The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
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
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 20 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 19 20
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
Originally Posted by danman916
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
Originally Posted by StuartK
At the First Council of Nicaea, while the bishops were the formal delegates and held episcopal jurisdiction, the weight of moral authority actually rested on the Confessors who had suffered in the persecutions for their faith. And laymen have, on occasion, stood against the collected weight of all the bishops, and been vindicated in their stand--witness Maximos the Confessor, a simple monk.
Stuart is making a good point. No statement, whether from a Council or a Pope, can ever be truly infallible unless it is received by the faithful. There is no magic here.
Is there a canon for this, or is it just generally accepted? Just wondering.
Again, good question. I am referring to the sensus fidelium as understood by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium [vatican.va] 35), but also in the sense of St. Vincent of LĂ©rins: "what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true [newadvent.org]." What I am trying to say is that no Pope and no Council can make up a new doctrine which did not already in some way, shape or form exist in the mind of the faithful.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by StuartK
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
However, as a convert to Catholicism I have made a promise to believe and confess all that the Catholic Church believes, confesses and proclaims.
Must be a Latin Catholic thing, since I was baptized into the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, and was not required to make any such promise. The Rites of Illumination in the Byzantine Rite are widely available, and I defy anyone to find such an oath. The Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople is entirely sufficient.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
Originally Posted by StuartK
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
However, as a convert to Catholicism I have made a promise to believe and confess all that the Catholic Church believes, confesses and proclaims.
Must be a Latin Catholic thing, since I was baptized into the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, and was not required to make any such promise. The Rites of Illumination in the Byzantine Rite are widely available, and I defy anyone to find such an oath. The Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople is entirely sufficient.
Very possibly. However I am happy with the promise I have made. The Latin Church is never short on lofty ideals.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
I digress, but I almost envy you. I was "only" baptized as an infant as an Evangelical Lutheran, and subsequently confirmed as a Catholic. I would have liked to have been able to remember my own baptism.

Still, I definitely believe that the baptism of infants is valid according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

And, I suppose it is fitting that a difference should be made between neophytes and repentant heretics . . . wink

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by StuartK
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
And, I suppose it is fitting that a difference should be made between neophytes and repentant heretics . . .
As opposed to us heathens, I guess?

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
Originally Posted by StuartK
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
And, I suppose it is fitting that a difference should be made between neophytes and repentant heretics . . .
As opposed to us heathens, I guess?
No one who has been baptized as a Ruthenian Catholic would ever qualify as a heathen. You are included in the category of neophytes, whereas I am the repentant heretic.

This is not to say that I haven't sometimes wondered at your apparent animus against anything and everything emanating from Rome. Still, I think Rome can take care of itself and so a bit of criticism won't hurt.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by StuartK
Before I was a Ruthenian I was a non-practicing Jew. The ancestors of some of the people in my parish probably chased some of my ancestors up and down the Carpathians.

I don't have an animus against Rome. I simply take Rome at its word regarding what it wants Greek Catholics to do, not to mention the promises Rome makes to our Orthodox brethren. I can't help it if that bumps up against some other things Rome wants people to do.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by Irenaeus
Originally Posted by mardukm
Of your 15 quotes, I would count only 7 that actually support the doctrine of the IC. There are others out there, of course, from the early Fathers.
Hello,

I love this seventh century one: St. Sophronius (died 638), Patriarch of Jerusalem, was one of the last of the Fathers and one of the greatest exponents of Mary's primacy of excellence. He almost stated the Immaculate Conception in western terms:
Quote
Others before you have flourished with outstanding holiness. But to none as to you has the fullness of grace been given. None has been endowed with happiness as you, none adorned with holiness like yours, none brought to such great magnificence as yours; no one was ever possessed beforehand by purifying grace as were you... And this deservedly, for no one came as close to God as you did; no one was enriched with God's gifts as you were; no one shared God's grace as you did (St. Sophronius, In SS Deip. Annunt. 22 Patrologia Latina 87c, 3248, in Michael O'Carroll, "Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary," p. 329, italics and ellipsis in O'Carroll).
Peace, in and out,
Irenaeus

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by StuartK
Almost, but not quite, as was pointed out by Meyendorff. The most important thing Fr. John wrote about it was this:
Quote
But, it should be remembered--especially in the context of the poetical, emotional or rhetorical exaggerations characteristic of Byzantine liturgical Mariology--that such concepts as "purity" and "holiness" could easily be visualized even within the framework of pre-Christian humanity, which was considered as mortal, but not necessarily "guilty". In the case of Mary, her response to the angel abd ger status as the "New Eve" gave her a special relation to the "new race" born of her. Yet never does one read in Byzantine authors any statement which would imply that she had received a special grace of immortality. Only such a statement would clearly imply that her humanity did not share the common lot of the descendants of Adam. [. . .] So the Byzantine Church, wisely preserving the scale of theological values that always gave precedence to the basic fundamental truths of the Gospel, abstained from enforcing any dogmatic formulation concerning Mary, except that she was truly and really the Theotokos, "Mother of God". No doubt, this striking title, made necessary by the logic of Cyrillian Christology, justified her daily liturgical acclamation as "more honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim." What greater honor could be rendered to a human being? What clearer basis could be found for a Christian theocentric anthropology? Indeed, what greater honor could? So, this is not really about ensuring proper veneration or devotion to the Theotokos, for in this area, Orthodox piety equals if not exceeds that of the West. Which means just one thing: our disagreement is fundamentally about the priority of the Latin Church and its theology over all other Churches. Which is why, of course, in its discussions with the Orthodox Churches, the Holy See never even raises the issue of the immaculate conception. For Rome, it's a non-issue. For Romans--and many Greek Catholics, apparently--its a matter of self-identification.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by ajk
Is the last paragraph of the Quote Meyendorff?
Originally Posted by StuartK
Indeed, what greater honor could? So, this is not really about ensuring proper veneration or devotion to the Theotokos, for in this area, Orthodox piety equals if not exceeds that of the West. Which means just one thing: our disagreement is fundamentally about the priority of the Latin Church and its theology over all other Churches. Which is why, of course, in its discussions with the Orthodox Churches, the Holy See never even raises the issue of the immaculate conception. For Rome, it's a non-issue. For Romans--and many Greek Catholics, apparently--its a matter of self-identification.
If Meyendorff wrote the following then he really misses the mark:
Originally Posted by StuartK
Yet never does one read in Byzantine authors any statement which would imply that she had received a special grace of immortality. Only such a statement would clearly imply that her humanity did not share the common lot of the descendants of Adam. . .
The important point is that "her humanity" DID "share the common lot of the descendants of Adam." As has been correctly noted, this sharing reinforces that Christ, who took flesh from her, is unambiguously "true Man."

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't have an animus against Rome. I simply take Rome at its word regarding what it wants Greek Catholics to do, not to mention the promises Rome makes to our Orthodox brethren. I can't help it if that bumps up against some other things Rome wants people to do.
Good. I agree that we should take Rome at its word. We should not "accept" Rome's words and then proceed to explain them away. But I hope you agree that the words of Councils and Popes must be read hermeneutically. Each declaration of a Council or a Pope must be seen in the context of other declarations, and in the context of the historical situation at the time. Therefore, when discussing a particular dogma like the Immaculate Conception, or a particular Council like Vatican I, they cannot be seen in isolation, but as part of the whole history of dogmas and councils. Otherwise, you risk depending too much on only one dogma or one council.

So, looking at Vatican I, you point out that the Eastern bishops were badly treated. That certainly raises doubts about the Council, but it doesn't automatically discredit its decrees. After all, I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are still unhappy about the way they were treated at Chalcedon in 451. But that does not mean that Chalcedon wasn't a valid Council. However, continuing the comparison, it is clear that Chalcedon dealt with pressing issues of Christology, whereas Vatican I "only" dealt with the question of the exercise of the Petrine ministry.

Continued in the post below.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
Continued from the post above.

Also, looking at Pastor Aeternus, this document needs to be read in the context of the historical situation in 1869-70 and in the context of the history of the Petrine ministry. It was felt by many at the time that it was necessary to affirm the authority of the Pope in the face of the impending unification of Italy. I believe there were some Ultramontanists who wanted Papal Infallibility to extend to politcs as well, something which would have been completely disastrous. Thankfully, they were defeated.

As I have said before, and I believe to be true, no Council can make up new truths, but can only confirm and elucidate what is already true. Infallibility only means that the Church cannot teach falsehood. It does not mean that individual teaching documents are guaranteed to be perfect expressions of the truth. We are after all limited by human language.

Looking at Pastor Aeternus in isolation, then, is dangerous, and Rome does not require us to do so. Witness for example the teaching of Vatican II on the College of Bishops (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 1964), and the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint from 1995 on the need to reconsider how the Petrine ministry is exercised.

I hope you will excuse this rather long post, but I do think that we have to try to be very careful and nuanced when discussing complex dogmatic issues. Otherwise we risk doing more harm than good.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by danman916
Originally Posted by StuartK
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
However, as a convert to Catholicism I have made a promise to believe and confess all that the Catholic Church believes, confesses and proclaims.
Must be a Latin Catholic thing, since I was baptized into the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, and was not required to make any such promise. The Rites of Illumination in the Byzantine Rite are widely available, and I defy anyone to find such an oath. The Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople is entirely sufficient.
The profession of faith that Latin Catholic is referring to is part of the rite of receiving non-Catholic (baptized) Christians into the full communion of the Church. You would not have done this since you made your profession of faith when you were baptized. In the Latin Rite, catechumens make their renunciation of sin and profession of faith before being baptized through a series of affirmations:

i.e. Priest: Do you believe in God the Father, creator of heaven and earth?
Catechumen: "I do"
Priest: Do you believe...... Catechumen: "I Do"
etc.

Christians already baptized are received into the Church after making this affirmation of faith. After which, they also recite the Nicene Creed during the liturgy. Maybe Ruthenian's receive other non-Catholic Christians in a different way with a different liturgical formula. I don't know.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by StuartK
Originally Posted by ajk
Is the last paragraph of the Quote Meyendorff?
No, I dragged too far. The last line from Meyendorff is:

"What greater honor could be rendered to a human being? What clearer basis could be found for a Christian theocentric anthropology?"

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by StuartK
Almost, but not quite, as was pointed out by Meyendorff. The most important thing Fr. John wrote about it was this:
Quote
But, it should be remembered--especially in the context of the poetical, emotional or rhetorical exaggerations characteristic of Byzantine liturgical Mariology--that such concepts as "purity" and "holiness" could easily be visualized even within the framework of pre-Christian humanity, which was considered as mortal, but not necessarily "guilty". In the case of Mary, her response to the angel abd ger status as the "New Eve" gave her a special relation to the "new race" born of her. Yet never does one read in Byzantine authors any statement which would imply that she had received a special grace of immortality. Only such a statement would clearly imply that her humanity did not share the common lot of the descendants of Adam. . .
Stuart, I love Meyendorff's book on Byzantine theology, and I agree with what he said here, and with what you (and several others) have been saying throughout this thread. There is no need for a theory of the "Immaculate Conception" in the East, because no one is born guilty or sinful.

Page 15 of 20 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 19 20

Moderated by  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 - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5