www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Papal Infallibility

Correction: not "names" but "varieties" :p

"Saging", huh? That is a charism.

Dear DJS,

Well if there is a dogmatic bull which much to my utter dismay and others there is, and of which the Orthodox who are considered heretics and schismatics by the Roman Catholic Church places them in eternal fire unless before death unless they are joined to the Catholic Church "Union". How can Eastern rite Catholics stand with the Saints of the Orthodox Church to which they ask the intercessions of when the Popes bull states something quite the contrary?

But if it is the opinion of the Catholic Church
and the Pope (Bishop of Rome) expressed in a bull it is of consequence for it is not kind to the Orthodox and our Saints. At least from my perspective. Perhaps you could help me to understand this matter from a Byzantine Catholic perspective. Additionally, if anyone understands this or can let me know if my reasoning is greatly in error any reasonable explanation that is not a contradiction would be much appreciated.
Unless a bull is not dogmatic and just some sort of an opinion or possible idea as well. Even if a bull is just a piece of paper that is produced by the Roman Catholic Church it is disturbing to say the least. It's not even a matter of embarrassment for me it is quite terrible.

DJS your quotes

"I don't have a problem with Orthodox Saints"

"I don't see Orthodoxy and Catholicism as mutually exclusive"

"Such an opinion is, of course, of no consequence and is thus not worth regarding. I am a bit embarrassed but such ignorance, but not vexed by it."

Thanks.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear DJS,

You had written

"As in the case of the shields of Leo, I think you are reading too much into things"

From what I understand a Bull or a bulla was originally a circular plate or boss of metal, so called from its resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon water (Lat. bullire, to boil). In the course of time the term came to be applied to the leaden seals with which papal and royal documents were authenticated in the early Middle Ages, and by a further development, the name, from designating the seal, was eventually attached to the document itself.


I await your reply.

In Christ
Matthew Panchisin

That answer is sufficiently mysterious, I will say that.

I asked more than one question, but perhaps that was intended as the answer to all of them.

Dear Linus,

I think you have it!

In discussing the papacy, we tend to make it into a "reified" type of discussion with quotes from scripture and the Fathers and the Vatican Council etc.

But these must be located in the inner life of the Church to see just what the Papacy has meant and still means to it.

This doesn't mean that reforms aren't necessary to the Papacy, but that it is itself something that, I believe, God has ordained for His Church.

Ecumenical papers by even Protestants that I've seen over the years have yet to come out against the papacy as an ideal for a future united Church.

Alex

Not yet, but I'm working on it!

What if the bishops and other believers have spoken . . . and spoken and spoken . . . and controversy alone is the outcome?

Who settles the issue?

A council?

What if a large portion of the Church rejects its findings (witness Chalcedon 451)?

Who is to say whether or not that council was definitive and ecumenical when the "entire Church" will not ratify it?

In terms of the Petrine Primacy I would say it is reasonable in that sense, and that sense alone, to say that the Roman Church - referred to repeatedly in the Fathers and Councils as the "Apostolic See" - was the most important church.

I agree with you regarding the burden of proof.

Thus far I find papal infallibility a difficult nut to crack.

I can see its usefulness; but is it TRUE?

All excellent and nagging questions.

As I understand it, if the doctrine of papal infallibility is correct, a legitimate pope will not be able to promulgate error, at least not in terms of faith and morals.

Of course, we have the same problem in the Orthodox Church.

What if our bishops go sideways and start ordaining women and Sodomites?

What if they call an "ecumenical council" to do it?

Of course, any council that would do such a thing would not be legitimate.

But it certainly could lead to a lot of trouble and a possible schism.

Some of the actions of Pope John Paul II have troubled me. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to badmouth him. I respect the Pope.

I am referring to his somewhat-too-intimate contacts with non-Christian communities; i.e., kissing the Koran, being blessed by a priestess of Shiva, etc.

I realize those things are improprieties and do not involve dogma or ex cathedra teachings, but they certainly were disconcerting and ill advised at the least.

They bothered me tremendously.

Dear Linus,

WHEN has the Pope ever been blessed by a priestess of Shiva?

I know what you are referring to - it was an Indian Catholic woman who gave the Pope that blessing - a Christian blessing that has been adapted from the religious context of India.

Do you put up a Christmas tree for Christmas?

Do you know that that was formerly a pagan tradition associated with the worship of the oak-god Odin - whose name has given us "Wednesday" (Odin's Day)?

Martin Luther Christianized that tradition for all of us.

There are MANY traditions taken from the Norse and Celtic pagan religions that we European Christians take for granted today.

That India and other countries of Asia and Africa are now inculturating Christianity in their contexts should not come as surprising to us.

If it does, it means that we don't sufficiently appreciate the pagan roots of many of our European practices.

Alex

Dear Alex,

The Archheretic Luther was the one to introduce the Christmas tree to Christianity? I guess that means no more Christmas trees for me. j/k!!

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear Matthew,

Fair enough. I should have requested a greater urgency rather than seriousness.

Well your understandng is excellent and erudite. It is of course taken verbatim from the on-line Catholic encyclopedia. Better to make a clear indication when using the some one else's text. By the way, what's your point?

The relationship between Orthodox and Catholic churches, from the Catholic perspective, is discussed in a number of documents from the Vatican that are easily accessed on-line. If necessary, I will dig up the URL's for you when I get a chance.

You make an nice montage of quotes from me, with a amusing twist in meaning in their new context. At least you used quotation marks.

Dear Anthony,

Actually, the UGCC Patriarch Lubomyr Huzar issued a statement recently asking his faithful to REFRAIN from using Christmas trees as this practice affects the environment etc.

He apparently said that the practice of decorating Christmas trees is "not our tradition anyway."

He has also issued a statement asking his faithful not to hold 'trizna' or luncheons after funerals because of the drunkenness that goes on.

Do you think he is just a kill-joy?

Alex

Dear Alex,

We almost missed out on getting a Christmas tree this year, since we waited too long. There were almost none left by the time we went hunting for one. After searching far and wide we found a really beautiful one. It might have been the one saved for the Patriarch, but since he didn't want one, we lucked out.

In Christ,
Anthony

Matthew,

You don't identify the priest, but I would have to suggest to you that his hard-nosed words suggest one who is very traditionalist. I wouldn't (and I may be being naive) consider his statement to be reflective of the Catholic Church's official outlook which is better gleaned from the Pope's writings on how he percieves the relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Matthew,

The Catholic Churches (in communion with Rome) have always considered the Orthodox Church as part of the "True Apostolic Church" although "in rebellion against Rome."

Today these statements are ameliorated greatly.

If one, as an Orthodox, believes that the fullness of faith lies in communion with Rome, then one is certainly bound to join in that communion!

Also, if one's conscience tells one that the True Church is the Orthodox Church and outside of communion with Rome, then what else can one do but to seek membership in Orthodoxy?

And if the priest you mention wanted to "die for the Filioque," the next time he is in Rome, he should investigate those two Latin and Greek tablets where the Nicene Creed is written without the Filioque.

As with priestly celibacy, the West has two traditions on the Filioque too.

As a traditionalist myself, my guiding principle is to always give the OLDER tradition more credence than the newer one.

In addition, language plays a tremendous role here.

If that priest knew what the Filioque meant in Greek, he too would probably condemn Rome .

(O.K. I'm stretching things . . .)

Alex