Union with Rome. What Would it Take?

[ArmyMatt]

Matt, I'm not familiar with this issue....would you mind expanding on this a little?

the debate between Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas. Barlaam took the Augustinian POV that God's grace is created, Palamas took the Orthodox POV that God's energies are Him.

The way you're wording that makes it sound as though Catholicism teaches the Pope can supersede what has already been defined by an ecumenical council. That is not the case, just to clarify.

from Vatican I:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  • that is, when,
  • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
• he possesses,
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

an Ecumenical Council IS the consent of the whole Church. this says Papal Infallibility is above that consent.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am not at all familiar with this debate. My understanding, such as it is, would be that God's Grace is like his Love, Mercy and Compassion; it is part of who he is and therefore uncreated. I have never heard an Anglican statement on this matter; I will find someone to ask.

we would agree with your statement concerning His grace, the issue for Rome is that Rome on paper as a lot of erroneous stuff from our POV that they seem to just brush off without actually correcting.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I do not know either way, but I do not regard that as being 'up in the air', any more than any other mystery of our faith. There is a truth, whether I know it or not.

while absolutely true, we believe this is something revealed (we have her repose as a feast day, called the Dormition), and therefore not negotiable.

 

[Cappadocious]

• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

an Ecumenical Council IS the consent of the whole Church. this says Papal Infallibility is above that consent.

I think we're misreading that. What it's saying is that what the Pope says ex cathedra doesn't have to be ratified by a council, but it isn't saying it can trump an ecumenical council (remember, RC's believe that popes have to ratify ecumenical councils, and Florence is pope-ratified already.)

 

[Catherineanne]

while absolutely true, we believe this is something revealed (we have her repose as a feast day, called the Dormition), and therefore not negotiable.

I did not say I wanted to negotiate. : )

 

[Catherineanne]

we would agree with your statement concerning His grace, the issue for Rome is that Rome on paper as a lot of erroneous stuff from our POV that they seem to just brush off without actually correcting.

I was not aware of Rome's view on this one. Fortunately it does not affect me. : )

 

[buzuxi02]

Rome just like most western sects could care less about praxis, ethos and doctrine. For them any kind of external unity is God pleasing, Unity in diversity (as the WCC calls it) is the fad of our times, its also that pan-heresy known as ecumenism.

Case in point is the byzantine catholics whose liturgical service clearly states the Theotokos was cleansed and purified body and soul at the Anunciation, yet no one finds this language to be in conflict with the dogma of the immaculate conception supposedly binding according to their Latin counterparts.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Rome just like most western sects could care less about praxis, ethos and doctrine. For them any kind of external unity is God pleasing, Unity in diversity (as the WCC calls it) is the fad of our times, its also that pan-heresy known as ecumenism.

Case in point is the byzantine catholics whose liturgical service clearly states the Theotokos was cleansed and purified body and soul at the Anunciation, yet no one finds this language to be in conflict with the dogma of the immaculate conception supposedly binding according to their Latin counterparts.

That is fascinating.

I get the feeling that Roman Catholics define unity principally as being in communion with the Pope, whereas we define unity as believing the Orthodox faith. (I am dramatically simplifying, I know). I think most Catholics would be fine with Orthodox not changing their beliefs, as long as we submitted to the Pope.

By contrast, when we tell Catholics to "become Orthodox" if they want unity, we are not saying they have to give up the bishop of Rome and submit instead to Moscow, Constantinople, Antioch, etc., but rather that they change their beliefs and give up their numerous innovations and heresies.

If the foregoing is true, unity probably could only be achieved if Orthodox were to accept the primacy of Rome and Rome were to become more Orthodox in belief. I think the later is the greatest challenge, so really, Catholics, the ball is in your court, IMO.

 

[buzuxi02]

This is true. But it goes further, if you look at all the syncretistic ecumenist events that the vatican hosts coupled with Vatican 2, even the buddhists and muslims can remain as is, if they recognise the pope. The entire system of christian ecumenism is based on the belief of western hegemonic destiny. This is why ecumenism is a pan heresy. It tries to include all sects under one broad umbrella, which is nothing more than the secularization of faith.

 

[Catherineanne]

Once upon a time there was a family with three children; two boys and a girl. As long as they were small this family was all that they knew; they accepted it as normal. (It wasn't, but that is another matter.)

Now there are elderly parents living in the former family home and three new families; one brother with his children, me with my daughter and the second brother with his son. There are three new normals; still as much related as before, but very different indeed. Reading this thread reminds me of my brothers and myself, and our families.

Imo there is as much chance of my siblings and myself moving back into our old rooms with our parents and attempting to live together as there is for Orthodoxy and Rome to decide to turn back 1000 years and move back into communion with one another.

It is simply not possible for any of us to be who we once were; too much time has passed and we have new families, new responsibilities. We certainly can't say, if you will become who you were 20 years ago and discard your wife and children I will accept you as my brother; that isn't how it works, for anyone.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think we're misreading that. What it's saying is that what the Pope says ex cathedra doesn't have to be ratified by a council, but it isn't saying it can trump an ecumenical council (remember, RC's believe that popes have to ratify ecumenical councils, and Florence is pope-ratified already.)

I know, but it elevates them to above any council. and in practice, claims by the Pope (ie the filioque) have been elevated above what previous councils have said, even if they are not officially called ex cathedra.

 

[MilesVitae]

from Vatican I:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  • that is, when,
  • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
• he possesses,
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

an Ecumenical Council IS the consent of the whole Church. this says Papal Infallibility is above that consent.

Matt, first, the words "above the consent of the Church" (a term which is rather vague, I would add) is a phrase not used in this document. Secondly, Pastor Aeternus in no way implies that the Pope can supersede and redefine what a past ecumenical council has defined, as those are considered to be just as authoritative and infallible as a papal ex cathedra definition. Thirdly, this doesn't even necessarily imply that it is possible for the Pope alone to be orthodox when he defines - that he could contradict the universal belief of the rest of the Church.
The point of the sentence in question is pretty simple, and the key phrase is this "such definitions are of themselves irreformable." That is, once the Pope has made them, that alone is sufficient to guarantee their truth - infallibility is guaranteed to them on that condition alone and without the need for them to be approved by someone else before we can be certain of their truth and, thus, their irreformability. Irreformable of themselves does not mean "able to contradict the ecumenical councils." If you are trying to suggest that the RCC teaches the Pope can redefine what the ecumenical councils have defined (I'm guessing you are, since you haven't stated otherwise, but you still haven't been entirely clear on that point, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you), then, please, understand that you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching and unintentionally setting up straw men.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I did not say I wanted to negotiate. : )

haha, just explaining why it is an issue for us, and part of the barrier between us an Rome

 

[ArmyMatt]

Matt, first, the words "above the consent of the Church" (a term which is rather vague, I would add) is a phrase not used in this document.

I know, those were mine in the beginning.

Secondly, Pastor Aeternus in no way implies that the Pope can supersede and redefine what a past ecumenical council has defined, as those are considered to be just as authoritative and infallible as a papal ex cathedra definition. Thirdly, this doesn't even necessarily imply that it is possible for the Pope alone to be orthodox when he defines - that he could contradict the universal belief of the rest of the Church.

unfortunately, he has in the past. the filioque being a glaring example.

The point of the sentence in question is pretty simple, and the key phrase is this "such definitions are of themselves irreformable." That is, once the Pope has made them, that alone is sufficient to guarantee their truth - infallibility is guaranteed to them on that condition alone and without the need for them to be approved by someone else before we can be certain of their truth and, thus, their irreformability. Irreformable of themselves does not mean "able to contradict the ecumenical councils." If you are trying to suggest that the RCC teaches the Pope can redefine what the ecumenical councils have defined (I'm guessing you are, since you haven't stated otherwise, but you still haven't been entirely clear on that point, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you), then, please, understand that you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching and unintentionally setting up straw men.

I don't mean that was the intent, but that is what has happened. or that this was thrown in so the Pope could have free reign to do what he wanted, but if you look historically, some stuff that Rome believes now openly contradicts what the councils say.

 

[MilesVitae]

I know, those were mine in the beginning.

I believe they are misleading words. Needless to say, you don't accept the teachings of Catholicism, but it does no good to misrepresent them (though I know you were not doing so intentionally) - "the Pope is above the consent of the Church and ecumenical councils" has the potential to be quite misleading.

unfortunately, he has in the past. the filioque being a glaring example.

I never said he didn't (which isn't the point we're discussing anyway). But if he has, it was not under the guise of being able to contradict the dogma of past ecumenical councils, as far as I know - which brings us back the point we were actually discussing, which was the true meaning of the RCC's teaching regarding papal infallibility.

I don't mean that was the intent, but that is what has happened. or that this was thrown in so the Pope could have free reign to do what he wanted, but if you look historically, some stuff that Rome believes now openly contradicts what the councils say.

Which, again, is a different matter from what we're discussing. To argue that the RCC has contradicted the ecumenical councils is one thing. But you were discussing the RCC's understanding of papal infallibility in a way that I think, at least, gave an erroneous impression of what they actually teach. It was similar to me saying something like "the EOC teaches that the people of God are above an ecumenical council," if what I meant was "the EOC believes that a council is not ecumenical and infallible until it has been received by the whole Church and people of God." Please be more careful.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I believe they are misleading words. Needless to say, you don't accept the teachings of Catholicism, but it does no good to misrepresent them (though I know you were not doing so intentionally) - "the Pope is above the consent of the Church and ecumenical councils" has the potential to be quite misleading.

Vatican I says that ex cathedra statements are above any council. it does not say any council aside from an Ecumenical Council. the consent of the Church is an ecumenical council, that was how you knew a council was Ecumenical, when the Church as a whole consented to it.

I never said he didn't (which isn't the point we're discussing anyway). But if he has, it was not under the guise of being able to contradict the dogma of past ecumenical councils, as far as I know - which brings us back the point we were actually discussing, which was the true meaning of the RCC's teaching regarding papal infallibility.

well, the point of this thread is what it would take to Rome and the East to unite. the fact that Popes have contradicted the councils is just another thing on the list that keeps Rome out of the Church.

Which, again, is a different matter from what we're discussing. To argue that the RCC has contradicted the ecumenical councils is one thing. But you were discussing the RCC's understanding of papal infallibility in a way that I think, at least, gave an erroneous impression of what they actually teach. It was similar to me saying something like "the EOC teaches that the people of God are above an ecumenical council," if what I meant was "the EOC believes that a council is not ecumenical and infallible until it has been received by the whole Church and people of God." Please be more careful.

well, I do apologize if I worded it wrong or vaguely, but Vatican I says that the Pope's infallibility is above what makes an Ecumenical Council, ecumenical.

 

[MilesVitae]

Vatican I says that ex cathedra statements are above any council... the consent of the Church is an ecumenical council

I don't think your comment about the consent of the Church and an ecumenical council follows... The consent of the Church is not the same as an ecumenical council. For a council to be ecumenical it may (according to EOC theology) need the consent of the Church. But a belief may have the consent of the whole Church without the presence of an ecumenical council.
In any case, the passage from Pastor Aeternus does not say anything regarding councils or about being "above" them or above the consent of the Church. What it says is "Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." Now could this be described as "these definitions are above the consent of the Church," as you put it? Maybe, in a certain sense - but that would be a very poor way of putting it and could easily be interpreted to mean other things (like "ex cathedra statements can contradict the definitions of ecumenical councils," which Catholicism teaches is impossible.... even if history happens to prove Catholicism wrong on this point). As I said, this passage is addressing the requirements for a definition to be infallible and irreformable. Can you please state more directly what you think this passage means/what being "above the consent of the Church" means?

well, the point of this thread is what it would take to Rome and the East to unite. the fact that Popes have contradicted the councils is just another thing on the list that keeps Rome out of the Church.

Of course, but it wasn't relevant to the point we were discussing and was leading away from it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't think your comment about the consent of the Church and an ecumenical council follows... The consent of the Church is not the same as an ecumenical council. For a council to be ecumenical it may (according to EOC theology) need the consent of the Church.

exactly, so when consent of the Church goes against any one bishop, the bishop is the one in error.

But a belief may have the consent of the whole Church without the presence of an ecumenical council.

true

Can you please state more directly what you think this passage means/what being "above the consent of the Church" means?

that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra concerning doctrine and morals, that even a council that runs counter to what he says, you follow the Pope and not the council

Of course, but it wasn't relevant to the point we were discussing and was leading away from it.

maybe not to our point, which I will concede, but to the thread overall it does.

 

[MilesVitae]

exactly, so when consent of the Church goes against any one bishop, the bishop is the one in error.

I agree, assuming we are talking about a consent within the Church great enough to be considered universal. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that this principle is not superseded by the infallible magisterium of the Pope. In other words, even their consent/assent on the part of the whole Church regarding some doctrine, it is impossible for an ex cathedra definition to contradict it, since both are infallible - or, rather, both are expressions of the infallibility granted to the Church.

that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra concerning doctrine and morals, that even a council that runs counter to what he says, you follow the Pope and not the council

Thank you. Have you read this elsewhere? As I've said, it is not what the Catholic Church teaches, and the excerpt from Pastor Aeternus is simply addressing the fact that papal definitions are infallible of themselves, without need for any external approval to make them so - otherwise, the interrelation between the teaching organs of the Church God's protection of the Church from error is not being addressed there. To your point, definitions of an ecumenical council are infallible, as are definitions of the Pope (according to Catholic teaching) - they cannot contradict each other. That is Catholic teaching.

maybe not to our point, which I will concede, but to the thread overall it does.

Well, we agree on that at least

 

[ArmyMatt]

I agree, assuming we are talking about a consent within the Church great enough to be considered universal. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that this principle is not superseded by the infallible magisterium of the Pope. In other words, even their consent/assent on the part of the whole Church regarding some doctrine, it is impossible for an ex cathedra definition to contradict it, since both are infallible - or, rather, both are expressions of the infallibility granted to the Church.

I don't think that position would be as problematic, but when you read stuff by Pius X who said that even if you knew that the Pope is Satan himself, you should listen to him, I think that shows that the Pope can supersede a council.

Thank you. Have you read this elsewhere?

see above

As I've said, it is not what the Catholic Church teaches, and the excerpt from Pastor Aeternus is simply addressing the fact that papal definitions are infallible of themselves, without need for any external approval to make them so - otherwise, the interrelation between the teaching organs of the Church God's protection of the Church from error is not being addressed there.

I know that is not what many teach now, but it seems it is what was at least once taught, and leaves the door open for that interpretation to come back again.

To your point, definitions of an ecumenical council are infallible, as are definitions of the Pope (according to Catholic teaching) - they cannot contradict each other. That is Catholic teaching.

and while they do say this (I think because they have to), whenever the councils contradict the Pope, Rome usually sides with the Pope (ie the filioque).

Well, we agree on that at least

indeed my friend