www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkite--Antiochian Reunion?

What is in the papacy today that was not in the first millenium?

Welcome to the forum, Mark.

Indigo

One could list several items, but two in particular come to mind at once:


a) the claim that the Pope is entitled to appoint bishops all over the world, and

b) the existence of the Oriental Congregation. On this point, can anyone imagine the creation of a "Sacred Congregation for the Occidental Church", to consist of the Eastern Patriarchs and various clergy of the Eastern Church charged with supervising and - let's face it - making decisions for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, the Roman Catholic Church in Australia, and so forth?

Fr. Serge

Thanks, Father Serge!

And do our melkite bishops believe in the papal infallibility?

Sometimes certain questions are not altogether convenient!

Fr. Serge

Moderator--please feel free to move this to another post or topic heading. I am merely responding to a previous question in this thread about papal infallability. I can understand if you think it deviates too much from the Melkite topic.

I remember being taught about papal infallability when I was a child. Father Serge--could you please elucidate a bit more on that topic. My understanding is that the Pope is considered infallable ONLY if he is speaking "Ex Cathedra" or "from the chair." This means he is speaking offically for the entire church. What he says then is considered Dogma and is not open to question or need to be even debated by the laity or Bishops or anyone else in religious orders. Correct me if I have gotten this wrong in any way.

If he is NOT speaking Ex Cathedra, what he says is not infallable. It is nothing more than his opinion. As the Pope, we should give his opinion considerable weight. But after praying about the matter in question, whatever it may be, and truly considering the issue, if we don't agree with His Holiness, we don't need to follow it. We must follow our conscience first and foremost. Is that correct?

And how many times has the Pope spoken Ex Cathedra? To my understanding it was only once. And if I remember correctly, it was in 1856 when Pope Pius ( I think it was the ninth) said the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is now Dogma. He was also the Pontiff to call the virst Vatican Council.

This is ony my opinion, but people place way too much emphasis on papal infallablity. Just read history and tell me every single pope was infallable on each of his (or perhaps her?) decisions! Lord have mercy!

Tim

Tim:

The second time was Pope Pius XII in 1950 concerning the Assumption. But that's it for all those years.

BOB

Dear Bob,

The adverse response from Constantinople was not towards the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but rather the act in and of itself of having made it a dogma without an ecumenical council. The fear was that if the Pope can make dogma's, the RCC can easily start falling prey to heresy. That is understandable, since the Orthodox, living within their own enclave, perceive the RCC as merely a branch of the universal Church and thereby found the Pope exceeding his authority.

As for the Assumption, Bishop Kallistos Ware mentioned in a foot note in one of his books, that the Orthodox Church fully accepted the Assumption until it was made dogma by the Pope. So much for that!

God Bless,

Zenovia

Pope calls Vatican Council.

Vatican Council defines "infallibility".

Pope speaks "infallibly" about "Immaculate Conception."

Sound fishy to anyone else?

Those two dogmas have always made me uncomfortable, even when I was in RC seminary.

Actually, the Immaculate Conception was defined before Vatican I, and it wasn't the first time the Pope had made universal pronouncements (though they are exceedingly rare).

Peace and God bless!

Dear Peter,

I might be going off topic, I generally tend to do so, but I think it might be important to express my views towards the Pontiff.

I am Orthodox, and there was a time that I perceived the Pope rather in the same way as all non Catholics do...basically as an anachronism to our democratic principals. In other words, he appeared as an emporor. Now I mention this for the members of the RCC, as well as the Byzantine Catholics to know how the Pope is perceived by other denominations.

Since I desire unity, I forced myself to start seeing the Pope in a different light, and by doing so I realized that it was not the Pope that was presenting himself as being regal, but rather it was the very enthrallment of his followers towards him, that made him appear that way.

I now believe there is a spiritual aspect to the Pope that enthralls his followers, as well as a latent prideful 'nationalistic' tendency also in many of his followers. It is that prideful tendency towards him, a product of our sinful political nature, that alienates those that are not under the Pope. I believe that if everyone would begin to understand the problems, they may begin to be solved and unity might come about. I surely hope so.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Dear Domilsean,

If one is perceiving things merely through their own weaknesses, then one would have to see the worst in the Pope making himself infallible. If though one was to use his reasoning, he would have to ask, 'why is the Pope doing something that will hinder unity between the Orthodox and Catholic Church?'

Since the Pope has nothing to do with the Protestants, he would not have declared himself infallible for them...for it would definitely have made no difference.

Also, the Pope had nothing to do with the Orthodox, so there also, by him declaring himself as being infallible, it would have made no difference.

The laity would have followed him regardless of his declaration of infallibility, so what was left? The bishops! The declaration of his infallibilty had to be in order to supercede the bishops within his own Church.

Then the question becomes, what was going on to make him want to supercede his bishops and declare our Theotokos as the Immaculate Conception? After all, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Katherine of Sienna, both doctors of the Church said she was not the Immaculate Conception when confronting Greek theologians.

I think the answer lies not with the saints and their visions, (although they are certainly the reason the Pope tookd the stance that he did), but rather why God would give the saints those visions at that specific time and place? Could it be that Protestant idea's were being infiltrated into the Catholic Church towards our Theotokos?

God Bless,

Zenovia

I have always found this assertion to be more than strange to me since, prior to the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, the pope inquired of all the bishops of the Church and found that there was near universal support for making a dogmatic definition. That's quite clear in the record of the declared definition, so it is not some obscure factoid that nobody knows.



I have shared this before here. St. Thomas did not object to the teaching that the Immaculate Conception had been untouched by sin. St. Thomas was of the opinion that the body was not ensouled upon conception, so he wanted the teaching to be that she was immaculate from the time that she was ensouled in the womb. So there's a huge misperception that is fostered when one makes the general statement that Thomas was opposed to the Immaculate Conception. In fact, he was not.

I really do hope that some day Catholics will be permitted to show Orthodoxy what they teach rather than having to passively sit by and watch the rest of the world be instructed about Catholic teaching out of a grab bag of presumptions, assumptions, attributions, half truths and outright falsehoods.

This is not directed to you as a person, Zenovia, for your heart is surely in the right place, but it is truly difficult to sit back and watch ideas flying about loose that should never have gotten so loose in the first place.


Mary

Dear Marie,

Actually, I came to the conclusion of why the Pope declared himself infallible not from any Orthodox teaching, but rather from Catholic movies and books. The Orthodox believe that the Pope wanted power, period.

According at least to one movie on Saint Bernadette, when mentioning that our Lady said she was the Immaculate Conception, it created quite a stir. It appears to me from what was said, that the Pope was up against his bishops for having made it a dogma. That movie was definitely not Orthodox. Also, I believe I picked up the concept of Saint Thomas Aquinas debating Orthodox bishops on the Immaculate Conception from Carrolls books, and he is certainly Catholic.

I have to thank you though for making what Saint Thomas Aquinas said, more explicit.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Don't mean to be rude but I generally get my Church history from Church records when I am able to do so.

Keeps me from having to depend on popular books and movies.

What you've said about the dogmatic teaching on the Immaculate Conception is wrong, regardless of where you got your data.

If you actually look at the record, you would find that the bishops supported the decision.

Mary