www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Latinn Rite attendance at Byzantine Rite Church

Constantine, I read that Jaroslav Pelican, the lutheran church historian who converted into orthodoxy, gave the solution that, in order that union may be achieved, the pope (now that he is declared infallible) should declare infallibly that he is fallible...
Than the way will be open for all the discussions.

Irish Melkite,



http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/history/3_ch09.htm

The chance of a natural union between two halves of christendom is in its duplicity, which predates the so called schisma of 1054.
Two languages, two mentalities, and then from 8th century two bodies which saw themselves as the wholle of christianity.
The one schisma was caused by these duplicity, and the one union should be achieved by applying it in two different ways.

Irish Melkite is correct ... and a fantastic moderator.

Constantine is a better christian than I so I defer to him regarding the best way to be in communion.

In other words - I would be afraid to enter the cage with Constantine!

John Haydukovich
Dedicated Byzantine Catholic - searching for The Truth (Jesus Christ) and promoter of Bulgakov


p.s. I like Arbanon's theological quandry ...

I can't imagine how better I am in any way, I do not know anything. Those words I spoke weren't mine. When I became Eastern Catholic I bought into what everyone was saying that Eastern Catholics don't have to accept Papal Supremacy the way Latin Triumphalists see it, and that we are working to change it to something acceptable to both Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Ignorant as I am, I said, "hey, that is a great idea! I like it, I accept it!" Then someone gave me the proverbial splash of cold water in the fact and asked me to actually read Pastor Aeternus and understand what it meant. Since then I changed my tone on the matter. I am not trying to force this matter as a Latinization on the Eastern Churches. If we want to be 100% Orthodox in faith and traditions and do not want to accept Pastor Aeternus as it is today, well, good news, there is the Orthodox Church. I believe as I have been made aware that we are not being honest with Rome if we are in communion with her and reject something she has declared de fide.

Dialogue is good and well and we should always work to unite the Church. But this situation is similar to Chalcedon. The Chalcedonians (both Orthodox and Catholics) are in dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians, but until they agree, no one is in communion with the other. Because Pastor Aeternus is infallible and de fide, if we don't agree with it then we shouldn't be with Rome. We can still dialogue with her, but communion really isn't possible without either accepting it as it is, or both sides coming to a compromise on what both sides should be professing.

And I became passionate about this view because for everyone who knows me from CAF, I am so critical of the SSPX and her supporters because the SSPX are rebels. I can't understand how they claim to be Catholic and very publicly go against the Pope. Then now I realize that undermining a dogma of the Church is the same thing.



Will that work? Sounds like a paradox to me. As I mentioned in CAF, the only way I thought was possible is to declare Pius IX as a heretic and therefore it would mean that by heresy he has Vacated the chair of Peter, thus Pastor Aeternus could not have been declared infallibly. The complication here is that Pius IX is beatified, it means that God has presented a sign that he is in heaven and thus so declared and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Also declaring infallibly that the Pope is fallible would destroy the credibility and integrity of the Papacy and the entire Catholic Church. This is not secular government policy we are talking about, this is something integral to a Catholic person's faith, something where one's own salvation depends on.

uh - oh

it looks like we might end up in that cage!

I am always open to correction so please free to share what you know.

infallible fallibility = fallible infallibility

like Arbanon says


John Haydukovich

p.s. I thought I was wrong once - but I was mistaken

p.p.s. The Eastern Orthodox view is that the Pope is indeed in heresy (I'm at a loss to argue your point because it is a good one - perhaps it's true - never the twain shall meet)

Constantine,

You write: "The complication here is that Pius IX is beatified, it means that God has presented a sign that he is in heaven and thus so declared and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church."

Saints are holy but they are not perfect. They sin and they make mistakes. A good example would be the "private revelations" of St. Catherine of Siena, very flawed according to the Church, but she is a Doctor of the Church!

Constantine, I personally do not believe that holding the pope head of the church, with universal jurisdiction, and even infallibly ex cathedra, makes one unorthodox.
One can still practice byzantine form of christianity even to the point of being a Palamist and hold the pope for infallible.

Surely, Pelican has been ironizing the logic behind infallibility.

That is not my argument as it came from someone who is Orthodox. But he didn't tell me to become Orthodox, he just threw it down that if I don't agree with the Papacy then why am I Catholic. And if I want to stay Catholic then I should agree or accept (they are two different things) it.



I think I didn't give the full explanation.

Yes, saints are imperfect, they are humans after all. But the only way to reverse an infallible statement is to declare the Pope a heretic. A Pope cannot be deposed, but a Pope by his own heresy vacates the seat of Peter. So if a Pope declares something ex cathedra but is found to be a heretic, then he can't possibly speak from the throne of Peter if he isn't seating on it.

Now how do you make a heretic a saint? That is the problem.



Definitely! But the thing is, most people (whom I've come across) so far equates being true to Orthodox faith and tradition as denying the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. But surely you can be everything the Orthodox are (but the Orthodox will say you can't, that is another matter) and be in communion with Rome by accepting Pastor Aeternus and other de fide Roman Catholic dogmas. It is like the Immaculate Conception, we say "we do not profess it ourselves, but we do not reject it." But that is a stark comparisson to Pastor Aeternus where some would say "we don't agree with it and it must be changed."

So how do you see the Zogby Initiative fitting into this discussion?

Orthodox, I mean, what orthodox themsleves say, holding the dogmas and canons of the seven ecumenical counclis and byzantine practicing eastern sort of spiritual life.
I do not see how pope's infallibility stops me from being that. Did the russians cease to be orthodox when the patriarchate was abolished and transformed into a state department under the tsars? Why would they cease being so in the case of pope?

That the pope has been considered head of the church, successor of Peter, tribunal judge etc, even east has accepted that.
On the other hand, true, infallibility, unfortunately, so far has been expressed partially in a language of west and according to its respective needs.

There are two points to the Zoghby Initiative, right?


Problem here is that Orthodoxy teaches that the Roman Catholics are heterodox.



How do you reconcile this with these:



And by the way, the Pope cannot infallibly declare himself to be fallible. Once something is declared EX CATHEDRA:


Forgot to post the link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm

It all seems so...I'm sorry...ridiculous, in a way. I suppose I am consoled by the notion that none of us is going to be quizzed on any of the arguments that persist between the Eastern Church and the Western Church, and neither will we, as individuals, be expected to resolve the Great Schism within our own heads when we are called home.

Perhaps that certainty should inform the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church as to just how non-essential for unity a precise resolution of all these perplexions is, after all.

"Love one another as I have loved you." I think that's all we'll be asked about.