www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils

Apotheoun, you are, for the first time ever, loosing me. In 1871 it was mandatory for ALL Catholics of whatever Rite to believe in the Vatican I dogma of infallibility. It was de fide for the entire Church. But now in 2009 it is not a mandatory or de fide dogma except for the Roman Catholic segment of the Catholic Church?

Have I got that right? Please correct me if wrong.

I suppose there is one simple test --- are catechumens coming into an Eastern Catholic Church taught they may deny the dogmatic definition of Vatican I? May Eastern Catholic priests teach this to their flocks?

Heiromonk Ambrose,

you make exactly the point I would have made so much mroe elegantly.

Many Eastern Catholics have a nuanced view of Vatican I. Some priests may even teach contrary to it. However, the Eastern Catholic Churches operate following the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which assume the authoritative status of the Vatican I decrees. Bishops in non-patriarchal Churches are appointed by the pope. The Eastern Congregation in Rome still has a large presence among the various Eastern Catholic Churches.

So, as far as infallibility is concerned: those Eastern Catholics who want to deny the teaching do so (as do many Roman Catholics). But, as to papal supremacy: it's still the basic operating system for the Eastern Catholic Churches -- as can be seen in how Bishops are appointed.

And that brings them under the Anathema which the dogmatic definition contains.

It is impossible to say that the dogmatic definition does not apply to Eastern Catholics because that ipso facto utterly destroys the definition's claim to infallibility.

If the Pope did not intend to bind the ENTIRE Church by the definition then it is simply not an infallible statement since it fails to meet the requirement of being mandatory for the entire Church. Lacking any papal intent of universality, the definition is simply a private opinion of Pope Pius IX.

The admission of the Ruthenian Church requires them only to accept that Dogma which was in place when they joined and otherwise keep the Orthodox faith, or was imposed later in councils that they participated in (that's part of ecclesial immunities, if the term means what I understand it to). I presume the Melkite and Ukrainian have similar terms. (I recall the Ukrainian does.)

They were never "just" part of the Roman Church, but an Ecclesial body, admitted by the Pope at the request of their presbyteral council.

During my own catechesis, Vatican I was mentioned not at all. The Papacy was described as the focus of unity for all the Churches in the Catholic communion. And, believe it or not, the Papacy hardly makes an appearance in the Eastern Catholic catechism Light for Life, which could easily be used in any Orthodox parish without any changes whatsoever.

This catechism has the imprimatur of all the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions in North America.

Father Ambrose missed his calling. He really should have been an Inquisitor, so anxious is he to ensure that all Catholics obey what he perceives to be the dogmatic decrees of the Latin Church. He is, in this regard, possibly more Catholic than the Pope.

Interesting. I have a copy of The Catechism of The Catholic Church.

Nowhere does it claim to be a Catechism of the Roman Church. It is specifically a Catechism of the Catholic Church, a translation of the "official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II". Imprimatur by one Cardinal Josef Ratzinger.

In the Index under "Eastern" it redirects you to "Liturgy" or "Church".
There are four articles on Eastern Liturgy of a predictable nature.

Browsing the index of articles about "Church" one is hard pressed to find anything about Eastern Churches under "in communion"; an odd thing if that is their canonical status. Indeed I could not find anything whatsoever about Eastern Churches, except perhaps under "diversity in unity", item 814, where it talks of particular churches holding their own traditions, but not threatening unity. The definition of unity is given in item 812, and quotes text from Vatican I to define the unity of which the particular churches partake.

There are over 200 references under Church however that refer to the teaching and governance of the Catholic Church (not ROman Catholic) and since the Catechism directs one there from Eastern one can only assume it is intended to apply to Easterners as well.

Of particular interest to this thread is item 891 on Ecumenical Councils. It is best to reproduce the whole item.

891
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

The references can be followed up here:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p4.shtml

It is instructive that an article supposedly about the Ecumenical Councils mentions them once and Papal Infallibility an awful lot.

Which is why we don't use it.

This would seem to confirm that the dogma of papal infallibility is not infallible and is not de fide for the Catholic Communion since it is not a doctrine which is obligatory for the entire Church.

Am execise of infallibility requires that the Pope intends to define as divinely revealed truth a matter of faith or morals for the entire Church.


But, to be frank, I cannot believe you. I do not believe it is a teaching which Catholics of whatsoever rite have the right to reject. Has anybody asked Rome if the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility is not obligatory for the entire Catholic Communion? Certainly nobody from Rome has told this to the Orthodox in the bi-lateral dialogue, and it is not an insignificant factor.

Father Ambrose finds it hard to understand that what the Supreme Pontiff has defined as divinely revealed truth is rejected by those claiming to be in communion with him.

If the rejection of papal infallibility is permitted by Rome and is actually allowed to the bishops and faithful of the Catholic Communion, why have the Orthodox not been informed of this in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue?

Let us look at Rome's response to the Zoghby Initiative...


"As to the Greek Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties.

The Roman response insists on the need to maintain the fully developed doctrine of the Roman primacy since it is an essential component of the Catholic faith.

"We know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church’s faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day."

These two quotations are from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches Prot. No. 251/75 (June 11, 1997.)

They are addressed to His Beatitude Maximos V Hakim, the Greek Melkite Catholic Patriarch.

They are by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Achille Cardinal Silvestrini, and Edward Cardinal Cassidy.

The text then moves on to cite the relevant sections of the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II.

The Congregation for the Eastern Churches is telling the Eastern Churches in no uncertain terms that they are obliged to accept the entirety of the teaching on the Papacy, right up to its present day development. They are not giving the Eastern Churches the option of staying behind at whatever the doctrine may have been in the century when they joined the Catholic Church.

Wow. There is a lot to take in here. So in regards to my original post, it seems as though there is no clear understanding on what the Eastern Catholics believe?

Maybe officially they have to believe everything a Latin Rite Catholic has to believe, but un-officially they're more like the ancient church (per the Orthodox). That is, the papacy was the first among equals and a rock, which unified the church, but not infallible and not supreme.

What we profess can be found in the Eastern Catholic catechism call Light For Life, in three volumes: The Mystery Believed; The Mystery Celebrated; The Mystery Lived. This is what has been approved by all the hierarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches in this country, and it is a true and fair representation of our faith.

With regard to the relationship between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Church of Rome, and in particular the role of the Pope of Rome as head of the communion, you are correct--there is no consensus within the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I thought you did not think the "Supreme Pontiff" (Who is he? He's not mentioned in our Liturgy) had the authority to define divinely revealed truth.


Don't ask, don't tell. You seem to want the Catholic Church to speak with a more definitive voice than the Orthodox Church is capable of doing. Perhaps we are just as muddled and confused as you are, and are merely trying to work out way out of the box into which the pig-headedness of our ancestors has put us? As we do this, a studied ambiguity and ambivalence works to the advantage of all parties.


First, there are serious pastoral issues to be considered within the boundaries of the Latin Church. Second, when negotiating, one does not begin by unilaterally conceding every point to the other side (unless, of course, you belong to the Barack Obama school of negotiation). Third, see my remarks about studied ambiguity. Such subtlety is a Byzantine trait, and one would have thought Third Rome would have inherited it from the Second Rome.

That's not what it says, but if you choose to exegete it in that manner, be my guest. As for the Melkites, they have not abrogated or recanted their position, and as far as I know, Patriarch Gregorios III is still welcome to visit the Vatican.

A hint to Orthodox observers of the Catholic Church--pay less attention to what is said, more attention to what is done.