www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papal Infallibility

Dear Teen Logo,

The very notion of "ex cathedra" statements is also a recent Latin phenomenon, defined by Vatican I.

In addition, the fact that the Pope doesn't choose to speak from the Chair of Peter on a given issue does NOT mean he is not to be obeyed by the faithful.

So, it is very much to the point whether a pope is heretical or not. Honorius was judged by his papal successors as having been complicit in heresy.

That is "ex cathedra" for the times in which they all lived.

Can a Pope pronounce heresy from the Chair of Peter?

Yes, that is possible and that is why Robert Bellarmine outlined the conditions under which a pope could be "de-poped" for such - he also said that popes should be opposed by Catholics if they tried to destroy the Church.

Popes such as Alexander VI might even fall into this category.

Rome has, as it does, a highly bureaucratized procedure for all this.

But in northern Italy, there was once a bishop who opposed the veneration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The people in his diocese did not make "formal application to Rome" to pronounce on the bishop's behaviour, nor were they well-read in Thomism.

They simply got together and threw the bishop out of their See.

Rome got involved immediately and reviewed the case.

The verdict?

The people were right.

The people of God know what is heresy, instinctively it would seem.

Being loyal to Rome is a virtue. Being papalistic might not necessarily be.

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"The problem that the Orthodox have with the Petrine office - does not lay with the office - but with a widespread misconception of that office and its authority."

Yes, of course, it's always the fault of the mean-spirited and dumb Orthodox -- they just don't really understand how it all works. They're just silly, really. Their disagreements with Rome -- on ecclesiology, doctrine, praxis, etc. -- are simply a consequence of their propensity (often willful) to distort what the Roman Church teaches.

And I'm to be faulted for not taking a conciliatory approach to the Filioque? Well, of course: I just don't understand what it REALLY means.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

Congratulations, Old Boy, on making such great, sweeping strides in your evolving understanding of traditional Roman Catholicism!

Brilliant insights, analysis and conclusions.

And the way you conveyed all this by taking on the role of a Latin yourself - very shrewd, my friend, very shrewd indeed!

Who says we Easterners can't come to appreciate Western theological viewpoints?

Alex

Alex:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You know what they say, "When in Rome..." But, apparently, even when you're not in Rome you ought to do as the Romans do.

And so many on this board wonder why the Orthodox are so fearful of entering into full communion with their "Sister Church."

Well, let me see: would you like to live in the same house with a sister who -- though she claims you are her equal in all things -- constantly tells you what to wear, how to do you hair, which boys to date, what and how much to eat, when to go to bed, etc.? Even better, the moment you politely suggest that the dress she's wearing might give some the wrong idea, she tells you to keep your trap shut because you don't understand all the legitimate reasons she has for wearing it.

Am I being petty? Yeah, perhaps. But I think I've conveyed pretty darn well the general attitude of Orthodox Christians (and thoughtful Byzantine Catholics) toward the Roman Church.

I don't know how you do it, Alex, but your ability to remain gracious, let alone sane, is inspiring. Unfortunately, I don't have such gifts.

In Christ,
Theophilos

By the way, is there some kind of official list of "heretics" that I can get my hands on or maybe someone could post it on this forum.
Lauro

Dear Theophilos,

You are not alone, my Friend!

The Administrator has been having trouble in that department too of late!

But there is nothing in what you say that isn't true.

And your story about the sister is excellent.

Alex

Dear Lauro,

Don't ask for such a list from the Administrator here!

You just might find our names on it for insisting on maintaining the integrity and particularity of the UGCC in North America with Ukraine . . .

Since we're all in the harsh mode . . .

Alex

Well Theophilus, you come very close to describing my family (although my sisters never talked to me about what boys to date ). But with all the input I may have received over my formative years I never doubted for an instant the love among my family members for each other. Even when I resisted or ignored that input - especially about my hair. And now in married life, so much more so than in my earlier years, do I understand the significance of deferring to one another.

Thoughtful or samost? Ecclesiological "rights", canonical structures, canon law, tendentious theology - I don't care. Praxis - care very much. The Duch of my church - care passionately. Personally, I am far more interested in capturing as best as I can, the spirituality of a "dobry Rusyn", that I have witnessed in the saints that I have known, than in seeking validation in canonical structures, or theological victories. If you mean to imply that this perspective is thoughtless, or to suggest that it is "needy", I couldn't disagree more.

Dear Administrator,
If possible, could you please supply us with the official list of Heretics, excluding the names that begin with the letters "A" and "L".
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

To quote Shevchenko's poem about Jan Hus:

"And I will pray that all Slavs
Will become as heretical
As the great heretic of Constance!"

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

I understand very well the need -- no, the duty -- to defer. I'm just not sure that the Roman Church does. Or the posters on this Board who regularly insist that the Orthodox don't really understand the Roman Church.

I appreciate the distinction you draw between ecclesiology and theology, on the one hand, and praxis, on the other. I, however, fail to see precisely how those things can be separated.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Administrator,
It's OK you don't have to exclude names that begin with the letters "A" nor "L" from the official list of Heretics.
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

I think you provide a great study of Ukrainian wit and wisdom!

And I think your contribution will have a greater impact on the Administrator than anything I or anyone else could say.

Good for you!

The Administrator provokes us to thought.

And it takes special personal Gifts of wisdom, fortitude and courage to deal regularly on this Forum with the likes of Theophilus and DavidB here (oh, and myself, almost forgot. . . ).

So, hats off to the Administrator!

Alex

I am not sure either, but love makes all things believable.

First, I think that any such insistence is dead wrong in its overgeneralization. I couldn't begin to say what "Orthodox" understand or don't understand, and I don't think that I have.

On the other hand, on those occasions, for example, that a particular poster suggests, for example,that "stain" means "guilt", or that "infallibility" implies that the Pope can make up new dogma, etc., then it is fair, (necessary and a duty) to to point out the inconsistency of such remarks with clear Catholic teaching.

Dear djs,

Yes, what kind of an idiot would say such things about Catholic teaching?

I don't know about the "guilt" thing (as an Eastern Slav, however, I think I do . . .) but the "stain" thing is simply the worst of all possible phrases to describe what the Latin Church says it believes about Original Sin.

But the great thing is that, today, this isn't the issue it once was and we can safely put it to sleep.

That idiot (whoever he was) that suggested that infallibility means the Pope can invent new doctrines - what was his name?

In any even, what an idiot . . .

I, on the other hand, simply meant to convey that an emphasis on the pope's role that doesn't include him being, first and foremost the defender and teacher of tradition can lead to problems.

I know many Latins who seem to think that the Pope can change any doctrine. It is no use trying to explain things to them. They are determined that a lot of the "old fogey" aspects of "medieval Catholicism" can be crossed out tomorrow with a single papal fiat.

And certainly, modernist Catholics, like those wanting female priests, believe the Church can change what Tradition has established once and for all.

My only point, and if it is irrelevant to you, that is fine, my only point was that the best way Rome can stave off these attacks is by pointing to Tradition time and again as the source for this teaching.

I'll hypothesize, and it is just that, that Catholics need to come to a better appreciation of the role of Tradition.

If you feel that what I've said does not mesh with your experience with the Latin Church, that is fine.

God bless you.

Alex