Can anyone explain this ?


#1

occidentalis.blogspot.com/2005/04/ratzinger-and-orthodox.html

The puzzling bit:
[LIST]
*]“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger[/LIST]my emphases]

The book it comes from is discussed identified here - lane.elcore.net/rqd2.htm

lane.elcore.net/rqd6.htm - for context & discussion of the quotation itself

Now that is out of the way - a question: How is that supposed to fit with what the CC has taught about Herself at Vatican I & Vatican II ?

Are we supposed to believe in the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff - or not ?

If we are - why is the same not required of all who wish to be in union with Rome ?

If Vatican I (& a lot of other councils) can be ignored by the Orthodox - why should we pay any attention to those Councils ?

Or is Vatican I’s definitions in Pastor Aeternus (say) infallible as long as they are read by a Roman-Rite Catholic, becoming uninfallible the moment they are read by an Orthodox Christian ? That, would be the very purest relativism: as well as being heresy in the very strictest sense

Those are a few of the problems with that quotation

IOW - the ideas in that quotation demolish, from the foundation upwards, everything we are called upon to believe as Divinely revealed & true. It is impossible to exaggerate the destructive power of the notions in that quotation: it utterly destroys the Papacy - IOW, it obliterates the very position its author now occupies. :frowning:

Comments, anyone ?


#2

Theology of Revelation. The deposit of faith (fides quae) was given to us that we might proclaim the truth to the end of time. We were therefore given an infallible Magisterium to protect that deposit of faith- to help us properly unpack that deposit of faith and understand each of the dogmas contained therein in a context relevant to today.

I think the important bit is ***“Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development,” ***The East must see the Revelational developments that have taken place in the West as orthodox.


#3
  1. This entire matter constitutes theological exploration of a knotty problem, and should not be viewed beyond that.

  2. The anathema of VI applies to those who “reject” the definition - arguably not those who never considered the definition - as the Church before the schism did not consider it. (Clearly they could not consider a definition not defined until 800 years later.)

  3. Perhaps, it means if the Orthodox do not formally reject the definition of VI but merely holds to what was held in the early Church - without pushing what that was - then they do not “reject” VI, they simply don’t address it and re-union is possible.

  4. While the issues you raise are certainly concerns with this line of exploration of how to deal with this issue, it may not come to a head requiring actual application - The Assumption/Dormition should not be an issue. Arguably there has not been any other Post-VI formal declaration of infallibility. Now one must agree that a power never used is suspect, but a delayed or universally agreed upon exercise of the power does not deny the power and may buy time for the wounds of 1000 years to heal.

I certainly don’t know the answer to the issue, but am not opposed to exercises in thinking through how the issue might be resolved without denial of any dogma. Whether this line could get us there, I’m skeptical, but hopeful.


#4

#5

No one claims that the Church never changes. What we claim is that the Church never contradicts itself. Doctrine clearly develops with time, and that’s perfectly reasonable and acceptable. We’re still growing into the measure of the stature of fullness of Christ.

Jeremy


#6

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.