My main point had nothing to do with the "Deep Divisions in the Latin Church." My main point was made above to Seraphim Reeves.
I do not think that the absence of a definition of infallibility in the pre-1000 Church takes away from its Apostolicity, any more than the absence of homoousios in the pre-325 Church takes away from its Apostolicity. The Church simply has to make clarifications, often with new language, in order to address new errors as they crop up.
In Christ,
LatinTrad
LatinTrad
1) Was there a consensus before the year 1000 that the Pope taught infallibly when he issued solemn doctrinal pronouncements to be definitively held by the whole Church? Well, was there a consensus before 451 that there were two physes in Christ? Was there any consensus whatsoever before 325 that Christ was homoousios ho Patér? Throughout the Church's history, the exact nature of many dogmas--at first, even those that related to Christ's own person--were not fully hammered out.
This is a shell game, which confuses several very different situations, giving the impression (falsely) of some kind of equivelence between them.
You also avoid the question - for you know as well as I, that not only was their no "consensus" regarding the Pope's alleged infallibility (for goodness' sake, the matter wasn't "settled" until the 19th century), even in Latin Christendom itself (prior to the schism, and even well afterwards) such an idea hardly occured even as a concept, harped by some strange fringe of proto-ultramontane.
As to the matter of Christological definitions, there is a key difference between these and the attempt to syllogistically justify the latter day dogmas of Roman Catholicism (which have only served to alienate Latins more from their own uniquely western patrimony, let alone that to be found in the Christian East), and said definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. And what is that difference...?
The difference is an experiential one. The fact is, the common experience of God as Three Hypostasis, or of Jesus Christ as God (having the same glory as His Father), are all to be found from the first moments of the "Christian experience", of the Church being instituted by Christ, birthed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. What was lacking, was a uniform language to speak of this experience of theoria, which is common to all Prophets, whether of the Old or New Testaments. The need for such grew, as the agitations against this revealed truth grew, and endangered the little ones. Each of the Ecumenical Councils, deals with something at war with the "ancient way", which has the end result of teaching a false Christ, and a "false Way" to and with that same Christ.
However, there is no ancient, universal, prophetic experience (or something common to the faith of ordinary Christians, who even if not great Saints, were informed by the knowledge and experiences of such) of the Pope as "Vicar of Christ" or "in possession of universal juristiction", let alone as being "personally infallible when he speaks ex cathedra". Such a concoction as Vatican I put to paper, was not even believed by the better part of the bishops who attended said council (dissenters eventually leaving, being so in fear of the wrath of Pius IX), and was even refuted at one time by Latin apologists as being a "Protestant calumny against Catholicism". However, all of this aside, is what can be said most assuredly - the "infallibility" of the Pope, his ability to issue "indulgences" (which hinges upon a mis-prioritized, and basically erroneous view of the value of asceticism and penances), etc., were not at all part of the consciousness of "undivided Christendom".
This is where the Newmanian principle (now practically enshrined as a dogma in much of popular RC apologetics) of "development of doctrine" so profoundly differs from the Orthodox understanding of how dogmatic definitions come into being. For example, even matters settled by Pan-Orthodox Councils after Rome's departure from the Catholic Church, like the question of God's grace/energies, are dealing with something which is part of the common experience of the Church - what is new (though usually it reflects previous development) is the choice of language being used, as a fence, to protect the truth being addressed (typically by denying what this truth is not, as much as making positive statements.)
To suggest otherwise--e.g. to suggest that the Apostles would have used the word homoousios--is also pure fantasy.
No one is so naive to believe this. However, we see here a very key difference - the Holy Apostles knew and experienced Jesus of Nazareth as Kyrios, "God from God", God and Man (eternal, yet truly a man, Who could feel pain and had emotions), all of the things, materially, which underly later formal definitions. The Saints also have this same experience of Christ, which separates their "visions of grace" and experience of divinization from the pseudo-mysticism and delusion of heretics (for example, Arius apparently had the reputation of being a "mystic").
OTOH, none of the Apostles, nor their immediate descendents in faith, nor the Universal Church, had possession of a faith which included the matter underlying the formulations which have come to put a wedge between Latins, and the Church of Christ.
I'm not saying that you would suggest that. But I am saying that "development of doctrine" is simply the clarification of the Faith-once-given. Dogmas are not defined until it is necessary to define them, in condemnation of error.
I would agree that this is what legitimate development would be. However, in every single area where the Latins have come to differ from Orthodox Christians, we're not dealing with a "clarification" or "universally accepted description" of the faith-once-given - we're dealing (as admitted by Latin apologists themselves) with a syllogistic process, where allegedly "true" conclusions, based on other "true" conclusions (often to several more degrees of removal), are being drawn from the supposed "seed" left by the Apostles. Catholicism is not in total, the apostolic faith - but an abstraction, drawn from the Apostolic Faith, when it is treated like a set of datum, ready to be subjected to human creativity; as if there is a more hidden, better truth to be had (which did not occur to the Apostles or the early Fathers, even those who ended their journey by shedding their blood for Christ), that has come to us in latter times, by the genius of men. In such a scenario, modern theologians like Rahner or Von Balthazzar, are more enlightened than the Thomists, who in turn were more enlightened than the Fathers (and according to Catholicism, which falsely understands the Fathers), who in turn were somehow more enlightened than the Holy Apostles (!!). For the Orthodox mind, if anything, the reverse is opposite (it is the Holy Apostles who are seen as the great pillars of the Church in the Apocalypse, and it was comparisons to them of latter Saints, which was the direction of comparison...ex. Sts.Cyril and Methodios, "equals to the Apostles").
Thus, it is not a sound argument to assert that because the word "infallible" was not widely used by the pre-1000 Church, it must not have an Apostolic foundation.
The problem is not with the term "infallible", but with the matter this 19th century dogmatic definition is addressing.
The Church clarifies her own position, throughout history, in response to new errors and new threats. New terminology may come into play. Those throughout history who have severd themselves from the Church--e.g. early Arians, semi-Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, even (for you guys) the Old Believers--have seen themselves as guardians of tradition against innovation.
The problem of course, is that not a single one of those examples has even a remote similarity to the Orthodox refusal to adopt the post-schism, centuries removed, 19th century self definition of the Papacy.
Arianism and it's comprimises along with Nestorianism - the modernisms of their own times; both "excellent" examples of rationalism and theological creativity, coupled with a private understanding of Sacred Scripture, setting itself at odds against the Christian faith. Christ as a purely creaturely entity (however powerful), or a split personality, were innovations in their own time, and in many respects catered to the fallen intellects of their originators/adherants.
Monophysitism - This includes several, ultimatly different heresies, under a single umbrella. At one end of the spectrum (this being the most "harmless" form, and generally this is what the ecumenists of both the Monophysite and "Orthodox" parties try to claim is totally representative of this error, and all of it's adherants in times past) is a schismatic pronvincialism on the part of certain historical groups (and their modern descendents), often claiming to represent the "theology" (really, terminology) of St.Cyril (hence why they claim to have a "Cyrillian Christology"). Of course, when push comes to shove, they're still wrong, for they assume St.Cyril's faith was materially something other than what Chalcedon taught (which is manifestly incorrect), let alone what other Fathers and the Holy Writ have to say on this subject. At the other end of the spectrum, are much more obscene errors, which essentially render Christ either as something between being "God" and "Man" (rather than both). While (for the ecumenists reading this) it seems doubtful that there are many (if any) Monophysites left who hold to these errors, it is a fact that many of the predecessors of this schism (historically) held these errors. Once again, we're not dealing with something at all equivelent, not in the least.
And those pictures of the Pope were completely beside the point. He's not the first Pope who's done things that he shouldn't have, and he probably won't be the last.
Well, they would be "besides the point", were Christ's words vain - that a tree is known by it's fruits. John Paul II's bizarre activities are a manifestation of his theology; as are his more troubling statements. Unfortunately, there is no room left by Papism (and this is definately Papism we're talking about) to deal with such a destructive figure. He (allegedly) has no human judges - he's above even Ecumenical Councils. He's frankly, "above the Church" as far as Latin dogma is concerned. His whims, become todays "orthodoxy". It's been interesting to watch the nearly continual game of "catch up" Latin apologists have had to play with this man, particularly in the last decade.
Seraphim
the problem with the FSSP discrepancies can be settled very easily. It depends upon the Bishop. From what I hear Chaput is not very friendly to the Indult scene, so would want everything other than the Mass itself to be done according to hte Novus Ordo ritual. Bruskowitz on the other hand is the type of rc bishop who probably wouldn't be upset if the Novus Ordo was abolished forever, and is very friendly to the indult scene, and therefore his diocese houses two seminaries staffed by FSSPers and numerous chapels. he ordains all FSSP seminarians to both minor and major orders in the US.
when I was a trad lat my main problem with the indultees is that a minimum of once a year, usually Holy Thursday at the Chrism Mass, they were forced to eat their Birettas and concelebrate a Novus Ordo to "show their unity" with the bishop.
Ben, that is how the Independent chapels I have attended have been. Technically you need a bishops permission to say a High Mass or a sung Mass and you need the bishops permission to use incense on any day other than Christmas and Easter. I do admit most independent priests, not to be confused with vagante groups, do believe that their are true bishops out there they just don't know who they are.
Also the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that many, many small groups are lumped in with the independents because they aren't big enough to be listed on their own. I am thinking particularly of the Society of the Virgin Mary (not to be confused witht the Religious Community of Mary Immaculat--cmri), the Fraternity de Notra Dame, and the Order of St. Joseph (OSJ).
however, whether he is FSSP, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, Thucite, independent or novus ordo, a heretic is still a heretic.
Nicholas Zollars
NicholasZollars wrote:however, whether he is FSSP, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, Thucite, independent or novus ordo, a heretic is still a heretic.
Joe you've bounced around so much that your head hasn't cleared yet, and you wouldn't know a heretic if you tripped over one. 
(half-serious)
Seriously, Joe, I'm worried about you.
LatinTrad
actually I tripped over a heretic just this morning. I didn't put my glasses on and neither did my novus ordite - EME father and I tripped over him and landed on the landing halphway down the stairs. Oy! :ohvey: did it ever hurt.
Seriously though LT, a roman is a heretic pure and simple no matter what type of chapel he goes to. There is no differance from the pontifical high mass done at St. Thomas Aquinas seminary in Winona (SSPX) or the High Mass done at and FSSP Chapel or the services of Fr. DumbNDumber using cookies nad coca cola in a gymnasium with butterflies on his vestments. Tehre is no difference, other than that of aesthetics.
man I worry for you too. :arrow: I hope and pray you become enlightened and convert to orthodoxy before it is too late. there is a nice church just over in New Jersey that Juliana can tell you about. I hear they are all slavonic so it is almost like latin. :mrgreen: Ok ok. I know their is little to know similarities between the two and they sound like polar oposites, but slavonic is a beutiful language. 
Nicholas Zollars
Nicholas Zollars said:
Also the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that many, many small groups are lumped in with the independents because they aren't big enough to be listed on their own. I am thinking particularly of the Society of the Virgin Mary (not to be confused witht the Religious Community of Mary Immaculat--cmri), the Fraternity de Notra Dame, and the Order of St. Joseph (OSJ).
Just wanted to let you know that the OSJ is not "the Order of St. Joseph". The OSJ are the "Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights Hospitaller".
Also Known As Brothers of the Hospital, Hospitallers of Jerusalem,Knights of Saint John, the Sovereign Order, The Religion, Knights of Jerusalem, Knights of Cyprus, Knights of Rhodes, Knights of Malta, Order of Malta, Knights of Russia, and finally, The Sovereign Order of Saint John.
Links to their sites may be found below:
http://www.ordo-militiae-templi.org/
http://www.sovorderofsaintjohn.org/
http://www.upholdingtradition.com/osjhomepage.html
http://www.sosj.org/
I hope that these links prove to be of interest to someone!
In Christ,
Aaron