How, then, would you suggest we consider all the liturgical abuses and changes which have occurred in the Latin rite authorized by Pope of Rome? Said Popes and Magisterium accept and/or enable any number of innovations, whales in lenten services just among the most recent. As the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith, how do rationalize the acceptance and enablement, and how in the world do you think those marks of the Church of Christ are demonstrated by such, and that you could ever expect submission by us to such nonsense? How do you or anybody, except by being a sedevacantist?
Stephen, your question is this: "How do you resolve the difficulties except by the correct answer?" Well, we don't. The correct answer is what resolves them. We don't intend to try to resolve with anything other than the correct answer.
Let me ask it another way. In your ecclessiology, how does "being in communion" work? You talk a lot about the marks that define the Church of Christ, and that to be a member is essential for salvation. Are you and, say, the whale bishop members of that Church, are you and he in communion with each other and the Bishop of Rome?
As far as I can see, no, I am not in communion with that man, he seems to be usurping the diocesan see. Same for Leo. He is not the Bishop of Rome, and I am not in communion with him. I can say that with more certainty than for a random bishop who does something grotesquely stupid like that.
Where, then, is this Church that you write so much about and that we Orthodox must.accept as divine revelation? It can't just be in your mind or just in history. It has to be incarnate in the here and now.
Yeah it is, it is the body of men who are baptised, profess the Catholic faith externally, and have not separated themselves from the unity of the body, as per Pope Pius XII. We could also, in ordinary times, say "and are governed by legitimate pastors" as other sources say, but almost all our sees are currently vacant or intruded, so that is harder to use as a means of identification today.
Pastor Aeternus reiterates what has been taught since the first millennium about the supreme authority of the See of St. Peter to judge the whole Church and to decide whenever there is a dispute about the faith, because of the indefectibility of the Roman See - because it cannot fail in the faith. The dogmatic constitution includes a confession of this infallible doctrine of faith from the Fourth Council of Constantinople and from the delegation of Emperor Michael VIII to the Second Council of Lyons. It is the doctrine of both the Western and Eastern Fathers.
In fact, one of my friends is a convert from the Eastern Schism, a learned, quiet and pious man who sought to learn more about the Christian Faith and began reading the Eastern Fathers, and was shocked when he discovered that they were saying what the Catholic Church is saying. The more he read, the more he became convinced that he must join this Church that his ancestors sadly abandoned.
The truth is that there is nothing keeping the Greek Schismatics from returning to the Church but for pride and hardness of heart. This was clearly manifested already at the Council in Trullo of 692 (though even before it was visible when the Patriarch of Constantinople began to call himself "ecumenical patriarch", meaning patriarch of the whole world), which saw fit not only to attack the Roman Church but to abolish its own immemorial and apostolic custom of the perpetual continence of priests (as testified by the Eastern Fathers), which is why Pope St. Sergius I (venerated even by the Schismatics) never approved it and said that he would "rather die than consent to erroneous novelties". Of course, it was manifested again in the Photian Schism in the 9th century.
Just as Protestants stand condemned by their forefathers for abandoning and reviling the Catholic faith that they professed and taught them, the Eastern Schismatics stand condemned by the Eastern Fathers, who professed what they now deny. Both must return to the Mother they have abandoned, and for that to happen first they need to give up their pride. Until they do, they are but a withered branch cut off from the root.
Because it commands you to obey and submit to the Pope and his magisterium on all things liturgical. There are no limitations to Papal authority in this regard. PA was called out just this year by Card. Fernandez as he hammer to the SSPX not to ordain new bishops.
There are indeed limitation in the obedience and submission. Show us where you think it is saying they are unlimited, please.
Also it is a mistake to think we care about Card Fernández.
Also, please don’t flatter the Eastern sects to think that if, per impossibile, the Roman claims were proved false that theirs would be proved true by default.
I don't see anything there about it being unlimited in the sense I understand you to be alluding to. No power to violate the law of contradiction, no power to change the received dogmas, no power to invent mew dogmas – and indeed this is excluded elsewhere in the document you cite.
This power is currently with Christ, as St Antoninus said. It is not diffused or anything in the Church today. When a new pope is finally elected, he will have it.
But who is vested with the power and authority to adjudicate and interpret if and when those laws you cite are - or are not - violated? Answer for Roman Catholics - the reigning Pope. This was Paul VI’s rationale vis a vis Arch. Lefebrve, and remains so to this day. So there’s this ambiguity, a lack of clarity and cohesion about the scope and limits - if any - of Papal authority, which is an all too familiar discussion among us Orthodox.
The most consistent amd logical stance a Roman Catholic could take in light of Pastor Aeternus is extreme ultramontanism, where one submits 100% without question to whatever the reigning Pope and his magisterium say, allow and enable. Which you see happening, not least with liturgical whales. Which we would never allow - but then, we aren’t boxed into a corner by Pastor Aeternus, and can call out bishops and priests as heretics or at least disrobe them. Anaxios! is the cry. You have to choice with PA but to become a sedevacantist, as you cannot accept either what.comes with extreme ultramontanism.
Contrary to what you think, liturgy is not “the northstar of theology.” It is an expression of the theology of the Church. The theology comes first.
Changes to the Roman liturgy followed changes in theology that had already been infallibly condemned by the Church. They aren’t merely liturgical abuses but expressions of a religion the tenants of which have been condemned by the Catholic Church.
Such false doctrines don’t come from the Church nor could they have come from men who were visible members in her. These men have chosen their own way that is not hers and in doing so rejected and separated themselves from her.
A singular focus on the liturgy ignores far more important theological issues that are at the root of the present crisis of faith.
I suggest that you listen to Louie Verrecchio’s podcast series on the crisis in the Church as it provides a good introduction to the crisis and how what we see in reality fits in with what the Catholic Church teaches about herself. I’ve republished it on my substack with permission. Start with season 2 “Vatican II revisited.”
«. . . their assent to revelation is not conditioned or determined by the proposition of Christ’s Church. It is based on either a) the authority of a body which separated itself from Christ’s Church . . .»
But is this not to assume the thing under dispute, i.e., that the Roman Church is necessary for faith? The Orthodox accept that the Church of Christ is necessary for faith, but they dispute with Catholics where that Church is. Of course, we can look at the motives of credibility, but they themselves dispute the motives either as to kind or as to application. They have other notes too, e.g., well attested miracles, visible sanctity and saintly men, sublimity of doctrine, etc. To account for this the Catholics would have to say that these are still not pleasing to God because possesed without divine faith. And why without divine faith? Because not mediated by the Catholic Church. But this is the thing disputed, because they would say these things establish the truth of the Orthodox Church as God's Church and from thence make their act of divine faith.
You would claim that the modern papal claimants are heretical because they contradict previous dogmatic pronouncements, but the Orthodox say the same for themselves, the only difference being that you conclude that the claimants were never popes to begin with.
Re your last comment: Yes, and that's why they are still wrong.
As for assuming what is under dispute: the truth that the Catholic Church is the true Church is not under dispute by Catholics, for whom this article was written.
Regarding other alleged signs of holiness: the Eastern Orthodox sects can have all the remarkable signs they like but they will avail nothing to a coalition of groups which have a constitution visibly different to that of Christ's Church.
The Rock is Peter's profession of the faith, not Peter per se. Even your own collect for the Feast of the Chair of St Peter says that, check at the link. Pope's can be heretical, you don"t get to pick and choose the ones you don't like and play make-believe that the Chair is vacant. Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle - Vatican News https://share.google/BMcT5Sg16UxIpxfQH
That statement just seems made up out of thin air. Granted, you aren't the first to buy into that, but tell me, where have Catholics ever prayed that? One would think that a belief such.as that would somewhere be prayed publicly, as is much of the deposit of faith, summed up in the axiomatic phrase of "lex orandi, lex credendi", you know it, the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith. So where is it prayed?
First, the collect you mention is not a Catholic collect, it's from the N.O. counterfeit.
Second, you are contradicting the Eastern Fathers, who confessed exactly what the Church has always confessed, that St. Peter himself is the Rock (e.g. St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus etc.), exactly as Our Lord said. You are also in two ways contradicting the Eastern Fathers when you say that the Pope can be a heretic, because the Fathers teach that heretics by their confession of heresy lose all authority (this is why St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius consecrated bishops to fill the sees usurped by bishops who had defected into heresy), and because the Fathers teach that the Roman See cannot fail in the faith.
If you are honest in searching for the truth, you should follow the example of my friend who studied the Eastern Fathers and learned from them the true doctrine, leading him to the Catholic Church.
For example, these are just the names that the great Doctor and Father of the Eastern Church, St. John Chrysostom, the Gold-Mouthed, used to describe St. Peter: "Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, the ruler of the whole world."
When the Eastern Fathers testify against the Eastern Schismatics, it will be with words such as these of St. Theodore the Studite: "I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie."
You said Popes can’t be heretical. 1. What prayers exist that say Popes cannot be heretical, if any, or any that speak to the claims in Pastor Aeternus? We’ve already reviewed the collect for the Feast of St Peter, which presents an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 to which no Orthodox would object.
2. You wrote that you have a different understanding of “lex orandi, lex credendi” from how I used it. What is your understanding, or what sources would you direct me to to read about your understanding?
No, YOU said they can't be heretical, and I agreed.
Proceeding with question 2. The liturgy bears witness to what is taught by revelation and proposed by the Church, and is in a certain sense how the Church proposes what we are to believe, at least in an implicit or tacit way. See here for an example:
1. The idea that we only have to believe things if we pray them is frankly bizarre. The idea that what is taught with authority must be measured against prayers before we assent it is even more bizarre. I'm glad you accept the collect but there is no sense in which a collect is taken to be am exhaustive treatment of what has been proposed.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that faith is a type of assent of the intellect to propositions, or something else?
1. Well, my mistake. Popes can be heretical, and given your statement that they can't be I asked if there were any prayers among you in support if that.
2. I would certainly propose that, for anyone who wants to learn the true faith, to attend a full year's worth of liturgical services, including all feastdays and fasting periods. Everything prayed is to be believed in the Orthodox Church. Those prayers come from our bishop, our pontifex maximus, and in so doing is recognizable by other bishops, the clergy and the laity as being Orthodox. There are no barriers to access, one doesn't need to be able to read, icons for those who can't hear, and the prayers for those who can't see. It is the greatest bulwark against Modernism (it certainly isn't Popes and magisteriums now, is it?)and that the West tried to destroy its own liturgical patrimony is a terrible wound that hurts us all. And that it is being recovered a blessing to us all.
3. I would say faith is my acceptance of what was revealed once by Our Lord, proclaimed by the Apostles and guarded by Holy Mother Church.
How, then, would you suggest we consider all the liturgical abuses and changes which have occurred in the Latin rite authorized by Pope of Rome? Said Popes and Magisterium accept and/or enable any number of innovations, whales in lenten services just among the most recent. As the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith, how do rationalize the acceptance and enablement, and how in the world do you think those marks of the Church of Christ are demonstrated by such, and that you could ever expect submission by us to such nonsense? How do you or anybody, except by being a sedevacantist?
https://youtube.com/shorts/vEtBwO_TR0k?si=s93lDzTp9eAx55Tz
Stephen, your question is this: "How do you resolve the difficulties except by the correct answer?" Well, we don't. The correct answer is what resolves them. We don't intend to try to resolve with anything other than the correct answer.
Let me ask it another way. In your ecclessiology, how does "being in communion" work? You talk a lot about the marks that define the Church of Christ, and that to be a member is essential for salvation. Are you and, say, the whale bishop members of that Church, are you and he in communion with each other and the Bishop of Rome?
As far as I can see, no, I am not in communion with that man, he seems to be usurping the diocesan see. Same for Leo. He is not the Bishop of Rome, and I am not in communion with him. I can say that with more certainty than for a random bishop who does something grotesquely stupid like that.
Where, then, is this Church that you write so much about and that we Orthodox must.accept as divine revelation? It can't just be in your mind or just in history. It has to be incarnate in the here and now.
Yeah it is, it is the body of men who are baptised, profess the Catholic faith externally, and have not separated themselves from the unity of the body, as per Pope Pius XII. We could also, in ordinary times, say "and are governed by legitimate pastors" as other sources say, but almost all our sees are currently vacant or intruded, so that is harder to use as a means of identification today.
"How do you or anybody, except by being a sedevacantist?"
The sedevacantist conclusion is the only one that squares with the facts and with revealed doctrine.
Unless what you consider to be revealed doctrine actually is not. Like Pastor Aeternus
Why would we consider that?
Pastor Aeternus reiterates what has been taught since the first millennium about the supreme authority of the See of St. Peter to judge the whole Church and to decide whenever there is a dispute about the faith, because of the indefectibility of the Roman See - because it cannot fail in the faith. The dogmatic constitution includes a confession of this infallible doctrine of faith from the Fourth Council of Constantinople and from the delegation of Emperor Michael VIII to the Second Council of Lyons. It is the doctrine of both the Western and Eastern Fathers.
In fact, one of my friends is a convert from the Eastern Schism, a learned, quiet and pious man who sought to learn more about the Christian Faith and began reading the Eastern Fathers, and was shocked when he discovered that they were saying what the Catholic Church is saying. The more he read, the more he became convinced that he must join this Church that his ancestors sadly abandoned.
The truth is that there is nothing keeping the Greek Schismatics from returning to the Church but for pride and hardness of heart. This was clearly manifested already at the Council in Trullo of 692 (though even before it was visible when the Patriarch of Constantinople began to call himself "ecumenical patriarch", meaning patriarch of the whole world), which saw fit not only to attack the Roman Church but to abolish its own immemorial and apostolic custom of the perpetual continence of priests (as testified by the Eastern Fathers), which is why Pope St. Sergius I (venerated even by the Schismatics) never approved it and said that he would "rather die than consent to erroneous novelties". Of course, it was manifested again in the Photian Schism in the 9th century.
Just as Protestants stand condemned by their forefathers for abandoning and reviling the Catholic faith that they professed and taught them, the Eastern Schismatics stand condemned by the Eastern Fathers, who professed what they now deny. Both must return to the Mother they have abandoned, and for that to happen first they need to give up their pride. Until they do, they are but a withered branch cut off from the root.
Because it commands you to obey and submit to the Pope and his magisterium on all things liturgical. There are no limitations to Papal authority in this regard. PA was called out just this year by Card. Fernandez as he hammer to the SSPX not to ordain new bishops.
There are indeed limitation in the obedience and submission. Show us where you think it is saying they are unlimited, please.
Also it is a mistake to think we care about Card Fernández.
Also, please don’t flatter the Eastern sects to think that if, per impossibile, the Roman claims were proved false that theirs would be proved true by default.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/parsons-orthodoxy-i
Who is "we" here?
"So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema."
Seems pretty unlimited. As a sede, who in your view now has this power? Nobody?
I don't see anything there about it being unlimited in the sense I understand you to be alluding to. No power to violate the law of contradiction, no power to change the received dogmas, no power to invent mew dogmas – and indeed this is excluded elsewhere in the document you cite.
This power is currently with Christ, as St Antoninus said. It is not diffused or anything in the Church today. When a new pope is finally elected, he will have it.
But who is vested with the power and authority to adjudicate and interpret if and when those laws you cite are - or are not - violated? Answer for Roman Catholics - the reigning Pope. This was Paul VI’s rationale vis a vis Arch. Lefebrve, and remains so to this day. So there’s this ambiguity, a lack of clarity and cohesion about the scope and limits - if any - of Papal authority, which is an all too familiar discussion among us Orthodox.
The most consistent amd logical stance a Roman Catholic could take in light of Pastor Aeternus is extreme ultramontanism, where one submits 100% without question to whatever the reigning Pope and his magisterium say, allow and enable. Which you see happening, not least with liturgical whales. Which we would never allow - but then, we aren’t boxed into a corner by Pastor Aeternus, and can call out bishops and priests as heretics or at least disrobe them. Anaxios! is the cry. You have to choice with PA but to become a sedevacantist, as you cannot accept either what.comes with extreme ultramontanism.
Hi Stephen,
Contrary to what you think, liturgy is not “the northstar of theology.” It is an expression of the theology of the Church. The theology comes first.
Changes to the Roman liturgy followed changes in theology that had already been infallibly condemned by the Church. They aren’t merely liturgical abuses but expressions of a religion the tenants of which have been condemned by the Catholic Church.
Such false doctrines don’t come from the Church nor could they have come from men who were visible members in her. These men have chosen their own way that is not hers and in doing so rejected and separated themselves from her.
A singular focus on the liturgy ignores far more important theological issues that are at the root of the present crisis of faith.
I suggest that you listen to Louie Verrecchio’s podcast series on the crisis in the Church as it provides a good introduction to the crisis and how what we see in reality fits in with what the Catholic Church teaches about herself. I’ve republished it on my substack with permission. Start with season 2 “Vatican II revisited.”
You write about the Orthodox:
«. . . their assent to revelation is not conditioned or determined by the proposition of Christ’s Church. It is based on either a) the authority of a body which separated itself from Christ’s Church . . .»
But is this not to assume the thing under dispute, i.e., that the Roman Church is necessary for faith? The Orthodox accept that the Church of Christ is necessary for faith, but they dispute with Catholics where that Church is. Of course, we can look at the motives of credibility, but they themselves dispute the motives either as to kind or as to application. They have other notes too, e.g., well attested miracles, visible sanctity and saintly men, sublimity of doctrine, etc. To account for this the Catholics would have to say that these are still not pleasing to God because possesed without divine faith. And why without divine faith? Because not mediated by the Catholic Church. But this is the thing disputed, because they would say these things establish the truth of the Orthodox Church as God's Church and from thence make their act of divine faith.
You would claim that the modern papal claimants are heretical because they contradict previous dogmatic pronouncements, but the Orthodox say the same for themselves, the only difference being that you conclude that the claimants were never popes to begin with.
Re your last comment: Yes, and that's why they are still wrong.
As for assuming what is under dispute: the truth that the Catholic Church is the true Church is not under dispute by Catholics, for whom this article was written.
Regarding other alleged signs of holiness: the Eastern Orthodox sects can have all the remarkable signs they like but they will avail nothing to a coalition of groups which have a constitution visibly different to that of Christ's Church.
The Rock is Peter's profession of the faith, not Peter per se. Even your own collect for the Feast of the Chair of St Peter says that, check at the link. Pope's can be heretical, you don"t get to pick and choose the ones you don't like and play make-believe that the Chair is vacant. Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle - Vatican News https://share.google/BMcT5Sg16UxIpxfQH
Popes can't be heretical, so if a heretic claims to be Pope, he isn't Pope.
That statement just seems made up out of thin air. Granted, you aren't the first to buy into that, but tell me, where have Catholics ever prayed that? One would think that a belief such.as that would somewhere be prayed publicly, as is much of the deposit of faith, summed up in the axiomatic phrase of "lex orandi, lex credendi", you know it, the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith. So where is it prayed?
You just said it, Stephen. You just said "Pope's can be heretical."
And we don't accept that understanding of what lex orandi lex credendi means.
First, the collect you mention is not a Catholic collect, it's from the N.O. counterfeit.
Second, you are contradicting the Eastern Fathers, who confessed exactly what the Church has always confessed, that St. Peter himself is the Rock (e.g. St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus etc.), exactly as Our Lord said. You are also in two ways contradicting the Eastern Fathers when you say that the Pope can be a heretic, because the Fathers teach that heretics by their confession of heresy lose all authority (this is why St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius consecrated bishops to fill the sees usurped by bishops who had defected into heresy), and because the Fathers teach that the Roman See cannot fail in the faith.
If you are honest in searching for the truth, you should follow the example of my friend who studied the Eastern Fathers and learned from them the true doctrine, leading him to the Catholic Church.
For example, these are just the names that the great Doctor and Father of the Eastern Church, St. John Chrysostom, the Gold-Mouthed, used to describe St. Peter: "Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, the ruler of the whole world."
When the Eastern Fathers testify against the Eastern Schismatics, it will be with words such as these of St. Theodore the Studite: "I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie."
The Orthodox can't explain the Greeks in Italy who did not go along with either Photius nor Caerularius.
So what is your understanding of it? And you are sure it's nowhere or ever been prayed, that Pope's can't be heretical?
I’m not even entering into your second question, and I must say that this is discussion is going on too long and will need to be drawn to a close.
Sorry to hear. I do wish some Roman Catholic would give me answer, had hoped it would be you
An answer to which question in particular?
This exchange has consisted of you stating true statements as objections, and then you asking for proof when I accept them. I don't understand.
You said Popes can’t be heretical. 1. What prayers exist that say Popes cannot be heretical, if any, or any that speak to the claims in Pastor Aeternus? We’ve already reviewed the collect for the Feast of St Peter, which presents an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 to which no Orthodox would object.
2. You wrote that you have a different understanding of “lex orandi, lex credendi” from how I used it. What is your understanding, or what sources would you direct me to to read about your understanding?
No, YOU said they can't be heretical, and I agreed.
Proceeding with question 2. The liturgy bears witness to what is taught by revelation and proposed by the Church, and is in a certain sense how the Church proposes what we are to believe, at least in an implicit or tacit way. See here for an example:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/vacant-oum-chapter-iiib
1. The idea that we only have to believe things if we pray them is frankly bizarre. The idea that what is taught with authority must be measured against prayers before we assent it is even more bizarre. I'm glad you accept the collect but there is no sense in which a collect is taken to be am exhaustive treatment of what has been proposed.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that faith is a type of assent of the intellect to propositions, or something else?
1. Well, my mistake. Popes can be heretical, and given your statement that they can't be I asked if there were any prayers among you in support if that.
2. I would certainly propose that, for anyone who wants to learn the true faith, to attend a full year's worth of liturgical services, including all feastdays and fasting periods. Everything prayed is to be believed in the Orthodox Church. Those prayers come from our bishop, our pontifex maximus, and in so doing is recognizable by other bishops, the clergy and the laity as being Orthodox. There are no barriers to access, one doesn't need to be able to read, icons for those who can't hear, and the prayers for those who can't see. It is the greatest bulwark against Modernism (it certainly isn't Popes and magisteriums now, is it?)and that the West tried to destroy its own liturgical patrimony is a terrible wound that hurts us all. And that it is being recovered a blessing to us all.
3. I would say faith is my acceptance of what was revealed once by Our Lord, proclaimed by the Apostles and guarded by Holy Mother Church.