Virgil the Roman
Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
- Jan 14, 2006
- 11,413
- 1,299
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The fallacy lies in applying the definition you cite above or the notion of Ex Cathedra. Unless the Pope is infallible every time he speaks or writes something, an individual Catholic's judgement about what is infallible influences his judgement about whether the conditions above are being met. If that were not the case, Roman Catholics would all agree on what are infallible papal statements. Yet they do not. So papal pronouncements are not infallible, unless Catholics say they are (which is circular).
Also, we cannot both agree about the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils themselves do not use the word "infallibility" so why should we? Orthodox are generally reluctant to use that word, even when speaking of the Bible. The only council that uses that word that I am aware of is the local Synod of Jerusalem (1672), which is much criticised for being influenced by Latins.
Most Orthodox do not describe the Ecumenical councils in and of themselves as "infallible".
We don't feel the need to label them as "inerrant" or "infallible". What they proclaimed, what they dogmatized, is the Truth, is what God revealed to the Apostles, but the actual councils themselves are not inerrant or infallible or whatever kind of word you want to use to describe it. We don't even describe the Scriptures that way.
This is a very good example of the different mindset between the East and the West. The West wants to label, categorize, the East is lest inclined to do that. Another example that illustrates this difference is the idea of transubstantiation. We do believe in an equivalence of that, but we don't try to pinpoint exactly when and how it happens.
But we don't label them as such, so no worries on that end.
As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has noted, there is a certain hierarchy of sources in Orthodoxy, that includes:What's the matter with calling a council or teaching inerrant or infallible? Please educate me, kindly.
I am unaware of Fathers who speak of "infallibility"; even the Fathers cited by RC apologists to defend the notion of papal infallibility don't use the word "infallible".
So why should we use a word foreign to Scripture, the Councils and the Fathers. Even if we are describing something that seems infallible, describing it in an innovative way with the word "infallible" seems imprudent and un Orthodox.
What are the limits of this notion, though? I mean, at what point does new terminology become acceptable to explain or describe theological realities? For instance (my ignorance of this may be even deeper than I already realize - I'm really seeking to be informed more than I'm arguing here), was the terminology used by the Councils to explain the nature of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, etc. original to the vocabulary of the Church? If not, how do we decide when we can or can't introduce new terminology?
Good question and not easy to answer. The philosophy of language is complex.What are the limits of this notion, though? I mean, at what point does new terminology become acceptable to explain or describe theological realities? For instance (my ignorance of this may be even deeper than I already realize - I'm really seeking to be informed more than I'm arguing here), was the terminology used by the Councils to explain the nature of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, etc. original to the vocabulary of the Church? If not, how do we decide when we can or can't introduce new terminology?
I just learned today that the Catholic Church has dispensed with the requirement for relics to be placed in the altars of their churches.
To the best of my knowledge, Catholic priests do not carry an altar cloth with relics sewn into the corners, in contrast to all Orthodox priests who cannot serve Divine Liturgy without it.
Yes. Are Catholic priests given one by their bishop?The Antimension?
I thought you could have answered this yourself from your own experience at Masses in Holyrood. Although still recommended (but not absolutely required) in a permanent fixed altar, relics are not required in every situation. The antimensium is, as you know, an Eastern requirement but we have no direct equivalent and carrying around an altar stone is rarely practical!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?