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

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

[Campion]

Is it safe to assume all major teachings, ordinances, practices, etc., are from infallible teachings? Is the Catechism an infallible teaching?

No. Practices are never infallible. The Catechism itself is not infallible (though it asserts truths which have previously been taught infallibly).

What passages in Scripture do you think are contradicted by the Catechism passages you cite?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

professing a common faith of the “ One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Creed, 1st. Ecumenical Council, 325 A.D.)

Ummm ... no. Secodn Ecumenical Council.

The Latin-Greek split or schism before, during, and after the Fourth Crusade led to the theory that the Roman Catholic Church has one bishop ( the Pope ), and all the other bishops are in essence his local representatives.

Well, that isn't really the Catholic view, but lets not quibble over that. The same theory that is attempting to be propounded here (primacy of the Bishop of Rome) is found in kernel form in the letters of Pope St. Cornelius and St. Cyrpian of Carthage circa AD 250.

The alteration of the original Creed occurred some time in the sixth or seventh century in Spain probably by mistake, for the Spanish Church had few men of learning in those early centuries.

The men who added it to the Creed in Spain were among the most learned in all the West, who produced the mangificent creedal statements of the Councils of Toledo. They were following in the common teaching of the west what your Fr. Romanides has termed the "Western Orthodox filioque" to show that he felt it was not heretical) as asserted by Sts. Amrbose, Augustine, Leo, and others. The earliest citation in a Creed out of Toledo is from AD 447. The west, of course, did not even recognize Constantinople II as an ecumenical council until the ratification of Chalcedon in AD 451. Witness the lack of citation of the creed at Ephesus, which knew only of Nicea.

Ergo, pillaging, raping, killing, in the name of the Church and Pope.

The Pope had prior to this point excommunicated the Crusaders after they fell upon Zadar on the Dalmatian Coast. They were of course spurred on to Constatinople by the pretender to the East Roman throne, in whose pay they were operating.

These type of little mistakes make it difficult to trust larger assertions.

Following the tragic event of July 16,1054, when cardinal Humbert entered Hagia Sophia and immediately before the Divine Liturgy placed a bull of excommunication on the Altar, on behalf of the deceased pope Leo IX, things went from bad to worse when in 1071, the Normans conquered Bari (Italy), the last remaining Byzantine possession in Italy. By that time, the Byzantine Empire found itself unable to defend its land even closer than Italy. They were unable to cope with the double invasion that swept the empire – by the Patzinaks from across the Danube and by the Turks from the heart of Asia Minor. In 1071 they defeated and captured Emperor Romanos IV in the tragic battle of Manzikert. The loss of Bari and defeat at Manzikert in the same year indicated the condition of the Empire. In 1071 Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre also passed into Turkish hands for the 1st. time.

You would think someone might see the Hand of God in all this.

[monkfan]

But the reason it is "impossible" is because Christ promised the Holy Spirit would not allow it to happen.

Would this be a bad time to mention that several of the Popes were condemned as heretics by the Councils?

[Campion]

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.

I think you're assuming that practically everything is defined infallibly. In practice, very little is.

Vatican I laid out 4 criteria for an infallible Papal statement:

1. It must state a doctrine concerning faith and morals. (Matters of practice or discipline don't qualify.)
2. It must be teach that doctrine definitively. (Merely suggesting it, or conceding that it can be taught, doesn't qualify.)
3. It must be addressed to the whole church.
4. The Pope must be teaching in his capacity as supreme shepherd, not, for example, expressing his personal opinion, or merely his opinion as the Bishop of Rome.

It takes a certain amount of effort to meet all 4 criteria.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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.

Understanding your objection, what you are objecting to is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Pope is held to be infallible when he teaches Christians on a point of dogma or morals with an intent of binding them defniitively to his judgement. He is not infallible when he makes private theological speculations or declines to settle a controversy at some point in time.

Infallibility is also not localized in the Pope. While the Pope can speak infallibly on his own and definitively settle controversies, we believe an ecumenical council can also do likewise. And of course, we believe that all Bishops and Priests teach infallibly when they repeat the universally held beliefs of the Church in instructing us.

Lastly, infallibility is nothign more than a protection from error. It is not a positive power that gives the Pope especial knowledge, wisdom, eloquence, or understanding. The Pope cannot speak for the Church so as to lead the Church astray that's all. On the other hand, he might very well speak poorly, or perhaps not at all.

Lets look at it this way. You believe an ecumenical council is infallible in a way that the sermon of a Bishop in his cathedral is not. What essentially is the difference? Also, no ecumenical council has every included the participation of all the Bishops. Therefore, it seems like some fo the Bishops are being made more authoritative than all the Bishops. How is this different from your objection?

[Campion]

The only case I am aware of is that of Pope Honorius. His condemnation was overruled by the sitting Pope at the time, who said that he had merely failed to adequately oppose the heresy of Monothelitism.

In any case, there is no evidence that Honorius attempted to infallibly define the Monothelite heresy as dogma. He merely sent a letter to Constantinople indicating that it could be taught ... and then later changed his mind.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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?

Vatican II didn't change any teachings of the Church.

[FactQuest]

“Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:24

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8, 9

“For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” Rom 5:17

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...” Titus 3:5-6

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Galatians 2:21

Or, to put in into the terms of the Reformation, sola gratia. Not by ordinances, not by works of righteousness.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those crazed evangelicals that thinks the Pope is the Antichrist or that all Roman Catholics are going to hell. I don't. I think God has used the RCC in a mighty way, preserving the Christian faith through the centuries. I don't, however, think they, or any other denomination, has perfect wisdom, or perfect teaching. And I think God is big enough to use us, his imperfect vessels and the imperfect Church (meaning all true believers, Roman Catholic and otherwise).

[Hermann the Cherusker]

“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.”

"Whose sins YOU forgive, they are forgiven them, whose sins YOU retain, they are retained." (St. John 20.23)

What was your objection again?

[Campion]

The passages you cite concern justification through the Mosaic Law ("righteousness ... come by the law", "works of righteousness we have done", etc.).

But the sacraments of the New Law are not anything "we have done," but are works Christ has done in is. The same St. Paul you cite says "as many as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). Does that sound like the Sacraments are irrelevant?

Christ himself says with crystal clarity, "Whose sins you remit, are remitted; whose sins you hold bound, are held bound." (Jn 20:23) He addresses those words to the apostles, who gave that power to their successors, the bishops, who delegate that power to their priests. Why do you think St. Paul contradicts Christ? He doesn't!

The Reformation contradicted the constant understanding of the whole Church -- East and West -- that had been in place since the earliest times. (Read the Fathers if you don't believe me.) The Sacraments are the channels of God's grace, not the antithesis of it.

[dangus]

>> Would this be a bad time to mention that several of the Popes were condemned as heretics by the Councils? <<

No, but it would be a incorrect. I get Honorius and Liberius mixed up, but there was one incident where a council condemned a letter which was believed to have been issued by a Pope who was being persecuted by Emperor Constantinus. The council did not condemn the Pope, but only the letter. In any event, three things are relevant:

1. The belief the Pope signed the letter was a false inference from lies by Constantinus.
2. The council declined to condemn the Pope.
3. Even if the Pope had signed the letter, it would have been a sin, since it would have sown much confusion, but could a letter extracted through torture, hundreds of miles away from the Papal see, possibly be understood to be ex cathedra?

If you have any other citations of a council condemn a Pope as proclaiming heresies, please do share. The incident I described is explained in "Pope Fiction," but the author engaged in written "debates" after the publication. No-one proffered any better examples than the one I cited.

[dangus]

>> 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 <<

The issue is the intent of the Pope. Infallibility is the product of discernment; the Pope may still wish to offer his weighty opinion on matters, or make assertions without meaning to exclude all other possible opinions. When he speaks in some contexts, he is presenting his understanding. The Pope is a very learned man, and certainly his own understanding is very valuable, and far more knowledgeable than most of his critics. But he can make errors.

The author of "Pope Fiction" does not merely move to disprove assertions of heresy from the throne, but all assertions of heresy. He does a decent job: he even cites one case of a Pope who wished to release an authoritative biblical translation (if I remember right) who was struck dead just as he prepared to issue the Papal Bull endorsing it. No wonder Pope John Paul II's staff was quick to clarify that the Pope's privately expressed opinion about "The Passion of the Christ" was not a Church teaching! The nit-pickers would treat any historical error as proof that "it" was NOT "as it was," and therefore assert the Pope was a heretic!

[monkfan]

While the Pope can speak infallibly on his own and definitively settle controversies, we believe an ecumenical council can also do likewise.

If the Pope states one thing and a council states something to the contrary, which statement can be affirmed? More to the point, can the Pope trump a Council?

[FactQuest]

"Whose sins YOU forgive, they are forgiven them, whose sins YOU retain, they are retained." (St. John 20.23)

Jesus said this to the 12. Okay, actually, just the 10, Judas was gone, and Thomas wasn't present. So, how is it we make the leap from there to anyone else? And, if we somehow find valid, scriptural grounds to decide we can extend this promise to others, why just RCC Popes? Why not everybody? Or at least all Christian leaders?

It seems clear this was meant for the 11, and the 11 alone, Thomas' absense notwithstanding. We can't automatically extend every promise given to the apostles.

[dangus]

O give me a break... There have been 13,873,615 threads about various Catholic teachings which Protestants assert are not biblical. I expected better from you than assertion that sacraments are unneccesary, even for believers. Look at the wording of your quotation from the catechism: Even in the short snippet, it plainly states that the graces are delivered through the sacraments. As in: it is the grace which does the salvation; the sacraments are the means of receiving those graces.

[monkfan]

He merely sent a letter to Constantinople indicating that it could be taught ... and then later changed his mind.

Hey, it happens to the best. It's completely understandable.

[dangus]

>>More to the point, can the Pope trump a Council?<<

A Pope has to ratify that a Council was ecumenical, and thus speaking for the entire church, and not merely expressing the opinions of those several bishops who happen to be able to attend. "Synods" are common; "ecumenical councils" are not.

[conservonator]

We can't automatically extend every promise given to the apostles.

Why not? Or more precisely, which promises are extended and which are not? By what authority do you make such a pronouncement?

[dangus]

Umm... hey everybody... I just caught noticed this:

The author of this peice represents, and I quote, "the Ecumaniacal Patriarchate."

Maybe my Greek is a little rusty. OK, I don't know any Greek. But doesn't "ecumaniacal" mean something like "universally insane?" :)

I think "ecumenical" is the desired term. What little gremlin got his hands on this?

[Campion]

So, how is it we make the leap from there to anyone else?

We look at what the Apostles did, and said, and what the early Church believed. The Apostles' powers of preaching, teaching, and administering the Sacraments were given to their successors, the bishops. See 2 Timothy 2:2 for an early example.

We have instructions already from the early 3rd century on how to choose a good confessor. So if the 3rd century church thought that that power was passed down from the Apostles to their own time, why should we go with your assertion that it wasn't, 17 centuries after the fact?