 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
MitchyMitch
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Snellville, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
| First Name: | Mitch | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist and Southern Baptist...Now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 02:53 pm |
|
I have heard that John Paul II may have wanted to do away with "ex cathedra", and upon hearing this, I did research on the Magisterium and the most recent Pope, and found some items which seem to say he did calim the throne of Peter, but not necessarily "ec cathedra".
Are there instances where Pope John Paul 2 spoke ex cathedra? futher, would Pope Benedict's recent pronouncement on the existence of Heaven and Hell be considered "ex cathedra"?
____________________
Pax,
Mitch
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 03:30 pm |
|
MitchyMitch wrote: I have heard that John Paul II may have wanted to do away with "ex cathedra", and upon hearing this, I did research on the Magisterium and the most recent Pope, and found some items which seem to say he did calim the throne of Peter, but not necessarily "ec cathedra".
Are there instances where Pope John Paul 2 spoke ex cathedra? futher, would Pope Benedict's recent pronouncement on the existence of Heaven and Hell be considered "ex cathedra"?
There have only been two formal ex cathedra statements, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both have indicated willingness in a redefinition of the papacy to a more collegial position, the "first among equals" that the Orthodox consider the pope to be, and as the position was in the first millennium of Christianity. However, that redefinition would have to accomodate the statements of Vatican I that the pope, on his own authority, is infallible. It remains one of the stumbling blocks on the road to reunification.
I believe it is likely that the pope will someday renounce immediate jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches in favor of the patriarchs of those Churches, but it has to be done in a way that would be acceptable to the Orthodox and not compromise Catholic doctrine. Currently, even in those Churches where the bishops elect their patriarchs, the election must be submitted for approval by the pope, and any changes in liturgy must also be submitted for approval. The East sees that as interference in their own legitimate authority; Rome taking precidence over other apostolic sees.
Now that even the Russian Orthodox have entered the discussion, I believe solutions can be reached, although arriving at precise language will not be easy. It could be as simple as saying that the pope will approve the elected patriarch unless pastoral concerns dictate otherwise, where now the pope appoints the patriarchs on his own authority. And the Orthodox patriarchs will likely see the benefit of having papal recourse given the problems they've had with replacing the heretical patriarch of Jerusalem.
So while I don't know if either pope has specifically wished to renouce the authority to make ex cathedra pronouncements, neither has exercised that authority and no new dogma has been declared since 1950.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 742 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 4th, 2007 06:39 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: However, that redefinition would have to accomodate the statements of Vatican I that the pope, on his own authority, is infallible.
What exactly does this mean? I thought he was infallible only when making ex cathedra statements. Is this what you are saying here? That the pope on his own authority can make such infallible statements but is not otherwise infallible in all his choices in church matters?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 4th, 2007 07:33 pm |
|
brian wrote: What exactly does this mean?
The Orthodox do not consider the pope by himself as infallible in any case, and they do not accept that he has immediate jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches. In other words, they do not believe he has the authority to appoint bishops, approve liturgies, etc. They believe those powers belong to the particular Churches to determine. So if one Church wants to elect their bishops, they believe that is their right, and the pope should have no voice in the matter. In the Catholic Church, even in those Eastern Churches that elect their bishops and patriarchs, the pope has final approval, and he also approves liturgies, rules, etc. But those are matters of discipline, so whatever is eventually decided will be easy to accomplish. From a Catholic standpoint, the pope can simply change Canon Law to accommodate whatever is decided.
Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II (and apparently also Pope Benedict) were willing to make concessions on the immediate jurisdiction issue, but infallibility is a much more difficult matter. Papal infallibility must be defined in a way that is acceptable to the Orthodox, and yet still compatible with the doctrinal definitions formulated by Vatican I. This is declared doctrine by the Catholic Church, and so the Catholic Church cannot agree that the pope is not infallible by himself. To say that would be to reverse Catholic doctrine, which cannot happen. Since we believe that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are legitimate and guided by the Holy Spirit, there must be a way to understand infallibility that will be acceptable to both. It is our human sinfulness that prevents us from seeing the proper explanation.
This is probably the biggest, but not the only, stumbling block at this time to reunification.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 03:10 pm |
|
Take these questions from a Protestant who is still attempting to understand and grasp Catholicism. Can't the Orthodox churches do the same thing as many Anglican parishes have done? I realize that the difference is that Anglican churches aren't considered to be in union with the Catholic Church, so that leads me to my next question. (which I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere, but I forget where)
Why are the Orthodox churches considered to be part of the universal Catholic Church when they reject the Majesterium and Papal Authority? Were they always considered to be such or is this a referendum that came down from Vatican II? In other words, were the Orthodox churches viewed the same way prior to Vatican II?
This whole matter confuses me. I don't understand why the Orthodox churches are considered in communion with the Roman Catholic Church (at least this is my understanding) when they completely disregard the pope. The schism occurred way back in the 1200's so how can their bishops be regarded as part of the magesterium of Rome? In other words, they do not have the same succession from St. Peter and the bishops and popes of Rome. Correct? Thus, how can their Mass be legitimate? How can the Eucharist they take be changed into the Real Presence of Christ when they broke away from Rome and their bishops of succession are not in line with those of the Roman Catholic Church? Don't they elect their bishops much differently than the RC Church?
I look at the Orthodox churches and find they really aren't that much different than the Anglican Church. So how are they considered in communion with Rome by the Catholic Church yet Anglicans aren't? What are the real and actual differences between Anglicanism and the Orthodox Churches?
Please, somebody sort this out for me. I would think that any church that has broken away in schism from the Catholic Church in Rome, which is currently under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI, would not be considered in union with the Apostolic Catholic Church. And therefore, their sacrament of Holy Communion and Papal Succession is illegitimate.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
MitchyMitch
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Snellville, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
| First Name: | Mitch | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist and Southern Baptist...Now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 04:26 pm |
|
Not all Orthodox Churches are in full communion with Rome, for much of the reasons you talk about.
Yet, they do recognize the Pope, but more in a "first among equals" approach.
And the Vatican, recognizes their sacraments, much like they recognize the baptism in the Protestant and Baptist churches.
If, for instance, you needed to gain absolution in an area where there is no Catholic Church, and there is an Orthodox CHurch, then the Orthodox Church delivers absolution, totally in accordance with Catholic belief and is recognized as such.
Some orthodox churches are in communion - for instance the Coptic Church is in full communion with Rome. The Coptics are Egyptian Christians.
The question I have - maybe you military folk can help me out - in Marine Corps bootcamp, one could go to the Protestant service, or the Catholic one. Would orthodox go to the Catholic one? Would the sacraments be "legal" and recognized across the board here?
____________________
Pax,
Mitch
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 09:28 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: Why are the Orthodox churches considered to be part of the universal Catholic Church when they reject the Majesterium and Papal Authority? Were they always considered to be such or is this a referendum that came down from Vatican II? In other words, were the Orthodox churches viewed the same way prior to Vatican II?
The difference is historical. The apostolic Churches are headed by patriarchs. The pope, as bishop of Rome, is head of the Church founded by Peter. The other patriarchs (Antioch, Byzantium, Jerusalem, etc.) are legitimate heads of their Churches. Within each Church, valid members maintain full communion with their own patriarch. This is their link to the apostles: they maintain fidelity to a direct successor to an apostle. Some additional patriarchal Churches have been created, such as the Russian Orthodox Church. Their link to legitimacy is in their creation and recognition by the other legitimate patriarchs. Even though the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not in full communion with each other, they do recognize the legitimate patriarchal succession of their leaders.
When the Orthodox and Catholic Churches separated, the patriarchs are the ones who split. Within each particular Church, the patriarchal lineage remained intact. Prior to the Great Schism, each patriarch maintained jurisdiction over his own Church. The bishop of Rome was considered first among equals, and he had a primacy of honor. In other words, in case of a disagreement, he might be called in to mediate, and his approval was always sought in major doctrinal matters, but he had no real authority over the other Churches. He could not appoint bishops, revise liturgy, etc. His role was more like an archbishop's role in a province. He is the "facilitator" but has no real authority over the other bishops and their dioceses.
After the Great Schism, some members of the Orthodox Churches sought to reunify with Rome. They were called "uniates" by the Orthodox. In order to return, they had to accept that they were subject to the patriarch of Rome, the pope, so he took immediate jurisdiction over all the Eastern Catholic Churches, where historically he had jurisdiction over only the Latin Rite.
Of course, this is a very simple explanation of two thousand years of history, so don't take this as a fully accurate history. It's just an "overview".
When King Henry VIII decided he was head of the church of England, he had no legitimate right to make that declaration. He was not a successor of the apostles. As a part of the territory of the western Church, the church of England was subject to the authority of the pope. The Anglicans did not maintain apostolic succession in that they separated from a legitimate patriarch unilaterally. The Russian Orthodox, on the other hand, separated bilaterally in that it was a mutual decision by both sides, not a break by a single side. For a long time the Catholic Church recognized them as valid but illicit, but their doctrine has strayed so far that even that is no longer true.
I hope this clarifies the difference, but again let me stress that this is a great oversimplification and should not be considered anything more than an overview of a very complex history of the past 1600 years of Christianity and the relationship between the churches.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 272 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 5th, 2007 10:02 pm |
|
Darlene, just to be sure, don't confuse the Orthodox with the Eastern Rites. They both are very similar. The Eastern churches are "uniates" - in union with Rome, the Orthodox are not as they do not recognize the absolute authority of the Papacy.
Also, I think the schism at that time had something to do with second marriages - the Orthodox recognize second marriages and we will not.
The Orthodox have valid Sacraments and under duress we can receive those Sacraments when no other way is possible. It used to be that although you could receive the Sacraments from them, you couldn't participate in any of the Liturgies. I'm unsure if this Liturgy-thing is still true today. Anyway, because the Church recognizes their Sacraments, this means that they somehow preserved the Apostolic succession of their bishops. So they are closer to us than the Anglicans and others.
For now, just stick with the Roman Catholic Church [which includes the uniate Byzantines]. Like, you didn't know that...
When I attended the March for Life this past January, I noticed the Orthodox priests and their groups there. Beautiful!
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Current time is 05:49 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
