|
1 members (Erik Jedvardsson),
1,165
guests, and
84
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I will note that Litwin's post does starkly point out the difference between the East's approach to issues like those cited in Litwin's post and the (for lack of a better term) hyper-legalistic approach of the West. Coming from an Eastern background, my brain starts to spin when I start reading and trying to understand such arguments as set out on the specific post and the thread as a whole. I think that is something that most of us who are either Eastern Catholic or Orthodox can agree upon. Except Litvin quotes theological opinion and not the teaching of the Catholic Church. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VIFr. Deacon is correct, the Latin Church in modern times has thankfully moved away from the position advocated by the Western Council of Florence on the fate of unbaptized babies, and that is something that pleases me - speaking as an Eastern Catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
That the papal exercise of the Church's infallibility is appellate in nature cannot be doubted (the Pope can't exercise infallibility on his whim and fancy). That it never existed or was unnecessary is a stretch of the imagination. That, of course, is not how Pastor aeternus is worded, and, moreover, does nothing to explain how an appellate authority can be used unilaterally to promote innovations and impose them over the entire Church of God. That is a very good point, and succinctly stated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Stuart, That the papal exercise of the Church's infallibility is appellate in nature cannot be doubted (the Pope can't exercise infallibility on his whim and fancy). That it never existed or was unnecessary is a stretch of the imagination. That, of course, is not how Pastor aeternus is worded, and, moreover, does nothing to explain how an appellate authority can be used unilaterally to promote innovations and impose them over the entire Church of God. Yet again, more proof that those who oppose the papal dogmas are legalistically and myopically focusing on the definition, instead of the entire Decree Pastor Aeternus. Pastor Aeternus contains these words: The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles.I hope brother Scott is carefully keeping track of these exchanges to see that opposition to the papal dogmas is really just a matter of invalid eisegesis of the Decree as a whole. The issue you bring up, brother Stuart, has nothing to do with the doctrine of papal infallibility. We need to investigate the specific teachings to which you refer in order to test the truth of your statement (which I hope the mods agree would be beyond the scope of this thread). Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
That the papal exercise of the Church's infallibility is appellate in nature cannot be doubted (the Pope can't exercise infallibility on his whim and fancy). That it never existed or was unnecessary is a stretch of the imagination. That, of course, is not how Pastor aeternus is worded, and, moreover, does nothing to explain how an appellate authority can be used unilaterally to promote innovations and impose them over the entire Church of God. That is a very good point, and succinctly stated. Not!  Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles. It's up to the whole Church to decide that, not one particular Church, let alone one man who is head of that particular Church. The Latin Church likes to say it does not innovate, but merely "clarifies" or "refines" that which the Church has always believed. It takes a particular kind of naivete to believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Stuart, The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles. It's up to the whole Church to decide that, I agree, but your original statement was misleading. You claimed that there was nothing in the Decree that prevented the Pope from imposing innovative teachings (at least in the sense that they are heretical), and I showed you that such a statement is false. not one particular Church, let alone one man who is head of that particular Church. The Pope is the head bishop of one particular Church. But he is also the head bishop of the universal Church. The Latin Church likes to say it does not innovate, but merely "clarifies" or "refines" that which the Church has always believed. It takes a particular kind of naivete to believe that. What the Latin Church does is of no concern to me. It's not like the Easterns have not introduced innovations. Then again, innovations are not necessarily heretical nor heterodox (that goes for the Latins, as well as the Easterns -- and the Orientals). Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
It's not like the Easterns have not introduced innovations. But we do not insist they are normative for all Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
So he was not the absolute ruler of the Council, as detractors of V1 suppose? He was working behind the scenes. He may not have gotten everything he wanted... Thanks for the admission.  That he thought infallibility should be extended to making the lame walk, it isn’t that big of admission to note he didn’t get everything he wanted! The Church has never fully recovered. Witness the liturgical wreck that has occurred in the west, the multiple schisms [old Catholics... Let's get our facts straight:
(1) The Old Catholic Schism was established many years before Vatican 1.
(2) Not a single bishop initiated a schism as a result of Vatican 1...
What goes on in the Latin Church is no business of yours nor mine. They were opposing him on his authority as their Patriarch, and their complaints have nothing to do with the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches. I disagree that what the Latin Church does is no business of ours. St. Paul would likewise disagree that what happens to one member of the body of Christ doesn’t affect the other members. They [the SSPX, Sedvencantists and other groups] oppose him (the Pope) primarily due to their attempt to uphold Vatican 1. While there have always been groups that broke off after a council they typically did so because they simply disagreed with the council. What makes Vatican 1 different is the fact that groups that broke off (aside from the Old Catholics) did so because they are trying to uphold it.Nope. That's not even part of the Decree on the Infallibility! You're referring to the Decree on the Primacy. You're just grasping at straws now, brother. Of course, the definition on infallibility hinges upon a misunderstanding of primacy, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. Are you suggesting that the basis of Papal Infallibility isn’t the tortured reading of Mat 16?
Which verse? IIRC, there is no mention of the keys in the Decree on Infallibility. See chapter 1:2. Again, it is in the chapter on primacy, but that the council separated primacy from infallibility is simply not worth attempting to defend. They show them as being intertwined. Which is part of the problem for the ecumenical movement today. The East agrees with the idea of primacy, rightly understood. How novel could it be, given the quotes from the Council Fathers that I gave you? If you refer to the few quotes you gave that were part of the original sales job they prove nothing. Let’s deal with text rather than what individual council fathers may have said in order to get their flocks to go along with the definition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Both ByzBob and Markdum overlook two significant Latin schisms resulting from Vatican I: That of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht, and the Polish National Church. Markdum also overlooks the damage done to the cause of Christian unity by the erection of yet another scandalum by the Latin Church, one that offends both Protestant and Orthodox sensibilities.
If one assumes that the Petrine Ministry exists to serve the Church, and not the Church to serve as a podium for the Petrine Ministry, one would have to ask, one performed an honest cost/benefit analysis of Pastor aeternus, whether it could be justified as either confirming the brethren in faith or serving the cause of unity.
Which is just another way of asking, "Just why did the Pope need to be infallible?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396 |
A slight correction. The Polish National Catholic Church schism was not a consequence of Vatican I. It was entirely the result of internal Church politics and ethnic conflict within the U.S.RC Church. The association with the Old Catholics was purely an accommodation to obtain a bishop and establish apostolic succession.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
OK. The PNC was not a direct consequence of Vatican I.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450 |
If one assumes that the Petrine Ministry exists to serve the Church, and not the Church to serve as a podium for the Petrine Ministry, one would have to ask, one performed an honest cost/benefit analysis of Pastor aeternus, whether it could be justified as either confirming the brethren in faith or serving the cause of unity.
Which is just another way of asking, "Just why did the Pope need to be infallible?" And I could use this very same paragraph you wrote, and instead substitute the words, "Council of Ephesus" or "Council of Chalcedon". The ACoE and Oriental Orthodox could make the very same argument against the Church as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
The Old Catholic Church of Utrecht was also not caused by Vatican I. It was created in 1723 over Jansensim and rejection of universal Papal jurisdiction. The German, Austrian and Swiss Old Catholics are the ones who broke away after Vatican I. They did, however, obtain their hierarchy from Utrecht.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,328 Likes: 95
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,328 Likes: 95 |
"Just why did the Pope need to be infallible?" Stuart: Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!! If anyone could shed some light on that, I was hoping you could. I'd read somewhere that there were historical and political circumstances surrounding the calling of Vatican I and that its end was dictated by the Franco-Prussian War that caused it to end without being really finished. Is there something we are not seeing by trying to see this in isolation? Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 5
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 5 |
[quote]
What the Latin Church does is of no concern to me. [/quote]
I've heard similar statements from Eastern Orthodox but not from an Eastern Catholic. Fortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
