The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
nick.maecenas, NathanJA, Antonym, Don M, Journeyman
5,894 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
3 members (Fr. Deacon Lance, griego catolico, theophan), 199 guests, and 25 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,256
Posts415,567
Members5,894
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
I don't understand how the teachings and decrees of Vatican I can be simply Rome-specific.

Were you invited to that party? No, you were not.

Quote
Pius IX in 1869 extended a general invitation to the Schismatic bishops of the East urging them to come to the ecumenical Council of the Vatican held in 1869 and 1870.
link [melkite.org]

Quote
The apostolic letter Aeterni Patris formally convoked the Council on 29 June 1868 and Pius sent two further letters on 8 September (Arcano Divinae Providentiale) and 13 September (Iam Vos Omnes) to invite the bishops of the Orthodox Church as well as Protestant and other non-Catholics, respectively, to attend the Council.
link [etd.ohiolink.edu]

Quote
Gregory VI, Patriarch of Constantinople: Rejection of the Pope's Invitation to the Latin Synod in Vatican, 1868.
link [goarch.org]

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
[quote=StuartK]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. [/quote]

You have elsewhere stated that Nestorians and non-Chalcedonians are part of the Church. By your logic, there have been no ecumenical councils since 1st Constantinople. And that's assuming you don't consider Arians and Apollinarians to also have been part of the "entire Body of Christ."

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
You have elsewhere stated that Nestorians and non-Chalcedonians are part of the Church. By your logic, there have been no ecumenical councils since 1st Constantinople. And that's assuming you don't consider Arians and Apollinarians to also have been part of the "entire Body of Christ."

Another guy with an amazingly legalistic approach to ecclesiology. I also said, since the Orientals and Assyrians are in fundamental agreement with the content of those councils, they have ecumenical authority. Everybody believes the important stuff--that Jesus Christ is true God, that Jesus Christ is truly human, and that Jesus Christ is one. And, as one Melkite archbishop put it, "Everything else is philosophy".

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by StuartK
[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.
We are aware that the Melkite Church was at Vatican I in the person of its Patriarch Gregorios. You will remember the attempt of the Melkite Patriarch to avoid signing the document on Papal Infallibility and the brouhaha which resulted from that.

In a sense you are correct in saying that only the Church of Rome was present. In those days there was indeed only the Roman Catholic Church in existence. Such Eastern groupings as existed were not seen as Churches but as Roman Catholics using a different Rite. Officially they were called "Roman Catholics of the Melkite Rite," etc.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by ajk
Quote
Pius IX in 1869 extended a general invitation to the Schismatic bishops of the East urging them to come to the ecumenical Council of the Vatican held in 1869 and 1870.
link [melkite.org]

Hardly surprising that the Orthodox did not take up the invitation. In every sentence of this link we are railed at and termed schismatics again and again. It finishes with the Pope's stated intention of proselytizing us: "Lately, he [the Pope] has devised a plan of establishing Catholic seminaries among those Oriental Schismatics to raise a native priesthood among them, all in order to bring those millions of lost sheep back to the one fold of Jesus Christ, Holy Mother Church."

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted by ajk
Quote
Pius IX in 1869 extended a general invitation to the Schismatic bishops of the East urging them to come to the ecumenical Council of the Vatican held in 1869 and 1870.
link [melkite.org]

Hardly surprising that the Orthodox did not take up the invitation. In every sentence of this link we are railed at and termed schismatics again and again. It finishes with the Pope's stated intention of proselytizing us: "Lately, he [the Pope] has devised a plan of establishing Catholic seminaries among those Oriental Schismatics to raise a native priesthood among them, all in order to bring those millions of lost sheep back to the one fold of Jesus Christ, Holy Mother Church."
As a note in the link explains:
Quote
In 1919 Milwaukee Roman Catholic Archbishop Sebastian Messmer wrote an introduction to Father Anthony Aneed's book, Syrian Christians: A Brief History of the Catholic Church of St. George. Although today some of the archbishop's words may seem a tad bit "too direct," his explanation of the various rites and estimates of the numbers of believers more that justify the inclusion of this document...

Also, quoting from Archbishop Messmer:
Quote
But in vain. Pius IX in 1869 extended a general invitation to the Schismatic bishops of the East urging them to come to the ecumenical Council of the Vatican held in 1869 and 1870. But they refused. When Leo XIII, who wrote several apostolic letters on this reunion, invited some of these Eastern bishops to a discussion at Rome, he received a most insulting answer from the Patriarch of Constantinople. And now Benedict XV, amidst all the trials of a European war, has established a special Roman Congregation for the Oriental churches and a special pontifical Institute at Rome for Oriental Ecclesiastical studies open to Catholics and also to Schismatic Oriental students, priests and layman. Lately, he has devised a plan of establishing Catholic seminaries among those Oriental Schismatics to raise a native priesthood among them, all in order to bring those millions of lost sheep back to the one fold of Jesus Christ, Holy Mother Church.


So Archbishop Messmer's words (1919) and the plan of Benedict XV (1914-1922) could hardly have influenced the Orthodox declining the invitation to Vatican I (1869-1870).

The noted stress on schismatics goes to a point made in this thread by Catholic posters: the word heretic is not used. But I can still understand the sensitivity of our separated brethern even at that, but would remind them that we Catholics are even now called and considered a whole lot worse by them.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by ajk
The noted stress on schismatics goes to a point made in this thread by Catholic posters: the word heretic is not used. But I can still understand the sensitivity of our separated brethern even at that, but would remind them that we Catholics are even now called and considered a whole lot worse by them.

Honesty is much better than a mistaken and polite dissemblance in Christian dialogue. If it is a matter of heresy to deny papal infallibility and papal supremacy, etc., then we Orthodox are certainly heretics, some of us material heretics and some of us formal. It is better to state that openly rather than have to deal with it half way through the dialogue.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
in light of the manner in which the Council was conducted, including the treatment of the Eastern Catholic bishops in attendance, there would have been little point to having the "schismatic Orientals" present. Free discussion of the issues was not permitted, and the conditions under which interventions were allowed severely constrained. It was, in short, run pretty much by the rules of the Robber Synod. For details, see Luis M. Bermejo, SJ, Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion, Christian Classics (Wetminster, MD) 1992

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by StuartK
... It was, in short, run pretty much by the rules of the Robber Synod ...
Interesting observation.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 2
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
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.

Wouldn't that preclude it from being an ecumenical counsel, and therefore rome-specific?

And if it isn't such, but purported to be, wouldn't that in turn limit it's application even to the members of the Church of Rome?

hawk

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
I don't understand how the teachings and decrees of Vatican I can be simply Rome-specific.

Were you invited to that party? No, you were not.
Yes, actually they were. But the EO refused to participate out of pride (the EO responded that the Pope did not invite them as brothers, but as one speaking to children) - granted, I also feel the Pope made the invitation in a haughty manner. That was that. I don't see how that action by the EO would or could prevent the Holy Spirit from guiding the Vatican Council. The OO were also invited, but I am not knowledgeable as to the specific response given.

In any case, the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches were present, and did exercise an influence on the Council, which resulted in the important addition of a paragraph in the Vatican Decree on the Primacy, which I quoted in another thread regarding the authority of the Pope not standing in the way of the authority of the bishops in their local diocese.

Their influence was also felt in the addition of several paragraphs in the apostolic constitution to the Decree on Infallibility, that explicitly brought to light the fact that papal infallibility is limited by Sacred Tradition. In fact, the Decree on Infallibility was greatly changed from its original draft due to the efforts of the Minority Parity.

Blessings,
Marduk
"

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by dochawk
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
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.

Wouldn't that preclude it from being an ecumenical counsel, and therefore rome-specific?

And if it isn't such, but purported to be, wouldn't that in turn limit it's application even to the members of the Church of Rome?

hawk

I am not a Catholic but I would believe so. If the dogma failed to meet a condition for infallibility, namely that it was intended to bind the WHOLE Church dogmatically, then it simply is not a dogma. It is not de fide and it is not binding on either the members of the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Churches.

But I don't think this argument has the remotest chance of flying with regard to Vatican I since at that time there was ONLY the Roman Catholic Church and any Eastern Churches were seen as simply Rites included within the Roman Catholic Church. Notions of autonomy and sui juris were completely unknown. So it follows that the dogma *was* proclaimed as binding upon the whole Catholic Church.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted by ajk
The noted stress on schismatics goes to a point made in this thread by Catholic posters: the word heretic is not used. But I can still understand the sensitivity of our separated brethern even at that, but would remind them that we Catholics are even now called and considered a whole lot worse by them.

Honesty is much better than a mistaken and polite dissemblance in Christian dialogue...

It did not sound as though the "honesty" was appreciated:

Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
In every sentence of this link we are railed at and termed schismatics again and again...

Speaking of honesty rather than dissemblance: As Greek philosophy put it, gnōthi seauton; in the language of the Gospel, Luke 6:42.


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted by ajk
The noted stress on schismatics goes to a point made in this thread by Catholic posters: the word heretic is not used. But I can still understand the sensitivity of our separated brethern even at that, but would remind them that we Catholics are even now called and considered a whole lot worse by them.

Honesty is much better than a mistaken and polite dissemblance in Christian dialogue...

It did not sound as though the "honesty" was appreciated:

Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
In every sentence of this link we are railed at and termed schismatics again and again...

Speaking of honesty rather than dissemblance: As Greek philosophy put it, gnōthi seauton; in the language of the Gospel, Luke 6:42.

Dear Father Deacon,

I think that we can all appreciate and distinguish between the polemical and adversarial atmosphere of the 1800s which we have thankfully discarded and the more irenic and objective atmosphere which has come into existence over the last 50 years of interchurch relationships.

By the time of Vatican II in the mid 1990s the atmosphere was remarkably changed and both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad responded to the invitation of Pope John XXIII and sent observers to the Council. The Russian Church Abroad (my Church) sent a senior Archbishop and three Archpriests.


Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 09/25/09 12:28 PM.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Hieromonk Ambrose
...with regard to Vatican I since at that time there was ONLY the Roman Catholic Church and any Eastern Churches were seen as simply Rites included within the Roman Catholic Church. Notions of autonomy and sui juris were completely unknown...
In a sense this was and is still true, but it presents an overly-simplistic view of Catholic ecclesiology. The Catholic Church has and still does stress The One Church in its ecclesiology, especially that expressed by its western lung. But the basic elements -- the necessary and sufficient elements that exist -- have always existed, though present terminology better reflects the relationships among those elements. Those elements, I have argued, are only three: (1) The One Church (communion, koinonia); (2) the churches (diocese/eparchy, ekklesia); (3) the Eucharistic gathering (Divine Liturgy / Mass etc., synaxia). That ecclesiology is realized in the Catholic Church. Element (1) is reflected among the Orthodox only at the level of Patriarchal, autocephalous, etc. "churches" -- non-essential, not divinely ordained elements/structures -- and the communion among those elements, a communion, however, where autonomy supersedes unity. Catholic ecclesiology has traditionally stressed (1), the unity of the divinely-ordained One Body of Christ, in its theology and (3) in actual practice; the fundamental role of (2) is now better appreciated and expressed.

Page 5 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2023 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5