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

Dear DJS,

You are correct it was taken from the Catholic encyclopedia and my intention was not to be erudite. For I wasn't sure what a bull is and I looked it up. As far as being wanting to be "erudite" those days had not been very good for me and are best not revisted. I usually reference definitions or expound on them, God knows my thought process when I think and I can assure you it was not my intention to impress you or be deceptive and I hope it's not damming. I think the appropriate thing to identify is slothfullness and a few other things I'm quite sure. Suffice it to say I'm aware of it, but thanks for your attention to the matter.

Your quote

"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."

The context is in part of this discussion, if I can't reference your words within the discussion, then perhaps you shouldn't participate in it. For it was you who wrote earlier in the thread

"Your inferences do not stand to reason nor follow logically."

If you feel that way then why read anything I might put forth?

My point is you had been suggesting that Pope Leo III "gesture" I think was the word you used or suggested was an appeasement or not infallible or in short to be reduced or not taken to much at face value. Is this a correct conclusion or am I misunderstanding you?


Your quote

"If you nevertheless want to make an infallible proclamation of this gesture, then please support your contention with some probative facts: What churches were informed of this gesture? Was this information conveyed in some official manner? What specific actions were these churches expected to take in response? What "teeth" were provided for to enforce these actions? What penalties were actually levied by Leo for failure to comply?" You also requested "teeth" and I responded

Denounced synodically comes to my mind to respond your request for �teeth.�

I was not suggesting that Pope LeoIII's words had been infallible just significant because I don't understand infallibility. Is a bull significant. I would argue it is for it effects people "teeth"

If you sincerely don't understand my point than any further discourse is to no avail.

Dear Alex and Neil,

Thank you for your replies. I did read "Dominus Iesus," and understand that the official Roman Catholic position is seemingly changing or being adjusted. I further understand that the current Pope has put much effort into improving relations which most people would agree is appropriate. Perhaps he will even quickly cancel or remove this bull if he has not already and perhaps I'm just ignorant of it. I don't know are bulls removable? You see it simply does not go over well with the Orthodox and is rather severe since we Orthodox and our Saints would be considered in "in rebellion against Rome." since we are not under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Is that reasonable?

Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

As an Orthodox Christian who requests the intercessions of Orthodox Saints and in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" the above bull is very disturbing.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

If I may be so bold, let me try to address the topic issue and, as sometimes happens, restate what is already been stated, but perhaps in a more concise way.

First, infallibilty is a charism of the Church. It is expressed in three ways: the sensus fidelium or "sense of the faithful" which St. Vincent of Lerins defined this as "that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all." Secondly, infallibility is expressed in the constant teaching of the Church. Finally, under very rare conditions, the pope may teach infallibily. In effect, though, what this latter condition refers to is simply a case where the pope, on behalf of the Church and in consultation with the Church, defines as certain a truth that is already believed. That is, the pope may not add to the "deposit of faith."

A second concern that I noted as I read through the posts on this thread was the idea that a particular formulation of a truth was to be considered infallible and must be accepted as it is phrased. This is not a part of infallibilty. Since expressions of the faith (teachings) are subject to language, and language is subject to a lack of precision, it follows that no definition is in and of itself infallible. Since our faith is infinitely deep, no expression of the faith can fully capture the truth either. The Church permits adaptations in wording to allow for cultural and linguistic variations provided that no adaption renders an alternate or opposite meaning. It must always be consonant with the original. In cases where philosophical argumentation is used, it follows that those who do not apply that philosophy may express the same truth using other philosophical methods.

In the specific case of the Immaculate Conception the locus of tension seems to be the understanding of Original Sin. For the Latin Catholic the idea that we are all "born with" Original Sin means that Mary would have had to have some special dispensation from God to avoid this. Therefore, the phraseology provides this very statement (based upon the theology of "anticipatry redemption" developed by John Duns Scotus and his teacher, William of Ware). For the Eastern Catholic (and the Orthodox) Mary was born into a world "affected by" Original Sin and, thereby, had a deformed imago Dei or "image of God." For the East, the declaration of the Immaculate Conception would mean that this image Dei was, in Mary, not deformed. Both traditions hold that she was free from sin her entire life.

I do not believe that there is a single infallible statement that has been issued by the pope (and there are really only two where the pope has defined something infallibly) that cannot be reconciled with both Eastern and Western theological approaches.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear Father Deacon Ed,

I would be very grateful if you could explain something to me and help me out here. I'll stay with Pope LeoIII's bull for now, or if it is not considered a bull then strong statement.

Your quote

First, infallibilty is a charism of the Church. It is expressed in three ways: the sensus fidelium or "sense of the faithful" which St. Vincent of Lerins defined this as "that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all." Secondly, infallibility is expressed in the constant teaching of the Church. Finally, under very rare conditions, the pope may teach infallibily. In effect, though, what this latter condition refers to is simply a case where the pope, on behalf of the Church and in consultation with the Church, defines as certain a truth that is already believed. That is, the pope may not add to the "deposit of faith."

Regarding the deposit of faith part. Was not Pope LeoIII's action or "gesture" violated when the filioque had been added to the Nicene Creed? Afterall he was a Pope in good standing I presume. Certainly he was in consultation with the church. Certainly he was defining a truth that had already been discussed and was believed and accepted by the Church and confirmed by his silver plate "gesture". I'm trying to understand the contradictions.

Thank you in advance for you relpy.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew,

First, the addition of the filioque was, in the west, already accomplished before the pope took any action (it had been in use in Spain for over 100 years at that time). Second, the pope did not make any proclamation regarding the theological merit of this addition. What he did was to codify the addition of a word to the creed. By virtue of the term "codification" we know that this is a disciplinary action, not a theological one. In point of fact, previous popes had rejected the addition of the filioque -- and that alone would have eliminated any consideration of infallibilty with regard to this particular action. The second, of course, is that nothing in the bull indicates that this is a definition that must be held by all. Rather, it simply legislates a change to the Creed.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear Father Deacon Ed,

OK, so the Pope is in a codification mode with what you state is a disciplinary action to not include the filioque, which is a theological matter regarding the Holy Trinity into the original Nicene Creed even though the Nicene Creed is a definition of Faith.

Because the term "codification" is used this "disciplinary action" is not a theological one even though at its core is a significant theological issue. Who developed the codification term and when?

And this is not a theological action?

Is it not legislating that the Original Nicene Creed should not be changed? Is that not a matter of Faith and theology?

"previous popes had rejected the addition of the filioque"

Did the previous Popes issue Bulls on the filioque matter as as well?

Isn't a disciplinary action used when something is wrong?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Father Deacon Ed,

No need to reply for I understand what you are conveying and I have limited lifetime and it is best used in in other efforts.

Thanks.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Patriarch Lubomyr wants us all to abandon Christmas trees and funeral luncheons?
Serving a meal after a funeral is a courtesy to those who have come to the funeral, particularly to those who have come from a distance and must go back again; they are apt to need something to eat, as are we all. Probably for this basic reason, one finds the custom of a funeral meal in a great many traditions. As Chesterton comments on a similar matter, it is not altogether surprising that both Christians and Buddhists have foot-washing rituals, since they both have feet to wash! I've attended any number of funerals in my life, and I don't remember witnessing any outbreaks of drunkenness at them.
Christmas trees - haven't had one for years myself, but I find them mildly pleasurable. As to the environmental issue, it's usually possible (at least in First World countries) to purchase a Christmas tree selected from trees which must be thinned anyway, so that at least the poor tree gets a few days of glory before being discarded. I must confess to a strong aversion to artificial trees.
So I would request whoever organizes my funeral to include a meal for the participants (except the ones who show up with mirrors and pins to make sure I'm dead!), and I'm glad that Anthony and his family enjoyed their Christmas tree.
Now for a rousing discussion of the Channukah Bush . . . Incognitus

Dear DJS & Father Deacon Ed,

I understand that the the definition of infallibility as referenced in the Catholic Encyclopedia is as follows:

"In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals."

I further understand that in the Council of Florence Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino: was proclaimed infallible.


Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Father Deacon Ed's Quote

"First, infallibilty is a charism of the Church."

Definition of (charism)in a english dictionary
1 : an extraordinary power (as of healing) given a Christian by the Holy Spirit for the good of the church
2 a : a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader) b : a special magnetic charm or appeal <the charisma of a popular actor>


Charismata as defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia

The Greek term charisma denotes any good gift that flows from God's benevolent love (charis) unto man; any Divine grace or favour, ranging from redemption and life eternal to comfort in communing with brethren in the Faith (Rom., v, 15, 16; vi, 23; xi, 29).

So if the Orthodox and our Saints (many of which eastern "rite" catholics or "Orthodox in communion with Rome" ask the intercessions of did not submit to Papal Supremacy and would not be considered "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" then there is a very serious contradiction. Nay?

Here's is my questiion. If an infallible proclamation is so terrible, and wrong in relation to the Great Church of Christ The Orthodox Church and her Saints, how can such a "infallible" statement proceed from a Truthful Council? You see the Orthodox Saints whose icons are in Byzantine Catholic Churches I'm sure would not be comfortable with Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino:

I was very recently driving a very beloved aging Orthodox Hierarch to an appointment. While driving his old Toyota Corolla I asked him about Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino: infallible bull. He didn't say anything an looked quite sad. As a humble Orthodox monk and a master iconographer who is now a Hierarch the Pope's word is serious and my beloved Hierarch has spent his life laboring in the vinyard of Christ and he took to heart and understood the ramifications of Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino: "infallible" statement. I felt bad even bringing it to his attention and will never again. On the way back to his home, he told me not to worry about it. As such I shall take to heart his most wise words.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

P.S.

Dear DJS,

The Orthodox ROCOR Priest monk that you had asked me privately about who you suggested was entering into a strange arrangement long distance with a minor is a dear friend of mine and used to be the Orthodox Hierarch's secretary I had mentioned above. Be at peace, for the Priest monk who's motives you questioned is harmless, for he is dying. You can convey to the minors concerned mother that the Priest monks intentions are not evil. Perhaps you could mention him in your prayers as I will ask you to be in his. I'll will not suffer him the details. And Yes, there are Orthodox that "see whats going one here" and see a problem.

Matthew,

Pope Eugene's statement is to be considered in the light of the times and circumstances in which it was written. Clearly the need to be "within the bosom of the Church" is a teaching found in the Church Fathers, in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism (it's the old "we know where grace is, we do not know where it isn't"). However, the question that remains is to define what being in the bosom of the Church entails. From a Catholic perspective, it means to be in a "state of grace" (sorry, that's a Latin term, but you appear to be addressing a Latin issue).

This point was made clear by the Second Vatican Council. Since Pope Eugene was trying to find a way to re-establish communion between East and West he tried to set a contrary condition that was so terrible that the East would want to restore union.

Pope Eugene's teaching, BTW, is not considered infallible, simply the teaching of the Magisterium at that point in time. There are, of course, infallible elements to it, but the entire statement is not infallible.

Edward, deacon and sinner

If that woman was an Indian Catholic, fine. But the photo of her blessing the Pope has been misrepresented on the internet on NUMEROUS occasions.

What about the well-publicized photo of the Pope kissing the Koran?

I am well aware of the history of European paganism.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to criticize the Pope.

I just do not understand some of the things he has done.

Perhaps you can explain them, but the Euro-pagan analogy seems pretty lame to me and not relevant in the least.

Sorry.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Linus,

The analogy is incredibly relevant, especially when one takes into account that the much beloved icon corner of most Orthodox and Eastern Catholic homes comes from Slavic pagan customs, where the north corner (I think it was the north corner) of a home was where one recognized and paid homage to the local house god and the rest of that culture's particular pantheon.

No one would be griping about the Pope were he to be photographed praying at an icon corner.

The simple fact is that its apparently okay for Christianity to supplant and use positive aspects of EUROPEAN pagan culture, because its become "traditional" nowadays, but when other culture areas do the same, it's all over the internet.

And that brings us to the internet. I think we all know what lies and misrepresentations are easily spawned there.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Linus,

Yes, that photo of the Pope receiving the Indian blessing HAS been misrepresented by people all over the internet for their own purposes.

May God repay them according to their intentions!

The Euro-pagan issue is truly relevant for it shows how much European Christianity has "sained" as the Celtic missionaries used to say many formerly pagan practices and adopted them into the European Christian culture.

That also extends to the Indian blessing the Pope received and the like.

Pope Piux XII, as you know, approved of the Indian and Chinese rites himself.

This is all part of the process of inculturation of the Gospel and the liturgy.

In addition, what we think of as heresy etc. could be interpreted as either orthodox, from a Christian point of view, or else, as something that, while falling short of the fullness of the Light of Christ, nevertheless contains elements that could lead people to that Light.

For example, John Henry Cardinal Newman, in commenting on the Protestant 39 Articles of Religion, studied them within the context of the polemical times in which they were written.

Newman demonstrated how those articles COULD be interpreted as Catholic statements in terms of what they were reacting against. And what they were reacting against was a caricature of true and authentic Catholic teaching that was rampant among the Protestants!

When the Pope kissed the Koran, I believe he was paying tribute to the positive aspects of that book, without "canonizing" it in total.

Those positive aspects have to do with the confession and worship of One God against the polytheism of the context in which it was located and others.

There is much that we share with the monotheistic religion of Islam, despite our differences over the centuries.

Believers must stop fighting amongst themselves and unite to fight their true enemy - atheistic materialism and moral relativism in modern society.

I wish we Catholics and Christians had the same sort of strong personal morals that many Muslims have.

The Pope showed respect for another monotheistic religion as the religious gentleman that he is.

I'm sorry there are those who criticize him for that.

Alex

I still think the Euro-pagan analogy is lacking because we were not talking about making something Christian. We were talking about participating in activities that are and remain non-Christian.

The Koran will never be Christian, no matter how often the Pope kisses it.

Many early Christians died because they refused to burn a pinch of incense to the Roman Emperor.

It's too bad they didn't have someone around to explain "inculturation" to them!

I respect the Pope, but I think he was DEAD WRONG to kiss the Koran.

Islam is an antichrist religion stained with the blood of thousands if not millions of Christian martyrs.

It has its source in the very pit of hell.

Kissing the Koran sends the message that it is okay, that it is "holy," and that Muslims are somehow "right" in their own way.

Big mistake.

I understand that kissing the Koran did not involve the doctrine of papal infallibility, but it was certainly a mistake in propriety.

Dear Father Deacon Ed,

Sorry, I can't find the concept of damming the Orthodox into the submission of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, or the burning of heretics at the stake or many other actions to be very compassionate and virtuous irrespective of historical circumstances.

Your are correct to state "However, the question that remains is to define what being in the bosom of the Church entails. From a Catholic perspective, it means to be in a "state of grace" (sorry, that's a Latin term, but you appear to be addressing a Latin issue)." It sure is a Latin issue which has had it's effects on many souls. Submission to Papal Supremecy still seems to remain the most important matter. Certainly you understand that at the time it was proclaimed it was defining and referring to unity under the Supreme Pontiff and now a new definition or more inclusive definition is to be considered. I think the "state of grace" matter relative to being in the bosom of the Church to be significant. I hope the Roman catholic "state of grace" interpretation is somewhat close to correct and consistant with Holy writ.

It seems that the entire statement was proclaimed to be "infallible" and now latter YOU"RE saying it was not entirely "infallible."

Then it stands to reason that it was a somewhat false statement proceeding from a council of the Roman Catholic Church requiring adjustment at a latter time having not accomplished the goal, the "re-establish communion between East and West" or having not withstood the test of time.

As such proclaimed infallible statements can be false or not completely truthful statements depending on objectives, circumstances and the understanding of the interpreters. So really your suggesting circumstantial infallibility.

By the way your statement "Pope Eugene's teaching, BTW, is not considered infallible, simply the teaching of the Magisterium at that point in time." still conveys damnation by some Catholic's in positions of authority even if it not considered infallible by YOU at this time.

In Christ,

Matthew