www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Benedict XVI speaks on Primacy

By all means! The Huguenot Cross is a beautiful symbol, although sadly it betokened rebellion against Catholicism.

http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/x-eng.htm

http://huguenot.netnation.com/general/cross.htm

Gordo

Yes Gordo it is the badge of a Non Catholic. I also am of Hugenot decent through my Parisian Calvanist ancestors who fled to Norfolk in England. I was hoping to get some info from a Hugenot site on the net only I culd not join up as they did not take Catholics. So wearing the cross is really not on for any of us.

Zenovia

Historically I believe it comes from the religio-political principle that underlies Dictus Papae of Gregory VII at one end and Du Pape of de Maistre at the other. These are not clear demarcation points, but good examples.

I disagree on both counts. First that the RCC has the assurance that you ascribe to them (in the post Vatican II era), and secondly that Orthodoxy is tacitly subject to an authority it will not explicitly recognize.

Andrew

Could the situation in Britan, Moscow, and Constantinople be a reason for some kind of appeal to a Primate among Patriarchs?

Actually, I think that the 1870 proclamation of Papal Infallibility may well prove to be the most anti-climatic event of the second millennium. What I mean is, if you look at the actual text, the dogma doesn't saying anything -- excepting the phrase "chief shepherd" -- about the pope which cannot be said about other bishops as well.

In more direct terms, can we not say that St. Paul exercised infallibility whenever, in his role as teacher of all Christians, he defined a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be believed by the entire church?

Need we stop there? What about extending this also to the other authors of the New Testament?

What about extending this, in fact, to all the apostles and their successors: can we not say that any bishops who, acting as teacher of all Christians, defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be believed by the entire church, is speaking infallibly?

Those are my thoughts. I'd love to hear what others are thinking about the matter.
-Peter.

Constantinople in theory has that power, so the answer is no. The real answer is that the bishops should be working towards the same goal and not at cross purposes.

Andrew

Well, the document also makes clear that the Pope even outside of a Council of the Bishops can proclaim Dogmas infallibly and I think this was the big objection that the Orthodox Patriarchs had at the time to it and now. It is giving the Pope an authority outside of a Council that was never the case in the Undivided Church of the First 1000 years.

Dear Brian,

I agree with you that it did say the pope can individually exercise infallibility, but the thing is, it never said the pope is the ONLY bishop who can individually exercise infallibility. In fact, Catholics and Orthodox both affirm that St. Paul, St. James, St. John, etc, each exercised infallibility.

(That all I have time for at the moment, but I'll try to post more thought another day.)

God bless,
Peter.

When you and I, Peter, and any other person here on this Forum speak a Revealed Word in Truth, we speak infallibly, with the authority of the entire Body of Christ supporting that Truth and the voice who speaks it.

Read nothing more into what I have said but what is there, but for me that is more than enough, and sometimes too much for one poor soul to carry, so I am ever so grateful not to have to carry it alone.

Eli

In the first 1000 years, the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was never defined by any Ecumenical Councils. It was Pope Siriius I who defended and defined this without an ecumenical council. The Second Council of Constantinople just mentioned it in passing as Mary "ever-virgin".

Andrew,

How is the EP regarded as a "primate among patriarchs"? What is the extent of his power/authority within other jurisdictions? The video I saw of Bishop Kallistos seemed to indicate that it was primarily one of "influence without authority" (my words, not the good bishop's). I know that that is certainly an oversimplification, and I apologize up front!

So how would the Orthodox describe his primacy? (I'm sure that depends on whether you are talking about Moscow or the EP!)

Gordo

This is probably a good summary. Prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate [orthodoxwiki.org] .

Andrew

Dear Andrew you said: I say:

Actually, I have been around for many years, and through those years, I noticed that whatever the RCC said, became gradually the rule for us too. It might not seem so to someone today, or to someone who only knows today...yet it did, and I'm talking about way before Vatican II. What other Christian religious voice was heard througout the world...with the exception of Billy Graham... who as we know only preached, and did not make decisions. :rolleyes:

Of course the personage involved, (the Pope), might have been highly critisized for everything by the Orthodox and the Protestants, yet his was the voice in any decisions that had to be made. So even though we are not under him....nor were any Protestants, he was the one defining this and that. Actually if you find any writings about anything pertaining to the Church, (in this country at least), you will find that whatever we said, was always said after the Pope said it first. Frankly, what other denomination ever took a stand on anything...except maybe today on homosexual clergy, etc. In other words: Heresy.

Now the exception was the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, where we always believed her to have fallen asleep and taken to heaven, and it was not made into dogma by the RCC until the 1950's. After that though, and no doubt because of that, many liberals in our Church decided to discount that doctrine ...something that the Church in Greece viewed as anathema.

We can also believe and accept that any faith that is not Christian in the world, will accept the voice of the Pope alone as being the voice of all Christianity. So I state what I said with those things in mind....not that we are directly under his authority visibly. Maybe it's better to say we accept him as an authority through default.

Zenovia

Actually, I think we would be more like what our Lord would want us to be, if instead of looking at the infallibility clause of the Pope through a condemning eye caused by past baggage, and accept that the RCC is an apostolic Church...and as such, the Pope did not assume that power with a prideful intent, but rather through necessity because of what was occuring in that time and place. :rolleyes:

Once we accept that the RCC is a true Church, and as such it will do whatever it believes is the best for it's flock, then all the problems will be solved because then we would have acquired a sense of 'understanding'...and that is sorely needed.

Zenovia

Amen, Zenovia. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words.

God bless,

Chris