or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Papal Infallibility
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Papal Infallibility - Page 2

post #21 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
The Filioque was added right at the time the Pope was making the final break with the Eastern Orthodox bishops. Possibly this change, along with establishing a celibate priesthood, were used to emphasize that the Pope now had individual authority over the newly separated, Western/Catholic church.

As you say, decisions about Church doctrine and such were made by a council for all those centuries. That is one reason why I can't see any basis for the idea that the central authority (let alone infallible authority) of the Pope was always a belief in Christianity.
Another reason is that the idea of papal infallibility, when it was introduced in the 1800s, came as such a shock to most Catholics of the time, and was so hard to elicit support for among the clergy. It was obviously a very new concept to laypeople and clergy alike.
Those are interesting points regarding the timing. The info regarding the voting is something I'd never heard of prior to this thread, so that is something I need to look into more.
post #22 of 43
Regarding the filioque, this may be helpful to you:

http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

I think mamabadger's statement that the filioque was added to the Nicene Creed at the time the Great Schism occurred is inaccurate. It had been used in much of the West as early as the fourth century.

I appreciate what you're going through, Arduinna--I struggled with these same issues when I felt I was being called back to Christianity, but felt the scriptural support was stronger for the Western interpretation on both of these issues. Now on original sin, I think the Orthodox have it right, but that's a whole other thread!
post #23 of 43
Thread Starter 
I haven't even gotten to thinking about original sin yet Don't give me something else to struggle over :
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Maybe it's one of those things you have to take on faith? If that is the case, I'm not sure how I can do that.
Or it is one of those things you have to keep questioning while praying for discernment and direction.
post #25 of 43
Thread Starter 
I'm not even sure what the difference is between discernment and direction and my own opinion and bias. :
post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
If that was the case, why were there any ecumenical counsels to decide what to include in the creed for instance? What I don't get is why there was a long history of counsels to decide and then not anymore. If the pope was supposedly infallible all along then why even meet with the Bishops and discuss such important issues as the creed ect? Additionally if the pope was supposedly always infallible why wait 1800 years to decree at Vatican 1?
Councils historically are called to combat a particular heresy or assault on a dogma(s) of the Church (not so in the case of VII, obviously).

The Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed were called after 40 years of battling the Arian Heresy, which nearly ALL of the Church's Bishops fell under. The doctrines defined infallibly in a Council are meant to reiterate and protect for the future what has always been taught - not create anything new.


This is also the case with papal infallibility.

The Council of Trent was called in the 16th century to combat the Protestant Revolt and to codify in perpetuity the Traditional Latin Mass (hence, why it is sometimes referred to as Tridentine).
post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
If the Pope is infallible then I just find it hard to believe that God held back the info that the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son for over 1000 years. The creed that includes this is recited at the Divine Liturgy, Mass ect and it's part of the foundational definition of the Trinity. It just doesn't make sense to me that God would hold back the filioque for so many years. Maybe it's one of those things you have to take on faith? If that is the case, I'm not sure how I can do that.
I'm not sure what you mean. The filioque showed up officially as early as 410AD, well before it was added to the Nicene Creed. It was common belief amongst most Christians. Just because it wasn't officially added to the NC until such and such a time doesn't mean God held anything back from us. That's like saying God held back the truth about gravity just because it took an apple bonking someone on the head to make it official.
post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Councils historically are called to combat a particular heresy or assault on a dogma(s) of the Church (not so in the case of VII, obviously).

The Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed were called after 40 years of battling the Arian Heresy, which nearly ALL of the Church's Bishops fell under. The doctrines defined infallibly in a Council are meant to reiterate and protect for the future what has always been taught - not create anything new.


This is also the case with papal infallibility.

The Council of Trent was called in the 16th century to combat the Protestant Revolt and to codify in perpetuity the Traditional Latin Mass (hence, why it is sometimes referred to as Tridentine).
Exactly.
post #29 of 43
Historians are unsure when exactly it first started.

However, the Filioque appears to have first been inserted into the Creed in Spain, to combat a local version of Arianism. The Spanish Church interpolated the Filioque at the Third Council of Toledo (589). From there it spread to France and Germany, where it was welcomed by Charlemagne and adopted at the semi-Iconoclast Council of Frankfort (794). It was writers at Charlemagne's court who first made the issue of the Filioque into a controversy, accusing the Greeks [the Orthodox] of heresy for reciting the Creed in its original form. Rome with its typical conservatism, didn't use the Creed with the Filioque until the beginning of the 11th Century. In 808 Pope Leo II wrote to Charlemagne, stating that while he believed the Filioque was doctrinally sound, he considered it a a mistake to tamper with the wording of the Creed.
Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp 50-51
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Councils historically are called to combat a particular heresy or assault on a dogma(s) of the Church (not so in the case of VII, obviously).
Oh, but the 7th Ecumenical Council was important and combated heresy (Iconoclasm). But then, the veneration of icons is not as important in the west as it is in Orthodoxy. "Icons safeguard a full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation." (Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 33). Since Christ became flesh, he can be portrayed (as well as the Theotokos and the saints). To deny the importance of icons, is to not fully believe in the importance of the Incarnation. As my priest says, it reveals a defective Christology. Rome does have some icons, they're just not venerated as among the Orthodox - I've never seen a Catholic kiss an icon, although they are placed on walls, usually too high for veneration (kissing) that I've seen. You have the Black Madonna, a Byzantine icon of the Theotokos and Christ, much venerated among Catholics of Polish background, known as Our Lady of Czestochowa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bla...of_Czestochowa

Catholics also have "Our Lady of Perpetual Help," a Byzantine icon original known as the "Theotokos of the Passion" - because the angels are carrying the instruments of the crucifixion that Christ is looking at.
http://www.skete.com/index.cfm?fusea...Category_ID=27

The 7th Council was called in 787 by Empress Irene. When she died, iconoclasm reared its ugly head again under Emperor Leo V the Armenian. When the last iconoclast emperor, Theophilus, died in 842, his widow, the Empress Theodora as regent for her young son (eventually became Emperor Michael III "the Sot"), called a local council in Constantinople to affirm restoration of the icons. The icons were restored on the first Sunday of Great Lent, 843. To this day, the first Sunday of Great Lent in the Orthodox Church is known as the Sunday of Orthodoxy or the Triumph of Orthodoxy, with processions of icons in the churches.
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd View Post
Oh, but the 7th Ecumenical Council was important and combated heresy (Iconoclasm). But then, the veneration of icons is not as important in the west as it is in Orthodoxy. "Icons safeguard a full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation." (Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 33). Since Christ became flesh, he can be portrayed (as well as the Theotokos and the saints). To deny the importance of icons, is to not fully believe in the importance of the Incarnation. As my priest says, it reveals a defective Christology. Rome does have some icons, they're just not venerated as among the Orthodox - I've never seen a Catholic kiss an icon, although they are placed on walls, usually too high for veneration (kissing) that I've seen. You have the Black Madonna, a Byzantine icon of the Theotokos and Christ, much venerated among Catholics of Polish background, known as Our Lady of Czestochowa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bla...of_Czestochowa

Catholics also have "Our Lady of Perpetual Help," a Byzantine icon original known as the "Theotokos of the Passion" - because the angels are carrying the instruments of the crucifixion that Christ is looking at.
http://www.skete.com/index.cfm?fusea...Category_ID=27

The 7th Council was called in 787 by Empress Irene. When she died, iconoclasm reared its ugly head again under Emperor Leo V the Armenian. When the last iconoclast emperor, Theophilus, died in 842, his widow, the Empress Theodora as regent for her young son (eventually became Emperor Michael III "the Sot"), called a local council in Constantinople to affirm restoration of the icons. The icons were restored on the first Sunday of Great Lent, 843. To this day, the first Sunday of Great Lent in the Orthodox Church is known as the Sunday of Orthodoxy or the Triumph of Orthodoxy, with processions of icons in the churches.


I think you misread my post. I meant "VII" as in, "Vatican II" not "7th."

Carry on!
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryBomb View Post
I'm not sure what you mean. The filioque showed up officially as early as 410AD, well before it was added to the Nicene Creed. It was common belief amongst most Christians. Just because it wasn't officially added to the NC until such and such a time doesn't mean God held anything back from us. That's like saying God held back the truth about gravity just because it took an apple bonking someone on the head to make it official.
The Filioque was certainly known of for centuries. So were a lot of ideas which were rejected by the Church as incorrect. There were other versions or mistranslations going around, including "proceeds from the Father through the Son." It seems that some individuals in the early Church may have added the phrase with the intention of contradicting Arianism, which was an understandable motive, but they had no authority to change the Creed. It was spread around a lot in western Europe, but was never accepted in the east or by the majority of bishops or Christians. More to the point, it did not just develop as a new belief, it attempted to replace an established one.

The Filioque was not in the Creed which was agreed upon at the Council of Nicea, or the later Council of Constantinople. The Popes of the time did not use the Filioque. Pope Leo III even had the text of the original (without Filioque) Nicene Creed engraved on two silver tablets, one in Greek and one in Latin, and placed in the wall of St. Peter's Cathedral, along with the statement that anyone who changes the Creed in any way is anathema. That seems conclusive, but I suppose you could argue that Pope Leo was in error.
post #33 of 43
Thread Starter 
Thanks mamabadger, that is what my problem is with this.

I still haven't gotten an adequate answer as to how if the pope is infallible that the creed was agreed on without the filioque in the first place. The pope was there when the creed was voted on without the filioque from the beginning.

The concept that the pope would only speak infallibly if the matter was in controversy makes no sense to me. Why would something have to be in controversy to be declared? I totally get that he would only speak infallibly on matters of dogma ( ok I'm sure there is a more accurate word, but I can't think of it at the moment). But the creed was/is foundational belief of the Churches so why would the counsels that voted on the original creed vote something that is wrong?
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Thanks mamabadger, that is what my problem is with this.

I still haven't gotten an adequate answer as to how if the pope is infallible that the creed was agreed on without the filioque in the first place. The pope was there when the creed was voted on without the filioque from the beginning.
Also, I believe at each ecumenical council (including the 7th) that the council reaffirmed the original text of the Creed (after the second council which gave us the Creed in the current text used in the Orthodox Churches).
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post


I think you misread my post. I meant "VII" as in, "Vatican II" not "7th."

Carry on!
Sorry - I've seen the shorthand of "V2" but not "VII."!
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ledzepplon View Post

The New Advent article I posted in my previous reply says that ecumenical councils can also issue infallible statements, but their infallibility comes through the power of the pope, who convenes such meetings. (See Section III, Part A on Ecumenical Councils.)
When you state that the pope convened ecumenical councils are you talking about the first 7 or more recent ones such as Vatican I & II?

Because if you're talking about the first 7 councils (325-787), the reigning emperor (or empress, for that matter), convened the council. Just off the top of my head, Constantine the Great convened the 1st council in 325, and the Empress Irene called the 7th council in 787.

A good book (from the Orthodox view) is Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims. It's published by Conciliar Press. I read it earlier this year, twice and then passed it onto an Orthodox convert friend who is battling with her convert Roman Catholic mother (they all started out as Presbyterian).

About the only book in English to focus on the first 7 councils is The First Seven Ecumenical Councils by Leo Donald Davis (a Jesuit, by the way). I heard a series of podcasts on the 7 councils from an Orthodox parish in TN, and then went in search of the book, as it was mentioned as lot.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd View Post
To deny the importance of icons, is to not fully believe in the importance of the Incarnation. As my priest says, it reveals a defective Christology.
How so? (sorry, I find this to be a very presumptuous statement...but am curious as to how you/your priest comes to this conclusion)
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
If the Pope is infallible then I just find it hard to believe that God held back the info that the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son for over 1000 years. The creed that includes this is recited at the Divine Liturgy, Mass ect and it's part of the foundational definition of the Trinity. It just doesn't make sense to me that God would hold back the filioque for so many years. Maybe it's one of those things you have to take on faith? If that is the case, I'm not sure how I can do that.
As a convert to Catholicism, I have a hard time with several doctrines and dogmas. I'd like for that not to be the case. Our priest was very helpful in explaining to me the difference between voluntary doubt and involuntary doubt. He said I have involuntary doubt about certain Catholic teachings because I was raised as a Protestant. It's hard to just change beliefs you've had your whole life! (My beliefs mesh most closely with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, actually.)
post #39 of 43
Thread Starter 
Oh thanks for that link, that was helpful to me
post #40 of 43
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Papal Infallibility