The Fifth Ecumenical Council on Pope St. Leo's infallibility

Vadim

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Fifth Ecumenical Council, The Sentence of the Synod

"...And it was shewn in the acts that in former times Ibas had been accused because of the very impiety which is contained in this letter; at first by Proclus, of holy memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius, of pious memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession to Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius, bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beyroot.  Afterwards the same Ibas, being found guilty, was cast out of his bishopric.  Such was the state of the case, how could anyone presume to say that that impious letter was received by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it throughout?  Nevertheless in order that they who thus calumniate the holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity of doing so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious memory, sometime Pope of Old Rome.  And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we interrupted our proceedings so as to recite also the definition of the faith which was set forth by the holy council of Chalcedon, so that we might compare the things in the epistle with this decree.  And when this was done it was perfectly clear that the contents of the epistle were wholly opposite to those of the definition."

"And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers" - this is just the Orthodox teaching on the infallibility of the Church; it contradicts as to Roman Catolic teaching (Pope Leo's treatise could not become a rule of faith till it was confirmed by the Council), and to the protestant teachings as well (because of the words "faith of the holy Fathers").
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Vadim said:
The Fifth Ecumenical Council, The Sentence of the Synod

"...And it was shewn in the acts that in former times Ibas had been accused because of the very impiety which is contained in this letter; at first by Proclus, of holy memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius, of pious memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession to Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius, bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beyroot.  Afterwards the same Ibas, being found guilty, was cast out of his bishopric.  Such was the state of the case, how could anyone presume to say that that impious letter was received by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it throughout?  Nevertheless in order that they who thus calumniate the holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity of doing so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious memory, sometime Pope of Old Rome.  And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we interrupted our proceedings so as to recite also the definition of the faith which was set forth by the holy council of Chalcedon, so that we might compare the things in the epistle with this decree.  And when this was done it was perfectly clear that the contents of the epistle were wholly opposite to those of the definition."

"And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers" - this is just the Orthodox teaching on the infallibility of the Church; it contradicts as to Roman Catolic teaching (Pope Leo's treatise could not become a rule of faith till it was confirmed by the Council), and to the protestant teachings as well (because of the words "faith of the holy Fathers").
The Spirit is descended!

Pope St. Leo had wanted the Council to just rubber stamp his Tome as the definition of Faith.  Instead the Fathers wrote their own, and, as is explicitely stated in the Acts, accepted the Tome only after it was examined for agreement with the Faith of the Holy Fathers.

Though most Vatican apologists, confronted with these facts, will deny the Tome is ex cathedra (while still citing the acclamation "Peter has spoken through Leo" as proof of "infallibility"), it is evident that if such a thing as "ex cathedra" pronouncements existed, the Tome would be one.
 

Vadim

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And the same statement was made on the Pope Vigilius.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, The Sentence of the Synod

"And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all.  Moreover the most pious Emperor, according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood should after common discussion impose a common faith.  On this account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was not right that the scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby.  And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers.  For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles:  “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.”

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon:  “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong 307as a well-founded kingdom;” and again in Ecclesiastes he says:  “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.”

So also the Lord himself says:  “Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven.  For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre):  And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul:  “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”  Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them."

These statements also contradict to Roman Catholic teaching of infallibility (as well as to the protestant teachings), but express just the Orthodox teaching.

1. "Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith," (no discussions are needed according to Roman Catholics and according to protestants)

2. But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre):  And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul:  “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”  Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.

- here the Council explicitly stated that Vigilius's sentence on the Three Chapters "ex sese" would not be enough.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
The Spirit is descended!
Vadim said:
And the same statement was made on the Pope Vigilius.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, The Sentence of the Synod

"And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all.  Moreover the most pious Emperor, according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood should after common discussion impose a common faith.  On this account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was not right that the scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby.  And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers.  For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles:  “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.”

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon:  “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong 307as a well-founded kingdom;” and again in Ecclesiastes he says:  “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.”

So also the Lord himself says:  “Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven.  For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre):  And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul:  “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”  Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them."

These statements also contradict to Roman Catholic teaching of infallibility (as well as to the protestant teachings), but express just the Orthodox teaching.

1. "Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith," (no discussions are needed according to Roman Catholics and according to protestants)

2. But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre):  And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul:  “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.”  Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.

- here the Council explicitly stated that Vigilius's sentence on the Three Chapters "ex sese" would not be enough.
Add to that the fact that the Fifth Council was being held over Pope Vigilius' objection.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
ialmisry said:
Pope St. Leo had wanted the Council to just rubber stamp his Tome as the definition of Faith.  Instead the Fathers wrote their own, and, as is explicitely stated in the Acts, accepted the Tome only after it was examined for agreement with the Faith of the Holy Fathers.
It seems the Bishop of Rome carried some belief that it would be accepted in this way?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
The Spirit is descended!
Azurestone said:
ialmisry said:
Pope St. Leo had wanted the Council to just rubber stamp his Tome as the definition of Faith.  Instead the Fathers wrote their own, and, as is explicitely stated in the Acts, accepted the Tome only after it was examined for agreement with the Faith of the Holy Fathers.
It seems the Bishop of Rome carried some belief that it would be accepted in this way?
Perhaps, but the Church in Council believed otherwise, a fact Pope St. Leo had to admit (in a letter to the Empress) when even his suffragans in the Balkans honored canon 28, over his protest and claims to have annulled it.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:
The Dictates of the Pope
That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
That the pope may depose the absent.
That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
That this is the only name in the world.
That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:
As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.
 

Paisius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Florida
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

I've also heard a number of Catholics say that God would probably kill a pope before He allowed him to officially pronounce heresy.  8)
 

Shlomlokh

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Roanoke, VA
Paisius said:
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.

I've also heard a number of Catholics say that God would probably kill a pope before He allowed him to officially pronounce heresy.  8)
I have heard that too. I've also heard what Peter said above. It's absolutely impossible for an infallible pope to err! Where can I get that ability?

In Christ,
Andrew
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
If the Pope can't fall into heresy doesn't that make him more than a man?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:
As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.
Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,165
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
[quote author=ialmisry]Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.[/quote]

Or, that the 'problem' of which you are afraid is little borne out in reality.  ::)

Not a surprise.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
biro said:
[quote author=ialmisry]Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.
Or, that the 'problem' of which you are afraid is little borne out in reality.  ::)

Not a surprise.
[/quote]

I would suggest that the 'problem' isn't really in the dogmatic definition from Vatican I, but rather in the way many/most Catholics imagine papal infallibility.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
The Spirit is descended!
biro said:
[quote author=ialmisry]Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.
Or, that the 'problem' of which you are afraid is little borne out in reality.  ::)

Not a surprise.
[/quote]
What "problem" is that?
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Albuquerque, NM
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:
As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.
Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.
What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
WetCatechumen said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:
As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.
Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.
What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.
1) the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church agree to disagree
2) I've heard of one or two bishops who disagree with the statement of the Russian Holy Synod on the matter.  No a great dissent.  On the other hand, the "dissent" on Humanae Vitae was the majority, and since your supreme pontiff refused to give a straight answer on whether it was given ex cathedra, you are deluding yourself to think your ecclesiastical community has a common answer to this question.
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
4) is irrelevant
5) any Orthodox bishop that thinks filioque is legitimate, per the Council of Constantinople IV 879 should repent or be deposed
6) any Orthodox bishop that allows that should be deposed, as the Holy Synod of Romania recently demonstrated, to the cheers of the other Orthodox Churches.
7) The OCA is the only one whose autocephaly is questioned, and all 14 of the other Churches find it canonical.

So at most each bishop is an island in an archipelago.

The fact that you list 6) demonstrates that you are grasping at straws, as the second largest EO Church, Romania, forced one of its highest bishops to repent of allowing this, and stating that any bishop that did so would be automatically deposed, a statement greeted with approval and no dissent by ALL the Orthodox Churches.  In other words, you aren't looking at the answers staring you right in the face.

I can talk to any of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, and I'm sure I'll get answers different from your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, let alone Cardinal Martini.

 
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Albuquerque, NM
ialmisry said:
WetCatechumen said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:
As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.
Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.
What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.
1) the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church agree to disagree
2) I've heard of one or two bishops who disagree with the statement of the Russian Holy Synod on the matter.  No a great dissent.  On the other hand, the "dissent" on Humanae Vitae was the majority, and since your supreme pontiff refused to give a straight answer on whether it was given ex cathedra, you are deluding yourself to think your ecclesiastical community has a common answer to this question.
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
4) is irrelevant
5) any Orthodox bishop that thinks filioque is legitimate, per the Council of Constantinople IV 879 should repent or be deposed
6) any Orthodox bishop that allows that should be deposed, as the Holy Synod of Romania recently demonstrated, to the cheers of the other Orthodox Churches.
7) The OCA is the only one whose autocephaly is questioned, and all 14 of the other Churches find it canonical.

So at most each bishop is an island in an archipelago.

The fact that you list 6) demonstrates that you are grasping at straws, as the second largest EO Church, Romania, forced one of its highest bishops to repent of allowing this, and stating that any bishop that did so would be automatically deposed, a statement greeted with approval and no dissent by ALL the Orthodox Churches.   In other words, you aren't looking at the answers staring you right in the face.

I can talk to any of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, and I'm sure I'll get answers different from your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, let alone Cardinal Martini.
No, because I've tried to get answers on these and despite the fact that one polemicist on the internet thinks the answers are staring me right in the face, there is an Orthodox priest who has specifically argued against me that consubstantiation and sacramental union are valid ways of looking at the Eucharist. Fr. Anastasios says that birth control is wrong, period. You guys don't even know whether or not you can say that you can't know that the monophysite Orthodox churches have valid holy orders.

And you'd have to excommunicate the entire Antiochian Church when it comes to the intercommunion.

And you admitted yourself we've no idea if OCA is canonical. What about Ukraine? Is the matter that clear cut? Or ROCOR? Sure, you guys patched that up - but who was right when the Russian Church was controlled by the communist party?

Sorry, but you get no dice. Orthodoxy is a confusing mess to me, an outsider.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
WetCatechumen said:
ialmisry said:
WetCatechumen said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
ialmisry said:
The Spirit is descended!
Peter J said:
There's really no official Catholic position regarding the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy. Some say that he could, and he would then automatically cease to be pope. Some say that it's impossible for him to fall into heresy. Neither of these are mandatory Catholic beliefs.
The Vatican's supreme pontiff Gregory VII, ex cathedra, disagreed:
As I'm sure you're already aware, Vatican I said that ex cathedra statements are infallible, but it never said how many there have been, or even whether there have been any.
Sure, proving how useless Pastor Aeternus is and how hollow the boasting of "infallibility" of the supreme pontiff that we are told we are missing.
What you're missing is that I've no idea what Orthodox believe on these things:

1) Calendar
2) Birth Control
3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union
4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots
5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation
6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice
7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not

Every bishop is an island.

It drives me nuts. And sure, you can supply an answer - but there are Orthodox bishops who would disagree with you on each count.

It's impossible to get a straight answer.
1) the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church agree to disagree
2) I've heard of one or two bishops who disagree with the statement of the Russian Holy Synod on the matter.  No a great dissent.  On the other hand, the "dissent" on Humanae Vitae was the majority, and since your supreme pontiff refused to give a straight answer on whether it was given ex cathedra, you are deluding yourself to think your ecclesiastical community has a common answer to this question.
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
4) is irrelevant
5) any Orthodox bishop that thinks filioque is legitimate, per the Council of Constantinople IV 879 should repent or be deposed
6) any Orthodox bishop that allows that should be deposed, as the Holy Synod of Romania recently demonstrated, to the cheers of the other Orthodox Churches.
7) The OCA is the only one whose autocephaly is questioned, and all 14 of the other Churches find it canonical.

So at most each bishop is an island in an archipelago.

The fact that you list 6) demonstrates that you are grasping at straws, as the second largest EO Church, Romania, forced one of its highest bishops to repent of allowing this, and stating that any bishop that did so would be automatically deposed, a statement greeted with approval and no dissent by ALL the Orthodox Churches.   In other words, you aren't looking at the answers staring you right in the face.

I can talk to any of the bishops that Lefebvre ordained, and I'm sure I'll get answers different from your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI, let alone Cardinal Martini.
No, because I've tried to get answers on these and despite the fact that one polemicist on the internet thinks the answers are staring me right in the face, there is an Orthodox priest who has specifically argued against me that consubstantiation and sacramental union are valid ways of looking at the Eucharist.
1) priest, not a bishop.  Perhaps his bishop should correct him. 2) valid for whom? Not the Orthodox, as we teach no such thing, for Protestants, it is certainly an improvement on the Calvinist view, which was specifically condemned as heretical at the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem.

WetCatechumen said:
Fr. Anastasios says that birth control is wrong, period.
Fr. Anastaios is not in communion with the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, nor those with whom they are in communion, such as myself.  You, however, are in communion with Cardinal Martini and the bishops that Cardinal Lefebvre ordained, and they don't agree on this issue, or with your supreme pontiff.

WetCatechumen said:
You guys don't even know whether or not you can say that you can't know that the monophysite Orthodox churches have valid holy orders.
Since you are neither Oriental Orthodox nor Eastern Orthodox, how is it your business?

WetCatechumen said:
And you'd have to excommunicate the entire Antiochian Church when it comes to the intercommunion.
I go to an Antiochian Church, and I see people turned away from communion all the time. In fact, often there is an announcement beforehand on how only prepared Orthodox Christians can commune.

WetCatechumen said:
And you admitted yourself we've no idea if OCA is canonical.
I've said no such thing. In fact, I am quite known for saying the opposite.  On that, I am in agreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of Alexandria, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Catholicos of Georgia, the Archbishops of Cyprus, Greece, Albania, and the Metropolitans of Poland and the Czech Lands and Slovakia.  And of the Orthodox Chruch in America.

WetCatechumen said:
What about Ukraine? Is the matter that clear cut?
Yes.
WetCatechumen said:
Or ROCOR?
Yes.
WetCatechumen said:
Sure, you guys patched that up - but who was right when the Russian Church was controlled by the communist party?
is there some reason why you are worried about things which I am guessing were before you were born?

Who was right in the Meletian schism? Patriarch St. Meletius, St. Basil, EP St. Gregory and EP St. John Chrysostom, or Pope St. Athansius, St. Jerome, and Pope St. Damasus?

WetCatechumen said:
Sorry, but you get no dice. Orthodoxy is a confusing mess to me, an outsider.
That's your problem.

You Ultramontanists all claim that you have this infallible guide, who unfortunately won't tell you when he is infallible.  Some guidance! ::)
 
Top