www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Three Ex Cathedra Definitions

Anastasios wrote:
I used to try and play the "some things are for Latins, others for Byzantines" game. It doesn't work and it is inconsistent with what the Papacy teaches in both its "ordinary" and "extraordinary" magisterium. We Eastern Catholics can pretend all we want that Vatican I will be "reformulated" or whatever, but our bishops don't believe that and I'd wager neither do most our priests or faithful.

This is not a game and anyone who believes that Eastern Catholics are arguing that some things are for the Latins and others for the Byzantines does not have a basic understanding of Catholic theology. The Eastern Catholic disagreement with the Vatican I definition of the role of Peter is not in the nature of Peter�s authority but rather in how it is exercised in the daily life of the Church.

Alex has raised a worthy point in that Rome has taken upon itself the imperiousness of the Roman Empire. The problem is that along with the authoritativeness she has also taken the arrogance.

The fact that Vatican I did not take us Eastern Catholics into consideration has nothing to do with the discussion. Its definitions were poorly organized and poorly presented. This does not make them wrong. Pope John Paul II has recognized this and has asked the East to help him. I am saddened to find that the East has been silent.

Admin

Dear Dr. John,

I can agree with you in some respect that we cannot understand God. That's why I came out against the Vatican I Council, which I believe "made up" things about the Papacy that simply weren't revealed by God.

On the other hand, I think your premiss is flawed. God is not so radically different that we cannot comprehend him at all. There is an antimony between God's ultimate transcendence and his imminence. The key is that *HE* revealed Himself. And He did it by becoming man, and by using our language. It's not a big secret and it's not a big guessing game. He gave us the Holy Spirit to purify the nous and allow us to attain to communion with Him. The problem with the Western theology that led up to the Vatican I council was it was based on theorizing and guessing, whereas true Theology stems from God's self-revelation in the Tradition both oral and written, in the liturgy, and in the community's living out of the received truth.

You wrote: "When one talks about "ex cathedra" definitions, the critical element is: how does one reconcile verbal pronouncements with eternal verities? The short answer is: one can't." and the answer to that is, you are simply wrong. One cannot attain to the theological level of God, ie we cannot understand how the Trinity relates to itself in itself. But as far as the economy goes, in how God reveals himself, yes we can because HE HIMSELF SHOWED US. And my whole point is that the Vatican I council did not stay in line with that teaching; it ventured off into human pronouncements that do not represent that truth.

You conclude with: "Leave people alone. Let them deal with the Creator in response to their everyday deeds. We 'humans' don't have such powers." I am coming out against the Vatican I council *because* it is divisive, and because it touches upon areas which I believe should NOT have been "defined". So I guess in that sense we agree perhaps.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Axios:

Either ChristTeen is well-traveled and has met Orthodox and Catholics along his journey of faith or he is internet-savvy like my 15-year old son.

But no matter how you look at it, or him, ChristTeen IS a bundle of joy!

He is wise for his age: a "wonderkid?"

This early, he has thrown at us that nagging question: "Why do Orthodox and Catholics remain separated?"

AmdG

What is there to guess about the Orthodox position?

You say that the Latin Church has defined its view of the papacy in the Vatican Councils. But that was not a mere "laying it on the table". Those councils are ecumenical councils to the Catholic Church, and the dogmas they decreed (or confirmed, as is the case with Vatican II) are irreformable in the Catholic view. As CT287 and Anastasios noted, a declaration such as those made at the Vatican Councils is obviously not up for debate on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. So what if the Orthodox officially lay down their view on the table? The only view that would be compatible with the Roman view and conducive to reunion would be one where the Orthodox acknowledge those things as truth. I don't know if that is going to happen, because I don't know that that is the true way Christ willed His Church to be.

AFAIK, no one in the Orthodox Church has made an official response to Pope John Paul II�s invitation to help him redefine the role of the papacy to best serve a united Church in the Third Millennium.

OK, maybe no official response has been made in the wake of Ut Unum Sint. But even if they did, how far would that get us on the road to reunion if that response doesn't include an acknowledgement of the truth of the claims of the Vatican Councils?

The pope�s invitation to the Orthodox is genuine. Even Schmemman has acknowledged the need for a strong papacy (although he obviously did not accept the current form).

I believe this Pope is genuine, and I do acknowledge the value of a strong papacy.

I would not support limits on papal authority or infallibility but I would support a reform of the Vatican curia.

It is not the Curia that is the issue, for if the Pope wanted, he could dissolve it right now. The Curia as such is not defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church as an essential mode of Church government instituted by Christ. But the Papacy in its current form is. At least that's what Vatican I seems to say.

I think that if one looks past all of the surface arguments on both sides there is plenty of historical precedence for the nature of both universal jurisdiction and infallibility.

Plenty of historical precedent for universal jurisdiction and infallibility? Where?

The main problem, IMO, is how they have been exercised. The West has not always treated the East well and that in itself is something the East needs to forgive before any serious discussions can take place. This is happening, but very slowly.

Of course the East needs to forgive, but the East cannot ignore what it sees as deviations from the faith. Catholics contend that universal jurisdiction and infallibility are not deviations, but essential parts of the faith. But from everything I've read by Catholics in defence of this, the logic seems faulty. In all my studying, and I admit I could do more, I have not been convinced that there is any basis for the Catholic view of papal primacy (jurisdiction and infallibility), although there clearly is a type of papal primacy.

Axios,

I'm "internet savvy", as Amado said. The specific Orthodox man I talked (typed) to was a member of Beliefnet, as I formerly was. Believe it or not, I've never met a real-life Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. You don't get much of those in Georgia (which is fine by me, you couldn't pay me enough to move outside of my state!)

Haha, well I know on this forum I might come off as a little know-it-all who really doesn't know it all, but (I'm pretty sure) I'm not like that in reality.

Thanks, Amado, I try to be joyful...if it seems I'm super-serious and depressed about the Orthodox/Catholic thing, to some point I am, but mainly I think it's GREAT that there are mature parties on both sides that can talk and disagree and yet remain so cordial and Christ-like! Good job, Byzantine Forumers!

To some, it may seem that the more the Papacy is discussed, the less hopeful it seems, but I truly think just the opposite: already, from this very thread, I believe it's been demonstrated, that with a lot of talk and A LOT more prayer, the two Churches can meet on a middle ground.

As I've said before, the division is very distressing. Just think of what a force a united Catholic-Orthodoxy would be against the foes of Christianity and how many more souls would be brought to Christ.

ChristTeen287

Well, I would not accept as the Gospel what is said among Orthodox or Catholics on a "Net Forum" I find this often breeds extremes (except for Alex who seems to keep a glorious balance and true charity in his posts that are lacking most definitely in mine most of the time) If you want to see the Orthodox Church, one goes to the parishes or to the monasteries and their daily life. Especially the life of the Liturgy and the Services.

Gospodi POmilui!

I'm sure you have done this

Peace,
Brian

Au contraire, I'm afraid. The closest Orthodox or Eastern Catholic church is an hour 15 away...heck, the closest Latin rite Catholic parish is 30 minutes away.

ChristTeen287

ChristTeen287,

I appreciate your good questions. You are very insightful into the Christian Mysteries. Stay strong in your faith and I think God will use you in a great way for His purpose and Glory.

As for your first question. Many Councils were not considered Ecumenical immediately after their conclusion in both the East and the West, as I'm sure you know. As for Councils considered Ecumenical and then later not to be so, I think the original so-called Eight Ecumenical Council might be a good example. Study (on the web if you like) how the Latin Church came to enumerate the councils between Nicea II and Trent as Ecumenical. I think it was St. Charles Borromeo who made up the list which later gained universal recognition in the Latin Church.

To try to answer your second question, I would say a council is to be considered Ecumenical when the leaders of the Churches find it acceptable and consistent with the historic faith of their respective Churches.

So, to use your example, the Council of Chalcedon is not considered Ecumenical by those who comprise the Apostolic Churches so-called "Oriental Orthodox." As this relates to our discussion, many bishops of East and West objected to the proclamation of Vatican I although it was still cramned down the Church's throat (please excuse my bad analogy). For anyone to deny that a substantial amount of clerics in the Catholic Church -then and now-object to the decress of Vatican I, I think is to deny historical reality.

I must say, though that I respectfully disagree with Dr. John. I believe the Church not only has the ability but also the obligation to teach authoritatively, God's Revelation. Our Lord has charged her leaders to do so (St. Mt. 28:20). And we are charged to obey them (Hebrews 13:7-9, 17). These commands I take seriously. For those who cannot confess the faith of the Church, they must make a decision to try to reconcile their difficulties with that Church or to make their spiritual homes somewhere that teaches in accord with what they believe to be the truth.

The Orthodox Father Thomas Hopko, states in his lectures on the Nicene Symbol that anyone who cannot confess the Symbol of Faith on any given Sunday because they do not believe it, should cease to receive Holy Communion until they have resolved their difficulties.

If the Church believed she could not or should not teach authoritatively, she would've never had an Ecumenical Council, would have she?

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Thank you very much, Ghazar. I think that God is using just about everyone on this forum for his greater glory. Your compliments are appreciated.

Yes, indeed. I had the Oriental Orthodox in mind, that's why I mentioned Chalcedon. I think there was a good thread a couple of months ago on the term "ecumenical council" and what it meant; the Oriental Orthodox were brought up.

So, I guess from Chalcedon we see that even though a large part of the Church can reject an ecumenical council as such, that doesn't necessarily mean that the ecumenical council isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the Council of Chalcedon was (from both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective).

So who, then, is to say that Vatican I isn't authoratative just because some Catholics don't agree with it- - -and these people (whether they be Latin or Eastern Catholic) haven't broken communion with the Church over this issue, which to me would seem to say it's on a much lesser scale than Chalcedon was.

Certainly there has been opposition to the doctrines of every ecumenical council, but that doesn't mean the faithful should throw up their hands and say, "Well obviously these doctrines from this council weren't true."

Hmmm, reading over my post, my ideas are very disjointed and don't really make a lot of sense, but I'm tired and just got off a sugar high, so that's about as high as I can aim tonight.

ChristTeen287

Originally posted by ChristTeen287:
"Yes, indeed. I had the Oriental Orthodox in mind, that's why I mentioned Chalcedon. I think there was a good thread a couple of months ago on the term "ecumenical council" and what it meant; the Oriental Orthodox were brought up.

So, I guess from Chalcedon we see that even though a large part of the Church can reject an ecumenical council as such, that doesn't necessarily mean that the ecumenical council isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the Council of Chalcedon was (from both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective)."

reply:
No, I would say that for the Oriental Orthodox that Council was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and they still don't hold to it.

you said:
"So who, then, is to say that Vatican I isn't authoratative just because some Catholics don't agree with it- - -and these people (whether they be Latin or Eastern Catholic) haven't broken communion with the Church over this issue, which to me would seem to say it's on a much lesser scale than Chalcedon was."

reply:
Actually I would view Vatican I exactly opposite of your description. It is rejected by not only the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox but also by many who are in Communion with Rome. This is very large scale rejection.

Chalcedon was rejected more for the way it was defined more than the content of faith. All sides believe that Christ is truly God Who became truly man. How to define this was the beef of the question. Can we say the same is true of Vatican I? Perhaps. Hence the need for reformulation, IMO.

you said:
"Certainly there has been opposition to the doctrines of every ecumenical council, but that doesn't mean the faithful should throw up their hands and say, 'Well obviously these doctrines from this council weren't true.'"

reply:
I really don't think this is what I'm doing or advocating. I am rather talking about Apostolic Churches remaining true to their authentic traditions as the Pope has called them to. This does NOT involve having their faith dictated to them and forced upon them.

Infact, I'd like to raise the question to you all of whether the authority of the Pope should be made a matter of faith at all? I argue that it should be considered a matter of canonical proceedure rather than making the Pope's office an object of faith. What do you all think?

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar

Dear Mor Ephrem et al.,

Such a position certainly exists, but it is polemical and not a basis for dialogue in the absence of a thoughful analysis of "the way it used to be" - let alone a fair analysis of the way things are now. This position seems to be just what Bishop Kallistos is criticizing:

On the issue of universal primacy, Schmemann writes this (previously posted on the Roman Primacy thread):

There is a lot of room for dialogue, for deepening our understanding of history - "the way it used to be" - and for achieving consensus on how this history informs the way we could return to communion.

There is plenty of room for discussion aimed at deepening understanding and clarifying meaning. Dr. John has spoken to this point very thoughtfully. Could this help?

I think that if all the posters on this forum were to write their perception of the teaching on "infallibility" the results would range from somthing very close to that written by Bishop Kallistos and Father Schmemann, to the opinions that come close to the cartoon charicatures of both anti-Catholic and Roman triumphalist extremists. Knowing what we are talking about could< I think, help a lot. The recent dialogues of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox with Oriental Orthodox provide a vivid demonstration of the possibilities.

djs

I think that much of the discussion on various interpretations of Councils, etc., will serve as a type of spiritual red-herring.

The key, and ONLY reality is this: how does one live one's life in terms of loving God and loving one's neighbor as one's self. All the theology and ecclesiology in the world does not really matter when one stands before the Judgement Seat of Christ. Our Lord clearly stated, when talking of the Magdalene, that "much is forgiven her because she has loved much". The law of charity must remain foremost in our lives. Our ability to accede to or not comply with the man-made laws of doctrinal purity must assume a secondary place after our ability to just love God and do whaever we can to help our fellow human beings. I get real nervous when I am confronted with those folks who are anxious to condemn other people based upon their adherence to or apparent 'rejection of' the man made doctrinal postulates. Christ never told us to set up a religion. He told us that loving God and loving our neighbors would constitute the fulfillment of the Torah Law and the teachings of the prophets. "God is love; he who abides in love abides in God; and God in him".

It's pretty clear from the Gospel where our duty lies. And Man-made mandates don't quite fit the paradigm that Christ commanded. I'm not condemning the man-made mandates, but I am saying that they should be taken within the Gospel context. To do otherwise is to set up a "religion" based upon our human values to the detriment of the commands of Christ to universally love. "God is Love...."

Blessings!

This might prove our historical lack of ability to make the Ecumenical Councils our own, it is obvious that the discussion of so many issues that are so complex, it is hard to please all the different groups with different opinions.

About the Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedon I know there's the traditional view, where Chalcedon is a Nestorian Council and therefore the Churches which follow it, the "Western Church" (term they use for both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic)are herethical Churches. The Armenians have been more moderated and there's not a explicit condemnation of Chalcedon because their Bishops were not present, they claimed to hold pre-chalcedonian doctrine, and not an anti-chalcedonian one. The recent cathechesis I have seen doesn�t use the word "herethical" and is quite moderated in their treatment of the "separate brethen."

It is also interesting that the periods of serious crisis in the non-chalcedonean Churches allowed them to be "less anti-chalcedonian", and some Armenians allowed intercommunion with both Latins and Orthodox at the time of the persecutions. On the other side, Copts and Syriacs, whose situation was not so desperating, still hold the conservative non-chalcedonian teachings and the anathemas against that Council.
I'd like to know if the Oriental Orthodox, and Oriental Catholics of this forum can tell us a little bit of how intercommunion is viewed in your Churches.

Another example, the Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian) repudiated the Council of Ephesus and promulgated anathemas against St Cyril of Alexandria and other saints of the Orthodox-Catholic Church. Now the anathemas have been rescinded, and a better understanding of the Council is part of a dialogue between Chaldean, Assyrian and Latin Bishops.

About the Councils of the Latin Church, it is the common understanding that if unity between Orthodox and Catholics is reached, the Latin Church would not have problems in seeing those 20 or more Councils as local Councils, and it is also my understanding that the Latin Church has never said that Vatican II for example, is equal to the 7 (or the 4? )Councils of the undivided Church. There have been other Councils among Orthodox, like the Council of Trullo, but they have never been added to the 7 Councils (Florence and Lyon were never seen as the 8th Council too)

It is fair to regard the 20 or more Councils of the Latin Church local because the main reasons that generated all those councils were related to problems in the Latin Church (Protestantism in Trent, or modernism in Vatican I)and the participation of Eastern Catholicism was very limited because main issues of the Eastern Church were not part of the discussion.

And it is also important to remember that in the Latin Church, the opposition to Vatican II has been as strong as the opposition of the Old Catholic movement against Vatican I and the formula of the Papacy. If there are still many traditional Catholics who think that it is possible to make Vatican II their own and to "see it through the light of the tradition," it would be possible to define the formula of the Papacy through the light of the undivided Church, seeking the model of St Gregory the Great or St Leo I, defenders of both the Papacy and the Counciliar nature of the Church. The model of the undivided Church was different to the monarchic Papacy that appeared later, and different from the serious jurisdictional problems among Orthodox.