www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "we declare, we proclaim, we define..."

If a pope preceeded a statement of faith with "we declare, we proclaim, we define..." would that be considered "Infallible", or, "Ex Cathedra"?

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

It would have to be within the "ex cathedra" context to be so.

Usually, this now only happens when His Holiness glorifies a saint.

As Blessed Pope John XXIII, who was loved by many Orthodox, said, "I am only infallible when I speak 'ex cathedra' and I will never speak 'ex cathedra.'"

I appreciate your growing interest in these issues.

You would be a most welcome addition to the Catholic Church, if you would want to one day . . .

Alex

Alex,

lol. As my stage name suggests, I would much rather die - no offense as I know you mean well.

I'm not so much interested in the Latins as I am in the opinion of those on this board regarding the above statement.

As defined and legalistic as the Latins are, I find identification of "Ex Cathedra" statements very nebulous and indecisive. So I am just trying to find out what would qualify.

I've have read that statements "from the throne" made regarding the faith or doctrine are infallible. I take "from the throne" to merely mean "official". Is that your take?

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

[You would be a most welcome addition to the Catholic Church, if you would want to one day.]

But dear Alex he is already a part of the Catholic Church as an Orthodox Christian.

Orthoman

Dear Orthodox Friends,

Can I call you all "Orthodox" for short?

There is nothing better than to feel encircled by Orthodox Christians at any time of the day!!

Yes, Orthoman (this sounds like a name for a professional wrestler - are you, by any chance, my feisty friend Bob from pre-crash times?) our friend is truly a member of the Catholic Church - I should have said "in union with Rome" but I won't say anything further on this as OrthodoxyorDeath could be having lunch, and I wouldn't want to give him indigestion . . .

That is my take as well, and I think you've correctly stated it, OrthodoxyorDeath.

May I ask which jurisdiction you belong to? If one wanted to become Orthodox, how does one go about "choosing" (I hate that word) which jurisdiction to belong to?

Alex

Given the Holy Father's absolute sovereignty, he need not preface his infaliable statements with any particlar set of words. Any statement by any pope that reaffirms the Divine Revelation given by Christ to the Apostles is without error.

K.

Dear Kurt,

Dominus Vobiscum!

Peter has spoken through Kurt!

Alex

Alex,

Since you agree that "official" statements regarding faith or doctrine are infallible, would you then say that this was an official pronouncement?

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302)

I can only guess that Boniface VIII will be judged by modern standards as being in gross error but I doubt he felt so. In fact, it is a fine reflection of the attitude of the Church from all ages past. The Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside Her and Boniface's statement is a ghostly echo of a tradition that was carried on after their seperation. There are many other traces of this teaching within the archives of Latin history so my question is, if this was taught by popes, would it not be heresy, at least by modern Latin standards?

And, would it be safe to say that if this were true it would be like an eigth sacrament, to be in communion with the pope?

As far as joining the Orthodox Church the answer is very simple. Find a true beleiving Orthodox Bishop who is in agreement, in both word and deed, with the Holy Fathers and Synods and who commemorates other Orthodox Bishops who do the same. You will know this Bishop because he will be the same as that of 100 years ago, 500 years ago, or 2000 years ago. And then you will have unity of the faith with all the Church's members, past and present, and will be joining the Body of Christ.

If you would like to go into this deeper, you should start a new thread. In the mean time, I have posed a question to you as a friend.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

define "subject"

define a bishop same as he was 100 years ago. Does same preclude taking a bath? stinkarooni

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

Thank you for your Christian candor and kindness!

I not only admire your deep devotion to Christ within Holy Orthodoxy, but also your wide reading and stimulating intellectual points that you constantly raise!

Pope Urban VIII waa an interesting man, to say the least, and, as you well know, someone who did much to centralize Roman authority within the Western Catholic Church.

Under his pontificate, for example, canonization and beatification of saints was reserved to the Roman Patriarch alone.

Before then, following the universal practice in both East and West, Bishops could and would beatify their local saints.

And although Catholics today separate the idea of "saint" from "blessed," the Middle Ages knew no such distinction and so the terms were synonymous.

We know that Western bishops continued to beatify their local saints even after Urban made his declaration.

Rome today recognizes all those Beati made so even following Urban's statement.

Following Catholic teaching, while what a Pope states during his pontificate as the Church's teacher is to be held by Catholics, this is still not "infallible" teaching unless made "ex cathedra."

So another succeeding Pope could change any non-ex cathedra positions of the one who preceeded him.

For example, Pope Pius XII did say that those who sought to change the (Tridentine) liturgy by going back to earlier models etc. are in error.

This statement was accepted (enthusiastically) by many Catholics for as long as the Pope lived. Later Popes had a different perspective on liturgical things.

It was only with Vatican I that the doctrine of papal infallibility was formally defined. Urban's statement that preceded this Council, cannot by any stretch be understood to be an "ex cathedra" statement.

This means that it is open to change and adaptation by his successors.

The words and spirit of Vatican II basically affirmed new perspectives on the Church and salvation.

With respect to the Orthodox Church, before or after Urban or the Vatican Councils, the attitude of the Western Catholic Church has been consistent, namely, that the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ with valid Mysteries/Sacraments, the same basic Apostolic Faith, the true Episcopacy, and other means of sanctification that Rome affirms, to be sure.

I see the doctrine of the Papacy as something that is in development since it is basically an issue of pastoral relationship to the universal Church exercised by the Petrine Ministry, especially as embodied by the Roman Patriarch, which the universal Church, at one time, acknowledged as the First Bishop and Patriarch in the entire Church.

That pastoral "style" or relationship must be adaptable, I think we've all learned, owing to the changing circumstances in which the Church lives and in which it must continue to proclaim the good news of the Gospel.

The two truly infallible teachings about the papacy that are an issue today are those dealing with primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility doctrine itself.

Can these be modified? Absolutely.

The Eastern Catholic journal, "Redeemer's Voice" once suggested, with respect to these two papal doctrines, that "jurisdiction" should be further defined by Rome as something it can potentially exercise over another Church IF THAT CHURCH INVITES ROME TO DO SO and nothing more. As for infallibility, it was suggested that Rome define this as occurring WHENEVER THE POPE RATIFIES THE DECISIONS OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.

I once told a Russian Orthodox Priest of the ROCOR jurisdiction that we will eventually be united, but no as we want, but as God wants.

He then smiled, embraced me and I kissed his hand.

God bless,

Alex

"Any statement by any pope that reaffirms the Divine Revelation given by Christ to the Apostles is without error."


Dear Kurt,
How many infallible statements did the Popes make since Vatican I?

Joe Thur
Deacon-student

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

OrthodoxyOrDeath,

You seem to have a fascination with the Latin Church - in a negative way. I relize Constantinople is no longer the beatific vision of the emporer, and this is a source of pain to some. But you can take rest in knowing that Rome no longer shepards the Holy Roman Empire. Times change... for good or bad. I would hope that the Orthodox Church(s) & the Catholic Church(s) of Rome could one day reunite in my life time. But it is rantings like your - and many Orthodox monks - that gives me little faith this will ever come to pass in my life.

You can think as you wish, but the Orthodox Church's have fallen into heresy throughout episodes in history - denying the divinity of Christ is not exactly orthodox teaching. Neither is nationalism or emperor worship.

You are right though that the Papacy in how that the fullment of Christendom should be, should not be of the Emperor status it is of now. But here's the Problem - Christendom is so fractured that I see no other way then for the Papacy to be the great monarch it is. Accountability is needed, security is needed, and not just in a mystical way via the Holy Spirit but in a practical way also - and the practical has always more or less been the dominate trait of the West. Why can't the practicality of the West and Mystisim of the East merge in some balance form? If both our Church's united we much more affirming to the Protestants and a greater obsatacle to the spread of Islam.

By the way the I firmly believe the Pope can speak heresy, I just don't think he can make it offical church teaching i.e. dogma.

But your Orthodox Coptic Church can official teach pro abortion - which is a Church fallen into heresy.

Another thing, the Papacy governing with the might it did at onetime, is what kept the Western world safe from the Muslim, and it is was the security of the Papacy - political wise - that allowed for the Western world to develope into the powerhouse it is today.

OrthodoxyorDeath,

First, your name has a certain welcoming ring to it. Just kidding.

Second, you mentioned the ideal and timeless Orthodox bishop. Is this bishop also in communion with those bishops who opted for Arianism and Nestorianism in the East?


Joe Thur
Deacon-student

Maximus,

You have just glossed over a dozen major topics so I will only offer some quick replies. if you would like to go into any of them with further detail then perhaps you can start a thread.

No, Constantinople is no longer the capital of the civilized world the world has become quite uncivilized.

The Orthodox have never fallen into heresy. Those shepherds who have tried to force their heresy on others were "self-condemned" and not Orthodox.

The praticality of the West has dried up much of it spirituality; no unity can be achieved unless the West repents for their heresies.

The Coptic Church are not Orthodox, they were excommunicated at the 4th Oecumenical Council.

------------------

J. Thur.

Those true believing Orthodox during the times of Nestorius and Arius ceased commemorating the heretics and were condemned by the "official"; church. In fact, St. Basil the great broke communion with several Arian-minded bishops including the Pat. of Const.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

O.O.D.,

You might as well get over it. Constantinople I'm sure was a great place in many ways, but as though it was the last of the civilized world is just laughable.

And yes the Orthodox Church fell into heresy, the fact that the Greek Orthodox and those under them worshiped the Emporer of Constantinople is just ridiculous and was all the way heretical. And I would expect a true "civilized" nation as you would have it, be willing to step up and defend it's women and children.

And yes I know the Copts are not in commuion (as with the Ethiopian and few more *national* Churchs I believe) with you guys of Greek Church... or will it be the Russian Church in a few years? Since the nationalism that goes on in the Orthodox Church is rampant... the Russians are the biggest and may have all the rest of you fall under them... of course I suppose you all can fight about it.

So I guess both our Church's have some human fault to them.