Posted on 11/21/2005 11:58:28 AM PST by NYer
"But as to reading individual Fathers, I wouldn't know where to begin..."
+Ignatius, +Polycarp, +Justin Martyr and +Clement of Rome then +Irenaeus. Read them prayerfully and as if you are listening to a priest give a fine sermon just to you. Don't look to find confirmation of what you believe (we all do that, its hard not to); learn what they believed. Don't look for common threads, they'll find you. Keep your bible handy.
"The Catholics look to the pope who can either look to early church precedent or the words of the pope."
Just a personal opinion, X, but I'd say the present Pope is good one for all of us to listen to.
The present one yes but that is the problem with absolute authority.
I think Benedict is excellent.
It is well known that a lot of those in the church were looking forward to a much more liberal pope. And I think it's clear the trend in the last hundred years has been toward liberalizing Catholic doctrine.
That's why there shouldn't be one person authorized to make absolute doctrine changes on a whim.
As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and before the Great Schism, has always believed in the infallibility of the Church, correct? This infallibility, as far as I can tell, has been exercised through the college of Bishops in an Ecumenical Council. Proof of this exists in the view of Orthodoxy on the first seven Councils.
However, HOW can this position be maintained when Eastern Orthodox Bishops are in Schism from the Church, the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed infallibility? By refusing to join the Roman Catholic Church, are you not implicitly DENYING the infallibility of the Church in its ongoing decisions, which the Catholic Church had made in Ecumenical Councils SINCE Nicea?
Protestants can justify schism based on this very idea - that the Church is NOT infallible (which is the VERY THING that Eck questioned Luther on - and shut the door on any further communication - whether Councils were infallible. Luther responded "no". Eck said "then you are as a taxcollector and a heathen to me".) But what about Eastern Orthodox Christians? HOW CAN AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH FALL INTO HERESY?
Those who separate from this infallible Church were no longer catholic (meaing "according to the whole") precisely because they had separated from the visible Church. Thus, according to Bishop B.C. Butler's book, "The Church and Unity", he argues "...for {St.} Jerome, both ecclesiastical communion and doctrinal orthodoxy depend on Rome". Rome was and continues to be seen as the visible unity of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of infallibility of the Church is closely allied to the doctrine of visible indivisible unity. Since one depends on the other, again, a contradiction rears its head for the Orthodox...If the Church is NOT infallible in its doctrine, it is unable to preserve that visible unity because at some time or another, one part of the body will secede from the other.
WHO is to say authoritatively that it SHOULD NOT, if the Church is itself is not infallible? Thus, visible unity is seen to depend on infallibility, as a precondition of permanent communion within the Church. And quite naturally, the college of bishops CANNOT exercise their own charism of infallibility WITHOUT the unifying authority of the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. Certainly, the Orthodox Bishops realize this, as they have not convened an Ecumenical Council for 1000 years without Peter.
Does the Primacy of Peter truly have no significance or relevance to the above questions? If the Church is to have an infallible authority, then that infallible authority, to be effective, must be exercised through an individual, who is Peter's successor. This charism is given to the Church by Christ HIMSELF! The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation, and thus, an indivisible visible unity and an infallible authority centered in one must be recognized as a gift from God to continue the mission of Christ and the Spirit - the calling of people into the Kingdom of God.
Your comments show very little trust in God's Divine Providence and promise to keep the Gates of Hell from prevailing on His Church. Nor do they show an understanding of the very limited action of the charism of infallibility or his use of this "power" over the other bishops.
Regards
1. I have never seen a catechism material that talks of infailability.
2. Rome chose to bring itself into heresy. This is no different for instance that they monosyphites.
3. Protestants come from they already schismatic Roman church, they are illrelevant to the discussion.
4. I don't see how this is news to you since this is the exact same position Rome has held for a thousand years. You may recall, and if not I can link you to quotes, that teh Cardinal of Paris said the Crimean war was god-pleasing for killing the [Orthodox] heretics.
5. I again ask you why if the pope has inherited the primacy of Peter why he does not exercise the same sort of absolute removal from the church Peter undoubtably would with regard to homosexual clergy abusing children. Do you honestly feel Peter would wait years until everyone weighed in, moving clergy from place to place? I sincerely doubt it, I suspect he would come down quite strongly against this sinful heresy in the priesthood. Please explain to me why the current 'heir of Peter' finds this behavior acceptable enough that he acts so slowly against it.
2. We are in Schism with each other. Your terms are that of polemics, not of desiring reuninification. We are not in heresy - unless you are going to say that an infallible Church is not really infallible (see question 1)
3. Protestants have a valid excuse, since they deny that the Church's infallible teachings are infallible. You, on the other hand, appear to be hypocritical by calling the Latin Church heretics, YET, proclaiming that the Church of the first millenium was infallible. Can't have it both ways, brother. Either the Church never was, or remains infallible in its teachings.
4. I can quote numerous Orthodox men who say similar things about Rome and the Latin Church. What does the Cardinal of Paris have anything to do with the question I posed to you?
5. The Pope is not sinless. Do you recall in the Scriptures when Paul found it necessary to remind Peter of his behavior in Galatians Chapter 1? The Pope apparently trusted that the bishops would do a better job of watching the flock. Isn't this the rule of thumb in the East? Allowing the Bishops to watch their own flocks without outside interference? Now, you say we should have a more centralized government of Church? Which would you prefer, NO Pope, or an overly disciplinary Pope? Seems you are arguing for BOTH simultaneously...
Granted, I would have to believe that MOST of the Popes of the past would have "come down harder" on those bishops responsible - PRESUMING that Rome even KNEW about what was happening! Do you think that the priests and bishops have some sort of daily report in to the Curia? As I said before, Rome doesn't deal with such matters until it is obvious that the Bishops can't handle things. In the sexual abuse cases, Rome allowed the US Bishops as a group to submit a plan of action - again, Rome doesn't micromanage. Rome here is not dealing with a matter of faith and morals. NO ONE ever questioned whether sexual abuse was WRONG or that the Church was taking the wrong stance! It was universally condemned. Thus, where is the "heresy"? While technically, the Bishop of Rome has the power to act within another Bishop's jurisdiction, in practice, that Bishop is expected to take care of things. You are misled in thinking that Rome has the inclination or desire to overrule the actions of how another Bishop runs his particular flock. As long as the Bishop is not teaching outright heresy, Rome generally stays out of such matters.
Shouldn't have the Bishops in the US settled the matter by themselves? Hindsight is 20/20. This says very little about the office of the Pope. At the worse, it merely says Pope John Paul II was not a disciplinary Pope (which history bears out as true. Most philosophical/scholarly Popes are not disciplinary types)
Regards
Thanks for the advice. I had already read all of Ignatius' and Polycarp's writings. A bit of Justin and Clement. And Ireneaus, I read "Proof of Apostolic Preaching", rather than his more well-known "Against Heresies". I intend on returning to them. I think I am going to have to try to limit my time here and do more spirtual reading instead. So much to read... I think the trick is that you mention - read them prayerfully. I've read them more for information in the past. Now, that I have read some of their works and have read other people's expositions on their doctrinal teachings, I need to go back and prayerfully read them.
Thanks again for your patience and advice.
Brother in Christ
Faith-sharing bump.
1. I fail to see the relevance.
2. The Orthodox view regarding the Catholics being in schism is shared by the Catholics in fact. The Catholic church repeatedly states that there can be no healing of the schism without other churchs confesing Catholic doctrine. The Catholic church is no more up for compromise than are the Orthodox. Heresey is black and white you either follow doctrine or don't.
3. The Latin church departed from the 7 councils when the Bishop of Rome changed the creed. Since then the Bishop of Rome has added a handful of other heretical beleifs to Catholic doctrine. Protestants and Catholics are both from the same vein of heretical addtion to doctrine after the 7 councils.
4. The fact is the Catholics have only recently stopped waging war on the Orthodox. The Cardinal of Paris made those statements before during the Crimean war, which the Catholic likely started.
5. I have repeatedly stressed that within the Latin church the pope should be exercising the patriarchial authority given a patriarch over his church. The church in America has one patriarch the one in Rome. I have said this repeatedly and it has nothing to do with a centralized church leader. The Patriarch of Moscow defrocked a priest for performing a same sex marriage. Why does the Bishop of Rome refuse to use his patriarchial authority to govern his flock? The Vatican has known about things for quite some time. The moment the matter came to the Vatican's knowledge the Bishop of Rome was responsible for doing something. There is no precedent for patriarchs knowing of heretical bishops and allowing them to continue in heresy it is the job of the patriarch to combat just that.
The Patriarch of the Latin church is the Bishop of Rome.
A case can be made for not using his power in Ukraine if in fact we are going back to the pre-1054 notion of the primacy, and the pope is viewing the Uniate church as the modern Patriach of Kiev.
Such a case cannot be made for Ameirca, the clear Patriarch of the Latin church in America is the Bishop of Rome.
2. There is a difference between schism and heresy. We are in Schism. YOU (not the Orthodox Church) says the Latins are heretics. Before we continue in this conversation, perhaps you should reconsider what you are saying. (see #1 above, again...)
3. Ridiculous. First, you say you don't see the relevance of whether the Councils are infallible, then you claim we are heretics for abandoning the entire first 7 Councils because a change of a couple words? Which is it? Can you make up your mind?
4. LOL!!! Next, you'll be claiming that the Pope, not Heinz Guderian, was leading the Panzers across the steppes of Russia in 1941!
5. Rome also "defrocks" or laicizes priests. Sorry it isn't to your satisfaction. NONE of the Bishops were heretics! Boy, you sure like that word, don't you. Again, I ask you to look up what it means before you give everyone that stamp... As to your "precedent", that is utterly ridiculous. Have you any knowledge of Church history? How many Arian bishops were removed after Nicea? After Constantinople? A couple? Please.
I appreciate your concern for us here in the United States. Perhaps you could pray for our bishops here. They seem more concerned with running a business than preaching and teaching the faith. But be that as it may, the Pope isn't about to remove bishops from their posts for doing lousy jobs. Only for teaching outright heresy. There is a difference between the sexual abuse cases and heresy.
Regards
..."The Cardinal of Paris made those statements before during the Crimean war, which the Catholic likely started."..
Hey X -
I have some doubts about that quote if it's the same one from that post about the Church in Ukraine. There has never been a Cardinal named Sibor. There was an Archbishop Sibour of Paris but he died in 1848, a few years before the Crimean war started. So I don't know how accurate those quotes are. I kind of doubt them though.
Hope you had a good thanksgiving. Christ is Risen.
http://www.wpfdc.com/eng/news.php?tab_id=1&id=498
He died in 1857 according to:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11480c.htm
http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/p/paris.html
The Crimean War was from 1854 to 1856.
A google search reveals many sources attribute those comments to him.
1. It is irrelevant to the question of the canonical powers of the Bishop of Rome and the Vatican I hertical view of the primacy. The 7 councils have zero to do with what we are discussing. It speaks volumes about the fact they have zero to do with this discussion.
2. The schism was CAUSE BY HERESY. A beleif counter to the true doctrine of the church.
3. The Catholics are heretics, this fact and the reason behind it has been explained to you several times not simply by me.
4. You should be prepared when the Roman's history is discussed to acknowledge the violent clearly non Christian deeds some (especially in Europe) have done. To deny it makes you look ignorant of history.
5. My satisfaction? Tell that to the parents of the kids Roman priests raped. My satisfaction is irelevant. Thee pope failed to act and kids got raped and scarred for life as a result. Why? Because one man can fail and pinning the entire church on that failable man is stupid, and uncanonical.
It was the dispute between Catholics and Orthodox as to the keys of the Holy Sepulchre that immediately caused the Crimean War (1853).
That's from a Catholic Site:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm
"B.) The Cause of the War
In December 1852 the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, giving in on French pressure, transferred the key to (and control over) the CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE (hitherto Orthodox) to the Catholic Church. Russia, claiming to be the protector of the Orthodox christians living in the Ottoman Empire, demanded it to be restored to the Greek Orthodox Church. Britain and France were opposed to an expansion of Russian influence in the region and dispatched a fleet to the Dardanelles (June 1853); in August, the Russians occupied the Duchies of MOLDAVIA and VLACHIA.
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/19cen/crimeanwar.html
In 1690 the Ottoman Sultan granted to the Roman Catholic Church the dominant authority in all the churches in Nazareth, Bethlehem and Jerusalem; then in 1740 a Franco-Turkish treaty stated that Roman Catholic monks should protect the Holy Places. This was intended to ensure the safety of Christians and to enable pilgrimages to Jerusalem; furthermore, the French had asserted their right to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem as a Catholic church. However, between 1740 and 1820 the influence of the Roman Catholic Church had been allowed to lapse by natural erosion: there were not many Roman Catholics in that part of the world and Christians tended to belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Consequently, protection of the Holy Places had gradually devolved to Orthodox monks. Russia represented the Orthodox Church as its protector and Czar Nicholas I seems to have thought that he had been ordained by God as the leader of the Orthodox Church and the protector of Orthodox Christians. By the 1840s, Russian pilgrims were flocking to the Holy Land, which gave the Czar the excuse to demand that the Russians should be able to provide some form of protection for his subjects there.
Map of the Ottoman Empire. The map has been taken from the Ottoman Souvenir website with the kind permission of the webmaster, Musa Gursoy, to whom thanks are due. Copyright, of course, remains with the Ottoman Souvenir web. Click on the image for a larger view
In 1850, Louis Napoleon of France decided to champion the cause of Roman Catholics to control the Holy Places; technically he was within his rights but his demands on behalf of the Church allowed him to divert attention from problems in France and also helped him to advocate the idea of a second French Empire. In order to win the support of the majority of the French, Louis Napoleon needed to be seen as a 'good Catholic'; he also wanted to wreak his revenge on Czar Nicholas I for the insult of "mon ami" rather than the traditional "mon frère".
Traditionally, the Pope nominated the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem but over many years the office had become a meaningless title; the Patriarch did nothing and lived in Rome. However, in 1847, Pope Pius IX -- who had been elected the previous year -- sent the Patriarch to live in Jerusalem because in 1845 the Orthodox Patriarch Cyril had chosen to go to live in the city. In 1847 and 1848 there were unseemly scuffles between Catholic and Orthodox Christian monks and priests in Jerusalem; the representatives of the Orthodox Church emerged truimphant: for example, at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Catholics had placed a silver star to commemorate the place of Jesus' birth. It was prised out and stolen, allegedly by Orthodox monks.
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crimea/immcauses.html
There were two Bishops named Sibour in Paris at nearly the same time:
Bishop Léon-François Sibour †, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Paris, France
Archbishop Marie-Dominique-Auguste Sibour †, Archbishop of Paris, France
I guess I was reading about the wrong one. Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff but awfully depressing. More scars from the schism.
It is quite depressing, and important to note historically.
For years the two churches were separated by hateful rhetoric, and attacks.
Now it is really only extremely narrow definable issues standing between the two and ever improving dialog regarding them.
I think it would be more depressing if things had not changed since then.
"I think it would be more depressing if things had not changed since then."
Amen to that. We've got enough troubles already.
The reason why I ask about whether the first seven Councils are considered infallible (which they are) by the Orthodox is because then it would be a contradiction for YOU to call the Latin Church "heretical". You did it again in question #2. Your attitude completely ignores that you contradict yourself, over and over. It IS relevant!
HOW CAN AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH BECOME HERETICAL?
IF a Church can become heretical, how can you claim that the first seven Councils were infallible, then???
Can you answer that question? Can you now understand the relevance of my question? IF the Orthodox consider that the First Seven Councils are infallible, HOW ON EARTH could the eighth one NOT be INFALLIBLE? And the NINTH? And so forth. Thus, Vatican ONE IS Infallible. Whether you like it or not, simply denying it won't work. As I have stated before, the Church ALSO has always believed that Rome is the utlimate visible protector of the faith - even back to St. Ireneaus and the men of that era.
Now, the formula, the words of infallible statements can be written to better reflect the Church of 2005 - but the fact remains that the Church has ALWAYS believed itself as infallible - especially in its counciliar statements. Our beliefs are infallible, not the statement or words themselves. Thus, it IS relevant to our discussions.
2. We don't believe anything contrary to Nicea. This has been explained numerous times. The WORDS are not infallible. It is our belief itself that is infallible. One can only explain your intransigence by the fact that you hate the Catholic Church, despite your denials.
3. Those that claim the Catholic Church are heretical don't know what they are talking about either. This is simply explained by question #1, which you can't understand the relevance for...
4. Is it necessary to post the sins of the Orthodox members? You can keep your hypocriticism to yourself, please.
5. THREE POPES failed to act? Please. And are we to deny that there has never been a scandalous act by an Orthodox priest who was never removed from office? Hardly. Yes, the Pope can fail. ALL MEN can fail. But no one ever denied that. AGAIN, you continue to misunderstand Catholic teachings. Try to read this slowly... The Pope is not perfect. Got it? The Pope is infallible only in his official statements on faith and morals when speaking from his apostolic chair. These statements are quite rare, only made twice in 150 years. So please try to understand that. By the way, this IS canonical and infallibly stated by an infallible Church.
One final reflection for you. Why, when communities separate from the Catholic Church, such as the Coptics, were declared as heretical - but when the Orthodox separated from the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church became heretical? Quite ridiculous and arrogant, I might add. Where in Church history is the Eastern Church the determiner for what is orthodox throughout the entire Church?
Regards
If this is the meaning that you intended, I apologize in advance.
1. Do you deny that the official Catholic view of the Orthodox church is that it is heretical?
2. From Orthodoxwiki on the 8th Council(You're Catholic I'll let you find and quote the official Catholic View:
Eighth Ecumenical Council
The Eighth Ecumenical Council was a reunion council held at Constantinople in 879-880. This council was originally accepted and fully endorsed by the papacy in Rome (whose legates were present at the behest of Pope John VIII), but later repudiated by Rome in the 11th century, retroactively regarding the robber council of 869-870 to be ecumenical. The council of 879-880 affirmed the restoration of St. Photius the Great to his see and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus condemning the Filioque.
[edit]
Ecumenical?
This council is not regarded as ecumenical by all Orthodox Christians, but some major voices in the Orthodox world do so, including 20th century theologians Fr. John S. Romanides and Fr. George Metallinos (both of whom refer repeatedly to the "Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils"), Fr. George Dragas, Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos.
Further, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs refers explicitly to the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" regarding the synod of 879-880 and was signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria as well as the Holy Synods of the first three.
Those who regard these councils as ecumenical often characterize the limitation of Ecumenical Councils to only seven to be the result of Jesuit influence in Russia, part of the so-called "Western Captivity of Orthodoxy."
An interesting external attestation to the consideration of this synod to be the Eighth Ecumenical Council is the Roman Catholic Church's Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), which describes the council of 879-880 as the "Pseudosynodus Photiana," noting that the "Orthodox count [it] as the Eighth General Council."[1][2]
The Catholics seemed to think the 8th was failable.
With regard to your last sentiment you fail to acknowledge the Catholic church also considers any schismatic church to be heretical. Certainly the Copts similarly consider the Orthodox and the Catholics to be heretical. There is nothing at all odd about that. The Bishop of Rome left in heresy [heresy being beleifs against the doctrine of the church].
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.