www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Infallibility Issues in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches

Prior to the fateful crash in September, I had been praticipating in a discussion with some of you my friends about the issues of infallibility in the Orthodox Church, I had provided an article that I found in the Greek Archdiocese website that covered this issue which reads in part: "The Church of the faithful embodies the "Conscience of the Church" in its pronouncements and missions. Jesus Christ, the cornerstone of the Church, is "the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev.1,8), Who has erected, established and bequeathed to the Church the divine Grace which is the almighty power. Therefore, the Militant Church on earth is a part of the Kingdom of Heaven, for the King is ever present to lead and sanctify the members of His own Mystical Body. He is "Jesus Christ, Who is the faithful witness, and the first-begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1,5).

"This Church of Christ has in its nature. the tendency to become and to grow; it has the nature to engulf and develop the truths of Revelation; it is to be delved into from time to time in finding and pronouncing the truths of which the Church is the Pillar. The Church, as a whole, is infallible, but not God-inspired to the extent that it has understood the entire depth of the truths and formulated and proclaimed them to the world. The Church by nature and duty from time to time - to settle controversies - formulates, defines and pronounces some of these Revealed truths. In such instances, the Fathers of the Church assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so,the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, believe that their decisions are infallible. THEIR DECISIONS, HOWEVER, REMAIN PENDING FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE "CONSCIENCE OF THE CHURCH", WHICH IS THE CONSENT OF ALL THE FAITHFUL, CLERGY AND LAITY. [my emphasis]"

In a response to this a fellow forum writer noted that he wanted documentation as to this belief from either Ecumenical Council Decisions, the Holy Fathers, Writings of the patriarchs, etc and so I wrote to Father John Matusiak of the OCA Communications Department for a response, The following is what I recieved:

Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your enquiry.
The question posed to you -- a question deeply rooted in the Roman Catholic understanding of "authority" and "infallibility" -- is a difficult one to discuss and debate, since Orthodoxy's understanding of authority and
infallibility is so far removed from that of Catholicism that one ends up debating and contrasting apples vs. ham sandwiches.

For Orthodoxy, "authority" and "infallibility" are primarily dependent on the Holy Spirit and not upon human agency, as in Catholicism. When the Holy Spirit is recognized as the ultimate source of authority, claims to infallibility for the hierarchy or Scripture can be relegated to high-level political posturing; for the claims are actually for a particular hierarch's interpretation of the matter, and not the understanding of the entire hierarchy, as in the case of Roman Catholicism, where infallibility
rests exclusively in the person of the Pope of Rome and not in the entire episcopacy.

As such, there is no decree or decision or statement in the history of the early Church to the effect that "whenever we come together in Council our decisions are infallible," so you would be hard pressed to find anything of
this sort. Of course, a Roman Catholic would also find it impossible to find any decrees or decisions or statements from the same period to the effect that "the bishop of Rome, when speaking ex cathedra, is infallible."

The issue simply did not exist in the early Church as it came to exist in post-Reformation Western Church history and, specifically, in the 19th century, when Roman Catholicism proclaimed infallibility a "dogma" of their church. The earliest model of Church decisionmaking is found in Acts 15, which relates the Council of Jerusalem. The apostles and elders gathered to
consider the matter of circumcision -- not a doctrinal matter but, rather, one of practice. In verse 22 we read that "the apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole Church decided..." while in verse 28 we find the formula that has guided conciliar deliberations for Orthodoxy: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...." It is interesting to note that we do not find Peter, as the "Prince of the
Apostles," as understood by Roman Catholicism, making the final decision unilaterally but, rather, the decision was obviously arrived at by
consensus of the entire assembly "inspired by the Holy Spirit."

If you log on to the web site of St. Vladimir's Seminary [www.svots.edu] and follow the link to their bookstore, you will find several works on the topic of conciliarity, councils, etc., but you will be hard pressed to find an Orthodox book on infallibility since this is not an Orthodox theme but, rather, one of much more recent origin among Western Christians.
Hope this helps.
In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Communications Office"
+ + +
I hope this response may help guide the understanding between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics as we discuss items on this Forum. In some ways we see things a great deal the same in other ways we don't.

It is great to be able to discuss these issues in the Forum once again. I missed the fellowship.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Good post, Thomas.

Authority, councils, etc., and Orthodoxy are (sometimes) difficult concepts to explain to Roman Catholics since they have their own (and legitimate) church culture which is very different from ours.

Others have tried in the past to explain (sometimes prudently; sometimes contentiously) the differences between Orthodox history/church culture and Roman Catholic history/church culture, but rarely with success.

However, your post is of a different temperment: It speaks straight to the reality of Orthodox ecclesiology; and speaks with "the authority"----pardon the pun----of a highly respected and scholarly Orthodox apologist.

I think that the sooner both sides accept one another for what each one really is---and avoids the dream wishing of making the other side conform to "us,"---the sooner we can move on to issues that really matter-----like learning to survive, as Christians, in a world that seems to despise us more and more and conspires to destroy ( or at least weaken and neutralize) us.

In light of recent events, the issues that occupied our spiritual lives in the past seem foolish, even sinful.

Lord, save us from trivial pursuits.

I have also encountered requests for patristic or conciliar evidence of the Church's teaching authority. There are a couple of good paragraphs about tradition in Ireneaus' Against the Heretics.
I was wondering if it's possible to find any record of the Nicene Father's rationale for choosing the books that they chose for the New Testament Canon. I figure if they site the teaching of the apostles as they've received it, that might help. Got any idea if such can be found?

Grace and peace,

DL

Dear David,

John Whiteford whose site I mention to you on another page has some articles on this subject as well.

In terms of the New Testament Canon, there is no question but that the 27 books were "pruned" by the Church from among many others (e.g. Gospel of Nicodemus, the Birth of Mary, the Shepherd of Hermas) and were, in the Church's judgement, considered to be the heart of the Apostolical tradition as handed down in the Church.

The Church's Head is Christ and She is founded on the Apostles and their teaching. Everything, the Scriptures tell us, that is bound by the Apostles, and their legitimate successors, the Bishops, is bound in Heaven etc.

When we say we believe in the New Testament, we are, first and foremost, agreeing with the Church's judgement that those 27 Books are the New Testament, which indeed they are . . . because the Church, the Body of Christ that is guided by the Holy Spirit tells us it is!

The Church wanted the core of the Apostolical tradition, known as "Scripture" to reflect the essential faith of Christ and codified the books accordingly.

That didn't mean that other parts of Tradition no longer had any say in anything.

That notion came along with the Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century.

And where did they get that idea? From the Church? The Fathers? Can they cite one Father who taught as they do in this? Can they cite one reference in Scripture that backs up their claim?

I don't mean to be overly critical of Protestants.

They are devoted to God in their way. And we are devoted to God in His Way!

Have a great day!

Alex

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

The pope is infallible when His Holiness speaks ex cathedra, right? There are also other types or expressions of infallibility in the Church, right? What's the issue? We are Catholics aren't we? We hold the same Apostolic Catholic Faith as the Latins, right? The issue of whether or not the Holy Father can be infallible is not even a debatable issue, just like women in the priesthood or the dogma of the Holy Trinity; so I think its time to move on in our Catholic Faith, Tradition is not a debatable subject, now maybe flowers in the Altar or purple as a liturgical color is , but not the Petrine Dogmas codified by Trent or VI and VII, our job is to express them in our particular context theologically, not explain them away to make us seem like we are not Catholic. The Holy Father is a sensitive issue with me because I love Him so much, so the issue is if a communist Soviet would of put a gun to your head and said be Russian Orthodox and live remain Greek Catholic and die, what would you do - I would say pull the trigger. Isn't martyrdom the true test and so many millions died for Union with Rome and to be in Union with Peter. Yes, we have the Eastern patrimony, Yes, we have the fulness of the East, but we are also Catholics, we are Children of the Pope, the Vicar of Christ and being nebulous and tricky to please others is not right and denied our Greek Catholic Martyrs their Voice. Many Orthodox also died for their faith and although we should seek Unity, we must also remain loyal to Rome as our God-Bearing anscestors did - a loyalty not just in name but also in substance.

In Christ,

Chief Sinner, Robert

Dear Robert,

As always, you make so many excellent points and it is always a blessing to read your posts!

As someone with relatives who were killed for their loyalty to Rome, I applaud the outline of your argument.

I would also add that for a number of Eastern Catholics, the decision to become Russian Orthodox of the Soviet variety (no offense intended but this is how a Russian Orthodox himself described the pre-1991 Russian Church) was not ONLY a spiritual decision, it was also a matter involving nationality and culture.

To join the Russian Church would also mean a kind of treason against one's people, especially for Ukes.

The two, religion and nationality, are intertwined that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two, especially in Eastern Europe.

Alex

Excellent point, Alex. You, of all people, can understand (without prejudice) why Greeks so fiercely resisted, to the point of death, the attempts by the Turks to force Islam upon them and the attempts by the Crusaders to force Catholicism upon them, as well.

Certainly, to be Greek is to be Orthodox and I am sure you sympathize with us in our efforts to remain a free and independent people in Christ, free from all foreign control. (The hell the Vatican seems to be inflicting upon the Eastern Catholics of India would never be tolerated by Greeks. "Adio' Roma!")

You are so correct: religion and nationality are so inextricably intertwined, especially among Greeks and other Orthodox peoples, that the two are inseparable.

Good health!

Bill

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Psalm 46 ]

Dear Bill,

Yes, to be Greek is truly to be Orthodox.

Patriarch Slipyj of the Ukrainian Catholic Church once explained why his Church came into union with Rome, national reasons etc. to a number of Greek audiences who, truth be told, received his words very positively.

When in Greece, I told an Orthodox monk that I was a Greek Catholic and he proceeded to berate me in most uncongenial intonations . . .

When I qualified my statement to say, "Ukrainian Catholic," he smiled at me and said, "Slipyj? Slipyj?"

When I nodded approval, he hugged me and gave me an icon card which I still treasure.

Your post underscores an important point of East-West ecumenism, that being that Rome can never hope to have "jurisdiction" over the Churches of the East. Models of unity will have to be developed without that.

Alex

Dear Bill,

Pardon the question, but what exactly is the hell that the Vatican is inflicting on Eastern Catholics in India? Depending on how you answer, I may have a response of my own...or not.

Thanks!

"Your post underscores an important point of East-West ecumenism, that being that Rome can never hope to have "jurisdiction" over the Churches of the East. Models of unity will have to be developed without that."

Aye, there is the rub. I believe that we will eventually get there -- just not very soon because (1) the jurisdictional model is presently dogma in the Catholic Church, and we need probably a few generations of theologians to develop that dogma adequately into new paradigm that is endorsed officially by the Catholic Church and (2) the process will be further slowed by the practical needs of the Catholic Church today to maintain strong central authority and jurisdiction in order to effectively handle the internal problems facing the Catholic Church at this time. We'll eventually get there, I think, but we need to be patient.

Brendan

Very patient, since even the ecumenist Patriarch of Constantinople, Barthalomeos, believes that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are "organically different."

Not only is His Holiness honest about this issue, but he is correct. Our Churches, for many centuries, lived apart and we have evolved very different spiritualities and ecclesiastical institutions.

This slow and separate evolution certainly cannot be changed in a magic wave of the wand----that is just too Potteresque.

The critical point to remember is that it took hundred of years for us to evolve "organically" into separate "spiritual species," and away from one another on the Tree of Life; it could very well take centuries for us to "organically" re-converge.

In the interim, we have precious time to make our respective Churches the very best they can possibly be; and for the Savior who loves us and gave His life for us.


And, in the eyes of God, a thousand years is but a day.

Tranquillo

Bill

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Psalm 46 ]

Dear Bill and Brendan,

Good to see you back, Brendan!

Yes, the two different ecclesial models will need some time to grow into each other.

Personally, I believe that unity, acceptable to both sides, could be achieved by adopting the Orthodox ecclesiology before 1054.

Rather than see this as a maintaining of the uniqueness of both East and West, I see it as a separation of the Pope's nine titles and roles in the Church. He would have jurisdiction over his Patriarchate. But his intervention in the East would only occur if asked by a Patriarch or someone else who may be maligned unjustly e.g. St John Chrysostom.

God bless,

Alex

I think both Brendan and Alex are looking backwards rather than forward.

Jurisdiction is a dead issue. No one is debating it except anti-ecumenists who are not looking for resolution but roadbocks. The official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue is about communion.

We are no longer is the feudal era or the monarchial era. We are in the information age, and in that sense, the Pope already has "universal jurisdiction". The question now is developing a means of sharing that with Orthodoxy.

K.

This is what the Vatican is doing to Eastern Catholics in India:

First, Easterners have been there since St. Thomas. They stopped evangelizing in massive numbers after a few hundred years because of 1) too much persecution and 2) casteism got mixed into the equation and they got smug.

Then came RC's. They were good at evangelization. They did a lot of it. St. Francis Xavier, et al. They started going up north.

Well, Rome made it so that despite the fact that India should be Syriac patriarchal territory, no, it is Roman patriarchal territory (at least in the North). In 1992, Rome did the Easterners a "favor" by raising their church to an major archbishopric---BUT reaffirming that they cannot create new eparchies/evangelize outside of their territory without Latin approval. The problem is that many southerners are moving North in India, and so it is really darn difficult for the Syriacs to serve their people in this model.

This is a clear case of "communion" not working, and jurisdiction being alive and well. Rome should let the Syriacs make eparchies and evangelize wherever they need to or want to.

anastasios

Dear Kurt,

Actually, your point is what I was trying to say!

I agree that jurisdiction is a dead issue and should formally be that way theologically.

However, for Rome (remember, Rome?) it is still an issue.

I didn't invent jurisdiction - Rome did. If it was up to me, and it isn't, I wouldn't have.

Just because a) you are Catholic and b) you think it is a dead issue then c) all Catholics, Rome included, believe it to be so.

Neither my buddy Brendan nor I would like to see jurisdiction keep our two respective Churches apart.

Perhaps I am wrong, Kurt. But if you could show me when and where Rome has rejected Primacy of Jurisdiction for the Pope (and I don't mean warm, fuzzy sounding statements about what it COULD be in contemporary times), then I'll admit that I'm wrong and backward.

Actually, I don't mind being backward. Those of my acquaintances (short-lived to be sure) who are not Christians or who are liberals believe me to be backward. It no longer bothers me. So you'll have to think up something else to try and get at me with.

God bless you,

Alex