Eastern Orthodoxy's Fatal Flaw On Bishops & Ecumenical Councils

[Gardener]

My sub-mediocre poetic grace does not render my point mute

No, but it may render it moot.

No reason to render a mote.

——
I think a big problem is language and the core thrust of certain words and ideas on which the East and west differ, though mean pretty much the same thing.

For example, purgatory vs toll houses.

It would also seem the East sometimes latches on to popular western theological concepts from major schools as definitive when they aren't.

[Xavier]

The Dimonds emphasized (1) Florence was accepted by representatives of the Pentarchy. (2) The Byzantine Emperor considered it an Ecumenical Council (3) Even Mark of Ephesus at first considered it an Ecumenical Council. Therefore, the Council of Florence meets all conditions, even according to the Greek and Eastern Churches, to be considered an Ecumenical Council. Therefore, Florence is Ecumenical.

I thought it was a good argument. Dimonds are a bit rash here and there, but now and then they put out really good apologetic material.

[TheSaintsAreComing]

My sub-mediocre poetic grace does not render my point mute

No, but it may render it moot.

No reason to render a mote.

——
I think a big problem is language and the core thrust of certain words and ideas on which the East and west differ, though mean pretty much the same thing.

For example, purgatory vs toll houses.

It would also seem the East sometimes latches on to popular western theological concepts from major schools as definitive when they aren't.

Hi Gardener


What do you mean by that last statement?

[TheReturnofLive]

Gardener can explain himself what he means, but as someone who was into Orthodoxy at one point, I can tell you that certain ideas or doctrines which come up from time to time in Catholic thought, but aren't dogma or required for belief to be Catholic, Orthodox often attribute to be Catholic thought itself and firmly reject.

Some examples:  The Co-Redemptrix (especially an interpretation of this doctrine that the Virgin Mary's mediation in of itself, apart from Christ, was salvific), the idea that the Virgin Mary is the last thing restraining a Wrathful Jesus ready to smite the world with flames, bleeding / stigmata as a par excellence marker of spiritual perfection, or even Dante's interpretation of Hell as a layered cavern with different levels of demonic torture (esp. with no distinction between the Pre-Last Judgment Hell and the Post-Last Judgment Hell, the difference being especially emphasized in Orthodox theology)

[St.Justin]

Being devils advocate here, the Papacy doesn't resolve the issue whatsoever considering that people can't define what's infallible and what's fallible, if the Pope can contradict past Popes, if the Pope can contradict Scripture, etc.

The infallible "Chair of Peter" is nowadays very amorphous

The Papacy is equally as subjective as the amorphous concept of "Tradition" - let's not also forget the irony of this video being made by Sedevacantists who recognize Papal authority until it debatably contradicted Papal authority

You can say that "well it's less subjective considering that we can recognize councils" - ignoring the fact that many Catholics here don't recognize Vatican II, it doesn't mean much when the theological authority is still ambiguous.

Good luck explaining whether the death penalty is immoral or not, or whether adulterers May receive communion

There 277 infallible prouncements you can look the up.

Really, there are 277 infallible pronouncements? What are they?

I may have the number incorrect but here is a list of 255 of them. You can go to a book called "Fundamentsla of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott and count all of the REachings listed as "DE fide" and verify it for yourself.

[St.Justin]

The Dimonds really aren't even Catholic

In what sense?

In the sense that they are heretics

[TheReturnofLive]

Being devils advocate here, the Papacy doesn't resolve the issue whatsoever considering that people can't define what's infallible and what's fallible, if the Pope can contradict past Popes, if the Pope can contradict Scripture, etc.

The infallible "Chair of Peter" is nowadays very amorphous

The Papacy is equally as subjective as the amorphous concept of "Tradition" - let's not also forget the irony of this video being made by Sedevacantists who recognize Papal authority until it debatably contradicted Papal authority

You can say that "well it's less subjective considering that we can recognize councils" - ignoring the fact that many Catholics here don't recognize Vatican II, it doesn't mean much when the theological authority is still ambiguous.

Good luck explaining whether the death penalty is immoral or not, or whether adulterers May receive communion

There 277 infallible prouncements you can look the up.

Really, there are 277 infallible pronouncements? What are they?

I may have the number incorrect but here is a list of 255 of them. You can go to a book called "Fundamentsla of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott and count all of the REachings listed as "DE fide" and verify it for yourself.

Does Pope Francis follow that? Proof? And wasn't the source of Epistemological Certainty the Papacy, not Dr. Ludwig Ott? And assuming you to be correct, how do you know that are infallible or not by the fact that they are a Papal pronouncement? If Pope Francis were to pronounce a contradiction in some capacity, would he override it or not? And how would you know that fact?

JP2 we love you to Liberal Catholics will tell you that the current Papacy overrides prior papacies and following him means following Christ.

Traditional Catholics have an epistemological method by which Prior Papal Declarations bind future Popes, and if a future Pope contradicts prior Popes, that future Pope's declaration is null and void.

However, you have no epistemological method for determining which one of these methodologies is the valid one, and even within each of these methodologies to what extent that works (to what extent can a Pope override prior Papacies, and to what extent can a Pope bind future Papacies)?

You may say that the Pope will never contradict his predecessors on any topic having to do with Faith and Morals like the Ultra-Montantist Vatican I Fathers argued, but...Vatican II ended that line of thought by overriding Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos. You can then try to argue that a contradiction never occurred because Church relations are a matter of Church discipline and not Faith or Morals, but good luck disecting with epistemological certainty from the Papacy alone what is the scope with "Faith" and "Morality", considering those two topics touch nearly everything in life.


At the end of the day, you can't use the Papacy alone to know with absolute certainty you believe in the totality of correct Christian doctrine.
The Orthodox Church claims the Holy Spirit guards the true dogma through the Church, as proven through Tradition. However, Roman Catholicism just moves ambiguity of "true dogma" and "Tradition" back a step by adding a human mediator to the Holy Spirit who guards true dogma to the present time via Tradition, but it doesn't answer the question of what it is that both the Holy Spirit and the human mediator guards.


Ultimately, confidence in the Papacy rests on the presumption that the Roman Church was the institution Christ founded, from the Apostles to now, with such a presumption also laying at the feat of both Orthodox Churches (Eastern and Oriental) and even the Anglican Church.

[St.Justin]

Being devils advocate here, the Papacy doesn't resolve the issue whatsoever considering that people can't define what's infallible and what's fallible, if the Pope can contradict past Popes, if the Pope can contradict Scripture, etc.

The infallible "Chair of Peter" is nowadays very amorphous

The Papacy is equally as subjective as the amorphous concept of "Tradition" - let's not also forget the irony of this video being made by Sedevacantists who recognize Papal authority until it debatably contradicted Papal authority

You can say that "well it's less subjective considering that we can recognize councils" - ignoring the fact that many Catholics here don't recognize Vatican II, it doesn't mean much when the theological authority is still ambiguous.

Good luck explaining whether the death penalty is immoral or not, or whether adulterers May receive communion

There 277 infallible prouncements you can look the up.

Really, there are 277 infallible pronouncements? What are they?

I may have the number incorrect but here is a list of 255 of them. You can go to a book called "Fundamentsla of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott and count all of the REachings listed as "DE fide" and verify it for yourself.

Does Pope Francis follow that? Proof? And wasn't the source of Epistemological Certainty the Papacy, not Dr. Ludwig Ott? And assuming you to be correct, how do you know that are infallible or not by the fact that they are a Papal pronouncement? If Pope Francis were to pronounce a contradiction in some capacity, would he override it or not? And how would you know that fact?

JP2 we love you to Liberal Catholics will tell you that the current Papacy overrides prior papacies and following him means following Christ.

Traditional Catholics have an epistemological method by which Prior Papal Declarations bind future Popes, and if a future Pope contradicts prior Popes, that future Pope's declaration is null and void.

However, you have no epistemological method for determining which one of these methodologies is the valid one, and even within each of these methodologies to what extent that works (to what extent can a Pope override prior Papacies, and to what extent can a Pope bind future Papacies)?

You may say that the Pope will never contradict his predecessors on any topic having to do with Faith and Morals like the Ultra-Montantist Vatican I Fathers argued, but...Vatican II ended that line of thought by overriding Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos. You can then try to argue that a contradiction never occurred because Church relations are a matter of Church discipline and not Faith or Morals, but good luck disecting with epistemological certainty from the Papacy alone what is the scope with "Faith" and "Morality", considering those two topics touch nearly everything in life.


At the end of the day, you can't use the Papacy alone to know with absolute certainty you believe in the totality of correct Christian doctrine.
The Orthodox Church claims the Holy Spirit guards the true dogma through the Church, as proven through Tradition. However, Roman Catholicism just moves ambiguity of "true dogma" and "Tradition" back a step by adding a human mediator to the Holy Spirit who guards true dogma to the present time via Tradition, but it doesn't answer the question of what it is that both the Holy Spirit and the human mediator guards.


Ultimately, confidence in the Papacy rests on the presumption that the Roman Church was the institution Christ founded, from the Apostles to now, with such a presumption also laying at the feat of both Orthodox Churches (Eastern and Oriental) and even the Anglican Church.

§ 4? Concept and Classification of Dogma
1. Concept
By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally)
revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the
Church to be believed as such. The Vatican Council explains ; Fide divina
ct catholica ea omnia credcnta sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito
continentur et ab Ecclesia sive solemni iudicio sive ordinario et universal!
magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur. D 1792. All
those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained
in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our
belief by the Church cither in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and
universal authoritative teaching.
Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma :—
a) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma (revelatio
immediate divina or revelatio formalis), i.e., the Dogma must be immediately
revealed by God either explicidy (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and
therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition).
b) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the
Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of
the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing
the Truth. Tliis Promulgation by the Church may be made either in an
extraordinary manner through a solemn derision of faith made by the Pope
or a General Council (Iudirium solemne) or through the ordinary and general
teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale).
The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.

$ 8. Papal Teaching Primacy or Papal Infallibility 287
For the proper understanding of the dogma the following points must be noted ;
a) The bearer of the Infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the
Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible not others to whom he
transfers a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman Congregations.
b) The object of his Infallibility is his teaching concerning Faith and Morals,
above all revealed teaching, but also non-revealed teachings, which are closely
associated with the teachings of Revelation.
c) The condition of the Infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For
this is required : (a) That he speak as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the
full weight of his supreme apostolic authority ; If he speaks as a private theologian
or as the bishop of his Diocese, he is not infallible ; 0) That he have the intention
of deciding finally a teaching of Faith or Morals, so that it is to be held by all the
faithful. Without this intention, which must be made clear in the formulation,
or by the circumstances, a decision ex cathedra is not complete. Most of the
doctrinal expressions made by the Popes in their Encyclicals are not decisions
ex cathedra.

Two forms of the activity of the teaching office of the whole Episcopate are
distinguished—an extraordinary form and an ordinary one,
a) The Bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in extraordinary
manner at a general or ecumenical council. It is in the decisions of the General
Councils that the teaching activity of the whole teaching body instituted by
Christ is most decisively exercised.
It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that
the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible. St. Athanasius says of
the Decree on faith of the Nicene Council: " The words of the Lord which
were spoken by the General Council of Nicaca, remain in eternity" (Ep. ad
Afros 2). St. Gregory the Great recognises and honours the first four General
Councils as much as the Four Gospels; he makes the fifth equal to them
(Ep. I 25).
In order that a Council should be a general one it is necessary : aa) That all
the ruling Bishops in the world be invited ; f}p) That in point of fact so many
Bishops from the various countries come, that they may be regarded as being
representative of the whole Episcopate ; yy) That the Pope summon the Council,
or at least invest the assembly with his authority and preside personally or by his
representative at the meeting, and ratify the resolutions. From the Papal ratifications, which can be explicit or implicit, the resolutions derive general legal
binding power. CIC 227.
The first eight General Councils were summoned by the Emperor, who also, as a
rule, assumed a presidency of honour or outer protection. The Second and the
Fifth General Councils were held without the co-operation of the Pope or of his
representative. According to the manner in wliich they were convened, their
composition and their direction, they were plenary councils of the Orient, but
achieved ecumenical validity by the subsequent supplementary recognition of
their doctrinal decrees by the whole Church.

[Vetus Ordo]

The Dimonds really aren't even Catholic

In what sense?

In the sense that they are heretics

What dogmas do they deny?

[DigitalLogos]

The Dimonds really aren't even Catholic

In what sense?

In the sense that they are heretics

What dogmas do they deny?

They are Feeneyites, so they deny Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Of which, BoD was established by the Council of Trent. I don't know if that truly makes them heretics, but it's one angle they like to play to accuse other orthodox prelates of heresy.

[Vetus Ordo]

The Dimonds really aren't even Catholic

In what sense?

In the sense that they are heretics

What dogmas do they deny?

They are Feeneyites, so they deny Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Of which, BoD was established by the Council of Trent. I don't know if that truly makes them heretics, but it's one angle they like to play to accuse other orthodox prelates of heresy.

You'd be hard pressed to establish that someone who denies BoD is a true heretic, especially since Trent never defined such a thing, as we've discussed to death in these forums.

I was looking at it more in the angle of a possible schism, since they obviously reject all Popes since John XXIII.

[Michael Wilson]

Their position on NFP is contrary to what Pius XII teaches in "Address  to Italian Midwives"
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12midwives.htm
Vs. HFM

Objection 2)  Pope Pius XII taught that NFP is lawful for at least certain reasons.  So you have no right to condemn it, as he was the pope.Response:  It is true that Pope Pius XII taught that Natural Family Planning is lawful for certain reasons in a series of fallible speeches in the 1950's.  However, this does not justify NFP.  Pius XII's speeches were fallible, and were therefore vulnerable to error. 

It doesn't necessarily make them heretics; but it does wave a big caution flag.

[King Wenceslas]

Being devils advocate here, the Papacy doesn't resolve the issue whatsoever considering that people can't define what's infallible and what's fallible, if the Pope can contradict past Popes, if the Pope can contradict Scripture, etc.

The infallible "Chair of Peter" is nowadays very amorphous

The Papacy is equally as subjective as the amorphous concept of "Tradition" - let's not also forget the irony of this video being made by Sedevacantists who recognize Papal authority until it debatably contradicted Papal authority

You can say that "well it's less subjective considering that we can recognize councils" - ignoring the fact that many Catholics here don't recognize Vatican II, it doesn't mean much when the theological authority is still ambiguous.

Good luck explaining whether the death penalty is immoral or not, or whether adulterers May receive communion

The Easterns have their Sola Council, the Protestants have their Sola Scriptura, and, alas, the Latins now have their Sola Papa.

[Michael Wilson]

I just listened to the video; and it is very well done; clearly explained; I have sent it to other family members; thank you for posting this V.O.