www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, & Papal Infallibility

Do Byzantine Catholics accept the doctrines of Immaculate Conception & Assumption of Mary as taught by the Popes in their ex cathedra statements?

Do Byzantine Catholics believe in Papal Infalliblity as defined by Vatican I?

In regards to both questions I would like to know what Byzantine Catholics officially believe and also what most Byzantine Catholics really believe. For instance officially the Byzantines might subscribe to these doctrines but most Byzantines might not personally "buy it".

The short answer is: Yes to all three.

Do Byzantine Catholics at large really believe these? Well, I don't think that any one poster on this board can speak for ALL Byzantine Catholics, but I would tend to say yes, although I imagine that there is the occasional detractor here and there.

In my experience, I have not met anyone Byzantine Catholics who disbelieve any of these things.

Stefan

Do Byzantine Catholics accept the doctrines of Immaculate Conception & Assumption of Mary as taught by the Popes in their ex cathedra statements?
Do Byzantine Catholics believe in Papal Infalliblity as defined by Vatican I?

In regards to both questions I would like to know what Byzantine Catholics officially believe and also what most Byzantine Catholics really believe. For instance officially the Byzantines might subscribe to these doctrines but most Byzantines might not personally "buy it".

I suspect the official answer is what Stefan-Ivan wrote. And that makes sense if there is to be communion between these Churches and the Roman one: there must be unity of faith.

But the advance men and women here, including every Byzantine Catholic I now personally know (all converts to the BC Churches), who want corporate union with Orthodox} and in the meantime want their Churches to be 100% Orthodox but �in communion with Rome�, will add a lot of explanations to this and in some cases deny some of this.

Basically, they use Eastern Orthodox theology minus the postschism opinion that condemns these Roman definitions as errors.

About the Immaculate Conception: not really a problem since the Orthodox tradition, in the Byzantine Rite, calls Mary �immaculate�. But the Roman definition is bound up in the Roman theological system�s explanation of original sin. Since the Byzantine system doesn�t explain things that way, the advanced BCs will say the Roman definition isn�t needed to be Byzantine. Not a denial but you see what I mean.

As for the Assumption, that�s really a nonissue because Orthodoxy does believe in it (it�s commemorated liturgically and there are icons of it) even though it hasn�t been dogmatized.

Papal infallibility is a harder one to deal with, even though Catholicism teaches it is a function of Church infallibility and not a personal gift of the man. It is harder to square with preschism ecclesiology or postschism Orthodox ecclesiology. Again, I believe the official answer is yes, BCs have to accept it, even though it�s foreign to Orthodoxy. (Catholics have to accept a �development of doctrine� to accept it, because, again, it wasn�t part of the preschism Church.) But Josef Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote that in the event of corporate reunion, the Orthodox wouldn�t be forced to change to fit postschism Roman standards, so some BCs, who are Catholic but not Roman, see this as a green light to deny papal infallibility.

I think many here will agree with me that a way to try to reconcile this with Orthodoxy is to make clear the Pope�s role in Catholicism as super-patriarch of all the Churches or vicar of Christ is separate and different from his role as head of the Roman Church. As long as the Roman Church rules over the Eastern Churches in communion with it, reunion with the Orthodox won�t happen.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 07-05-2001).]

I find more Byzantine Catholics accept these things than Roman Catholics.

Olga
"non-advanced" Byzantine

Somewhere along the way we began to forget about Jesus.

Dear Eric,

I believe Serge has an excellent handle on all this, as usual.

Both Brendan and Serge have said that the Immaculate Conception doctrine is about Original Sin and the Augustinian version of it inherited by the Latin Church.

That is true, however the Augustinian Original Sin was never formally declared a doctrine by the Roman Church. Catechisms I've seen have suggested that an RC need not accept it. Movement on this by the RC Church is possible and probable.

If we move away from Original Sin as "inherited guilt" in Augustine's sense, do we need the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception?"

If the RC doctrine is in place to ensure that no one would impute actual sin in the life of the Mother of the Word, then it expresses the faith of the East as well.

If it proclaims that, as the Mother of the Word, She was graced more than any other person in history, then it expresses the faith of the East as well.

I, as an Eastern Catholic, believe that the Mother of God is our "Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed,Glorious Lady and Ever-Virgin Mary."

It is just that I don't refer to defined doctrines to assert that. I refer to the Liturgy.

The point is, the new RC doctrines add nothing to the Eastern Church's understanding of the Mother of God.

As for the Pope, as Brendan has said elsewhere, there are different styles of administration adopted by different Patriarchates.

It was the Coptic Pope of Alexandria who first adopted the title "Pope" and assumed an "immediate jurisdiction" over every church, parish and priests throughout Africa. He was called, in fact, the "New Pharaoh." And this at a time when the Bishop of Rome was referred to as "His Beatitude" where his immediate jurisdiction didn't cover all of Italy, let alone the Roman West.

Papal powers do not contradict anything in Tradition as long as the principle of respect for other patriarchal jurisdictions is maintained.

The Moscow Patriarchate, for example, is quite centralized and exercises its jurisdiction in a much more "papal" way than others.

There is nothing wrong with that.

The Church of Christ can bear more than one style of administration and jurisdiction.

As for infallibility, both Churches teaches that the Spirit is our Guide Who will lead us into all truth.

The challenge is to somehow reconcile the Role of the Petrine Primacy with the principle of conciliarity in Orthodoxy.

My Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch said it best when he said that union with Rome should not be seen as subservience but as a communion one with the other.

That is not to say that this is how it has been with Eastern CAtholic Churches historically.

But we've come into our own and we'll fight for our rights, whether with Rome or the Moscow Patriarchate.

Alex

"non-advanced" Byzantine

I�m sorry. I knew �advanced� wasn�t the best way of saying it but had in mind a comparison to the most Roman Catholic-oriented of Anglicans, who used to be known as the �advanced� Anglo-Catholics.

Substitute �pro-Orthodox� for �advanced�.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

On the contrary Joe, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are both related to Christology. Likewise, Infallibility (both papal and concilliar) is a safeguard granted to the Church by Christ Himself.

Ignatius,

Yes. I know that these doctrines are related to Christology in some way. But the fact that feastdays in the Latin Church regarding Mary's 'person' are Holy Days of Obligations and NOT the Transfiguration (which, BTW, has a lot to say about Christology too don't you think?) says a lot.

Will these feasts get moved to the nearest Sunday like Our Lord's Ascension? Just an observation, kind sir.

Joe

Orthodox Catholic,

You wrote:
If we move away from Original Sin as "inherited guilt" in Augustine's sense, do we need the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception?"

If the RC doctrine is in place to ensure that no one would impute actual sin in the life of the Mother of the Word, then it expresses the faith of the East as well.


Whether or not such a definition is needed might be a good question to pursue. But I asked the question along the lines of authority. As someone else said, in order to have unity with Rome there must be unity of faith. I asked the questions about Immaculate Conception, Assumption, & Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I and the 2 ex-cathedra papal statements to see if Byzantine Catholics do indeed share a commmon faith with Rome regarding things that have been formally defined. And these 3 doctrines have been most formally defined.

From the outside looking in I think I see a very mixed bag within the ranks of eastern catholics. They profess unity with Rome but some have unity of faith and some decide which formally defined doctrines they are free to reject (e.g., Papal Infallibility, etc.).

I, of course, do not know you well enough personally to know where you are with these issues.

I know I often sound intense when discussing these things - hope it doesn't come across as attacking you personally.

Godspeed,

Eric

Dear Eric,

Not at all, friend, it is always a blessing to converse with someone for whom their faith is a serious matter!

My only point is that for Eastern Catholics the doctrines established by the Roman Catholic Church about the Most Holy Mother of God are ALREADY believed in by them and by the Orthodox.

These doctrines add nothing to the understanding of our Lady FOR US.

So when the Pope declared the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception as doctrines, we said, "Yes, and Your (Holiness') point is . . . ?"

We are largely self-governing Churches and Patriarchates and so we have a different relationship to Rome than would a member of the Roman Patriarchate.

For example, my Patriarch tells me what my fasting laws are, not the Pope. My Patriarch governs liturgical discipline for me, not the Pope.

The Pope has a Primacy of Honour in the East, and this is accepted by Eastern Catholics and by the Orthodox as well.

In terms of the Pope's Primacy of Jurisdiction, this is shared with my Patriarch and the Pope doesn't get involved in the internal matters of my Church without the consent or request of the Patriarch, unless a crisis would develop as it did during the time of St John Chrysostom etc.

In terms of the Pope's infallibility, the East has always believed that the Church is guided by the Spirit. It has always believed that the Ecumenical Council's decisions is the Voice of the Spirit. It has always given the Bishop of Rome first place at the table of a Council and no decisions were made without his approval or agreement.

We have a more conciliar understanding of the Petrine Primacy which is a source of unity to be sure.

But the Pope does not create "new" doctrines, but pronounces on the Tradition that the Church has always held.

Pope John Paul II understands the East better than any Pope to date (not including the Eastern Popes that is ).

He understands the sensitivities of the East with regards to certain doctrines and the issue of authority.

There is no doubt but that His Holiness is moving in a direction that will eventually lead to a reunion of the Churches of Christ, East and West.

Both Churches are already the "True Church of Christ" even though they are separated. But that separation will be overcome through understanding and prayer and the Pope will become, once again, the First Bishop in the entire Church.

Alex

Eric,

What is this all about? Are you seriously desiring to know what and who Byzantine Catholics are and believe or are you just giving us some litmus test?

Do you believe Byzantine Catholics are in communion with the Pope or is their communion dependent on something you decided to throw out to see what happens to it? Why do you think you need to test our 'catholicity?'

If all rites (theologies, liturgies, discipline and spirituality) are equal then why must Byzantine Catholics be judged by Western doctrinal expressions of the same shared truths? Can you accept the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes the possibility that other expressions of the same truth from other Church traditions can come closer than others in conveying those shared truths? Your sincerity is lacking.


Joe


PS: BTW, we didn't "buy" our Catholicism; we earned it through blood, sweat and tears. Didn't the Papal visit to the Ukraine make any sense to you?

[This message has been edited by Joe Thur (edited 07-05-2001).]

"From the outside looking in I think I see a very mixed bag within the ranks of eastern catholics. They profess unity with Rome but some have unity of faith and some decide which formally defined doctrines they are free to reject (e.g., Papal Infallibility, etc.)."

This is perceptive. It is very much a mixed bag at the moment. It is likely that the Byzantinophiles will end up winning the day, but that's far from the case at the moment.

Every church has its disagreements. We Orthodox disagree about jurisdictional arrangements, the role of the EP, the extent to which ecumenical dialogue is permissible and the issue of non-abortificient artificial birth control.

Roman Catholics disagree about a number of RC moral teachings, and traditional practices of the Roman rite, in addition to the rancorous liturgical war that is underway in the Latin Church.

Eastern Catholics disagree about the matters you have raised, meaning that there is disagreement among Eastern Catholics and between some Eastern Catholics and Rome about whether these items are really dogmatical or not. As an Eastern Catholic, you have to be comfortable with that level of dogmatic dissonance (and I know many Eastern Catholics who function fine within that framework) -- it's a question of what a particular individual can tolerate without it becoming too much of a distraction, ISTM.

Brendan

Hi Alex --

Just a few clarifications to offer.

"For example, my Patriarch tells me what my fasting laws are, not the Pope. My Patriarch governs liturgical discipline for me, not the Pope."

Actually, the canon law applicable to Eastern Catholics (which governs things like fasting) comes from Rome. In addition, Rome is actively engaged in promulgating liturgical directives that apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches, as exemplified by the recent "Liturgical Instruction" (1996).

"In terms of the Pope's Primacy of Jurisdiction, this is shared with my Patriarch and the Pope doesn't get involved in the internal matters of my Church without the consent or request of the Patriarch"

That's not true. The Pope's jurisdiction is super-primatial and shared with noone. The Vatican also selects/approves every single episcopal appointment in all of the churches in communion with Rome -- a level of micromanagement having no first millenium precedent at all.

"It has always given the Bishop of Rome first place at the table of a Council and no decisions were made without his approval or agreement."

This isn't completely accurate, either. Pope Vigilius was condemned by a sitting ecumenical council -- obviously not with his consent! The Latins simply say that this was a misunderstanding -- and perhaps it was -- but the important point is that the council saw no such "agreement of the Pope per se required" obstacle to what they did.

Brendan

My own answer is yes, to all three matters. In my own experience, I have found Byzantine Catholics to be among the most "orthodox" of Catholics!!!

Hmmm... one could certainly ask why polls (reported in Catholic media) show that disturbing percentages of Roman Catholics do not believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Or why disturbing percentages seem to reject the churches moral teaching authority, including on the weighty issues of abortion and euthanasia.

Sometimes I think that people look at Byzantines and expect to find some kind of a "catch."




[This message has been edited by missus_p (edited 07-05-2001).]

[This message has been edited by missus_p (edited 07-05-2001).]