Posted on 05/29/2007 8:53:16 AM PDT by kawaii
i should put individual laity actually.
no i was inquiring why he’d ask me to proclaim a bishops statements as orthodox or non orthodox.
Ah, I see. You’re quite correct.
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
The aforesaid dogmatic constitution then goes on in chapter 4 to define the conditions for papal infallibility:
* we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, + that is, when, 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, o he possesses, + by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
In other words the conditions for infallibility are:
1)The Roman Pontiff (Pope) must invoke it
2)Speak Ex Cathedra (as defined in Pastor Aeternus above)
3)He MUST give a definition (i.e. He must define)
4)The doctrine defined must concern faith or morals
5)Must be intended to be binding upon the whole Church
An Ecumenical council may exercise infallibility only through the Pope's infallibility and never separate from him. Only the pope's promulgation of an ecumenical council can give the charism of infallibility as defined in Vatican I. Also, It is VERY, VERY important to note that in order for a teaching of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council to be considered infallible, it must make it explicit that the teaching is to be considered infallible, definitive, and binding upon the church. There is not any exact phrasing prescribed to do this, but it is usually indicated by one or sometimes both of the following phrases: (1) a formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or (2) an anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.
The Church may also contradict a previous teaching of the church, as long as the teaching was not taught infallibly. If this happens the infallible teaching voids the fallible one.
The charism of infallibility is used rather rarely. It may be invoked by the pope alone, but it is often exercised by the pope in conjunction with the college of Bishops when meeting in Ecumenical Councils. (According to Vatican I, Ecumenical councils are only infallible when the pope is in agreement with the decrees). Vatican II is a bit peculiar because it does not make the explicit dogmatic definitions which are required for infallibility according to Vatican I. Thus there is often a lot of debate whether or not certain teachings of Vatican II are infallible or merely pastoral recommendations. (The arguments for this are quite strong). This is exacerbated by the fact that Pope Paul VI who stated at the close of Vatican II that "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..." suggesting that the Pope did not state and did not intend to use his infallible charism when promulgating the decrees of the Second Vatican Council
Papal infallibility, since Vatican I, has only been used once. It was by Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus, 1950, to define the Bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Other papal teachings which meet Vatican I's criteria of infallibility preceding Vatican I but post 16th century include:
1)Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653 (condemning some of the Reformer Jansen's teachings.
2)Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794 (Also condemning Jansenists.
3)Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception
“To frame the issue as an either-or doesn’t quite capture the complexity of Matt’s text. The “binding and loosing” which Peter is given personally is also shared among the Apostolic College, but as a body and not singularly.
How that balance is to be achieved between the Primus and the College of Bishops is above my pay grade, but it seems clear that some sort of balance is demanded in Scripture.”
Exactly and precisely! This is the whole essence of conciliarity with a primus and as we all know, there has never been a synod in The Church without a primus.
“I don’t beleive the Orthodox have declared anything infailable since well before the schism.”
Its not that easy, K. The Palamite Councils are an example of this.
“The Patriarchs have the authority to write new canons, change the liturgy, and pass judgement on cases. They can call councils, depose Bishops and priests under them, judge and regulate monasteries, and discipline clerics, monks, and nuns, as well as the lay faithful. All these things they have done in the past.”
Not at all. These powers you refer to are canonically exercisable only by a synod. There may have been Patriarchs who did otherwise, but those acts were uncanonical.
The rest of your post is really very good.
“”I, DOSITHEUS, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, declare and confess this to be the faith of the Eastern Church.”
Was he wrong? Infallible means unable to err. Did Patriarch Dositheos err in proclaiming the faith in 1672.”
He may well have been 100% correct, but that isn’t because he could or did infallibly declare anything and of course, as kawaii points out, a council could declare what he said to be heresy.
From the Holy Father’s General Audience on May 24, 2006
In Greek, the word “fileo” means the love of friendship, tender but not all-encompassing; instead, the word “agapao” means love without reserve, total and unconditional. Jesus asks Peter the first time: “Simon... do you love me (agapas-me)” with this total and unconditional love (Jn 21: 15)?
Prior to the experience of betrayal, the Apostle certainly would have said: “I love you (agapo-se) unconditionally”. Now that he has known the bitter sadness of infidelity, the drama of his own weakness, he says with humility: “Lord; you know that I love you (filo-se)”, that is, “I love you with my poor human love”. Christ insists: “Simon, do you love me with this total love that I want?”. And Peter repeats the response of his humble human love: “Kyrie, filo-se”, “Lord, I love you as I am able to love you”. The third time Jesus only says to Simon: “Fileis-me?”, “Do you love me?”.
Simon understands that his poor love is enough for Jesus, it is the only one of which he is capable, nonetheless he is grieved that the Lord spoke to him in this way. He thus replies: “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you (filo-se)”.
This is to say that Jesus has put himself on the level of Peter, rather than Peter on Jesus’ level! It is exactly this divine conformity that gives hope to the Disciple, who experienced the pain of infidelity.
From here is born the trust that makes him able to follow [Christ] to the end: “This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God. And after this he said to him, “Follow me’” (Jn 21: 19).
From that day, Peter “followed” the Master with the precise awareness of his own fragility; but this understanding did not discourage him. Indeed, he knew that he could count on the presence of the Risen One beside him.
From the naïve enthusiasm of initial acceptance, passing though the sorrowful experience of denial and the weeping of conversion, Peter succeeded in entrusting himself to that Jesus who adapted himself to his poor capacity of love. And in this way he shows us the way, notwithstanding all of our weakness. We know that Jesus adapts himself to this weakness of ours.
We follow him with our poor capacity to love and we know that Jesus is good and he accepts us. It was a long journey for Peter that made him a trustworthy witness, “rock” of the Church, because he was constantly open to the action of the Spirit of Jesus.
Peter qualifies himself as a “witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed” (I Pt 5: 1). When he was to write these words he would already be elderly, heading towards the end of his life that will be sealed with martyrdom. He will then be ready to describe true joy and to indicate where it can be drawn from: the source is believing in and loving Christ with our weak but sincere faith, notwithstanding our fragility.
He would therefore write to the Christians of his community, and says also to us: “Without having seen him you love him; though you do not now see him you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls” (I Pt 1: 8-9).
No quibble here. Frank Sheed writes extensively on that very subject in his book, Theology and Sanity.
;-o)
“In that case you’d have anarchy; you’d have destructive divisions within the Church.... or schism; such as we have today in the “Ortohdox” churches. It’s very interesting to note that when you research the history of the so-called “Orthodox” churches, you see the great Eastern Saints appealing to Rome again and again to help them heal rifts and dissentions within their own dioces. If the Holy See, the Supreme Pontificate, was not seated in Rome, then why were they appealing to him for help? They, (the various “Orthodox” churches), seperate themselves from the Pope, and they seperate themselves from each other as well.”
Well, that’s one of the more simplistic comments I’ve read on the subject! First, there is no schism in Orthodoxy. Second, while it is true that various Fathers for good or bad, selfless or selfish reasons appealed to Rome, they also appealed to other Patriarchs depending on whose ox was getting gored by whom. The four Eastern Patriarchates rather regularly smiled at Rome, said “That’s nice” and then ignored it. Sometimes they were wrong, sometimes they were right. Finally, there was never much question at all about which church held the first position within The Church. It was Rome because the Councils said so. The reason they said so, as the records of the councils make abundantly clear, was that Rome was the seat of the Empire at the beginning of The Church. You will note that when Constantinople was raised to second place, it was because it was the New Rome, not because +Andrew founded, according to tradition, that particular church. Frankly, to say that the passage in Matthew establishes a monarchial primarcy in the current tenant of the Vatican because he is the successor of +Peter applies with equal force to Antioch, which as a Petrine See has the older and better established, historically speaking, claim.
“I recall there being a passage in there about Alexandria being second after Rome until it was changed at a Council, if I remember right, this article is incorrect in saying that Constantinople was second after Rome. Just curious if I remember it right.”
Originally, Alexandria was second until it was changed by a council. Interestingly, another council affirmed the jurisdictional supremacy of Alexandria in its Egyptian sphere by comparing it to the the authority Rome held in its sphere.
(iii) The function of Peter
Our Lord established His kingdom with officials through whom He could dispense His gifts of truth by way of doctrine, and of life by sacrament. The kingdom was to be in the souls of men since apart from that it could have borne no fruit; but it was not to be only in the souls of men. We must complete such phrases of Our Lord as “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you” and such phrases as “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a city upon a hill.” But for the protection of the truth and the preservation of the integrity of the channels of life, Our Lord made still further provision by choosing one of the Apostles and giving him special functions. When He first called the Apostles, He said to Simon, the brother of Andrew, “Thou shalt be called Peter”—a word which means “rock.” When the end of His time upon earth was drawing near, He made clear the reason for the change of names, “Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonah; it is not flesh and blood, it is my Father in heaven that has revealed this to thee. And I tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:18-19).
At the Last Supper, when the dispute arose among the Apostles as to which would have first place in His kingdom, Our Lord settled it with the words; “Simon, Simon, Satan has claimed power over you all, so He can sift you like wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; when after a while, thou has come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethern” (Lk 22:31-32).
After His Resurrection, Our Lord appears among the Apostles and three times asks Peter if he loves Him. As Peter answers each question with an affirmation of his love, Our Lord utters the three phrases: “Feed My lambs,” “Feed My lambs,” “Feed My Sheep” (Jn 21:16-17). Taking any one of these episodes, we must see that the function entrusted to Peter was very great; taking them all together, we see it is enormous. In the first, he is to be the rock upon whom the Church (which Our Lord here calls also the kingdom of heaven) is to be founded. He is to have supremacy in the kingdom, for Our Lord promised him the “keys” which are a symbol of supremacy; and he is to have a final power of regulation and discipline, for his permissions and prohibitions are to be ratified in heaven. At the Last Supper, something is made explicit which before was certainly present but implicitly. He is to safeguard the unity of the brethern, whom otherwise Satan would scatter like chaff, because by the prayer of God his own faith would not fail, would be unfailable—which brings us to the very word infallibility. The third is the richest of all. Peter is shepherd the whole flock, the little ones and the great. He is to feed them. With what food? The spirit of man needs three kinds of food and Our Lord came to provide them. “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” So truth is food. “My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent Me.” So law is food. ‘The food I shall give is My flesh for the life of the world.” So sacrament is food. Peter must feed the flock with truth and law and sacrament.
Notice most particularly how in all this Our Lord, about to leave the earth, is conferring upon Peter His own special titles. Christ is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and He makes Peter the foundation. Christ is the key-bearer—”He bears the key of David so that none may shut when He opens, none open when He shuts” (Rev 3:7)—and He makes Peter the key-bearer. It is to Christ that the power belongs to hold these whom God has given Him, but He gives to Peter the charge of being a support to the brethern. Our Lord had said, “I am the good shepherd”—and He makes Peter to be the shepherd. All this is in line with what we have already seen about the Church as a whole. Our Lord was truthgiver and lifegiver, and the Church is to be truthgiver and lifegiver: that is to say, He will continue to give truth and life through the Church. Our Lord is rock and key-bearer and shepherd: He will continue all that each title implies through Peter. Church or Peter, it is all the same. Neither matters save as an instrument through which Christ has chosen to work.
This then was the provision Our Lord made for the souls of men that they might come to Him, be united with Him and receive His gifts till the end of time. His kingdom would grow as it moved outward and onward toward its two limiting points—all the nations of the earth and the end of time—and there would be some increase of complexity in its structure to meet new needs created by its growth. But all would be within the living framework He established upon earth—one kingdom with a smaller body of officials serving the great body of plain citizens, and among the officials one who is head over the rest and the servant of all. So the kingdom was, when the Holy Spirit descended upon it at Pentecost. So it still is. So till the end of the world it will be.
Theology and Sanity, Frank J. Sheed, ISBN 0-89870-470-7, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1993, Part III. Creation. 20. The Kingdom, (iii) The function of Peter, pp. 286-289.
“since when are laity able to make pronoucements on that canonicity of the statements of individual Bishops?”
Since Day 1. Without the AXIOS of the Laos tou Theou, demonstrated by a “living out” of the proclaimed dogma, no proclaimed “dogma” is dogma. The dogmas and False Union of the Council of Florence is an example of this.
“sou” isn’t a verb, Claud. Its the singular form of “you”.
Oh, but there is so much more to Vatican I than what you have quoted. Like this, which is so seldom referred to:
“1. We teach and declare that,
* according to the gospel evidence,
* a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
* was immediately and directly
o promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
o conferred on him by Christ the lord.
[PROMISED]
2. It was to Simon alone,
* to whom he had already said
o You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
that the Lord,
* after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
spoke these words:
* Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
* And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
[CONFERRED]
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
* after his resurrection,
confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
* Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
6. Therefore,
* if anyone says that
o blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
o it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
let him be anathema.
Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every church—that is to say the faithful throughout the world—to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .
5. Therefore,
* if anyone says that
o it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
o the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema.
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
1. And so,
* supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
* adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
o the Roman pontiffs and of
o general councils,
* we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
* which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
o the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
o the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
+ the prince of the apostles,
+ true vicar of Christ,
+ head of the whole church and
+ father and teacher of all christian people.
o To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
+ tend,
+ rule and govern
+ the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
* by divine ordinance,
* the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
* this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
o episcopal and
o immediate.
* Both clergy and faithful,
o of whatever rite and dignity,
o both singly and collectively,
* are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
5. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.” [51]
6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
* this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
* it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
* he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
* in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
* The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
* nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
* they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
9. So, then,
* if anyone says that
o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
+ not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
+ not only in matters of
# faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
# discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.”
No limitations there, are there!
Hey LouGuebrios, why don’t you learn more about us “Orthodox” before making statements? Then perhaps you will understand why some refer to the Orthodox as the “home team” when it comes to Christianity.
Great screen name! :)
Yiasou and efharisto Kolokotronis! I got that name from my days in high school and college when my friends would see me approach and they would say in unison, "eek!....it's a Greek!" LOL
I like your screen name as well!
Papal infallibility is at the heart of the schism between the Roman and Orthodox churches. Papal jurisdiction and infallibility are directly addressed in Vatican I and thus any discussion on papal infallibility must address the decrees of this council on the nature of the papacy. Indeed, the parts of Vatican I which you posted above make it very difficult to reconcile the Orthodox and Roman Catholic positions.
The question of papal infallibility was addressed in great detail in Vatican I in terms which leave little room for doubt of papal primacy and the nature of that primacy. Vatican II made an attempt at ecumenism. Incidentally, the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican one such as Pastor Aeternus are quite a contrast to the decrees of Vatican II aren't they? Nevertheless, according to the Roman Church, Vatican I's statements meet the criteria for infallibility, while most of Vatican II's do not. Anyone who is Roman Catholic, presumably even a pope who wanted to deny his own primacy to help reunify the Orthodox and Roman Churches, would ipso facto anathematize himself because Vatican I infallibly decrees otherwise. How the Roman church and Orthodox can reconcile this, I do not know, but it appears that one side must give completely way to the other.
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.