www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Pope Benedict has nuanced his stand on Eastern Orthodoxy

And I believe that they were right to do so, since the council was not truly free in its discussions in connection with primacy. Regardless, the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates were not represented, and so - in agreement with the Melkite Catholic Church - I hold that First Vatican Council is not an ecumenical council, but is simply a local synod reflecting a Western theological outlook.

Rightly understood the Lord had no opinion about the papacy, because it did not exist at the time of His ministry, and it arose as a purely human institution in the centuries that followed. As I said in one of my previous posts, the papal office is not a divinely instituted thing.

Let me be more precise: I reject what Vatican I taught about the papal teaching office. The pope cannot - even as a public person - issue a dogmatic decree on his own authority. Moreover, the pope cannot act at all (in a universal sense) without the consent of the entire episcopate, because there is only an ecumenical papal teaching office when the whole episcopate is assembled in an ecumenical council, and even when that is the case the pope still cannot issue a dogmatic decree without the agreement of the whole synod. The pope as protos cannot act independently of an ecumenical council (see Apostolic Canon 34).

I do not believe that the bishop of Rome has control (limited or unlimited) over the other local Churches and their bishops, which is why Vatican I will have to be tossed into the dustbin of history, because it was formulated in a manner that does not truly reflect the nature of primacy.

The Syrians have been wrong before, after all some Syrians thought that Jesus Christ was two hypostaseis, but I think there are Eastern Orthodox Syrians too, and I doubt that they agree with the idea that the Roman Bishop's office is a divinely revealed truth.

Actually, he can! The pope can "exercise his power at will, as his very office demands," and as he determines is best. Thus, contrary to what you have said, it is left "up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way."

Interestingly I have never run into a Nestorian or an Oriental Orthodox Christian who supports the First Vatican Council, and I have met quite a few online, and even a couple from each group in person.

This is true. But it is also true that Queen Elizabeth can wake up this morning and decide to dissolve the government and appoint a Labour prime minister. Legally, it is within her prerogative. Thing is, she'd only get to do it once, because it would violate a 150 year precedent of the Queen respecting the results of Parliamentary elections. The House of Commons would immediately pass a bill revoking her power to appoint the government, which would then automatically and legally reflect the composition of the House of Commons.

Same thing with the Pope: sure, he can declare tomorrow the Dogma of the Left-Handedness of Mary, but nobody would respect or receive it, and the net result would be a "clarification" of the Pope's prerogatives removing his ability to "just do it".

Which, of course, would be one way to resolve the issue of infallibility once and for all.

Evidently this is one point on which we differ, because I do not believe that the pope has the legal (or any other) right to proclaim dogmas unilaterally.

My original comment was meant only to convey the erroneous Roman Catholic position.

Legally, the Roman Church can pass whatever canonical legislation it likes. Whether this canonical legislation is binding upon anybody is the real question.

Well, to be fair, Cardinal Newman was very concerned about what would be binding and what wouldn't (even in hypothetical situations like you and Tood are discussing). I don't have the quotes on hand, but I could try to find them later.

Sounds great in theory but what happens in reality? One only has to look at the imposition of celibacy by Popes on Eastern Catholics in this country, as has been discussed several times on this Forum. This, I believe, has been a great injustice but it's perfectly legal under Catholic canon law and it's even included in the Eastern Code of Canons -- the "special norms established by the Apostolic See" as mentioned in Canon 758 # 3. [intratext.com]


Do you really think the Eastern Orthodox Churches would have felt that their perspective would have been truly honored at Vatican I? They had already read Pius IX's Letter to the Eastern Churches [orthocath.files.wordpress.com] which had stated that their Liturgies would need to be "corrected" when they "returned to unity":

"We ask of you only those things that are strictly necessary: return to unity; agree with us in the profession of the true faith that the Catholic Church holds and teaches; and, along with that of the whole Church itself, maintain communion with the supreme see of Peter. With respect to your sacred rites, only those things found in them contrary to catholic faith and unity are subject to correction. Once remedied in this regard, your ancient Eastern liturgies will remain unchanged."

I don't think the Orthodox should be faulted for turning down the invitation to attend Vatican I.


This doesn't make sense at all. Infallibility of the Pope is definitely what was taught at Vatican I.

I can agree with this. As stated in the other thread, I believe jurisdiction is established by potestas, but maintained by auctoritas.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument actually highlights the acceptability - if not correctness - of the Catholic position. The "Left-handedness of Mary" is certainly not in the Deposit of Faith, so the Pope would not have the authority to dogmatize it. So I guess the practical result of your position and my position would be the same.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd,

If I had a mind to it, I can "cry wolf" too and accuse you of belittling me and my position. Can we avoid such childishness in our discussion/debate?

I'll respond to the rest of your posts later. Thanks for splitting up the topics, btw.

Blessings,
Marduk

Finding oneself funny is probably not a good sign; nevertheless I had to chuckle a little when I realized I had put two "o"s rather than 2 "d"s. Sorry Todd.