Sixth Ecumenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople)

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Dollinger

So Pope Adrian was not aware, in 1512, of this pious apostolic doctrine?

To be fair, St. John Chrysostom denied the total purity from sin of St. Mary.

The item you have requested has a problem with one or more of the metadata files that describe it, which prevents us from displaying this page.

If you would like to report this problem as an error report, you may do so here.

I got the same message.

According to Vatican I decrees, you are a heretic:

Likewise according to the Eastern Code of Canon Law.

From
this interview between Jeremy (Basil) Dannnebohm, who went Latin Catholic -> Eastern Catholic -> Eastern Orthodox -> Eastern Catholic -> Eastern Orthodox, and Kevin Allen, host of the Illumined Heart show on Ancient Faith Radio:

Kevin: ... My discussion with Father James Babcock, which I know you’ve listened to a couple of times, is that they’re truly orthodox,(*) they’re in communion with Rome, they take their faith very seriously and so on. I’m not trying to soften your statement but they wouldn’t see themselves as even a branch of the Roman Catholic Church.

They would prefer you to describe them as separate churches in communion with Rome and not necessarily adhering even, we’ll get into more of a discussion with this in a bit, but even in some variance with what appears to me fairly straightforward Latin Western Roman doctrine.

Basil: Really you contracted yourself by saying that you’re essentially Orthodox but Roman Catholic. There can be no such thing. John Paul II laid that out very clearly in the Eastern Code of Canons which, unfortunately, I don’t know how many people have read but it definitely states that the Eastern Catholics are indeed Roman Catholics who adhere to Eastern traditions of worship.

When it comes to theology the canons state it very clearly. They are Roman Catholic canons.

Kevin: So your understanding, Basil Dannebohm, is that individual Catholic or Melkite or Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics, theologians, or priests, or individual faithfuls really don’t have the freedom to contradict or not accept the fullness of Roman and Latin canonical and doctrine and dogma?

Basil: That’s absolutely the case. They all live under the code of canons of the Eastern churches which teaches in canon 597 papal infallibility. The Pope is responsible for approving all Eastern bishops in the Catholic churches, even those in patriarchal churches according to canons 181 through 185.

To argue that point, unfortunately what I see is a lot of people misunderstand the faith. That was even the case in the Catholic Church. To really study you might be surprised what you learn. That includes certain dogmas that the Catholic Church might hold.

It was very clearly outlined in those canons that even as a so-called Eastern Catholic the only thing that makes you Eastern really, at the heart of the matter, is your worship, but everything else you have to accept everything that the Pope says including his infallibility.

(The transcript of a radio interview is not a scholarly source by any means--I'll have to find the particular Eastern canons I saw quoted just in the past few days.)

[Dollinger]

To be fair, St. John Chrysostom denied the total purity from sin of St. Mary.

Yes, but there is overwhelming evidence from the Fathers about her total purity. Wich is not the case about what Pope Adrian denied.

(The transcript of a radio interview is not a scholarly source by any means--I'll have to find the particular Eastern canons I saw quoted just in the past few days.)

Canon 597 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallible teaching authority if the bishops, gathered in an ecumenical council, exercise their teaching authority, and, as teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, declare that a doctrine of faith or morals must be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter when together with that same Roman Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.
§3. No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by mardukm

According to Dom Chapman, only 4 issues were regarded by the Fathers to have had any substance - 1) the case of Pope Vigilius; 2) the case of Pope Honorius; 3) declarations concerning the Sacraments from Pope Eugenius IV; 4) Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam.

Thanks for this useful list.

Pope Adrian VI's comment was not regarded as anything extraordinary because he was not making a declaration of Faith on the matter, but expressed a private opinion. In fact, he did not even express it in his capacity as a bishop, much less as the Pope, but during his tenure as a teacher at a university in 1512 (Pope Adrian VI was Pope from 1522 - 1523). His reference to Pope John XXII trying to enforce his teaching on the Church is contradicted by Pope John XXII himself, who had asserted that his statement on the matter of the Beatific Vision was not a formal decree, but was only mentioned by him in a sermon.

Ahh, thanks for filling in the gaps in my knowledge on those points.

As to brother Apotheoun's claim that papal infallibility did not exist in the mind of the Church in the 7th century, read the following, which details statements from individual non-Latin bishops and local synods on this matter from the Patriarchal Sees of Jerusalem and Constantinople in the 7th century: http://www.archive.org/stream/a62053...puoft_djvu.txt

There's an elipsis (...) in the URL, and as has been previously mentioned, the link is broken. Do you have a URL on file that still works, or a copy of the link's contents saved on your computer?

Lesson - if your jaw drops on a matter that contradicts the Catholic Faith, rest assured there is a good explanation.

Forgive my bluntness, but... I am still absolutely baffled as to how papal infallibility can be regarded as anything but an innovation.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

To be fair, St. John Chrysostom denied the total purity from sin of St. Mary.

St. Basil once said in a homily that the belief that the Virgin Mary went on to have more children does not contradict the faith (of course, he believed in the ever-virginity), because what she did after the virgin birth did not have any bearing on the mystery of the Incarnation. These are good words to meditate on. Whether Mary was sinless or not has has no impact upon the salvation of mankind, because Jesus did not require a sinless vessel in order to become incarnate (the Tome of Pope Leo says that his conception without human seed guaranteed that Christ would be free of sinful nature).

This is why St. John Chrysostom's view, while it is a minority opinion cannot be shown to be wrong. The Church is not invested with the authority to declare the truth of historical data not connected to the mystery of our salvation. Thus, the Church cannot tell us with certainty whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth, whether the Earth is flat or round, if quantum mechanics and general relativity can be reconciled, or if Lee Harvey Oswald really shot JFK. That being said, both beliefs are pious doctrines which have been largely accepted without controversy, so the Church, therefore, teaches them with the confidence that they are reflective of the general consensus of the fathers.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Dollinger

Yes, but there is overwhelming evidence from the Fathers about her total purity. Wich is not the case about what Pope Adrian denied.

Good point.

Canon 597 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallible teaching authority if the bishops, gathered in an ecumenical council, exercise their teaching authority, and, as teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, declare that a doctrine of faith or morals must be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter when together with that same Roman Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive.
§3. No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

That must be one of the canon laws I was thinking of.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

St. Basil once said in a homily that the belief that the Virgin Mary went on to have more children does not contradict the faith (of course, he believed in the ever-virginity), because what she did after the virgin birth did not have any bearing on the mystery of the Incarnation. These are good words to meditate on. Whether Mary was sinless or not has has no impact upon the salvation of mankind, because Jesus did not require a sinless vessel in order to become incarnate (the Tome of Pope Leo says that his conception without human seed guaranteed that Christ would be free of sinful nature).

This is why St. John Chrysostom's view, while it is a minority opinion cannot be shown to be wrong. The Church is not invested with the authority to declare the truth of historical data not connected to the mystery of our salvation. Thus, the Church cannot tell us with certainty whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth, whether the Earth is flat or round, if quantum mechanics and general relativity can be reconciled, or if Lee Harvey Oswald really shot JFK. That being said, both beliefs are pious doctrines which have been largely accepted without controversy, so the Church, therefore, teaches them with the confidence that they are reflective of the general consensus of the fathers.

That's a perspective worth pondering...

If a great controversy arose in the ninth century over the total purity of St. Mary, would the Church have been wrong to make a solemn declaration on the subject?

And which are those doctrines that you consider to be "connected to the mystery of our salvation"?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

That's a perspective worth pondering...

If a great controversy arose in the ninth century over the total purity of St. Mary, would the Church have been wrong to make a solemn declaration on the subject?

And which are those doctrines that you consider to be "connected to the mystery of our salvation"?

Anything which can be shown to make our salvation impossible would be a heresy. For each of the doctrines defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and also the essence-energies distinction, it can be shown by reason why our salvation through deification would be impossible if we deny the dogma.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Anything which can be shown to make our salvation impossible would be a heresy. For each of the doctrines defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and also the essence-energies distinction, it can be shown by reason why our salvation through deification would be impossible if we deny the dogma.

So you aren't very optimistic about the fate of adherents of the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East (who refuse Ephesus), of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (who object to Chalcedon), and of Calvinist and Zwinglian Protestant denominations (who reject Nicea II)?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

So you aren't very optimistic about the fate of adherents of the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East (who refuse Ephesus), of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (who object to Chalcedon), and of Calvinist and Zwinglian Protestant denominations (who reject Nicea II)?

God is merciful and just. I'm simply presenting the historical perspective of what constitutes a heresy. I don't personally think that God will condemn all who believe in heresies to hell, but I simply mean to say that the logical consequence of heretical doctrines is that there is no true salvation. The state of the souls of people like Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, etc., is not really for us to judge.

[Apotheoun]

Originally Posted by Dollinger

So Pope Adrian was not aware, in 1512, of this pious apostolic doctrine?

Not only did professor Adriaan Florenszoon Boeyens not know that the pope was supposed to be infallible while he taught theology at the University of Louvain, but he had his professorial statement about pope's being able to err (and even officially teach heresy) republished after becoming Pope Adrian VI.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

God is merciful and just. I'm simply presenting the historical perspective of what constitutes a heresy. I don't personally think that God will condemn all who believe in heresies to hell, but I simply mean to say that the logical consequence of heretical doctrines is that there is no true salvation. The state of the souls of people like Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, etc., is not really for us to judge.

Thanks for your explanation, which I would have to agree with.