Author Topic: Resources on Papal primacy and Catholic ecclesiology to counter Orthodox claims  (Read 3577 times)

Offline ermy_law

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
I thought also to add the possible complication that you’re conflating the saint’s phrase “church of Rome” with the person of the bishop of that church. I’m not sure that’s how he would’ve intended his remarks to be read.

I need to consider your thoughts on the interplay between authority and unity of faith more. Your point seems profound.
 

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3242
  • Thanked: 941 times
  • Religion: Catholic
The need to counter Orthodox claims (or at any rate the need to choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism) shows the weakness in the traditionalist case (most varieties of it anyway) and actually makes it fall apart completely.

Either it is, or it is not, the case that the Pope is the final, unappealable authority on matters of faith and worship.

If it is not the case, then Orthodoxy is correct and Catholicism is false (assuming Christianity is true).  Catholicism makes this claim, and in fact makes the claim a matter of faith when it comes to ex cathedra teaching.  If the claim is false, then Catholicism is heretical (the term being understood in a broad sense, teaching as of faith what is in fact false).  And if the Catholic Church can teach one thing as being of faith which is in fact false, it has no credibility on anything else it teaches as of faith.

If it is the case, then Pope Paul VI promulgated Vatican II and approved the New Mass, and there is no traditionalist case to be made whatsoever, for he is the final, unquestionable, unappealable authority.  You are not the one who decides whether these things are in accord with Tradition, or with previous teaching, or whether previous teaching should be revised.  He is.  Your opinion counts for squat.

The fallible ordinary Magisterium is the plank trads will hold on to for dear life.  But it's not a question of fallibility, but one of authority.  It's possible the Pope is wrong, but you're not the one who gets to decide the Pope is wrong.
The real purpose of traditionalist polemics is not to find truth, but to attempt to construct an epistemological fortress rendering one's worldview impervious to attack.
 
The following users thanked this post: dreuter032003, Livenotonevil

Offline ermy_law

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
The need to counter Orthodox claims (or at any rate the need to choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism) shows the weakness in the traditionalist case (most varieties of it anyway) and actually makes it fall apart completely.

Either it is, or it is not, the case that the Pope is the final, unappealable authority on matters of faith and worship.

If it is not the case, then Orthodoxy is correct and Catholicism is false (assuming Christianity is true).  Catholicism makes this claim, and in fact makes the claim a matter of faith when it comes to ex cathedra teaching.  If the claim is false, then Catholicism is heretical (the term being understood in a broad sense, teaching as of faith what is in fact false).  And if the Catholic Church can teach one thing as being of faith which is in fact false, it has no credibility on anything else it teaches as of faith.

If it is the case, then Pope Paul VI promulgated Vatican II and approved the New Mass, and there is no traditionalist case to be made whatsoever, for he is the final, unquestionable, unappealable authority.  You are not the one who decides whether these things are in accord with Tradition, or with previous teaching, or whether previous teaching should be revised.  He is.  Your opinion counts for squat.

The fallible ordinary Magisterium is the plank trads will hold on to for dear life.  But it's not a question of fallibility, but one of authority.  It's possible the Pope is wrong, but you're not the one who gets to decide the Pope is wrong.

Yes, this is very well stated. There will always be arguments for both sides of the papal supremacy debate, and it is unlikely they are going to be resolved in an internet discussion forum when historians and theologians cannot resolve them (although I think they are fun discussions to have). But rarely does one encounter an argument for the Roman Catholic side of the debate that takes into account the current situation that prevails in Rome.

Incidentally, I see the more pressing debate between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is in the issue of development of doctrine. Perhaps that is because I am rather convinced that there is very little support for the idea of papal supremacy in the first millennium, and I am also convinced that, even if there were, the reality of how that has worked in the late second millennium shows its weakness as an ecclesiological paradigm.
 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Hopeful Fatalist
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 816
  • Thanked: 322 times
  • Religion: Old Christian
If it is the case, then Pope Paul VI promulgated Vatican II and approved the New Mass, and there is no traditionalist case to be made whatsoever, for he is the final, unquestionable, unappealable authority.  You are not the one who decides whether these things are in accord with Tradition, or with previous teaching, or whether previous teaching should be revised.  He is.  Your opinion counts for squat.

Institutionally, yes.

But since Rome herself has begrudingly admitted that Vatican II does not propose (or define) anything to be believed of divine and Catholic faith, and plain logic admits of no other reading of it, the traditional case (non-sedevacantist) still has plenty of legs to stand on. Having said that, traditionalists need perseverance, intelligence, prudence and a long-term plan. If the modernists could do it by paciently infiltrating the Church hierarchy, so that their case could be heard and their thinking become almost hegemonical, much more can traditionalists do it. The process, I believe, is already in motion, despite Francis' disastrous papacy. There's much more traditional clergy and faithful today than in the 70's and 80's. Much, much more.

The fallible ordinary Magisterium is the plank trads will hold on to for dear life.  But it's not a question of fallibility, but one of authority.  It's possible the Pope is wrong, but you're not the one who gets to decide the Pope is wrong.

Still, it is an instrumental plank that has kept the Church afloat during these times. None of us have been required by Rome to sin against the faith, have we? There is nothing different that is required of Catholic belief today, that was not required in 1950. The Sacred Magisterium and the Ordinary and Universal Episcopal Magisterium has not defined, for instance, that there is salvation outside the Church, despite all the disastrous (and difficult) appearances to the contrary.

You are correct that it is not up to us to authoritatively decide this thorny case. It is up to Rome, present or future, to finally use her infallible authority to clean up the mess.
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." — Justin Martyr, First Apology. Chap. LXVI. — Of the Eucharist.
 

Offline Livenotonevil

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 14 times
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox
I mean, how is calling somebody's religion a "whore" of a religion at all Christian?

Ecumenism, or that is false ecumenism is not an option. By your logic, that means everyone should be okay with any religion, which is false.

There's a difference between "being a heretic advocating for religious indifferentism" and "being polite."
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt
 

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3242
  • Thanked: 941 times
  • Religion: Catholic
If it is the case, then Pope Paul VI promulgated Vatican II and approved the New Mass, and there is no traditionalist case to be made whatsoever, for he is the final, unquestionable, unappealable authority.  You are not the one who decides whether these things are in accord with Tradition, or with previous teaching, or whether previous teaching should be revised.  He is.  Your opinion counts for squat.

Institutionally, yes.

But since Rome herself has begrudingly admitted that Vatican II does not propose (or define) anything to be believed of divine and Catholic faith, and plain logic admits of no other reading of it, the traditional case (non-sedevacantist) still has plenty of legs to stand on.

No, it doesn't.  Rome's authority goes beyond defining things to be believed with divine and Catholic faith.  Rome's authority extends to stating whether given things are or are not in accordance with faith (or Tradition if you like).  And this is the final, unappealable authority in the here and now (even if possibly in the future such decision could be reversed by a future Pope).  And that authority has said that Vatican II and the New Mass are Catholic and in accord with faith.  You do not have the right to decide that they are not and to act on it.  You are not the one who makes those decisions.

Quote
Having said that, traditionalists need perseverance, intelligence, prudence and a long-term plan. If the modernists could do it by paciently infiltrating the Church hierarchy, so that their case could be heard and their thinking become almost hegemonical, much more can traditionalists do it. The process, I believe, is already in motion, despite Francis' disastrous papacy. There's much more traditional clergy and faithful today than in the 70's and 80's. Much, much more.

Sure, no doubt.  I will frankly say however that these things have been lacking to a large extent up until now.  Especially the "intelligence" and the "prudence" parts.

Quote
Still, it is an instrumental plank that has kept the Church afloat during these times.

No, it hasn't.  It is a denial of the truth, a denial of reality, which has severely hampered the traditionalist case and movement.  It is in fact, its single biggest obstacle and a fatal one to its eventual success.  It makes traditionalism self-refuting, which anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills can see.  And (I might add) it provides fodder for all the rest of the anti-intellectual nonsense endemic in the movement (the earth is flat, we never went to the moon, etc.) when the very foundation is shown to be anti-intellectual.

Quote
None of us have been required by Rome to sin against the faith, have we? There is nothing different that is required of Catholic belief today, that was not required in 1950. The Sacred Magisterium and the Ordinary and Universal Episcopal Magisterium has not defined, for instance, that there is salvation outside the Church, despite all the disastrous (and difficult) appearances to the contrary.

You are required by Rome to accept the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.  If you believe acceptance of any of these teachings to constitute a sin against the faith, then yes you have.  For instance, the Ordinary Magisterium has taught that there can be salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Church.  You don't get to decide that this contradicts EENS.  It's the authority of Rome that decides that.

The real purpose of traditionalist polemics is not to find truth, but to attempt to construct an epistemological fortress rendering one's worldview impervious to attack.
 
The following users thanked this post: ermy_law

Offline Lumen Christi

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Thanked: 221 times
  • Religion: Catholic
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." - Titus 3:10-11
 

Offline ermy_law

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." Unless he's the pope, in which case you must at all costs act as if he's not a heretic even if such acting leads to absurd results.
 

Offline mikemac

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5494
  • Thanked: 1597 times
  • Religion: Catholic
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." Unless he's the pope, in which case you must at all costs act as if he's not a heretic even if such acting leads to absurd results.

Nope, it takes two warnings (admonitions from Titus 3:10-11) and a general council.  It's in the works.
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

TradCath Forum  A friendly Traditional Catholic forum with excellent administration and moderation.
 

Offline ermy_law

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
St. Paul left out the general council part.
 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Hopeful Fatalist
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 816
  • Thanked: 322 times
  • Religion: Old Christian
No, it doesn't.  Rome's authority goes beyond defining things to be believed with divine and Catholic faith.  Rome's authority extends to stating whether given things are or are not in accordance with faith (or Tradition if you like).  And this is the final, unappealable authority in the here and now (even if possibly in the future such decision could be reversed by a future Pope).  And that authority has said that Vatican II and the New Mass are Catholic and in accord with faith.  You do not have the right to decide that they are not and to act on it.  You are not the one who makes those decisions.

(...)

No, it hasn't.  It is a denial of the truth, a denial of reality, which has severely hampered the traditionalist case and movement.  It is in fact, its single biggest obstacle and a fatal one to its eventual success.  It makes traditionalism self-refuting, which anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills can see.  And (I might add) it provides fodder for all the rest of the anti-intellectual nonsense endemic in the movement (the earth is flat, we never went to the moon, etc.) when the very foundation is shown to be anti-intellectual.

The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is fallible, as we've seen, for instance, in the condemnation of heliocentrism as a heresy. If the Sacred Magisterium of the Church had condemned as heresy something which was objectively not, then the whole edifice of credibility of the Church would have been destroyed. Such was not the case.

Vatican II, although pastoral in nature and having abstained from defining any dogma, is nevertheless to be accepted by the faithful. This is not in dispute. However, it is not an object of the full assent of faith. The New Mass, I agree, has to be accepted as Catholic, unless one is to opt for Sedevacantism.

Quote
You are required by Rome to accept the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.  If you believe acceptance of any of these teachings to constitute a sin against the faith, then yes you have.  For instance, the Ordinary Magisterium has taught that there can be salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Church.  You don't get to decide that this contradicts EENS.  It's the authority of Rome that decides that.

Yes, we are to give obsequium religiosum to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. If, however, we have personal difficulties in reconciling these non-irreformable teachings with what the Church has infallibly taught in her Sacred Magisterium, there is at least a theoretical possibility of withholding assent. That is the case, for instance, with theologians. How can this be applied to simple laymen? It might be definitely clarified in the future, I believe.
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." — Justin Martyr, First Apology. Chap. LXVI. — Of the Eucharist.
 

Offline Kephapaulos

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 385 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
I mean, how is calling somebody's religion a "whore" of a religion at all Christian?

Ecumenism, or that is false ecumenism is not an option. By your logic, that means everyone should be okay with any religion, which is false.

There's a difference between "being a heretic advocating for religious indifferentism" and "being polite."

Sometimes being polite is not called for but the truth to get someone to their senses. We can respect people but not false religions in themselves. Maybe the word "whore" should not be prudently used at the beginning, but it can be used depending on the situation.

Looking at the actions of history on the part of the Eastern Orthodox and in spite of the 1204 Crusader and Constantinople debacle, there has been more animosity and resentment on the part of the East. So how is that Christian? It's plain and simple. You know a tree by its fruits.

Yesterday was the feast of St. Josaphat. He was killed by the riots of the mob of Eastern Orthodox. The Kydones brothers were persecuted for using the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. One of them did not appear to even convert to Catholicism still but got mistreated anyway. There were exiles like Cardinal Isidore of Kiev and Cardinal Bessarion who gave up their homelands and what they knew because of the hatred on the part of their former brethren who chose wrongly to be under the authority of the turban rather than the tiara. That all cannot be just brushed aside. Now granted, the Western princes should have done more to help the East, but it was no excuse on the East's part to stay separated from the Rome. The Popes themselves did all that they could to foster unity. Now in our time it is not that but a caving in and ignoring of the reality of the problems that need to be pointed out. If just one tittle of the law is not followed as Our Lord pointed out, then you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven and your religion is false and is a "whore" that leads to damnation.

It's nothing against you, Livenotonevil, but it has to do with the false religion to which you adhere. It's not helping you in the spiritual life in spite of any techniques that were developed by the East in spite of their various specific situations. The rites are venerable indeed but the religion is false. I'll make sure to keep you in prayer because I genuinely care about your soul, Livenotonevil. :)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 04:38:18 PM by Kephapaulos »
 

Offline ermy_law

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Yesterday was the feast of St. Josaphat. He was killed by the riots of the mob of Eastern Orthodox.

You do know that there's a little more to the story than just this, right?
 

Offline Kephapaulos

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 385 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Believe me, Livenotonevil, I have respect for Eastern Orthodox clerics and faithful, but it would be nice if they converted to help the Catholic Church out because I will even comment that I'd rather have Patriarch Kiril or Metropolitan Hilarion as Pope and overseeing Rome now. (Edit.)

And the use of the word "whore" I realize now was not even used in speaking to Eastern Orthodox it seems on the part of dellery but rather about them. The post was also made almost two years ago.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 12:13:03 AM by Kephapaulos »
 

Offline Lumen Christi

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Thanked: 221 times
  • Religion: Catholic
If you don't mind my saying so, it is pretty bothersome to see pro-Orthodox apologetics in places that have been formed as safe havens to safeguard a sense of community and shared faith.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac