your 40th anniversary of ordination!

God grant you many years!

God bless,

Gordo

It is often the case that when one proposes that the Petrine Ministry is not personal, our Orthodox interlocutors ordinarily and rightly point out this paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Peter was no less personally called because Christ knew that he was calling Peter to be the "first."

I believe that this personal character of ecclesial ministry must be explained in the context of Paster Aeternus in order for the teaching to be understood whole, true and integral...catholic, if you will.

Mary