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

While canonically bishops outside the so-called Patriarchal Territory (a concept very much in doubt by Eastern Church theologians) are supposed to be appointed by the Vatican, de facto, they are appointed by the Holy Synod (at least in the UGCC).

The canonical principle is "custom is the best interpretation of canon law".

As I understand, isn't the announcement of the appointment of a Bishop in a Patriarchal Church outside of its territory done as a joint announcement of the Pope and the Synod?

Also VERY interesting that the Ad T. document uses the term "Symbol of Faith" (instead of "Creed"). When the Latin Patriarch does that - we're really getting there (or making progress at least).

If only our own people could start calling it the Symbol of Faith!

I think you are creating a bit of a diversion!

Where may the Orthodox be informed that the infallibility of the Pope is not a requirement of faith for Eastern Catholics?

This is an enormously important fact for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and it needs to be satisfactorily substantiated.

Not much of one. In 1990, it was agreed that the nature and perquisites of the Petrine Ministry would be the core topic of the joint ecumenical dialogue. Instead, for the next decade, everything degenerated into squabbles about uniatism and perceived proselytism--that was a diversion.

Even after the 1996 Encylical Ut Unum Sint invited a discussion of the definition and exercise of papal primacy--precisely what the Orthodox said they wanted lo, all these years!--somehow they could never quite get around to taking up Pope John Paul II on his offer. Now, at last, we are getting back to brass tacks, but I am still waiting for some sort of coherent Orthodox statement on what primacy is and means, as opposed to what it is not and does not mean.


I don't suppose you would ever bother to ask Patriarch Gregorios III or perhaps Patriarch Lyubomir their opinions. They have not been shy in expressing what they believe.


As I said, talk to us, instead of at us, and you might learn a thing or two.

Since they have not been shy in expressing what they believe, can you cite where they deny papal supremacy or papal infallibility?

Nobody speaks in black and white terms, DT. This is the Church, whose eliptical rhetoric makes diplomatic statements coming out of Foggy Bottom seem harsh and direct. But when a Patriarch claims that the Pope is just a brother Patriarch, and when another Patriarch states that there are no theological differences between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, and when both of them simply ignore Vatican rulings with which they disagree--and Rome remains silent--perhaps you can draw your own conclusions.

The Pope is only infallible if he chooses to be infallible. With the emergence of an assertive Eastern voice in the Catholic Church, he probably won't choose to be so again.

Which means, effectively, that infallibility is dead. Nobody wants to admit it, but that's the truth of the matter. If the Orthodox were more Byzantine and less, well, Roman, they would accept this victory and move on. But I can't help think what many Orthodox really want is the humiliation of the Latin Church, an explicit admission of errors real and imagined, and a plea for Rome to be admitted to communion with the Orthodox Churches. That would certainly make the Orthodox feel good, but would it be good for the Church of God? I seriously doubt that. Still, they have really long memories in both Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and vendetta demands blood for blood.

We're not in the business of drawing conclusions. If that's how dialogue is to be carried on, then nothing will be accomplished.

Infallibility is not dead. Not at least according to Catholic documents.

Humiliation no. But, some apologies would be nice. How about an apology for the suppression of married clergy in the Eastern Churches in the US under Cum Data Fuerit? Of course, that should be directed to the Ruthenian Church. But, Orthodox would be interested in that too.

Not to say that Orthodox shouldn't apologize for some things too.

"Just" a Patriarch? Reference, please.

Somebody has kept you remarkably ill-informed. I invite you to do an internet search and you will see a number of monographs from acknowledged Orthodox theologians, precisely in response to the Pope's invitation to discuss the Roman primacy.

P.S. It is impossible for the Orthodox to discuss "papal" primacy since the concept of "papacy" is something unacknowledged as a valid ministry by the Orthodox Church. But we can discuss what the primacy of Rome was in the first millennium.

Very well. Please provide the Orthodox with official statements from Rome that papal infallibility is not a mandatory article of faith for Eastern Catholics.

Perhaps Dr Joel Barstad's article " Are the Ratzinger and Zoghby Proposals Dead? [imageandword.com]" might be of relevance to this discussion.

Why the insistence on "official" statements? As I said, look at what the Catholic Church does, not what it says. One could do well by studying the methods of the Cold War Kremlinologists. "Vaticanologists" do much the same thing.