Fr. Deacon,

That is a very good question, and here is my poor answer: since I do not accept Vatican I as an ecumenical council; and moreover, since I do not believe that anything related to the papacy is a divinely revealed dogma, I do not believe that the Orthodox are under any anathemas in connection with this particular issue.

Nevertheless, if I did believe that Vatican I was an ecumenical council binding upon all Christians, then I suppose I would have to hold -- as a truth of faith -- that the Orthodox are under anathema for rejecting the supremacy of the pope.

That said, I would like to know your views in connection with this question.

However, since the Council of Florence-Ferrara ruled that a pope is superior to a general council, if the Pope does not act as though those anathemas are in effect, then they are not in effect. This papal supremacy stuff can cut both ways.

[quote=StuartK]However, since the Council of Florence-Ferrara ruled that a pope is superior to a general council...[/quote]

Please produce this ruling.

Thanks for the straightforward response. Though not an answer -- yes/no -- to my question, it illustrates the limitations of the proposed logical inference. Even these few responses demonstrate that just the "simple application of logic" does not yield an unambiguous conclusion.

The Catholic Church presently does not act or speak as though the Orthodox are anathematized. And the word anathema itself has a range of meanings ( e.g. link ); Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's quote using the word needs clarification. In addition, I don't know that a formal anathema applies to a group already many years in schism.

Also, two posts in this thread that address my point and are informative are Post332861 and Post333204.

Well, the simple fact is theology is not rocket science--or any science, for that matter, so to expect mathematical precision and rigid, linear logic is entirely unrealistic. If anything, the logic of Christianity is and has always been, paradoxical in nature. But this makes many people uncomfortable.

[quote=ajk]
Thanks for the straightforward response. Though not an answer -- yes/no -- to my question, it illustrates the limitations of the proposed logical inference. [/quote]

It really doesn't, actually, since neither of the respondents considers Vatican I to be a binding ecumenical council. Let's step back a little, then- what's your opinion on Vatican I and of Catholics who reject Vatican I?

[quote]And the word anathema itself has a range of meanings ( e.g. link );[/quote]

The Catholic Church is [url=http://www.liturgialatina.org/pontificale/101.htm]pretty clear[/url] about where an anathema places someone vis-a-vis the church, Wikipedia articles notwithstanding. It ain't pretty.

[quote]In addition, I don't know that a formal anathema applies to a group already many years in schism.[/quote]

Stuart and Apotheoun are Catholics who are [i]not[/i] in schism. Does it apply to them?

I guess we need to get over the old anathemas so we can re-unite and then fall under the new ones.

I agree. Thankfully, it appears as if more and more Catholics are recognizing the fact that Vatican I really is irrelevant.

I don't see the comment following from the quote. As for the "more and more" -- yes, it does seem the two of you have found each other. And there was a time when Regina Scientiarum wasn't mistaken to mean mathematics.

[quote=StuartK]If anything, the logic of Christianity is and has always been, paradoxical in nature.[/quote]

"Today the virgin gives birth to him who holds creation in his hands." That's a paradox.

Since when is openly contradicting the teachings of the Church an exercise of Christian logic?

Western attempts to treat theology as a scientific discipline would have puzzled the Fathers, for whom the exercise was all about finding the right words with which to pray to God (cf. Evagrius of Pontus).

Or maybe its just that Catholics are beginning to understand it more and more in the way it is supposed to be understood - in a collegial context. It doesn't mean Vatican 1 is irrelevant; it simply means Vatican 1 is properly understood.

Blessings

One way to understand it is as a general council of the Church of Rome, whose decrees, rather than being ecumenically binding, are both specific to one Church and conditioned by the history of a particular time and place. I mean, if we are attempting to understand it properly, and all, then you have to admit the admissibility of this as one potential interpretation. It is up to the entire Church to determine whether it is the correct one.

I don't understand how the teachings and decrees of Vatican I can be simply Rome-specific.

As I have mentioned before this destroys the dogma of Papal Infallibility. If the dogma was not promulgated for the ENTIRE Church and intended to be binding on the ENTIRE Church, then it is missing one vital element necessary for the definition to qualify as infallible.

Were you invited to that party? No, you were not. Was there at the time any other Church in communion with the Church of Rome? No, there was not. Since the Council of Trent, the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church saw the Catholic Church and the Church of Rome as co-terminous. There were no true Churches other than the Church of Rome (the 1598 Bull Magnus dominus makes this explicit). There were not other Churches in communion with the Church of Rome. Eastern Christians under the authority of the Pope were deemed to belong to "rites" of the Roman Catholic Church, and were allowed to keep their unique liturgical and disciplinary practices by dispensation and not through their inherent ecclesial status.

In short, Vatican I involved the Church of Rome, and only the Church of Rome. It did not consult other Churches; it did not invite comment from Other Churches. Its decisions affected only the Church of Rome and its members. Such a synod cannot make claim to ecumenical status unless, being submitted to the entire Body of Christ, it receives the unanimous acceptance that conveys ecumenical authority.

I doubt John of Damascus would have been puzzled. There are various and I believe complementary ways to the "contemplation of divine things."