www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkite--Antiochian Reunion?

While the definition of the Immaculate Conception is not really related to the debate and definition of Papal Infallibility (Maria is correct: the Pope asked the Bishops about the teaching, and that was after receiving multiple requests from Bishops to "define it, already!"; this much is actually discussed even in the Papal Bull that defined the Dogma), but there was a very heavy issue going on at the time that many people don't know about: Jansenism and it's child-wonder, Gallicanism.

Jansenism was a post-Reformation heresy that incorporated a lot of elements of Calvinism into the Apostolic Faith, and was especially difficult to weed out. It took deep roots in France and countries with strong ties to France, such as Ireland, and was very difficult to confront because unlike many heresies it didn't use very much outrightly heretical terminology, nor did it look obviously heretical to the "common eye". Many people, as happened in Ireland, simply accepted it and took it with them as "authentic, traditional Catholic belief" despite its very recent origins. Basically it could walk the walk and talk the talk of traditional Latin theology, but with grave differences just under the surface.

To combat this heresy the Popes took a direct approach: they simply evaluated it and declared it in error. This happened relatively early on in the course of Jansenism, but it didn't crush it because it wasn't always easy to "spot a Jansenist". As the Papal position became more and more clear and established against Jansenism, the heresy gave birth to the ecclesial approach known as Gallicanism (named after France), which basically amounted to making the Catholic Church a collection of national Churches that could make their own way with no interference from the Pope, thank you very much. It was the response of the Jansenists who didn't view themselves as breaking with Catholic teaching, who viewed the Pope as unfairly passing judgement on their pet belief. Gallicanism took hold in the very same places that Jansenism had, and was opposed by "Ultramontanism" ("over the mountains", refering to the Alps), which held that the Pope protects the WHOLE Church from error, and not just the Papal States, and when the Popes spoke against Jansenism it meant business, thank you very much.

Vatican I was basically the final showdown between the Gallicanists, and the Ultramontanes, not a battle over things like the Immaculate Conception (which was widely accepted long before the Pope even defined it). Personally I'm very happy that the Ultramontanes came out on top, even though I disagree with the heavier interpretations of their position.

Peace and God bless!

Quotations about the infallibility:

Archbishop Fares Maakaroun, the mine:


Dom Estev�o Bettencourt, a famous Brazilian theologian:

Thanks Brian,

It seems that what I say here is, so often, treated as alien or arrogant that it is good to have more, apparently trustworthy, members support my declaratives.

Also it is good that you dispelled yet another myth in the queue concerning the Immaculate Conception, which is that there was no real theological impetus [or no real challenge or threat to revealed truth] that prompted the dogmatic declaration at the time.

Thanks again for your good words.

Mary

No problem, and you're quite welcome, but my name isn't Brian.

Chris works fine as the name my mother gave me.

Peace and God bless!

Chris?...where the dickens did I get Brian?

I've been calling you Brian for over a year!!

This is like meeting a whole new person!!

Nice t'meetcha!!

Lizzie

These bear repeating and I also wanted to thank you for the translation work. The words of Archbishop Fares Maakaroun should be engraved in gold and sent to every Orthodox hierarch in the world.

It is one thing to point to abuses as abuses, but to make those excesses and abuses appear to be the rule is every bit a forgery of history and the truth, and truly worthy of apology.

Mary

Something tells me the Orthodox hierarchs understand the history, and the issue is not a re-presentation or a new explanation. The issue is the history.

History and personal experience tells me that Orthodox hierarchs do not always offer or encourage a fair and truthful presentation of Catholic teaching. I don't need to guess. I just need to look at the record.

M.

I'm sure there are people who misrepresent things on all sides and for their own reasons. That doesn't change the fact that a fundamental difference exists, and what is lacking is not an explanation of the facts or the history.

I think a great proportion of the "difference" is in missed understandings and misrepresentatins.

I think that will be made more evident the longer we remain in bi-lateral dialogue.

M.

Nice to meet you too! The pleasure is all mine, ma'am.

Peace and God bless!

Mary,

Perhaps part of the problem is the lack of consensus as to what Catholicism and Orthodox are (even consensus among their own adherents). Perhaps, dialogues always end up being one version of Catholicism against another version of Orthodoxy, when there is more than one version of each. Even what one calls the "official" version is still an interpretation. Perhaps the notion that there such a thing as official Catholicism or Orthodoxy (pure and simple and not mediated by interpretation) is a bit too simplistic. This is something I've been thinking about lately.

Joe

I know what you mean and I tried wooling that around myself some time ago.

The thing is that there actually is a Catholic consensus, and it is centralized in the Catholic Church and the documents are there to support the teachings, and the mechanisms for examining the teachings are all in place.

There are localized teachings as well. Some of them such as Jansenism, for a more modern example, have been condemned as heterodox. Trouble is, admittedly, that it is difficult to identify precisely who is actually a Jansenist and who is not. So the ideas are condemned, rarely the people.

So you have these liminal spaces where a teaching could be one thing or another, heterodox or orthodox, depending on perspective and sometimes the Vatican steps in to arbitrate things. In that case there is a standard that can be used to guage what is what and to write various kinds of clarifications of hotly contested issues.

I've seen Orthodox faithful and clergy, look at all that activity, never reading word one, shrug their shoulders, toss off the whole thing as "wiggle words" and continue on spreading confusion of their own making.

I am not impressed in the least with that kind of behavior, particularly when I see it in priests and bishops.

Mary

Dear Mary,

They do so because they do not want unity. So when you try to discuss things, your discussions tend to be with other Catholics, the Orthodox really don't care. ..or so I have noticed.

I am the exception, thank you.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Joe,

Amen!

As I once heard a Roman Catholic priest say, the center of Catholicism is not a doctrine, but a person--the person of Jesus Christ. He it is who said:It is easy for any of us to forget that Christ must be acting in and through us in order for our actions to have any value at all from God's perspective--bishops not excluded. Men have worked hard to come up with doctrinal formulas, and these are not without value but they are and must always be subordinate to the person of Christ.

In Him, our divisions can be overcome. Since the divisions have not yet been overcome, we can be sure that all sides still need to seek Him more diligently.


Peace,
Deacon Richard