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

Robb

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey and Kansas
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.
I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.


Just confuses me and the other RC's.
 

Ad Orientem

Newbie
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California USA
Website
ad-orientem.blogspot.com
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. 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.
WetCatechumen,
I think you are perhaps missing some important distinctions.  First most of your questions deal with issues that fall under two different headings.  The first being church discipline and the second being doctrine.  Where church discipline is concerned there is a great deal more flexibility in general than in the RCC.  The Orthodox Church is not a monolithic top down autocracy.  As such there are many situations, some of which you touched on, where your mileage will vary. 

This is to some degree also true in matters of doctrine and faith.  Outside of Scripture and the defined teachings of the Seven Councils you may find huge disagreements on some subjects and near universal accord on others.  Again your mileage will vary.  As a former Catholic I can personally affirm that at times this can be absolutely maddening.  But it is the way things worked in the First Millennium, and it is the way things still work today in the Church.  When in doubt the default answer to most questions is... whatever your bishop says it is.

But let's take these points one at a time for some constructive examples.

1) Calendar- This is an issue of church discipline (though some disagree).  While it has been controversial the controversy has died down a bit and the matter is on the agenda for a forthcoming Pan Orthodox Great Council.

2) Birth Control- This was and is deeply controversial.  Historically the church has tended to come down very strongly against it.  But the issue has never been dogmatized.  Rome had that debate and seems to have settled the matter in the early 1970's.  We are still debating it.  Get back to us in a few hundred years.  We may have an answer for you.

3) Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation or Sacramental Union- These are all Western theological terms that are not really used by us.  In general though I would say that the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is probably in line with our views.  I would point out that Rome seems to have no doubt about Orthodox teachings on this subject.

4) Validity of Holy Orders outside the Greek Church and its offshoots- Again, this is a matter that has not been formally dogmatized.  In general it is the accepted teaching of the Church that there are no Mysteries outside her.  Even Rome holds to that view though they have so diluted it with their acceptance of Augustine's dual nature of the Church that it is rendered effectively meaningless.  As Fr. Florovsky once noted in his famous essay, we know where the Church is, but we do not always know with certainty where it is not.  In the absence of a decree from a great council or synod the local church synod has the final say on how far to go in recognizing the grace of heterodox or schismatic sacraments.

5) The legitimacy of the Filioque as interpreted in light of the misunderstandings in translation- The Filioque has been condemned formally by numerous Church Synods and Councils.  There is not much room on this subject.  Rome has shifted quite a bit in it's understanding of what it means by "Filioque" since it was dogmatized at Lyons.  But in Orthodoxy we adhere to the principal of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.  In its plain meaning "Filioque" affirms a double procession.  That's heresy.  In addition the Canons of the Third and Eighth Councils expressly anathematize those who tamper with the Creed.  Case closed.

6) Whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christians can commune from the same chalice- There is no doubt that there have been instances of inter-communion.  I generally believe this to be rare.  But it has happened.  All of which said church canons expressly forbid it.  The fact that something happens once in a while does not give it legitimacy.  See my comment on inter-communion here... http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35462.msg587801.html#msg587801

7) Which autokephalous Greek churches are canonical or not- This is also on the agenda for the forthcoming Great Council.  For the moment however it depends entirely on your synod.  If your synod is "in communion" than they are presumed to be canonical.  If not, then there is a problem.  Communion can of course be broken for many reasons.  But another good indicator is who the questionable local church is in communion with.  If they are in communion with only themselves that's a red flag.  Likewise if a church is not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch or any of the other generally recognized autocephalous churches that's a problem too.  For the record the OCA's status as autocephalous is controversial.  But she is in full communion with all of the other 14 generally recognized churches.

Who was right... ROCOR-vs The MP???  Who cares.  Is this something you feel touches on your salvation?  It was a tragic schism that by the mercy of God is now healed.  Both were Orthodox in Faith. While points beyond that might make for an interesting debate among academics, I personally have better things with my time.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ialmisry said:
You Ultramontanists all claim that you have this infallible guide, who unfortunately won't tell you when he is infallible.  Some guidance! ::)
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.



 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Robb 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.
I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.


Just confuses me and the other RC's.
But let's be fair about this. There are loopholes or confusion in the Roman Catholic Church also. I can think of a few right off the bat:
1. Limbo.
2. Marriage annulments.
3. Was the Blood of Christ shed for all or for many?
4. Which teachings are infallible or ex cathedra?
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Albuquerque, NM
stanley123 said:
Robb 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.
I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.


Just confuses me and the other RC's.
But let's be fair about this. There are loopholes or confusion in the Roman Catholic Church also. I can think of a few right off the bat:
1. Limbo.
2. Marriage annulments.
3. Was the Blood of Christ shed for all or for many?
4. Which teachings are infallible or ex cathedra?
1. Never a dogma, but still a legitimate opinion to hold. What I've always heard.
2. Never heard any lack of clarity on this.
3. Bad English translation from the 1970's. End of story. It's about to be fixed.
4. Good question. I'm not even sure myself. But everyone knows that birth control is wrong. Everyone knows that Orthodox holy orders are valid but (mainstream) Anglican are not. Everyone knows that it's transubstantiation. Everyone knows that the SSPX excommunicate themselves automatically by all the stuff they do without jurisdiction.

However, Orthodoxy gives me a headache.
 

Vadim

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stanley123 said:
But let's be fair about this. There are loopholes or confusion in the Roman Catholic Church also. I can think of a few right off the bat:
1. Limbo.
2. Marriage annulments.
3. Was the Blood of Christ shed for all or for many?
4. Which teachings are infallible or ex cathedra?
I would begin with Communion under one species. I looked up into the Cathehism of the Roman Catholic Church and found no quotations of the Church Fathers on this questions.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
ialmisry said:
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
Interesting. I'm glad, and not at all surprised, that you had to renounce Consubstantiation; but it's interesting that you even had to renounce the Lutheran theory of Sacramental Union.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Robb said:
I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.
You're in good company, Robb. Here's what the ultrapopular Catholic theologian Scott Hahn said:

Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.
Ecumenical, isn't he?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed.
That should probably be a red flag for you right there... Since when can only half the Church unilaterally add to the Creed?

This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.
You mean like when the Pope ruled a third of Italy and had his own army? Let's not forget the Donation of Constantine either.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Peter J said:
ialmisry said:
3) I had to renounce Consubstantiation/Sacramental Union when chrismated.  There is no Orthodox bishop that disagrees on that.
Interesting. I'm glad, and not at all surprised, that you had to renounce Consubstantiation; but it's interesting that you even had to renounce the Lutheran theory of Sacramental Union.
We don't make a distinction, because, for Orthodoxy, there is none. Btw, the dogmas are described, not named, in the renunciation.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Scott Hahn said:

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.
Sometimes it really does pay to engage the brain and avoid making idiotic statements!!

Does this mean that when Catholic doctrine reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine *never* stops developing?  That's a curious idea!!!



 

Vadim

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
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.

One well informed Roman Catholic showed me this list of 18 "infallible" statements:

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/infallibility.txt

"...Appendix I:  Purported Infallible Statements

This list comes from the book _That Catholic Church_, Frs.
Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, 1954.  If you are not
familiar with this group: Radio Replies was a radio program in
Australia active in the 1930's to 50's.  The contents of their
radio broadcasts were gathered into a three volume set; this book
was published as an addendum to this set in the United States.  I
have no idea of the quality of the contents--apologetics from
this period are either very good or extremely bad.  The book is
currently being reprinted by a very conservative Catholic
publisher.  It needs to be repeated that this list has _no_
official status and is probably in error.

Leo I.  Lectis Dilectionis Tuae.  449.
Agatho.  Omnium Bonorum Spes.  680.
Boniface VIII.  Unam Sanctum.  1302.
Benedict XII.  Benidictus Deus.  1336.
Leo X.  Exsurge Domine.  1520.
Innocent X.  Cum Occasione.  1653.
Innocent XI.  Coelestis Pastor.  1687.
Clement XI.  Unigenitus.  1713.
Pius VI.  Auctorem Fidei.  1794.
Pius IX.  Ineffabilis Deus.  1854.
Pius IX.  Quanta Cura.  1864.
Leo XIII.  Apostolicae Cura.  1896. *
Leo XIII.  Testem Benefolentiae.  1899. *
Pius X.  Lamentabili.  1907.
Pius X.  Pascendi.  1907.
Pius XI.  Casti Connubii. 1930.  %
Pius XI.  Quadregesimo Anno.  1931.  %
Pius XII.  Munificentissimus Deus.  1950.

* It is noted that some Catholic theologians hold
 that these encyclicals fall short of the technical
 requirements for being "ex cathedra."
% It is noted that some statements in these encyclicals
 "very probably" comply with the requirements of an
 "ex cathedra" decision."
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Irish Hermit said:
Scott Hahn said:

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.
Sometimes it really does pay to engage the brain and avoid making idiotic statements!!

Does this mean that when Catholic doctrine reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine *never* stops developing?  That's a curious idea!!!
Care for a Buddhist Pope, anyone?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
34
Vadim said:
Boniface VIII.  Unam Sanctum.  1302.

Leo X.  Exsurge Domine.  1520.
Well there goes the ecumenical movement...
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
WetCatechumen said:
stanley123 said:
Robb 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.
I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.  It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants. The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.  While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.


Just confuses me and the other RC's.
But let's be fair about this. There are loopholes or confusion in the Roman Catholic Church also. I can think of a few right off the bat:
1. Limbo.
2. Marriage annulments.
3. Was the Blood of Christ shed for all or for many?
4. Which teachings are infallible or ex cathedra?
1. Never a dogma, but still a legitimate opinion to hold. What I've always heard.
but many followers of the Vatican, and the Vatican itself, were very dogmative about it, and not so long ago.  Sort of like the opinions about non-abortifacient birth control among the Orthodox.
WetCatechumen said:
2. Never heard any lack of clarity on this.
Yes, Corban and Jesuitry are always clear. ::)
WetCatechumen said:
3. Bad English translation from the 1970's. End of story. It's about to be fixed.
read up on your Jansenist controversy.
WetCatechumen said:
4. Good question. I'm not even sure myself.
No one is. Including, apparently, your "infallible pope."
WetCatechumen said:
But everyone knows that birth control is wrong.
Cardinal Martini doesn't.  IIRC he got the next largest number (actually higher in the first vote) after Cardinal Ratzinger. Since Humanae Vitae hasn't been proclaimed "infallible" by anyone authorized to do so (the majority of the "magisterium" found it wrong, hence the majority report), he, and many, many others (i.e., the majority of the Vatican's followers) are entitled to their opinion, and don't mind proclaiming so.

And Humanae Vitae directly contradicts those Patristics (which it doesn't quote) upon which its apologists depend-as Noonan remarked, it is odd that HV proclaims as moral the method explicitely condemned as immoral by the few Fathers who express an opinion.

WetCatechumen said:
Everyone knows that Orthodox holy orders are valid but (mainstream) Anglican are not.
The former Anglican bishop of London was not ordained to the deaconate but ordained bishop by the Vatican conditionally.  Other than the Anglican Archbishop of Canteberry, you can't get more mainstream Anglican than that.  Btw, the Vatican didn't even accept Coptic Orthodox baptisms, but Mardukm, for what it is worth, disputed that IIRC.

WetCatechumen said:
Everyone knows that it's transubstantiation.
True (but not everyone believes it).  

WetCatechumen said:
Everyone knows that the SSPX excommunicate themselves automatically by all the stuff they do without jurisdiction.
They have their supporters, defenders and sympathizers.

WetCatechumen said:
However, Orthodoxy gives me a headache.
Scholastic hairsplitting always becomes headspliting (and often literally  :eek:)
[/quote]
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Irish Hermit said:
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.)
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
ialmisry said:
WetCatechumen said:
Everyone knows that Orthodox holy orders are valid but (mainstream) Anglican are not.
The former Anglican bishop of London was not ordained to the deaconate but ordained bishop by the Vatican conditionally.  Other than the Anglican Archbishop of Canteberry, you can't get more mainstream Anglican than that.  
Indeed. It seems to me that Orthodox and Catholics are closer on this subject than a lot of people think.

ialmisry said:
Btw, the Vatican didn't even accept Coptic Orthodox baptisms,
:eek:
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Robb 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.
I agree with you.  There are just so many loopholes and loose ends in Orthodoxy that its hard for even your most anti ultramontanist RC to fathom.  We preffer to believe that God would not leave so many questions which are of a vital nature for believers to be left unanswered by his Church.
Idle curiosity is not of a vital nature for believers.

Robb said:
It sometimes seems to RC's that Orthodoxy, although having valid orders and and ecclesiastical structure, still seem more theologically like Protestants.
Only for those looking for problems where their are none.  We know the Ultramontanists would like to see it otherwise, but the Orthodox for nearly a thousand years (actually more, but for sake of argument we'll let you say we started in 1054) have remained one communion with nearly (99%) identical theology in all the autocephalous Churches, a record admitted IIRC by your supreme pontiff, and definitely not one matched by the Vatican since 1054: leaving aside the Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, Old Catholics, etc., you ecclesiastical community doesn't have the unanimity that the Orthodox do, even if we don't count the SPXX, let alone the "sui juris churches" in the east vis-a-vis the Latin "mother church."

Robb said:
The Prots look at Christianity as a philosophy which can be picked up by anyone and transmitted to the world through some type of church structure (Without holy orders, the Mass, etc...).  Orthodoxy, while having canonical structures like Bishops, priest, and synods still tend to leave too many important questions unanswered and thus up for the private interpretation of her members.
 
And? What "important" questions are you talking about?  How many angels on a pin?

Private interpretation.  With all your "private revelations" giving you all those answers to "important questions," I can see that Faithful interpretation guided but not dictatd by the Church would throw you.
Robb said:
While I don't think the Church should just smother her members with an all encompassing set of rules and regulations about everything, I still can't believe that the Church which was truly founded by God and is supposed to be his voice on Earth would leave so much up for grabs.
He hasn't.

Robb said:
Just confuses me and the other RC's.
You all have been confused at least since 1054.
 
Top