The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (theophan, 1 invisible), 93 guests, and 17 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
Topics35,219
Posts415,297
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by StuartK
Nicely played but inconsistent. If Pastor Aeternus is dogma, if belief in papal infallibility is necessary for salvation, then it cannot be waived or dispensed, and those who deny it are material heretics, not merely schismatics. If that is the case, then allowing the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist from Catholic priests is a sacrilege, as is allowing Catholics to receive from Orthodox priests.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along, yet, because I'm Orthodox, I am accused of divisiveness and proof-texting. It would also be sacrilege to give the Eucharist to Eastern Catholics denying Pastor Aeternus.


Quote
Since the Catholic Church allows both, the only logical conclusion is belief in papal infallibility is not essential for salvation, is not a core belief of the Church, but is an area of doctrine peculiar to one particular Church.

Actually, there's another possible logical conclusion- that Catholic Church is incoherent.

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Originally Posted by Embatl'dSeraphim
Originally Posted by StuartK
Since the Catholic Church allows both, the only logical conclusion is belief in papal infallibility is not essential for salvation, is not a core belief of the Church, but is an area of doctrine peculiar to one particular Church.
Actually, there's another possible logical conclusion- that Catholic Church is incoherent.
Seraphim,

"Incoherency" is the inevitable result of the situation that the RCC found itself in after Vat. II regarding the ecumenical status of the post-schism Western councils, and thus the dogmatic status of their pronouncements.

Prior to Vat. II, the official line was simple: since the RC Communion was the Church, it was certainly qualified to hold ecumenical councils and make dogmatic pronouncements. By derogating this position, however slightly, the RCC opened the door to the possibility that maybe those councils really weren't ecumenical, and thus maybe those pronouncements really weren't dogmatic.

As silly as this sounds, I don't see any other way they could have proceded, since making an abrupt about-face on matters of such consequence would have undoubtedly induced a new schism, without necessarily healing the old. The only path forward would be to accept a kind of indecisiveness regarding this matter for the time being, and pray for the grace to come to a resolution in the future.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
"Incoherency" is the inevitable result of the situation that the RCC found itself in after Vat. II regarding the ecumenical status of the post-schism Western councils, and thus the dogmatic status of their pronouncements.

Oh, I do understand why there is incoherence... but that doesn't make it less incoherent.

Quote
By derogating this position, however slightly, the RCC opened the door to the possibility that maybe those councils really weren't ecumenical, and thus maybe those pronouncements really weren't dogmatic.

First of all, there's no evidence that any significant part of the RCC would accept that such a possibility exists. The RCC still teaches these dogmas as they were true and universally binding.

Second, if the pronouncements aren't dogmatic, then there is a very serious problem, namely that if these dogmatic pronouncements aren't really dogmatic, they are false and heretical. If papal infallibility is not dogma, it cannot be a theologoumenon- it is plainly false. The doctrine, by its nature, allows for no middle way.

Quote
As silly as this sounds, I don't see any other way they could have proceded, since making an abrupt about-face on matters of such consequence would have undoubtedly induced a new schism, without necessarily healing the old.

Well, the question is: what is true? Is Papal infallibility true or not? If it is false, then rejection of falsehood and respect for the truth should transcend any concerns about schism. The Saints did not hesitate to proclaim truth and condemn heresy, even if it alienated them from the majority.

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

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 - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5