|
0 members (),
423
guests, and
103
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,522
Posts417,621
Members6,173
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
I am taking Fr. Anthony's suggestion and beginning a new thread on Unity in the Papacy. I stand corrected for my poor wording by Hesychios (thank you) from that thread, "A Canon law question." Here is Vatican I on the Papacy some of which was already quoted by Hesychios on that thread: So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith [froom Pope Hormisdas's formula of the year 517]:
The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion. The decree continues: we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. As a Byzantine Catholic, I think I am bound by Vatican I's decrees and in fact they make sense to me. The teaching was again reiterated in Lumen Gentium from Vatican II: This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God The speculation that Pope Benedict XVI may somehow withdraw (or reinterpret if you like) the instruction of these two Councils is just that, speculation. One can in fact be a faithful Byzantine Catholic without having to entertain that speculation. I think that needs to be said. JPII certainly has been a Light to the Nations, as I am confident his successor is and will be. I for one am very, very happy to have had these men in that Chair of Peter. The authority and power which the Pope wields has been in these dark times, an unfailing witness to the Gospel. I think of the recent "Deus Caritas Est." I think of John Paul II's , "Evangelium Vitae", "Fides et Ratio", "Veritatis Splendor," and one could go on and on. And I think of Paul VI "Humanae Vitae." Whatever the past Pope's failings have been (and there have been miserable failings), most all of the "modern" Popes have been a bullwark against the onslought of secularism and godlessness. Glory to Jesus Christ for the gift of the Papacy!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
From the Thread about the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue in Belgrade: At the same symposium, Metropolitan John of Pergamon from the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, made careful arguments in favor of a "universal primacy" and said the Orthodox churches could accept it as long as it did not undermine the ecclesiological integrity of any local church. How does Unity in the Papacy fit with this "Universal Primacy" theory that His Grace Metropolitan John is proposing. Somedays we seem so close to Unity and others farther away than ever. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by lm: [. . .]
Here is Vatican I on the Papacy some of which was already quoted by Hesychios on that thread:
So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith [from Pope Hormisdas's formula of the year 517]: [. . .] These issues are very complex, because the Roman Church accepts the synod of Constantinople that took place in A.D. 869-870 as the fourth council of Constantinople, even though that council was annulled by the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 879-880. Moreover, it should also be noted that this later council (i.e., the council of 879-880) was solemnly approved by Pope John VIII; and so, the present day Roman Church counts as ecumenical (i.e., the synod of 869-870 A.D.), a council that was actually condemned by the Pope John VIII as spurious (See Fr. Francis Dvornik's article, "Which Councils are Ecumenical?," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, no. 3(2), 1966, pp. 314-328). Now, that being said, one of the problems that occurs in ecumenical dialogue between Western Catholics and Eastern Christians is the level of authority inherent to various documents and ecclesial pronouncements, because -- of course -- the East only accepts the first Seven Councils as truly ecumenical, while the West accepts additional councils as authoritative. Now, taking this information into account, one is able to see that, when a Westerner quotes a later council as ecumenical, the argument falls flat to an Easterner, because the two sides disagree on the degree of authority that is given to what the East sees as merely local synods of the Western Church, and what the West sees as ecumenical councils. Clearly, a member of the Roman Church will need to appeal to ecclesial documents and synods that are recognized by the East as authoritative (i.e., documents that are recognized by both sides as authoritative), at least if he wishes to prove his case to an Eastern Christian. Thus, for example, a quotation from the First Vatican Council, or from the Council of Trent, or from what the Roman Church calls the fourth council of Constantinople (i.e., the council of 869-870 which Pope John VIII reprobated) is not going to convince an Eastern Christian of the truth of the Western position. Sadly, this is one of the areas of contention between the two sides in the ecumenical dialogue, because the West recognizes documents and even several local synods as authoritative and binding; while the East, on the other hand, sees these documents and local Western synods as promoting various theologoumena (some of which are erroneous) that bind no one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
I think your argument points out why the issue cannot be solved by scholars and experts or by argument. Your argument in fact demonstrates the very need for a living visible head, ie, a Vicar of Christ. Now of course the need for it does not make it true. On the other hand, where there is a need, God does provide.
Finally, it is indeed a matter of faith whether Christ left us with a universal father. Not all Eastern Christians reject the idea. I for one don't. Soloviev appears not to have either (though I undertand there will be scholars and experts who will tell us he did finally reject it). Many of the Fathers, Maximus for one, did not reject it. It was a source of strength throughout the hsitory of the early Church.
This faith is not without its own historical and logical support. As I said above, I am very thankful for this great gift of the Papacy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 79
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 79 |
Perhaps, if it has not already been done, it might be of value to look at the Hormisdas Forumula . Which if I understand these things correctly was signed by a majority of Eastern bishops around 519 AD to bring about an end to the Acacius schism. I believe it was used as a supporting source for many of the Vatican I decrees. The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome. Note this was a statement to be signed by the bishops of the East to restore communion with the Bishop of Rome. Hormisdas [ hometown.aol.com] With the signing of this document by many Eastern Bishops in the early 6th century, I think we get an interesting picture of how the Bishop of Rome was viewed at the time. Peace
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by lm:
I think your argument points out why the issue cannot be solved by scholars and experts or by argument. Your argument in fact demonstrates the very need for a living visible head, ie, a Vicar of Christ. Now of course the need for it does not make it true. On the other hand, where there is a need, God does provide.
[. . .] You have expressed what a Western Catholic would say, but I doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Churches agree with you on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
You have expressed what a Western Catholic would say, but I doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Churches agree with you on this issue. But I am an Eastern Catholic. In the Theotokos, lm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by lm: You have expressed what a Western Catholic would say, but I doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Churches agree with you on this issue.
In the Theotokos,
lm I am Eastern Catholic too, but I recognize the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches have been heavily Latinized over the last few centuries. God bless, Todd P.S. - Eastern Catholics, at least for the sake of ecumenical dialogue, should try to understand the position of the Orthodox Churches. This is especially true if the Eastern Catholic considers himself to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
P.S. - Eastern Catholics, at least for the sake of ecumenical dialogue, should try to understand the position of the Orthodox Churches. This is especially true if the Eastern Catholic considers himself to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Agreed. But in the process, I also don't want to be overly critical of my fellow Roman Catholics, with whom I share the faith. I think the communion ought not be at the expense of doctrine including that of the primacy which has been in the last 26 years outstanding. I think John Paul II's account of the two lungs is a good analogy for all to be working towards. Pax vobiscum!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32 |
Originally posted by Apotheoun:
P.S. - Eastern Catholics, at least for the sake of ecumenical dialogue, should try to understand the position of the Orthodox Churches. This is especially true if the Eastern Catholic considers himself to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome." I would take this one step further. Western (Roman) Catholics should also try to understand the position of the Orthodox Churches and vice versa for ecumenical dialogue to progress, and in this regard Eastern Catholics may very well be the glue that binds the two (much to the chagrin of some Latin Catholics and Orthodox).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Originally posted by lm: ... The decree continues:
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, [etc] Yes, now you've got it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Originally posted by lm:
As a Byzantine Catholic, I think I am bound by Vatican I's decrees... I think you are too. It is the law of your church. Michael BTW, If you don't mind my asking, how long have you officially been a Byzantine-Ruthenian?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Officially 7 years. I was attracted to it for about 22 years. My mother was Ruthenian. Both of my parents were from Pittsburgh where I was born and both are Slovak, but my father was a Roman Catholic.
lm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Friends, I think we need to see Vatican I in context with Vatican II and even with evolving papal jurisdictional praxis (Sorry, but I've been reading a lot of Apotheoun's posts lately . . .  ). The element that needs to be brought in is the specific nature of the EC Churches and their right to govern themselves in union with the Pope. Vatican I never attacked that principle and Vatican II underscored it, together with the unfolding relationship between the EC Churches and the Popes, especially John Paul II. It's that "development of doctrine" thing again! Even John Henry Cardinal Newman, in correspondence with Anglicans who were afraid to take the plunge and become RC after Vatican I, suggested further "development" in this area that would ultimately limit papal jurisdictional powers etc. What Vatican I did was define the exact principles on which the Papacy was and is based. The definition of the fact of Papal jurisdiction over all did not suggest anything by way of its mitigated exercise, especially over the EC Churches. And I would suggest that the Vatican II Decree on the EC Churches shows plainly how Papal jurisdiction grinds to a halt when it reaches the outskirts of an EC Patriarchate. In addition, current RC ecclesial praxis among the national conferences of bishops shows that the Pope is no jurisdictional ogre, exercising his will arbitrarily either. As an EC, I am happy that there is an authority over my Church that transcends the immediate, Particular one. It is just a nice thing to have in case of emergency!  If I ever get into trouble with my bishop or Patriarch (say for something I've written on the forum here), it is nice to know I can always appeal to Rome . . . I do have some well-placed friends there, you know . . . So the next time someone here decides to give me a time-out, they are going to be hearing from them . . . Viva il Papa! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Hello Dr Alex! Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic: Even John Henry Cardinal Newman, in correspondence with Anglicans who were afraid to take the plunge and become RC after Vatican I, suggested further "development" in this area that would ultimately limit papal jurisdictional powers etc. My goodness! Could he predict doctrinal development before it happened?  Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
And I would suggest that the Vatican II Decree on the EC Churches shows plainly how Papal jurisdiction grinds to a halt when it reaches the outskirts of an EC Patriarchate. Not only that, it pretty much grinds to a halt at many RC parishes as well. But that is grist for another mill... Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
In addition, current RC ecclesial praxis among the national conferences of bishops shows that the Pope is no jurisdictional ogre, exercising his will arbitrarily either. I think the national bishops conferences are the RC churchs best hope to revive an Orthodox ecclesiology. However, many (if not most) RC I have communicated with don't trust their own bishops, and have no confidence in the emerging episcopal conferences. It pains me to read some of the comments on Roman Catholic message boards: accusing bishops of being "liberal" and even "heretics"! We know that cannot be so, because these men were picked for their positions by Peter himself! Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic: As an EC, I am happy that there is an authority over my Church that transcends the immediate, Particular one. It is just a nice thing to have in case of emergency! I see that. Are there any secrets you'd wish to share with us? I think you may have heard that the current Pope is planning to recognize the Patriarchate. Your enthusiasm for the institution at Roma seems to have grown over the last couple of years. ... Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic: If I ever get into trouble with my bishop or Patriarch (say for something I've written on the forum here), it is nice to know I can always appeal to Rome . . .
I do have some well-placed friends there, you know . . . So the next time someone here decides to give me a time-out, they are going to be hearing from them . . .
Viva il Papa!
Alex Michael, that sinner
|
|
|
|
|
