www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Trent and the East

Andrew,

Thanks for your response. I see what you're saying, but maybe we should get clear on some terminology first.

You said: First, I'm confused by what you mean here, since you say that they are diametrically opposed but then that they should also be in concert. I think what you mean is this: the belief that doctrine is ratified entirely by the teaching office of the Church alone is diametrically opposed to the belief that doctrine is ratified entirely by reception into the consciousness of the Church alone. Yes, those beliefs are probably diametrically opposed. However, there is some reason to believe that neither side holds either of those views. Even in the case of papal infallibility, for example, it's not so clear cut. The definition of papal infallibility says that the irrevisibility of papal decrees does not come from the consent of the Church, but that is not the same as saying that the consent of the Church is not a necessary condition for determining whether a Pope actually spoke infallibly. Perhaps, for example, if the Church refused to receive his decree it would be because the Pope was a heretic (which can happen), or because he was speaking only to issues involving the Western church, or some such thing. I believe this point is made explicitly by Avery Cardinal Dulles, though I can't remember where (and I can't be sure it was him). So even if the East did accept papal infallibility as binding dogma, this could still be compatible with reception in the Church. In any case, though, this consideration is perhaps a more minor one for the purposes of our discussion (although portions of it arise below).

What you're saying here follows, I think, from a possible confusion of terminology which I think I may be responsible for creating. In any case, I would say this: From the Eastern perspective, one might say that it's simply not the case that one part of the Church has an immutable dogma of Papal infallibility while the other does not. Instead, one might say that one part of the Church believes and remains obedient to a doctrine of papal infallibility (and holds that doctrine as a theologoumenon), while the other does not necessarily. In this case, the absurdity would be lessened or eliminated because the essentials of the faith (i.e., the points on which Eastern and Western Catholics are in full agreement) are maintained as common dogma, whereas an expression of theologoumena is still allowed. In other words, the distinction between ecumenically binding dogma and localized doctrinal theologoumena is the key.

One Eastern Catholic archbishop who disagrees with you on this can be found here [geocities.com] . He sees Vatican I as a general council of the Western church, and explains why.

Would you say the same thing regarding the Council of Lyons, or the Fourth Lateran Council, or others like them? The first of those councils even had Eastern participants and its decrees were certainly of the same nature as Trent's. If you would say that even those are ecumenically binding, then I would again suggest reading Francis Dvornik's article, "Which Councils are Ecumenical?" (which I think I mentioned to you earlier). Those councils were not regarded as ecumenical councils even in the West until some time in the 16th century, when that changed largely in reaction to Protestantism. And in recent years, Pope Paul VI himself referred to the Council of Lyons not as an ecumenical council but as the "sixth of the general synods of the West," language which may suggest something very much like what I'm saying here (particularly the fact that he called it a council "of the West").

Of course not, I agree. However, again you have used the word "dogma" for the Western decrees, and have described them as immutable truths. If we keep in mind the distinction between doctrine as theologoumena and immutable dogma, however, the absurdity is erased. Certainly one can drive down the street and commune with a Church which holds different theologoumena but maintains the same essential and ecumenical dogmas.

God bless,
Jason

P.S. Let me add as a disclaimer that not all views expressed in this post are my own and are not views I necessarily support, including those linked to. I'm only doing what I can to express what I think may be a workable Eastern Catholic position in light of this discussion.

Dear Jason,

A suggestion, maybe if you can clarify which are official opinion and which are your own, it may help all in cutting down a little in the volume to read. My eyes aren't as young and strong as they used to be .

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear Rilian, You write in response to Jason that "Papal infallibility simply would not make sense, and frankly be of no use, if the scenario you described were true.

This raises a cogent point. There is no undisputed attempt to invoke Papal infallibility until the nineteenth century, when Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception. Pius XII invoked it to define the Assumption. And that is the sum total of dogmatic definitions on that basis.

It is difficult - in fact it is impossible - to find any example of papal infallibility being invoked to solve a dogmatic problem which was threatening to tear the Church apart. At the height of the Arian heresy, for example, no one seems to have said "Well, the Pope is infallible; should we not ask him?".

So one could reasonably ask just what the utility is of this particular concept - and if, as I would suggest, this particular concept doesn't have any real utility, just how much sense it makes.

Incognitus

Jason, yes, thank you for clarifying my statements about reception vs. magisterium. I think you distilled essentially what I was trying to say. A few thoughts on the other points you bring up.

Here is what the Bull of Indiction on the Council of Trent says

THE BULL OF INDICTION
OF THE SACRED OECUMENICAL AND GENERAL COUNCIL OF TRENT
UNDER THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF, PAUL III

The council produced dogmatic decrees, and applies anathemas to those who reject them. My understanding is that Trent was and is considered an exercise of the Magisterium, and is in the eyes of the church ecumenical and infallible. I would not consider what it contains to be of the nature of private theological opinion (i.e. theologoumena).

Regarding Vatican I, I might and do agree with many of the points outlined by Bishop Zoghby. A patriarch of his church, Gregoire II Laham, was at that council however and assented to it. The exercise of universal, immediate ordinary jurisdiction is written right in the Code of Eastern Canons.

Fundamentally Jason, I guess you have to ask yourself a couple of questions. What is communion, and why am I in communion with somebody? Are you in communion because you share the same faith and dogma, or is it for some other reason? What is the nature of communion if it is not about shared faith? Can you be in communion with somebody and reject dogmatic elements of their faith; or at the very least seriously question the very cardinal underpinnings of their faith as I would say Bishop Zoghby is doing.

Perhaps I have asked to many questions and said too much, as this is a race I don�t have a pony in.

Incognitus

This is a perplexing question. It has always struck me as somewhat ironic that often the people who most strenuously tout the sovereign nature of the exercise of the infallible magisterium, will then go on when questioned about it to point out how infrequently it has been invoked. I gather at the time it was viewed that this dogma would see the church through the shock waves of modernism among other things. I think Cardinal Manning felt like it would bring in a wave of those outside the church who would view it as an unassailable mooring. Certainly there were others such as Lord Acton who had deep reservations about it.

Perhaps there is a good deal of utility to it that is not apparent to me, but I feel it has created more problems than it has solved.

Andrew

Excuse me? Patriarch Gregory Joseph of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East most emphatically did not assent to Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I - despite unbelievable pressures to do so, both then and later.

Incognitus

My apologies, in my haste typed the wrong name. It was Gregoire II Youssef. Here is the relevant information:

In the 19th century the Melkite church experienced tensions in its relationship with Rome because many Melkites felt that their Byzantine identity was being overwhelmed by the Latin tradition. This uneasiness was symbolized at Vatican I when Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef left Rome before the council fathers voted on the constitution Pastor Aeternus, which defined papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. At Rome's request, the Patriarch later assented to the document, but he only did so with the clause, "all rights, privileges and prerogatives of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches being respected" added to the formula.

The link the quote came from is here [faswebdesign.com] .

Andrew

"all rights, privileges and prerogatives of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches being respected" effectively invalidates Papal hegemony - now if one wants to get into what infallibility means from the Eastern perspective...

Dear Andrew, Dear Michael,
That clause used by Patriarch Gregory II in reference to Pastor Aeternus was lifted from the relevant decree of the Council of Florence. The hierarchs of the Holy Synod signed under the Patriarch's signature, to associate themselves with the same clause.
A bit later, the Patriarch was in Rome with several bishops and visited Pius IX. The Pope produced the document in question with the signatures of the Patriarch and the hierarchs, demanding that the Patriarch should remove the "Florentine clause". The Patriarch refused, whereupon the Pope treated him in such a shameful fashion that I prefer not to describe it. Gregory Joseph picked himself up off the floor and walked out with the hierarchs - he did not visit Rome again until the reign of Leo XIII.

Incognitus

I can�t say that I agree with that. Here is what the CCEC says:

"The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise." (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

Different story in my opinion.

Personally I would say what is more problematic is the relation of the Eastern Patriarchs to the College of Cardinals. In the Synodus Episcoporum Bulletin: 30 Sept-27 Oct 2001 it says the following

Judging by the words of the Patriarch I would say all rights, privileges and prerogatives of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches being respected has not been the reality. I would say they cannot be until the Eastern Patriarchs are no longer in a position of what I would consider subordination to the COC.

incognitus, is that the "stubborn mule" legend you're talking about? People I've talked to absolutely deny that happened (if that's what you're referring to).

Andrew

God bless the Melkites.

That's all I wanted to say for now, but I continue to watch this discussion.

God bless,
Jason

I had not previously heard the expression stubborn mule" with reference to the episode I was mentioning - the phrase Pius IX used is thought to be "hard head". In either case, it's not hard to find people to deny it - but it's true, nevertheless.

Incognitus

WHOOOOAAA Folks!

Didn't you read what Michael_Thoma said? I don't think some of you did.

He said that blessing of house, ordaination of subdiaconate, funeral, etc. are Sacraments???

No, Funeral is NOT a Sacrament, but rather a burial ritual. Blessing of house is NOT a Sacrament, but rather a ritual of blessing of a house. Ordaination of subdiacnate falls under the Holy Orders catagory (minor orders as oppose to the major order).

The 7 Sacraments of BOTH Catholic (of all Rites) and Orthodox Churches are:

Baptism
Chrismation/Confirmation
Holy Eucharist
Holy Confession/Reconciliation
Extreme Unction/Annointing of the Sick
Holy Orders
Holy Matrimony

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

SPDundas,

It is not the case, as far as I know, that the Orthodox have always defined only seven sacraments. The other things that Michael_Thomas lists have been called sacraments before.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Incognitus,

You said: I'm curious to know on what basis you say this with such certainty. That's not a challenge, but rather I'm just really interested. I read somewhere that even a Melkite bishop (I can't remember who) denied that this ever happened.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason