www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Constantinople IV

That's pretty big "if".

But in any case, let me try and break-down what I said a bit more. There's a large number of Catholics who believe that there have been exactly 2 ex cathedra statements (on the IC in 1854 and on the Assumption in 1950), no more and no less. Then there's a large number of Catholics who agree that those 2 were ex cathedra statements, but don't necessarily think that there have been no other ex cathedra statements. (Actually, many in this latter group are really baffled -- understandably IMO -- at how widespread the "exactly 2" idea is.) I can't give you specific stats, but I'm sure that these two groups together are a clear majority of Catholics.

To the typical Roman Catholic, who is very poorly catechized, if the Pope's lips are moving, then it's infallible--unless they disagree with him, in which case it is not.

I have to wonder if you actually believe your own baloney, or just say that to get a rise out if people.

Why do I have to choose?

I have to admit I've come to enjoy Stuart's posts. I'm absolutely no closer to understanding what the actual post schism Catholic conciliar tradition is in terms of this thread, but so be it.

I said almost exactly the same thing to Stuart a few weeks ago. But in this case, there is something to what he's saying -- spend some time on catholic.com and you'll see. I recall a number of times (back when I participated on that forum, which is to say a few years ago) when one of my fellow Catholics said that the pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith or morals. But that's not the worst part ... in some of those cases, after I informed him/her that the church actually only teaches that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, he/she angrily demanded to know why I was telling him/her something that he/she already knew.

Fond memories.

catholic.com is very atypical and does not represent the norm.

I would say that catholic.com pretty much reflects the Glenn Beck wing of the RC church. They are loud, they are ignorant and they are angry. The parish I attend is very large and very conservative and I would venture not 10% of the people who are members of that parish have every even heard of catholic.com.

On the other hand, I would venture to guess that about the same percentage would have any idea what this whole topic is about. To believe that anything we talk about on this forum matters to the vast majority of the people in the pews at mass on Sunday would be to exhibit a serious case of self-delusion.

I don't wish to exaggerate the significance of catholic.com (Catholic Answers). They're not-too-big, not-too-small. They've had around 8 million posts -- which is pretty big for one website, but small in the greater scheme of things.

The thing is, though, that a much larger number of Catholics (many of whom have never heard of catholic.com) agree with their way of thinking. So I wouldn't exactly describe them as "very atypical".

Which council would they say is Constantinople IV and why would they answer that way?

Does it matter, considering that there have only been seven ecumenical councils?

Ask that question to the Copts. There sure aren't seven to them.
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/dictionary/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=623

Both the Copts and the Byzantines agree there aren't twenty-two, that's for certain.

and both the Copts and Roman Catholics don't agree there's only 7.

I am just pointing out how limited your argument is that the argument you use against the Roman number is the same used against the seven.

It's hard to argue for the Orthodox number of 7 when all of the Orthodox don't agree on 7, just a part of them.

I know, I know. you're going to call it one of those nice neat theories again.
That's because your argument is full of holes and you have no other appeal than that one. =-)

Dear brother AMM,


The Tradition is that the the local bishop has the authority over all Rites within his territorial jurisdiction. It is this same Tradition which permitted Michael Cerularius to close down all the Latin churches in his jurisdiction (which resulted in the bishop of Rome to send Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople in hopes of negotiation).

See above.

Because it is in the Eastern Tradition (just look at the Canons of the early Church - annulments were recognized for such things as consanguinity, disparity of cult, lack of proper form, etc.).

See above.

Exactly which parts?

I confess I do not understand your question completely, despite your explanation to brother Peter. As far as "the pious opinion of one particular Church," upon due investigation, the teaching found therein was found to be the Tradition of both East and West (which the West actually received from the East).

Blessings,
Marduk