www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical services

Stuart,
If you are correct in your assertions, which are absolutely NOT the views held by the Latin Church, then you are saying you believe the Roman Church to be heretical. I personally don't have an issue with that conclusion, as it's one I happen to agree with. But if you believe this to be the case, why are you in communion with them?

Under the mercy,
John (the still anathematized)

No, I am saying that you are wrong in asserting that there are any outstanding and effective anathemas against the Orthodox Church. Papal infallibility is not a real dogma, nor do I think it ever could be one.

Stuart,
The Roman Church believes otherwise, strongly enough that they attached anathemas to their decrees. It sounds like you are the personification of the "cafeteria catholic." Unless you can point to where those decrees were expressly repealed they remain the official teaching of the Roman Church.

Under the mercy,
John (yes, the still anathematized)

"Obviously, papal infallibility doesn't count. And, inter alia, for pretty close to a 800 years, the Catholic Church did teach that the sacraments of the Orthodox Church were not valid."

Do you have anything to back up either of these claims?

No one said the Catholic Church is right all the time. Clearly not. But in terms of, as you said, what's necessary for salvation and holding fast to the Apostolic Faith, it is indeed necessary!

Are the Orthodox Churches, in your opinion, "right all the time"?

Alexis

Nobody is right "all the time".

"But in terms of, as you said, what's necessary for salvation and holding fast to the Apostolic Faith, it is indeed necessary!"

So, is belief in papal infallibility necessary for salvation and to hold fast to the Apostolic Faith? If so, square this with the magisterial statements of the Holy See that the Orthodox Churches maintain the Apostolic Faith and are fully sufficient to ensure the salvation of their adherents (something not said of the various Protestant ecclesial communities). Indeed, you will have to explain how papal infallibility even qualifies as an essential element of the Apostolic Faith, in light of it failing to meet the Vincentian Canon, and indeed, of having been opposed consistently by the Papacy throughout the Middle Ages. I would put it on par with another supposed dogma related to the Papacy, the "temporal supremacy" of the Pope; i.e., the right and ability of the Pope to depose temporal rulers. This was taught dogmatically at least from the time of Gregory VII until Pope Pius XII quietly did away with it in 1958. Why? Because as Pope Pius himself admitted, it was manifestly untrue, an artifact of the time and place where it originated.

Papal infallibility was an artifact of its time and place; i.e., mid-19th century Europe, when the Church was under pressure from secularizing nationalist governments (including the government of Italy) which was rapidly eroding the Papacy's standing and creating doubts about its relevancy in the modern world.

But if, as Pope John Paul II said, the Petrine Ministry is a ministry of unity in faith, then the utility of the doctrine has long since passed, and it now stands as an obstacle to the unity the Petrine Ministry is supposed to foster. The Papacy exists to serve the Church; the Church does not exist to perpetuate Papal prerogatives. John Paul II understood this well, as, I believe, does Pope Benedict XVI, which is why they sought and are seeking new definitions and modalities of primacy that will foster the true Petrine mission. Attempts to hold onto doctrines whose time has come and gone does not really support that goal.

Having seen an OCA bishop and a Russian Orthodox Bishop from Russia, say the creed, the Our Father, and all the common prayers of the Roman Mass outside the anaphora... let's just say that there seems to be a willingness to pray with the Catholic Archbishops of Anchorage.

While they did not say the Anaphora, and they sat in choir, Arcadi, Eparch v Magadan, DID say the words of institution quietly.

Stuart said: "If so, square this with the magisterial statements of the Holy See that the Orthodox Churches maintain the Apostolic Faith and are fully sufficient to ensure the salvation of their adherents (something not said of the various Protestant ecclesial communities)."

I highly doubt the Church has ever said the the Orthodox Churches "ensure the salvation" of their adherents. None of our salvations are "ensured."

"Indeed, you will have to explain how papal infallibility even qualifies as an essential element of the Apostolic Faith, in light of it failing to meet the Vincentian Canon..."

Here is what Fr. George Florofsky has to say about the Vincentian Canon: "“The well known formula of Vincent of Lerins is very inexact, when he describes the catholic nature of Church life in the words, Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. [What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all]. First of all, it is not clear whether this is an empirical criterion or not. If this be so, then the “Vincentian Canon” proves to be inapplicable and quite false. For about what omnes is he speaking? Is it a demand for a general, universal questioning of all the faithful, and even of those who only deem themselves such? At any rate, all the weak and poor of faith, all those who doubt and waver, all those who rebel, ought to be excluded. But the Vincentian Canon gives us no criterion, whereby to distinguish and select. Many disputes arise about faith, still more about dogma. How, then, are we to understand omnes? Should we not prove ourselves too hasty, if we settled all doubtful points by leaving the decision to “liberty” — in dubiis libertas — according to the well known formula wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine. There is actually no need for universal questioning. Very often the measure of truth is the witness of the minority. It may happen that the Catholic Church will find itself but “a little flock.” Perhaps there are more of heterodox than of orthodox mind. It may happen that the heretics spread everywhere, ubique, and that the Church is relegated to the background of history, that it will retire into the desert. In history this was more than once the case, and quite possibly it may more than once again be so. Strictly speaking, the Vincentian Canon is something of a tautology. The word onmes is to be understood as referring to those that are orthodox. In that case the criterion loses its significance. Idem is defined per idem. And of what eternity and of what omnipresence does this rule speak? To what do semper and ubique relate? Is it the experience of faith or the definitions of faith that they refer to? In the latter case the canon becomes a dangerous minimising formula. For not one of the dogmatic definitions strictly satisfies the demand of semper and ubique.

Will it then be necessary to limit ourselves to the dead letter of Apostolic writings? It appears that the Vincentian Canon is a postulate of historical simplification, of a harmful primitivism. This means that we are not to seek for outward, formal criteria of catholicity; we are not to dissect catholicity in empirical universality. Charismatic tradition is truly universal; in its fulness it embraces every kind of semper and ubique and unites all. But empirically it may not be accepted by all. At any rate we are not to prove the truth of Christianity by means of “universal consent,” per consensum omnium. In general, no consensus can prove truth.”

"...and indeed, of having been opposed consistently by the Papacy throughout the Middle Ages."

Once again, examples would be highly appreciated, but even if they do prove this statement, so what? What does that mean? That orthodox beliefs have been challenged by people, by priests, bishops, "shepherds" of the faithful? That's old news.

"I would put it on par with another supposed dogma related to the Papacy, the "temporal supremacy" of the Pope; i.e., the right and ability of the Pope to depose temporal rulers."

This was never defined or taught as something that is necessary to be believed in order to be saved. This was never dogmatically defined. I don't see the parallel.

Alexis

"I highly doubt the Church has ever said the the Orthodox Churches "ensure the salvation" of their adherents. None of our salvations are "ensured." "

The words are present in the Balamand Statement. Go look it up.

"his was never defined or taught as something that is necessary to be believed in order to be saved. This was never dogmatically defined. I don't see the parallel."

The way I see it, if the Church excommunicated and on occasion executed people for not believing in something, that makes it pretty darned dogmatic. But I also note that whenever someone points out objective examples of the Latin Church teaching one thing at one time and its opposite at the other, Latins suddenly take a very narrow view of what is dogmatic. On the other hand, whenever they want someone else to conform to Latin usage, they suddenly have a very expansive view of what is dogmatic.

I for my part wonder just why they have so much invested in papal infallibility, a doctrine with which the Church managed to do quite nicely for 1800 years, and which has been the source of nothing but trouble since it was expounded in 1870.

Regarding medieval popes and their objections to papal infallibility, go back to the Franciscan spiritualist controversies of the 13th century. The Franciscan spiritualists, having gotten approval for their movement from one pope, pressed to have all papal expressions of doctrine rendered infallible and indefectable. Of course, the popes of the time wouldn't touch that with a ten foot crozier. While it might have been nice to have their particular doctrinal opinions carved in stone, it would also mean they would be bound by the decisions of their predecessors--and that was an entirely different matter.

This was debated at Vatican I (along with such inconvenient historical facts like the anathematization of several popes by valid ecumenical councils). In particular, would Ea Semper make Pius IX's 1864 Syllabus of Errors an infallible statement of doctrine? The matter was narrowly defeated at the Council, and good thing, too--because one part of the Syllabus said that the Pope could not be head of the Church and NOT the head of the Papal States. And just about the time Vatican I was wrapping up its business, the Pope suddenly found himself without any Papal States over which to rule.

Nicely put...

Stuart,

What Job quotes is often the case! I would also posit that, at least from my experience here on the Forum, Eastern Catholics also often take a selective view of what is required Catholic belief and what is not, depending on their personal agendas.

In short, welcome to the human condition!

Alexis

I'll have to get to the rest later, Stuart, but as we've discussed here ad nauseam, the Balamand Statement is not required belief of either Catholics or Orthodox. But for the record, the Statement says:


So, what this is saying, it seems, is that it is not necessary for a person to convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, or vice versa, in order to "ensure [his] salvation." Well, yes...being a member of the nominal Catholic Church does not "ensure" salvation. Neither does being a member of the Orthodox Churches, which is why I argued that the salvation of their adherents, like our own, is definitely not ensured. Saying that conversion to Catholicism does not necessarily ensure a Orthodox Christian's salvation is very, very different than saying that conversion is not desirable (not that Balamand doesn't basically say that, too).

So now that I have been accused as being narrow at times and expansive at others to suit my whims, are you now going to try to tell us that it's necessary for Catholics to accept the Balamand Statement as required belief?

Alexis

The Balamand Statement has been incorporated into the official ecumenical policy of the Holy See. Feel free to accept or reject it as you see fit. Just don't lecture me on "cafeteria Catholicism" when you do. After all, your relationship to the Pope as a Latin Catholic is significantly different to my relationship to him as a Greek Catholic.

Your logic, by the way, is a bit tortured and runs contrary to the plain meaning of the text.

Stuart,

I am not a cafeteria Catholic. I accept all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith. I'd like you to point out the ones I reject, or else withdraw your uncharitable comment.

Current policy is different from dogma. I didn't know that needed stating.

Alexis

I see. What you accept is dogma, and what you reject is. . . something else.