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

[ialmisry]

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

Personally, I'm not too bothered. After all, we got by until 1870 without even the dogma that every ex cathedra statement is infallible. (It still wouldn't be a dogma, if Cardinal Newman had had his way.)

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

No, they are sure.  They do not agree.  There is a difference.

We are all agreed on the Four Gospels.  All the rest is commentary on these.

We are all agreed on the New Testament 27 books.  The OT is read in the light of these.

The EO have III Maccabbees, which among the OO, only the Armenians have.  The EO have IV Maccabbees as an appendix, except the Georgians who include it in the main body, and the OO do not have the appendix.  The Greeks do not have II Esdras, the Slavs have it as an appendix, the Georgians and the OO having it in the main body of the OT.  The Ethiopians have an expanded canon, part of which is quoted in the NT.

End of discrepancies.  Since, however, Scripture is part of Tradition, and not opposed to Tradition, and the "disputed books" are in the Tradition, it doesn't make much of a difference.  Only with Protestants.

 

[Volnutt]

All these books are part of EO tradition, even the Ethiopian ones?

 

[PJ]

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

Personally, I'm not too bothered. After all, we got by until 1870 without even the dogma that every ex cathedra statement is infallible. (It still wouldn't be a dogma, if Cardinal Newman had had his way.)

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

No, they are sure.  They do not agree.  There is a difference.

To be honest, I myself thought that Fr. Taft's criticism was rather weak.

On the other hand, I also think the criticism by some Orthodox posters, based on the absence of official list of ex cathedra statements, is rather weak.

We are all agreed on the Four Gospels.  All the rest is commentary on these.

We are all agreed on the New Testament 27 books.  The OT is read in the light of these.

We, too, are agree on the Four Gospels and the New Testament 27 books. Plus we're agreed on a list of Old Testament books. Plus we are agreed on 21 General Councils (notwithstanding minor disagreements about how many of those 21 should be considered Ecumenical Councils). Why do we need to also agree on a list of ex cathedra statements?

 

[ialmisry]

You are extremely hard on the Roman Catholic brethren.  They know exactly how many infallible statements there are...

Those who are followers of the Catholic apologist Scott Hahn know there are only TWO

Those who follow Tim Staples know that there are FOUR

Those who follow the famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble know there are EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

Those who follow the even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott know that there are SIXTY.

Personally, I'm not too bothered. After all, we got by until 1870 without even the dogma that every ex cathedra statement is infallible. (It still wouldn't be a dogma, if Cardinal Newman had had his way.)

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

No, they are sure.  They do not agree.  There is a difference.

To be honest, I myself thought that Fr. Taft's criticism was rather weak.

On the other hand, I also think the criticism by some Orthodox posters, based on the absence of official list of ex cathedra statements, is rather weak.

We are all agreed on the Four Gospels.  All the rest is commentary on these.

We are all agreed on the New Testament 27 books.  The OT is read in the light of these.

We, too, are agree on the Four Gospels and the New Testament 27 books. Plus we're agreed on a list of Old Testament books. Plus we are agreed on 21 General Councils (notwithstanding minor disagreements about how many of those 21 should be considered Ecumenical Councils). Why do we need to also agree on a list of ex cathedra statements?

Because in a number of those purported statements, your supreme pontiffs state you must believe it at the peril of shipwrecking your faith and other unpleasantries.

Even St. Jude doesn't say if you don't accept the Book of Enoch, you shipwreck your Faith.

 

[Irish Hermit]

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible. (Seems relevant to this thread, since some Orthodox are criticizing us for not having an official list of ex cathedra statements.)

I think the difference is that your faith is "magisterial" and based firmly on official statements.  Outside of magisterial definition and teaching doctrinal things are not so clear-cut.  Over the past millennium you have been quite busy defining more and more of your faith by magisterial definition.  There is probably not much left now to officially define.

Now Orthodoxy has no Magisterium per se, it simply has the long stream of Tradition from the Apostolic era and the patristic era.  We believe it is safeguarded in the Church by the Holy Spirit, among both the bishops and the faithful. 

So we don't sweat the small stuff and don't expect a few of the ragged edges to ever be resolved.  The Church, East and West, has always slightly disagreed on the canon of the Old Testament, even in the first millennium when Rome was supposedly in control of us all, and making decisions.  I know this flexibility can irritate modern people who want sharp edges and precision but it never bothered the first millennium Church and it doesn't bother us today.  I doubt we shall ever hold a Council to decide on the status of these books.  And let's remember that we are talking about only 3 rather minor books.

BTW, I believe Fr. Taft (in his Orientale Lumen talk) points out that some Orthodox Churches are unsure of which books are in the bible.

There have been changes in the Catholic Bible, and very recently.  Is Father Taft unaware of this?  Catholics don't ever think of this these days. You have removed books you once counted as canonical.

The Clementine Vulgate, the Vatican's official Bible until as recently as 1979 when the new official Nova Vulgata replaced it, removed such books as  3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses.  Previously they were counted as part of the Catholic Old Testament.  These days you won't find them in Catholic bibles.

 

[PJ]

I think the difference is that your faith is "magisterial" and based firmly on official statements.   Outside of magisterial definition and teaching doctrinal things are not so clear-cut.  Over the past millennium you have been quite busy defining more and more of your faith by magisterial definition.  There is probably not much left now to officially define.

Good thing, I'm exhausted.

 

[Irish Hermit]

I think the difference is that your faith is "magisterial" and based firmly on official statements.   Outside of magisterial definition and teaching doctrinal things are not so clear-cut.  Over the past millennium you have been quite busy defining more and more of your faith by magisterial definition.  There is probably not much left now to officially define.

Good thing, I'm exhausted.

Yes, with all the definitions over and done with you are probably approaching the state of theological stagnation so feared by Scott Hahn.
  ;D :laugh:

I guess you could always consider removing a few more books from the Catholic Bible, just to keep the development going?

 

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

The Spirit is descended!

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.

I had a conversation with my Catholic priest today. Here is what he told me:

1) The Catechism is too strict in certain areas.
2) The rules of Catholicism need to be interpreted
3) An archbishop issuing an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat can be grievously mistaken (and by extension, so can a Censor Librorum)
4) Any devotion that guarantees saving grace (The First Five Saturdays, the Scapular) don't actually secure saving grace.
5) It's not necessary for a Catholic to attend the Catholic church every Sunday.
6) The Catholic Church has applied "mortal sin" to too many categories, and there is a difference between mortal and grave sin.
7) The Lutherans and the Anglicans have valid orders and a valid eucharist, even if they don't call it transubstantiation or realize that their Eucharist is actually the body of Christ.
8 ) Catholicism is many spiritualities, not just one.

So this has pushed me straight into the Orthodox camp. You'd think a 60-year old priest wouldn't need to bring things down to "you have to interpret things" in order to support the faith. You'd also think that he'd know what Catholicism teaches about the validity of the Lutheran orders...

I know this isn't strictly Orthodox-Catholic discussion, but please let me know what you guys think...