Papal Infallibility - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 02:12 AM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok here is where I'm getting lost on the idea of Papal Infallibility. For approximately what? 1800 years the Church existed without this concept. I don't understand how Christian dogmas which had a history of being decided by ecumenical counsel for so long and then that got tossed aside for papal infallibility. I've read the passages that are used to support it in the bible but if that was the case why wasn't implemented from the beginning?
Arduinna is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 02:27 AM
 
ledzepplon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My understanding is that it always existed, but it wasn't defined until 1870. So, Peter had papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

Having a definition helps clarify what what is dogma versus what is one pope's opinion. Since pope's are human and can be corrupt, the notion is that the Holy Spirit will not allow falsehood to become official church teaching.

There's a pretty good article in the Catholic Encyclopedia here.

Wife to a wonderful dh and mom to four beautiful kiddos, dd (3/04):, ds1 (1/06), ds2 (10/08), and ds3 (7/10)
ledzepplon is offline  
#3 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 02:33 AM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
Arduinna is offline  
#4 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 02:46 AM
 
ledzepplon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
There still are--like Vatican II, most recently. There hasn't been an ex cathedra statement made by a pope since the affirmation of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in 1950. Not even JPII made any ex cathedra statements, to my knowledge. The popes' encyclicals and other writings are not considered ex cathedra unless a pope specifically says he is speaking from the chair of Peter.

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.)

Wife to a wonderful dh and mom to four beautiful kiddos, dd (3/04):, ds1 (1/06), ds2 (10/08), and ds3 (7/10)
ledzepplon is offline  
#5 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 02:56 AM
 
ledzepplon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Additionally if the pope was supposedly always infallible why wait 1800 years to decree at Vatican 1?
Well, one could say the same thing about waiting until 1870 to officially proclaim the Immaculate Conception. It's something that always existed, and was generally accepted, but was never made absolute.

This is just my two cents, but I think "our" time and "God's" time don't always seem to mesh up. For us, 1800 years is a long time! But for God, his plan unfolds in perfect time. I suppose there must be a balance between faith and understanding, which is easier said than done.

Wife to a wonderful dh and mom to four beautiful kiddos, dd (3/04):, ds1 (1/06), ds2 (10/08), and ds3 (7/10)
ledzepplon is offline  
#6 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 03:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh I just thought of this too.

If the pope was always infallible then why the need to add the filoque? Why wasn't it included in the creed from the begining if the pope was infallible wouldn't he have known that from the beginning?

I think we are using different definitions. When I say ecumenical counsels I mean the original first 7 that included the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, ect. I'm not referrring to Vatican one and two which was just a counsel of the Pope and Catholic Bishops.
Arduinna is offline  
#7 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 03:07 AM
 
ledzepplon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm too tired to put together any coherent thoughts right now . . . I'll check back in on this thread tomorrow. I love that your questions get me thinking!

Wife to a wonderful dh and mom to four beautiful kiddos, dd (3/04):, ds1 (1/06), ds2 (10/08), and ds3 (7/10)
ledzepplon is offline  
#8 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 08:38 AM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I remember reading an article (or maybe I heard it on an apologetics program) not too long ago that stated that there were/are many aspects of Catholic teaching that there were/are generally assumed/accepted. It's only when there's a controversy, or disagreement that comes to a head that the Pope speaks out in a way to define a doctrine such as Papal Infallibility or the filoque. I'll try to find where I learned this because it was put much more eloquently than I can!
ChasingPeace is offline  
#9 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 09:05 AM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it might have been a program by Michael Voris that I'm thinking of. Here's a link to his podcasts:
http://www.podcast.catholictelevision.org/totf.php

The wikipedia article (which you may have already consulted) is pretty good, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
Instances of the pope speaking infallibily are extremely rare:
Quote:
Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
Regarding the filioque:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause:
Quote:
Although there were earlier hints of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, including an expression in the Athanasian Creed and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I[3], it was first officially added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.[4] This was done primarily to oppose Arianism, which taught that the Son was a created being and which was prevalent among the Germanic peoples. This version of the Creed was accepted by the local Visigothic rulers, who had been Arians until then.
For me, the Acts account of Pentecost is the best support for the filioque (Jesus breathing on the apostles and saying receive the Holy Spirit).
ChasingPeace is offline  
#10 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 11:02 AM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I ended up going to bed because I had a feeling I wasn't expressing myself correctly, or not using the right terminology.


Not enough sleep last night so I'll come back later, thanks for the links ChasingPeace.
Arduinna is offline  
#11 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 11:10 AM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 17,896
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
it has not always been the norm.

The pope was the first in *honor* among *equals*. He got one vote just like all the other bishops at councils and only the majority vote of a council was infallible. there was no one man who could speak for God. However being in a place of honor people really put a lot of weight on his words. The idea that he had authority over other bishops or that he was more important was foreign though. The pope thinking he was higher or more special and especially thinking he could speak infallibly on his own is one of the things that led to the great schism and eventually to Rome leaving the rest of Church.

The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#12 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 11:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm thinking it was Patriarchates but I could be wrong. IIRC they were in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. Although the one in Constantinople wasn't an original one from the first counsel, IIRC.

And yeah that is what I'm confused about. Thanks for wording it better than I did. If he had always had one vote and they decided things together then what happened with the filioque?

And the Catholic Encyclopedia link says only the Pope has the right to call counsels, yet that wasn't the case from the beginning. Constantine himself called the first counsel. :

If he was always infallible why the history for hundreds of years of the Pope only having one vote like the other Patriarchs? And why the change from having 1 vote to him having the only say? Or should I say, making decisions without the counsel.
Arduinna is offline  
#13 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 11:24 AM
 
spero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the back of beyond
Posts: 9,488
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...&postcount=24&

Every baptized Christian is, or should be, someone with an actual (disturbing) experience, ... a close encounter, with God; someone who, as a result, becomes a disturbing presence to others. - Fr. Anthony J. Gittins, A Presence That Disturbs
spero is offline  
#14 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 11:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post
The pope thinking he was higher or more special and especially thinking he could speak infallibly on his own is one of the things that led to the great schism and eventually to Rome leaving the rest of Church.
Bolding mine.

Reread this and it caught my eye. This is precisely what I'm having an issue with. The idea of him making decisions on his own and abandoning the traditional ecumenical counsel that included the other Patriarchs ( hoping that is the right word, but not sure) and making dogma on his own.
Arduinna is offline  
#15 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 11:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Finally, when the dogma was met with its first vote, eighty-eight voted against it, ninety-one bishops refrained from voting, and sixty-two voted yea only conditionally. The opposition departed from Rome before a second vote was taken rather than be called upon either to support the hated dogma or personally offend the Pope by voting negatively.

"With all opposition dispersed, the ultramontanists sealed their triumph in the final vote with still two negative voices on July 18th, 1870.
From Spero's link. I hadn't heard anything about this before. hmmm
Arduinna is offline  
#16 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 11:52 AM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Interesting stuff. One thing about church teaching is that it is similar to law in that it is dynamic. In common law, we have foundational documents but the law is not set in stone or frozen in time--it develops and changes as new challenges and modern situations confront the law. So it is with church teaching. So I'm not necessarily bothered by the fact that a church teaching was not present from early on, but has developed. Isn't that where the belief that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church comes into play?
ChasingPeace is offline  
#17 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 01:10 PM
 
CherryBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 7,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Have you read what Catholic.com says? http://catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Don't forget, you can also sign up in their forum and ask more specific questions of one of the apologetics

Quote:
This is just my two cents, but I think "our" time and "God's" time don't always seem to mesh up. For us, 1800 years is a long time! But for God, his plan unfolds in perfect time.
I agree with this. 1800 years is nothing in the larger scope of things!

I like the way the catholic.com article puts it-

Quote:
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time.
Which can be said of many Church Doctrines.
CherryBomb is offline  
#18 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 02:49 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 17,896
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
When I first decided I needed something beyond the shallowness of the church I was at my only real option was Catholicism. however there were some things I just couldn't wrap my head around. One of them was papal inafallibity. the more I studied the history of the church I began to se how it all unfolded and he never had the supreme power in the early church. it was much much later that he started claiming he was more than just a bishop. blah blah blah long story short it all led me to the Orthodox church. it contained all the good but none of the doctrines that bothered me.

The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#19 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 03:26 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Oh I just thought of this too.

If the pope was always infallible then why the need to add the filoque? Why wasn't it included in the creed from the begining if the pope was infallible wouldn't he have known that from the beginning?
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.

Quote:
I think we are using different definitions. When I say ecumenical counsels I mean the original first 7 that included the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, ect. I'm not referrring to Vatican one and two which was just a counsel of the Pope and Catholic Bishops.
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.
mamabadger is offline  
#20 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 03:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It seems like the bottom line is coming down to:

Gods time is different and this was revealed in his time.

The Pope only comes out with infallible statements when he needs to define teachings that are in controversy.

The first one isn't really cutting it for me for this particular topic though. Not sure why. And the second one, while it makes sense on the surface, it doesn't make sense on the issue of the filioque. Because the previous ecumenical counsels had already outlined the dogma and were in agreement ( including the Pope at that counsel) that the holy spirit proceeded from the father, period.

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.
Arduinna is offline  
#21 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 03:29 PM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Arduinna is offline  
#22 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 04:19 PM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
ChasingPeace is offline  
#23 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 04:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I haven't even gotten to thinking about original sin yet Don't give me something else to struggle over :
Arduinna is offline  
#24 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 05:46 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 17,896
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.

The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#25 of 43 Old 10-22-2007, 06:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not even sure what the difference is between discernment and direction and my own opinion and bias. :
Arduinna is offline  
#26 of 43 Old 10-23-2007, 05:07 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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).
StacyL is offline  
#27 of 43 Old 10-27-2007, 10:52 AM
 
CherryBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 7,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
CherryBomb is offline  
#28 of 43 Old 10-27-2007, 10:52 AM
 
CherryBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 7,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
CherryBomb is offline  
#29 of 43 Old 10-27-2007, 11:59 AM
 
Tradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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

lady.gif
Tradd is offline  
#30 of 43 Old 10-27-2007, 12:16 PM
 
Tradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

lady.gif
Tradd is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off