|
0 members (),
1,082
guests, and
72
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Apotheoun, I think that many Eastern Orthodox think that the Pope can say anything at any time and it’s a statement that’s Infallible. (This is not the case) Two statements have been declared infallible and it is VERY unlikely that a Pope will be making another one any time soon. Eastern Orthodox Christians think this way because the Western Church has often presented papal primacy as an authoritarian office, which is bound by nothing but the pope's good -- but changeable -- will, and by divine law as a particular pope understands it at a given moment. I addressed this in a post some years ago here at the Byzantine forum, click the link below to read that post: Canon Law QuestionThose are the interpretations of individuals. There are many EC's and OC's, and you can find them at CAF - along with many Latins - who disagree with those interpretations. EC's and OC's don't believe in an absolutist Petrine understanding of papal primacy. This only proves that there is room for progress in future talks with the Orthodox on the matter. Blessings
Last edited by mardukm; 09/09/09 02:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
I understand the point full well. I think it is the Orthodox who do not understand, or choose not to understand, that due to historical circumstance, the Latin Church became extraordinarily sloppy in its use of the word "dogma", applying it with equal zeal to core matters of faith on the one hand, and minor matters of liturgical usage or theological expression on the other. It is understandable that they would do so once the ecclesiology of the Roman Church came to see itself as coterminous with the entire Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, and there are no other true Churches). This, combined with an increasing degree of centralization made it natural to put any decision into "dogmatic" terms, even when the matter under discussion was not suitable for dogmatization.
This situation pertained roughly from the thirteenth century through the middle of the 20th century, but changes in Latin ecclesiology, in theological methods and expressions, and in historical awareness, have led to a precarious situation in which the Latin Church is burdened by a number of conciliar and pontifical degrees clothed in the language of dogma that it knows full well are not really dogmatic. And so, on the one hand, it tries to uphold these dogmas and on the other tries to ignore or ameliorate them. Of all of these misnamed dogmas, however, only papal infallibility has any serious import for the Catholic Church, since it is only papal charisma that holds the whole structure together--another way of saying there are many Catholics for whom the Pope is the be-all and end-all, without whom there is no Church. I agree. Much of what Latin Catholics think of as dogma is not in fact dogma. To be fair, there are EO who think the same way. In fact, most of the distinctions between Latins and Easterns and Orientals existed in the early Church. These distinctions did not divide the Church then, and should not divide the Church now, but there are nowadays EO who have for some reason dogmatized these distintinctions as if they were valid causes for separation.. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
I found this on the Melkite Eparchy of Newton's website. It is a question and answer from Bishop John. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: "The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise." (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) Concerning the CCEO the Melkite Patriarch has said: "the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!" [Meeting of the Synod of Bishops in Rome, Sept. / Oct. 2001] Wow! We actually agree on something.  There's definitely room for improvement, though my criticism is far outweighed by my appreciation on the progress already made, with hope in prayer on further progress. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Dear brother Apotheoun, I think that many Eastern Orthodox think that the Pope can say anything at any time and it’s a statement that’s Infallible. (This is not the case) Two statements have been declared infallible and it is VERY unlikely that a Pope will be making another one any time soon. Eastern Orthodox Christians think this way because the Western Church has often presented papal primacy as an authoritarian office, which is bound by nothing but the pope's good -- but changeable -- will, and by divine law as a particular pope understands it at a given moment. I addressed this in a post some years ago here at the Byzantine forum, click the link below to read that post: Canon Law QuestionThose are the interpretations of individuals. There are many EC's and OC's, and you can find them at CAF - along with many Latins - who disagree with those interpretations. EC's and OC's don't believe in an absolutist Petrine understanding of papal primacy. This only proves that there is room for progress in future talks with the Orthodox on the matter. Blessings Are you saying that the canons that I quoted from the Latin Church's Code of Canon Law are "interpretations of individuals"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
I believe the biggest misunderstanding today that many have of the teaching on papal infallibility is that the Pope is personally infallible (leading to the erroneous belief often expressed that only one man can be infallible in the Church). In fact, the Vatican Council explicitly denied this, so clearly exhibited by the fact that the Council changed the original proposed title of the Decree on papal infallibility from "the Infallibility of the Pope" to "The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope." In truth, the only thing the Catholic Church teaches is inherently infallible is the Magisterium, which is defined as the teaching authority of God. Wherever this Magisterium is exhibited - in the Church, in an Ecumenical Council, in the body of bishops throughout the word even when dispersed, or in the teaching office of the Pope - then infallibility by definition exists.
Another way I look at it is that the infallibility of the body of bishops, the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council, and the infallibility of the Pope are merely specific expressions of the infallibility of the Church.
Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Are you saying that the canons that I quoted from the Latin Church's Code of Canon Law are "interpretations of individuals"? No, but I believe there is room for interpretation on what the Canons mean. The Code in fact fully expected there to be different interpretations, and provides for means to settle these ambiguities. The Code also distinguishes the particular law of certain Churches from the Code itself. One specific example that I often come across is the Canon that states that the Pope can exercies his prerogatives unhindered. Many papal detractors and enthusiasists interpret this to mean " no accountability to the laws of the Church or the rights of his brother bishops." But the Code does not permit such personal (and false) interpretations. The Code instructs that if a word can have more than one meaning, it must be interpreted according to how the word is used everywhere else in the Code. The fact is, the term "unhindered" is always ever used in the Code to refer to the exercise of free will. Further, given the original context of that Canon from the first Vatican Council, it is impossible to give the former interpretation. First of all, the phrase (that the Pope exercises his prerogatives unhindered) in the Vatican Decree is immediately prefaced by the paragraph I quoted earlier regarding the authority of the Pope not standing in the way of the authority of his brother bishops in their own diocese. Secondly, please read this: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=5657328&postcount=188.Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Another way I look at it is that the infallibility of the body of bishops, the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council, and the infallibility of the Pope are merely specific expressions of the infallibility of the Church. The problem from my perspective is this assumes a priori the infallibility of each of these. History shows plenty of bodies of bishops coming together as such which have taught false doctrine. Likewise there have been councils that considered themselves ecumenical but which were overturned in the fullness of time (sometimes very quick time. indeed). And history shows that there have been Popes who not only taught doctrine later rejected by the Church, there have been Popes condemned by ecumenical councils whose anathemas were read out in the Church of Rome for centuries. Pastor aeternus says that when a Pope speaks, having met a number of extrinsic requirements, what comes out of his mouth must not only be true, but is infallibly true. This puts the cart before the horse. No person, no group of persons, is automatically infallible simply because a number of arbitrary conditions have been met. Truth can only be discerned by the action of the Holy Spirit working within the entire Body of Christ, that messy organic process called reception. I much prefer to believe that if the Popes speaks the truth, it will be discerned as true and thus infallible, rather than to believe what the Pope says is true simply because he announces he is speaking ex Cathedra as Pope. I suspect most popes must feel that way, too, since they have resisted the urge to use the power the First Vatican Council so obligingly put into their hands.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
I think you are missing our brother, Seraphim's point. The term "dogma" is used very cautiously in the EOC, and held in great reverence. To say something like "the dogma is all bark and no bite," makes no sense, because in the EO understanding of dogma, you cannot possibly under any circumstances be in communion with anyone who holds something to be dogmatic when you do not, nor can you be in communion with anyone who holds something *not* to be dogmatic when you do. That is what dogma means, period. I understand the point full well ... Stuart, My contention was not that you didn't understand Seraphim's point, only that you were not accurately addressing his arguments because you were using the term *dogma* in a different sense than he was. Talking past each other in this way is not conducive to real dialogue. I think it is the Orthodox who do not understand, or choose not to understand, that due to historical circumstance, the Latin Church became extraordinarily sloppy in its use of the word "dogma" ... While there is no doubt that, given the sheer number of councils normally accepted as ecumenical in the RCC, the value of the term *dogma* had to suffer as a result. Nevertheless, theoretically it still means exactly what it means in the EOC. Furthermore, you ignored my comment that: ... if the RCC and/or ECCs interpret the term dogma in any way differently, it is then one more point of contention between them and the EOC. ... applying it with equal zeal to core matters of faith on the one hand, and minor matters of liturgical usage or theological expression on the other ... Just when did minor matters of liturgical usage ever get declared as dogma?  ... This, combined with an increasing degree of centralization made it natural to put any decision into "dogmatic" terms, even when the matter under discussion was not suitable for dogmatization. The use of dogmatic terms is not the same thing as declaring a dogma. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
My contention was not that you didn't understand Seraphim's point, only that you were not accurately addressing his arguments because you were using the term *dogma* in a different sense than he was. Talking past each other in this way is not conducive to real dialogue . That's why I put "dogma" in quotes. I can disagree with "dogmas" that aren't proper dogmas, but merely Latin theologumena or modes of theological expression masquerading as dogmas. If the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue is to go forward, the Orthodox have to make some effort to put themselves in Latin shoes and understand the Latin situation. Nevertheless, theoretically it still means exactly what it means in the EOC. It is always important, therefore, to distinguish between theory and actuality. When convenient, Orthodox have a tendency to ascribe to the Pope all of his theoretical plena potestas, overlooking how, in reality, the Pope is at best a constitutional rather than absolute monarch, hedged in by a fence of precedents and countervailing powers. Just when did minor matters of liturgical usage ever get declared as dogma? Once upon a time, the need for an institution narrative was declared dogmatically, because the Latin Church had declared, dogmatically, that the elements are changed through the utterance of the words of institution, in keeping with scholastic hylomorphic sacramental theology. The use of dogmatic terms is not the same thing as declaring a dogma. A distinction without a difference. Such matters are usually prefaced by the words de fide. Also, when in doubt, I fall back upon my rule of thumb--if the Church is willing to kill people over something, it is considered a dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
[quote=Apotheoun] First of all, the phrase (that the Pope exercises his prerogatives unhindered) in the Vatican Decree is immediately prefaced by the paragraph I quoted earlier regarding the authority of the Pope not standing in the way of the authority of his brother bishops in their own diocese. Secondly, please read this: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=5657328&postcount=188.Marduk, The Latin Church's CIC was issued by papal command, and the pope can rescind the present code at any time, and if he chooses issue another one, as John Paul II did when he replaced the 1917 code with the 1983 code. To be honest, I do not believe that the pope (any pope) has the power to issue a "code of canons", which should really be the work of the entire episcopate and not merely the bishop of Rome. Finally, as far as Vatican I is concerned, although I appreciate your attempts to reinterpret that council in a more "Eastern" way, it (i.e., that particular synod) is not really important to me since I do not accept the idea that it is an ecumenical council. May God grant you many joyful years, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
I think it is the Orthodox who do not understand, or choose not to understand, that due to historical circumstance, the Latin Church became extraordinarily sloppy in its use of the word "dogma", applying it with equal zeal to core matters of faith on the one hand, and minor matters of liturgical usage or theological expression on the other. It is understandable that they would do so once the ecclesiology of the Roman Church came to see itself as coterminous with the entire Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, and there are no other true Churches). This, combined with an increasing degree of centralization made it natural to put any decision into "dogmatic" terms, even when the matter under discussion was not suitable for dogmatization. So, what you're saying is, the Roman church, out of increasing hubris and isolation, started promulgating "dogmas" frivolously, until it became encrusted with a whole bunch of erroneous junk? Funny, I agree with you... that's why I'm not in communion with Rome! I still don't see any explanation why you are. It doesn't matter how unsuitable or sloppy you think the Vatican's dogmatizing has been- they don't think it has been unsuitable or sloppy. The term "dogma" carries for them the same force it always has- it is something which is to be believed by everyone. For Rome, the term "dogma" has just as much force when applied to papal infallibility as it does when applied to the Holy Trinity. They assume that, if you're in communion with them, you subscribe to all of their dogmas, including Papal infallibility. If the Melkite Patriarch were to send a letter to the Pope, telling him that papal infallibility is false, I assure you there would be a serious problem. "Let him be anathema" and all that... Folks here continue to allude to some amorphous change in attitude at the Vatican, without any citations or concrete examples. We are told that there are dogmatic decrees which the Vatican "knows full well are not really dogmatic"- which decrees are these and whence can we conclude that the Latin Church "knows" this? And, as Fr. Deacon Robert points out, if the Catholics can't agree amongst themselves about what a dogma is, what the faith itself is, how can you seriously expect the Orthodox to even think of uniting with you? How would we know what we are uniting with?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
So, what you're saying is, the Roman church, out of increasing hubris and isolation, started promulgating "dogmas" frivolously, until it became encrusted with a whole bunch of erroneous junk? Funny, I agree with you... that's why I'm not in communion with Rome! I still don't see any explanation why you are. Because I consider Rome to be much like an eccentric aunt who is a very dear member of the family whose more outlandish beliefs I am willing to indulge because of her more sterling qualities. It doesn't matter how unsuitable or sloppy you think the Vatican's dogmatizing has been- they don't think it has been unsuitable or sloppy. Actually, a great many Latin theologians do, and are struggling with the problem of digging themselves out of the hole in a way that does not permanently damage the Church. This has been going on for more than half a century. And in almost every case, Latin doctrine has been converging with Orthodox doctrine. The Orthodox have won on almost everything, but I have said before the Orthodox are very bad winners. It's not enough for Rome to give them what they want, they want Rome to grovel a bit, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
I would be careful about asking the question in such a way. It would be better asked within the understanding of how Pope John Paul II asked Orthodoxy to help him redefine the papal ministry for a reunited Church. John, Do you have a document you can connect us to?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
I consider Rome to be much like an eccentric aunt who is a very dear member of the family whose more outlandish beliefs I am willing to indulge because of her more sterling qualities. So it's the branch theory, minus the Anglicans... Actually, a great many Latin theologians do, and are struggling with the problem of digging themselves out of the hole in a way that does not permanently damage the Church. This has been going on for more than half a century. And in almost every case, Latin doctrine has been converging with Orthodox doctrine. The Orthodox have won on almost everything, but I have said before the Orthodox are very bad winners. It's not enough for Rome to give them what they want, they want Rome to grovel a bit, too. There's a point where, if someone persists in being vague, equivocal, and evasive, I have to walk away and despair of ever getting a straight explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
[
The dogma, like all dogmas, applies to the entire communion and not just to Latins. I think you are right. If the Pope did not intend something to be a proclamation of dogma binding on the ENTIRE Catholic Church then it does not possess infallibility. The Pope's exercise of infallibility demands that the Pope must isssue a proclamation on faith or morals by which he intends to bind the WHOLE church.
|
|
|
|
|
