www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Will the Real Rock Please Stand Up?

Dear Amado,

For ChristTeen's sake . . . that is good!

Alex

Dear CT287,

You said And certainly I don't approve of the Holy Father humiliating this outright act of the Holy Spirit.

You seem to believe that the Melkite Patriarch's addendum to the decree on papal infallibility was an act of the Holy Spirit, and you definitely do not seem to approve of the Pope's "humiliating this outright act of the Holy Spirit".

What I am saying is that, unlike an auxiliary bishop of Atlanta or even the Patriarch of Antioch of the Melkites, the Pope of Rome, by the RC doctrine, is infallibly guarded by the Holy Spirit from making errors in faith or morals. If the Pope saw that addendum and decided that he would have none of it and didn't allow it, then what?

What many defenders of papal prerogatives these days tend to forget is that Pope John Paul II hasn't been around forever. Just because THIS Pope is great and holy doesn't mean that past Popes always were, nor does it mean that future Popes will be. Papal Infallibility *could* be a good thing, but it is a power that can be abused to a great degree. What happens if a Pope decides to "infallibly" proclaim something heretical? One saint (Robert Bellarmine?) says that if this happened, the man would cease to be Pope. But then you've got Pope Boniface ____ (I think it's Pope Boniface, but I'm not sure about the number) saying that "No man may judge the Roman Pontiff". It all seems too contradictory to be true.

Dear Qathuliqa,

Certainly, it does seem contradictory.

But I think we can allow for growth in awareness and for the fact that the Petrine Ministry has undergone a number of changes in style and content of leadership over the last several hundred years.

So, for example, there used to be a rule in the U.S. that no divorced Catholic might approach the Sacraments.

All the bishops of the U.S. signed a petition to Rome to change this - and Pope Paul VI did, he would not oppose the will of the entire American college.

Popes MUST be good politicians these days. They must play ball with the public because they have a relationship to the world.

This Pope does his job exceptionally well, not only because he is holy, as he is, but also because he says the right thing and the right time, and has gotten better at that.

As a star world leader, certainly no Eastern Patriarch can match him!

But that is his personal accomplishment, as you say.

Rome wants to be relevant to the world. Authoritarianism is a turn-off and Rome knows that.

We Ukies have become more aggressive as a body toward Rome and Rome is laying off.

If Rome didn't, we'd regard anything it had to say against our rights in the same vein as chalk markings on the sidewalk made by hooligans.

And that, my friend, was told to me by our Irish university chaplain!

Alex

Mor Ephrem said:

"What happens if a Pope decides to "infallibly" proclaim something heretical?"

reply:

I think this is a good question, Mor Ephrem. I've thought about this kind of thing a lot. Please allow me to share the conclusion that I've come to on questions like these:

The bottom line when discussing the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church (by this I mean to include Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) is that we all maintain an Apostolic Tradition. There can never be an "ordering of submission" by one Church directed at another Apostolic Church. All these Churches are free. They are free in Christ to proclaim their faith as they understand it as having been delivered from the Apostles they received it from. In this proclamation of their faith they can look at the other Churches' proclamations of faith and decide whether there is enough substantial agreement to restore communion (which in my insignificant opinion, there is).

If, then, any of these Churches were ever to reconcile and restore communion what happens if...

This is always the big question, "Well what happens if the Pope does this or that?" Well rememeber, all these Apostolic Churches are STILL FREE. Just as they were free to restore communion, they are also free to break it if they believe their rights and beliefs are being infringed upon. This very fact of freedom should be enough to prevent such encroachments in matters of faith.

Mutual respect among the ancient sister Churches and co-operation, is the means of healing the wounds of division. This is why I believe the issue of "Papal Infallibillity" is absolutely a mute point which does not even need to be invoked again.

Again these are just my insignificant opinions.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Then I'd view the Patriarch as not inspired by the Holy Spirit. They can't both be inspired yet be contradictory. But really, I don't see the problem here because this didn't happen at Vatican I.

There are thousands...millions...of "what ifs" in Christianity and in thought in general. What if Christ descended tomorrow and told us that there is only one Person of the Trinity, that the Protestants got it right, etc.? If the Pope said one of these things regarding faith and morals, I'd second guess myself, obviously, but it hasn't happened in 2000 years and I have no reason to believe it will ever happen.

Hmmm...one sex abuse scandal comes to mind that seems to contradict this.

ChristTeen287

Dear Alex,

Why? If a divorced Catholic received an "annulment", then there "was no marriage", and so they could receive the sacraments; no permission should be necessary. If a divorced Catholic didn't get an "annulment" but didn't re-marry or anything, then they should also be allowed to receive the sacraments (is this what you had in mind?). But if a divorced Catholic without an "annulment" who got re-married (and thus living in an adulterous state) wanted to receive the sacraments, are you telling me that Pope Paul VI allowed this to go on because he didn't think standing up to the entire united body of American Bishops was appropriate? Doesn't sound like the same Pope who wrote Humanae Vitae even though most were against it.

There can never be an "ordering of submission" by one Church directed at another Apostolic Church.

Dear Ghazar,

But is not this what the doctrine of papal infallibility allows? "So what if the Eastern Churches have a problem with (insert a doctrine)? We think it's right, so we're going to add it." I've read many a post saying that the Roman understanding of the Immaculate Conception, for example, is not exactly that of the East (although both essentially teach the same thing), and yet it is the Roman understanding that is infallibly declared and binding as part of the divinely revealed faith.

In this proclamation of their faith they can look at the other Churches' proclamations of faith and decide whether there is enough substantial agreement to restore communion (which in my insignificant opinion, there is).

Ha! Tell that to the Holy Mountain...they wouldn't like either of us! :p

If, then, any of these Churches were ever to reconcile and restore communion what happens if...

This is always the big question, "Well what happens if the Pope does this or that?" Well rememeber, all these Apostolic Churches are STILL FREE. Just as they were free to restore communion, they are also free to break it if they believe their rights and beliefs are being infringed upon. This very fact of freedom should be enough to prevent such encroachments in matters of faith.

Good point...

Mutual respect among the ancient sister Churches and co-operation, is the means of healing the wounds of division. This is why I believe the issue of "Papal Infallibillity" is absolutely a mute point which does not even need to be invoked again.

But I'm not sure what you mean here. Why is "papal infallibility" a mute point which does not even need to be invoked again? It still is a part of the divinely revealed faith in the eyes of Catholicism, and one needs to believe in it to be Catholic. I am more inclined to believe that, while some of the rest of the stuff is of less importance, it is this issue that is one of the most important that divides us, and thus the most important to deal with.

But really, I don't see the problem here because this didn't happen at Vatican I.

In retrospect, this is easy to say. But if such a situation occurs in the future?

There are thousands...millions...of "what ifs" in Christianity and in thought in general. What if Christ descended tomorrow and told us that there is only one Person of the Trinity, that the Protestants got it right, etc.?

The answer to that is simple, for me. I sing it every Sunday before hearing the Pauline Epistle:

I heard Paul the Blessed Apostle say: If anyone comes to you preaching contrary to what we have preached, he shall be excommunicated from the Church, even though it were an angel from heaven. Behold there springs up different teachings from all parts. Blessed is he who begins and ends in God's teachings.

We know the true faith. It was already given to us by our holy fathers and passed down through the ages to us. If anything is at variance with what we have received, then we should be suspicious. And, certainly, the devil can take the form of an angel of light, and I'd dare to say even a Christ-like appearance, if it meant leading people astray. So if "Christ" preaches that there is only one Person in the Trinity, then I think the answer is simple: it isn't "Christ".

If the Pope said one of these things regarding faith and morals, I'd second guess myself, obviously, but it hasn't happened in 2000 years and I have no reason to believe it will ever happen.

Why would you second guess yourself? If the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, then what need is there for second guesses? But if it does happen, what does that mean for Catholicism?

As for it not happening in 2000 years, what exactly are your thoughts on Honorius?

Again, "what if."

I was simply giving an example. There is nothing within your post with which I disagree.

I would second guess myself precisely because the Holy Father spoke fallibly in regards of faith and morals (thus the Pope wouldn't be protected by the Holy Spirit).

Honorius? Ahh yes. There are tons of online Catholic resources explaining Honorius. The Orthodox really don't use it very often in their case against Papal Infallibility. I don't understand the concern.

ChristTeen287

Dear Mor Ephrem:

I agree with the point on "imbalance" that you made much earlier in this thread and think that this is an important issue to work out. But in these recent posts you go back to the "What happens if a Pope decides to 'infallibly' proclaim something heretical?" query. The very question, taken at face value, suggests either a fundamentally mistaken notion on "infallibility" or of logic or both.

Adherents accept the idea that such a proclamation is impossible; that is the dogma. You then write a conditional proposition in which the "if" clause, in effect, assumes the opposite. Within the framework of the dogma this clause is false. A false proposition, of course, implies any proposition. A perfectly logical response to your query, then (and one that I have given you before) is: "if a Pope decides to 'infallibly' proclaim something heretical", then you are the Pope!

In your discussion with Christ Teen 287 you shift from a proclamation to something a Pope "said". This reminded me of an interview with the Dali Lama in which he described an error in some comments of Pope John Paul II on Buddhism, and remarked, "So much for infallibility". Of course his remark betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "infallibility".

Not at all. Another possibility is "invincible ignorance".

Well, there are some recent precedents. Some people think that some statements of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II in favor of religious liberty, ecumenism, internationalism, etc. and other reforms that would have ben considered heretical by the Latin Church in the 1500's or even after. Most groups that reject these things, even now, still claim that the Pope did not proclaim that in an infallible manner, quoting that Paul VI himself declared that during Vatican II he avoided any decission that would have inovolved infallibility.

Dear Remie:

I'm uncertain about the meaning of your post.
The story that your relate - for which of the following is it a precedent:

1) That the Pope has in fact made an ex cathedra proclamation on faith and morals for the whole church and binding upon it, and that this proclamation was deemed in error by some individual or group of individuals who thereby rejected the teaching authority of the Church and favored instead their own private judgment?

2) That an inndividual or group of individuals takes a teaching not proclaimed infallibly, then tendentiously seeks to elevate it to that level, in an effort to build a straw man to knock down?

3) logical nonsense?

Or a fourth possibility:

4) That an individual or group of individuals takes a teaching not proclaimed infallibly (but to their own liking), then tendentiously seeks to elevate it to that level, in an effort to advance their own agendas?

ChristTeen287

Dear CT287,

Most of those sources that I have seen make a concerted effort to establish that Pope Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra, and thus did not fit the criteria for an infallible statement. I am not sure what to make of that kind of argument, since those criteria don't seem so clear cut in the time of Honorius. Maybe you have something I can read?

The case of Honorius, even if it does not come up in official dialogues, is one I think of myself, simply because it fits your criteria above for why you would second guess yourself. The Holy Father at the time spoke officially on a matter of faith and was wrong.

I agree with the point on "imbalance" that you made much earlier in this thread and think that this is an important issue to work out. But in these recent posts you go back to the "What happens if a Pope decides to 'infallibly' proclaim something heretical?" query. The very question, taken at face value, suggests either a fundamentally mistaken notion on "infallibility" or of logic or both.

Adherents accept the idea that such a proclamation is impossible; that is the dogma. You then write a conditional proposition in which the "if" clause, in effect, assumes the opposite. Within the framework of the dogma this clause is false. A false proposition, of course, implies any proposition. A perfectly logical response to your query, then (and one that I have given you before) is: "if a Pope decides to 'infallibly' proclaim something heretical", then you are the Pope!

True enough.

In your discussion with Christ Teen 287 you shift from a proclamation to something a Pope "said". This reminded me of an interview with the Dali Lama in which he described an error in some comments of Pope John Paul II on Buddhism, and remarked, "So much for infallibility". Of course his remark betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "infallibility".

If you are talking about my shift towards Honorius, please see my response to CT287 just previous to this.