www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Remaining Melkite?

Knowing Hesychios and Joe personally, their personal journeys affect me personally. I wish we could continue to share one chalice.

But I think that the various ways to attempt to save the infallibility of the Church without the infallibility of Peter fail. One can appeal to councils and synods, but how can one know which councils or synods? Anyone who reads the history of the Church will see that the answer of what counts as orthodoxy is not clear. If you didn't know the answer ahead of time, you'd never be able to figure it out. How does one wade through the competing claims of the Chalcedonians, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the Monophysites, all of whom had councils and synods. The see of Constantinople was in heresy more often than it wasn't.

We tell ourselves that it's obvious where the Spirit is, but that's because we look back from the conclusion of the game. If you were in the middle of the game, the best bet would be "ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia."

Amado,

If he is, he moved way south since I last saw Joe on Monday (at which time, he was still living a few miles from me, here in Yankee country :p ).

Joe Monahan has lurked here for years, but I don't think he has ever registered.

Many years,

Neil

SPDundas,
You are not citing the limits set by the Church only the �conomia. The Orthodox who accepts this Communion (except where different term of �conomia are agreed to by the Church, such as in the Mideast and India) in normal circumstances inherently accepts that the Catholic Church is true and that he is in Communion with her and her members; he cannot believe otherwise and recieve in good conscience, as his own Church prevents him from doing so. If an Orthodox is going to receive in a Catholic Church regularly (excepting the instances of �conomia decided by his confessor and/or bishop), he has to in good conscience become a Catholic.

As for "true Churches"; you forget to mention the Old Caths, Assyrians, SSPX, Polish National, and others who are not in full Communion but can receive in exceptional circumstances. Being a member of one of the "true Churches" is only one criteria; one must be confessed, receive of their own volition, AND RESPECT THEIR OWN CHURCH teaching.

Joe,

What I'm about to say will probably be condemned as heretical by some folks, but I will say it anyway. Consult with your parish priest and, if he approves, keep receiving Communion.

Here is why I think that. The Mystery of Communion is not only an affirmation of doctrines and faith; It/He is medicine for the ailing soul. Doubts about one doctrine or another are not so worrisome; what is worrisome is how that doubt can lead to a self-distancing of a soul from God and neighbor (but especially God). If that happens, the original doubt can become a wedge which pries open the soul to bad influences (drying up spiritually, weakness in the face of temptation, etc.). In short, Jesus Christ is our sustenance, and to deprive ourselves of communing with Him only makes us weaker. And, continuing to commune with Him --even in the face of doubt-- will actually strengthen our faith, hope and love.

So, I would suggest that you talk to your parish priest; tell him about your doubt (which itself will be a kind of confession); and under his guidance, continue to commune with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

-- John

Lance,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Your post brings up a number of interesting issues. Antiquity is certainly an argument, but let's remember that the Catholic argument is that the doctrines of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are rooted (at least implicitly) in antiquity. I actually think that the arguments from antiquity concerning the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Theotokos are far more numerous - and explicit, especially in the Syrian tradition.

But I think your contention that a doctrine explicitly defined at a later period than the apostolic age is suspect, since it risks casting into doubt the majority of conciliar teachings beyond the first century. (After all, the Oriental Orthodox could say, the definitions of Chalcedon were not held officially by the Church for 420 years! Why should we be bound to accept them?) Clearly Christians are not bound to any claim to "new revelation", but our understanding of the Word of God develops, as Cardinal Newman observed. It was this analysis of doctrinal development within history that led him to abandon the church of his youth as well as a very successful clerical career within Anglicanism for Catholicism. (BTW, if you've never had a chance to read his "Essay on the Development of Doctrine", it is well worth it.)

Ultimately, a dogma cannot both be and not be within the same communion. That violates, in a certain sense, the principle of non-contradiction. Its prudential application and contextual interpretation is another matter, however, and this is where I am far more sypathetic to Eastern views.

I personally favor the Eastern Catholic "less is more" approach to papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. I have heard from a number of Orthodox speakers through the years, "wouldn't it be nice to have a pope?!" We Eastern Catholics, emerging recently from generations of an oppressive Latinization, are on a different thought trajectory that tends to take, not necessarily a contrarian view, but certainly a mitigated one as to the benefits of communion (although the call to restoration has been supported by the papal and conciliar magisterium for decades!!!).

I think the papal magisterium, particularly but not exclusively on life issues, is a source of great strength for our churches. I also think that communion with the office of Peter (not merely his proclamation of Jesus' divinity in Matthew 16) is embedded in the bones of the common life of Christian Tradition and kerygma. The manner of the exercise of temporal leadership is another matter altogether.

God bless!

Gordo

You misunderstand me: when I said �what Vatican I said in this regard can actually be said about every bishop�, I didn�t mean everything it says about the papacy but only what it says about infallibility.


To try to put things in perspective, I would say that the question of universal ordinary jurisdiction of the papacy is the biggest theological obstacle to Catholic-Orthodox union (and will, I fear, continue to be for a while yet); the �filioque� is the second biggest; and �papal� infallibility is the third.

Dear Lanceg, Hesychios, and Joe

You all make some good points. Let me cut right to the chase by asking whether each of you believe the following statement to be true or false: that any bishop who, acting as teacher of all Christians, defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be believed by the entire church, speaks infallibly?

If true, then that means that Vatican I did not say too much with regard to �papal� infallibility, but rather too little.

God bless,
Peter.

Interesting. Your objection to councils and synods is �how can one know which councils or synods?� � well then, how do you know which papal statement are ex cathedra?

Or do you perhaps believe that the pope is personally infallible?

Dear Peter B,

I wouldn't know about the pope's ministry if Christ had not given it to Peter:


"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you (plural) ike wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

That's the office of the papacy, straight from Christ.

That's the only way out of the epistemological circle, the wheel of "how do I know which council or which teaching is correct? Where is the track of orthodoxy?" Jump off the wheel and hold to the guide Jesus gives us, the apostle whose faith will not fail.

Without such an anchor point (do you have another that will do better?) one can't be a Christian, because one has no way of knowing what Christianity _is_.

It�s not an either/or. Each bishop would by nature have to in some way possess infallibility if you believe in an infallible church (which I do). The issue is really that the infallibility must be connected to the rest of the church, and not exercised apart from it. That�s where I think I would share the concern of Hesychios.

The ones that are commemorated as Ecumenical and inscribed in the diptychs.

Anyone who reads the history of the Church will also see individual Popes have fallen in to heresy and have been condemned for it, and that at other times it hasn�t been clear who is Pope or there is more than one at a time. Hindsight has allowed us to see who was the �real� Pope, as I guess hindsight can help us discern the nature of the councils.

This topic also reminds me of the "what's infallible/isn't infallible" conversations I've seen among Catholics.

Andrew

Of course, but it always is exercised with the rest of the Church.
That doesn't solve the problems? Who says which ones are ecumenical and who inscribes them in the diptychs? How do they know? What guarantee do you have?

I, on the other hand, can say "those councils in communion with Rome are ecumenical." Very simple, don't you think?

Which popes have been heretics? In the first thousand years there is one ambiguous case, but in every other patriarchal see they were heretics more often than not. Read Jaroslav Pelikan's book where he comments on the remarkable orthodoxy of the See of Rome, which didn't happen anywhere else.

As far as the cases of multiple popes, well, history is messy. But I don't believe there were any councils or dogmatic definitions during the western schisms, so the point is moot.

Should we define the doctrine of infallible hindsight?

The usual criteria for Papal Infallibility are that he expicitly claims Infallibility and speaks from the Chair of Peter.

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.


From Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

Also in the document, the Pope relates that the faithful sent thousands of petitions begging the Pope to proclaim the dogma. And that he consulted hundreds if not thousands of theologians, priests, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals as to whether or not he should proclaim the dogma.

The Pope, exercising the charism of Infallibility, won't proclaim anything without consulting his brother bishops first.

I believe the process is that a council is regarded as Ecumenical when a succeeding council meets, declares it to be Ecumenical, and then inscribes in to the diptychs. It is therefore commemorated as such by the church.

There's an interesting essay somewhere on this topic by Francis Dvornik called "Which councils are Ecumenical".

Sounds good. I have no idea what actual canonical basis (pre schism) that has though. I don�t think I would be the only one that would question the nature of your aphorism though. Read Melkite Bishop Elias Zoghby�s "Vatican I - A Pseudo Council?" for instance. http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/VATICAN1.DOC

I have read the late professor Pelikan�s excellent books on the history of Christian doctrine, I�m guessing you�re referring to those. I obviously don�t need to point out to you that Professor Pelikan himself converted to Orthodoxy later in life.

To your question, I believe the case of Vigilius could be considered ambiguous because he was badgered and then treated reprehensibly by the Emperor. The case of Honorius is not ambiguous, and he was condemned by name.

Oh, I beg to differ. The issue, and the messy history surrounding Constance, are critically important.

Sure! I like it.

I would also say I'm not trying to argue anyone off accepting the Papacy, even though I don't agree with it in its present form.

Andrew

I absolutely agree.

Quote

The issue is really that the infallibility must be connected to the rest of the church, and not exercised apart from it. That�s where I think I would share the concern of Hesychios.

Well yes and no.

For example, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was infallible (existentially speaking) at the time he wrote it (i.e. it didn't become infallible later).

However, the infallibility of an infallible statement doesn't do much good for anyone if nobody knows that the statement is infallible. It is of paramount importance, therefore, that in the fourth century the Church officially agree on a list of (infallible) books of the New Testament.

So I think that -- in a certain sense -- you could say that St. Paul exercised infallibility individually, apart from the rest of the church, but that this exercise was simultaneously connected to the rest of the church, which had a task of discerning it.

God bless,
Peter.

The problem with this "solution" is that it is quite simply ahistorical, unless by Ecumenical you mean something entirely different from it being universally binding. Chalcedon, for the Chalcedonian Churches (of which the majority of us are members, I believe), was binding immediately upon its conclusion, and the non-Chalcedonians were treated accordingly (the Copts were given time to form an official response, as they stated that they could not make one without a Patriarch, but when they finally rejected Chalcedon it wasn't as if the matter was put back on the table, they were simply pushed aside and a new Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria was appointed, showing that no new Councils were required to make Chalcedon binding in the eyes of the Chalcedonians).

What's more, this would actually make for a LOT more Ecumenical Councils than are currently held by the Eastern Orthodox, as many councils were called Ecumenical by other councils that are not recognized as such officially. If the logic is that an Ecumenical Council is Ecumenical when declared as such by a later Ecumenical Council, then there has never been an Ecumenical Council and never will be, as there was no Ecumenical Council to confirm the Seventh, which must be Ecumenical to confirm the Sixth, which must be Ecumenical to confirm the Fifth, and so on. An infinite regression makes Ecumenical resolutions impossible.

A Council must be obviously binding upon its closing for it to be effective, and history shows us what happens when they're not (the Arian period after Nicaea, for just one example). History also shows us that there has been dissent and schism after every Ecumenical Council, sometimes eventually fading away (or being crushed), and other times persisting even up until today (the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian split, the Ancient Churches of East/Ephesian split). Therefore concensus can not be the determining factor of the Ecumenical definition because quite simply there has never been such a concensus, and at times the majority has swung against the Council (again, the Arian period).

What solution to the question of "Which Councils are Ecumenical" avoids these historical and logical traps?

Peace and God bless!