THE APOLOGY OF THE POPE TO THE ORTHODOX; THE 4th. CRUSADE OF 1204

hellenicnews.com ^ | Apr 23, 2004 | Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou

[monkfan]

It means a return wholly to the Traditional Faith of the Church, which includes an ecclesiology before there was any such thing as a Byzantine Empire or a Papacy.

And if wishes were fishes we'd all have a fry.

The See of Rome has run a long way from home. But in order for her to get back, she must first admit she's gotten lost. She'll have to renounce her innovations, up to and including the Papacy itself. That's about as likely as Protestants renouncing the Reformation.

[FactQuest]

I'm trying to figure out how an infallible Pope can apologize for something a previous Pope did, and still claim that Popes are infallible. Did they previous Pope err? If so, then all Popes are not infallible. Did he not err? If that is the case, then apologizing would be an error.

This is so confusing.

[The_Reader_David]

That little quandry is why the heretical declaration of papal infallibility introduces a second innovation besides the placing of the authority of the Bishop of Rome above that of an Ecumenical Council: it makes a distinction between a bishop's teaching 'ex cathedra' and other pronouncements of a bishop. Somehow the Pope speaking when sitting on his throne is more authoritative than the Pope speaking at a Mass or writing in his study, a bizarre notion for which there is no warrant in Holy Tradition just as there is no warrant for localizing the infallibility which the Church posesses by virtue of the indwelling the Holy Spirit in one man or one office.

[conservonator]

Somehow the Pope speaking when sitting on his throne is more authoritative than the Pope speaking at a Mass or writing in his study, a bizarre notion for which there is no warrant in Holy Tradition just as there is no warrant for localizing the infallibility which the Church posesses by virtue of the indwelling the Holy Spirit in one man or one office.

Do you really believe that papal infallibility has anything to do with a piece of furniture?

[The_Reader_David]

"From the throne" is the Latin church's phrase, not mine, and I have no doubt it would be interpretted in the narrow sense if necessary to retract a Papal pronouncement which became troublesome for the Vatican at some future time.

[FactQuest]

That still doesn't compute.

Surely, the original error of the previous Pope had to be ex-cathedra as well, right?

Or, do we sweep all errors of Popes into the non-ex-cathedra category? Isn't that too convenient?

If infallibility is limited only to ex-cathedra, then why all the furor over Vatican II? Oh, is it because, ex-cathedra, that Pope changed a lot of things, that had been ex-cathedra before him? And thus, any change corrected an error or introduced an error, and thus, even ex-cathedra, some pope somewhere erred?

[Campion]

I'm trying to figure out how an infallible Pope can apologize for something a previous Pope did, and still claim that Popes are infallible.

You are very confused.

"Infallible" means "capable of teaching without error," not "incapable of sin or wrongdoing." The Pope goes to confession weekly; he is a sinner, as we all are, and admits it.

The 4th Crusade's attack on Constantinople was not "something [the] Pope did". It was something Catholics did, however. It's a historical fact that the Pope at the time condemned the acts of the Crusaders in sacking Constantinople.

[FactQuest]

That is a significant difference from the "normal" meaning of the word. I could, by the same rules, say that I am "perfect," as long as I explain that by "perfect" I mean that in my heart I try to be perfect.

That aside, working with the novel definition, what about Vatican II?

[conservonator]

"From the throne" is the Latin church's phrase, not mine, and I have no doubt it would be interpretted in the narrow sense if necessary to retract a Papal pronouncement which became troublesome for the Vatican at some future time.

regarding your assertion about retracting an infallible pronouncement (an impossibility) leaving aside your deep seated distrust, dislike or what ever, of the Church, do you have any evidence to support your claim?

[dangus]

Your confusion is based on a wrong definition of "infallible." You are thinking of "inerrant," "impeccable," or "omniscient."

The Pope is not omniscient. He has no magic crystal ball, or oracle to give him any knowledge. He has no knowledge other than public revelation (i.e., scripture), and the discerning powers of the magisterium to correctly interpret that revelation.

The Pope is not inerrant. In other words, even when he does believe he knows something, he may be wrong. If the Pope states that the Marlins would win the NLCS, I wouldn't buy game tickets in Florida. We can know he is correct only when he speaks with the authority of the entire Catholic Church from the throne of St Peter for the purpose of teaching doctrine and morality.

The Pope is not impeccable. Although many accusations against Popes are gross distortions and inventions, the plain and obvious truth is that there have been many Popes who were sinners.

Be confused, instead, as to why people who claim to be men of God will falsely assert that the Pope has claimed impeccability, inerrancy and omniscience, when it plain he has not.

[Campion]

That is a significant difference from the "normal" meaning of the word.

Actually, it isn't. Check the dictionary.

That aside, working with the novel definition, what about Vatican II?

What about it?

[dangus]

East and West have sinned against each other. West offers East a hand in reconcilliation, and East demands west concede that East is blameless, and that all her lies are truth.

For the record, Photios was no apostle. The power brokers in Byzantium wanted an excuse to teach people to reject the Bishops who had authority over them in Czeckoslavakia. So they invented false accusations against the bishops, claiming that their tolerance for the filioque was heresy: The Nicene council certainly had not stated that the Holy Spirit proceded from the Father, and only from the Father! Finding no apostle of the Catholic Church to disseminate their lies, they elevated a mere priest, Photios, to that of Patriarch!

Recognizing the invalidity of such an action, and also probably the motives, the Pope rejected the elevation. The East took the rejection as excommunication, and the religious conflict was born. It Photius' followers who were the ones preaching that Rome and those aligned with her were in apostasy. It would not be heresy to insist that the Filioque was unneccesary; what was heresy was teaching that the insertion of the Filioque amounted to invalid masses and that the acceptance of the Filioque demonstrated apostasy.

The Catholic Church was not wrong to disallow the elevation of Photius. It was not wrong to to allow missionaries into the Eastern Churches to promulgate its views. It was not wrong to prefer kings who advocated the truth over kings who advocated lies. And it did not order the war crimes which took place in Constantinople. But it did create an environment wherein armed forces came to falsely consider Eastern Orthodox Christians as enemies to the purposes of Christ, and heretics who deserved retribution, even though the Western Church did not formally proclaim such wicked things. As a result, many horrific abuses occurred in Constantinople, and most of the East fell into Muslim hands.

I propose as restitution for the West's errors, Rome once again recognize the urgent mission to rescue the souls of those in Muslim lands from the demonic horror that is Islam. When this is done, the Eastern Church will regain her see, and the cause for bitterness that the East bears against Rome will be in the past.

[FactQuest]

Me: That is a significant difference from the "normal" meaning of the word.

You:Actually, it isn't. Check the dictionary.

From dictionary.com...

in·fal·li·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fl-bl) adj.
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

Notice how the first definition, i.e., the most common definition, means without erring. Notice how the third and last definition, and one that is clearly specified to mean the RCC's own special defintion, is the only one that means what you say it means. I rest my case.

Me: That aside, working with the novel definition, what about Vatican II?

You: What about it?

Are you just trying to be obtuse? The "what about it" I went into in post #7. I'll admit to plenty of ignorance, but surely, Vatican II was ex-cathedra, no?

[Campion]

Notice how the first definition, i.e., the most common definition, means without erring.

Yes, I believe that was my point. "Error" is not the same thing as "sin". "Infallible" means without error, and, applied to the Pope, it specifically means his ability to teach without error under Divine protection.

I fail to see what you are arguing about. Yes: sometimes words have specific technical meanings. "Mouse" is either a computer peripheral, or a small rodent which is often a pest. Do you call the thing next your keyboard a "pointing peripheral device" because you don't want to stray from the commonly accepted definition of a word?

But, as I point out, the commonly accepted definition of "infallible" is "without error". That's what I said it was.

Are you just trying to be obtuse?

No, I'm trying to get you to be specific.

The "what about it" I went into in post #7. I'll admit to plenty of ignorance, but surely, Vatican II was ex-cathedra, no?

The term ex cathedra is usually reserved to an infallible Papal pronouncement. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, which is also capable of teaching infallibly.

So the question is, did Vatican II infallibly teach something concerning faith or morals which contradicted something which had been infallibly taught before?

The answer is no, it didn't. There are some Catholic traditionalists who argue that Vatican II contradicted early Papal pronouncements concerning religious liberty. However, the case is weak for arguing either that Vatican II's pronouncement or the earlier Papal documents are infallibly defined teachings. (Not everything is infallible; not everything needs to be.) And, the case is even weak for arguing that a contradiction exists at all.

So, one more time: what, exactly, do you think Vatican II changed that contradicted something previously defined infallibly?

[FactQuest]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Be confused, instead, as to why people who claim to be men of God will falsely assert that the Pope has claimed impeccability, inerrancy and omniscience, when it plain he has not.

Even this limited claim to inerrancy, that he is inerrant when speaking ex-cathedra, is plenty enought to get worked up about. There are many who hold the written word of God, the Holy Scriptures, as a higher authority. If the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, says something that contradicts the Bible, then what are we left with? We are left with one of only two options: A: the Pope is not infallible speaking ex-cathedra, or B: the Bible is not inerrant in its original manuscripts. But, if B: is the case, and the Bible does contain errors, then the question becomes what parts are errors and what parts are not, and there is no rational way to achieve a firm answer, so the whole foundation crumbles.

So, then, the only thing that remains is to determine if the Pope, when speaking ex-Cathedra, has ever contradicted scripture.

[Campion]

So, then, the only thing that remains is to determine if the Pope, when speaking ex-Cathedra, has ever contradicted scripture.

We're waiting ...

[FactQuest]

Not being Catholic (don't look surprised, lol) I can't be very specific about Vatican II. I'm obviously blurring things around a great deal from ignorance. Thank you for taking my ramblings and seeing the point of the question - do some infallible teaching contradict other infallible teachings? Admittedly, without specifics, I can't argue the point very well, and am destined to lose this debate unless I do more research. And maybe even then. Speaking in general terms, it still seems unlikely that significant and controversial change could ever occur without some infallible teaching not contradicting another infallible teaching. Again, I can see how specifics might bear out your contention, but from a high level, it seems improbable.

[dangus]

>>If the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, says something that contradicts the Bible, then what are we left with? We are left with one of only two options: A: the Pope is not infallible speaking ex-cathedra, or B: the Bible is not inerrant in its original manuscripts. But, if B: is the case, and the Bible does contain errors, then the question becomes what parts are errors and what parts are not, and there is no rational way to achieve a firm answer, so the whole foundation crumbles. <<

Basically what you are saying could be applied to any law of science: If the impossible happened, then the fact that it happened would disprove that it was impossible; therefore, it is not impossible. But the reason it is "impossible" is because Christ promised the Holy Spirit would not allow it to happen.

Papal correctness can not be used to prove Papal infallibility. Papal infallibility can only be used to prove Papal correctness.

[FactQuest]

We're waiting ...

Hmm, I don't have my handy-dandy reference sheet, on exactly which teaching and saying were ex-cathedra, or otherwise infallible. Is it safe to assume all major teachings, ordinances, practices, etc., are from infallible teachings? Is the Catechism an infallible teaching?

"The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ’Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament."

“One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience.”