www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "Papal infallibility"

How DARE you go along with the correct definition of Papal Infallibility according to Vatican I!?


In certain modes of teaching the Pope possesses the Church's infallibility.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Ray,

First of all, you enrich one and all with the tremendous depth and insight of your reflections and work - I must confess I have used a number of your thoughts on your website in my religion classes to great effect and, of course, I've referred my students to your work.

As you are a forward thinker par excellence, you give pause as you think outside the box at all times.

The future is bright with members of Christ's Body like you actively engaged in this praxis!

Alex

Peter,

OK, it seems that your understanding of ex cathedra statements is like the Byzantine view of ecumenical councils, i.e. that they only acquire that status (and the infallibility that goes with it) after the Church has had time to reflect on it, live with it a while and ultimately find it to be in conformity to the faith it professes. This is not so much a formal process as a practical one.

From that perspective your idea, although novel, makes a lot of sense.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Dear Ghosty,

But perhaps we need to reflect more not so much on whether the Pope is infallible, but under what conditions he should invoke this charism.

And in this papal infallibility/indefectibility could be related to the same context in which ecumenical councils were convened i.e. to address an immediate threat to the Church's central dogmas and the like.

That is what seems to be rather underdeveloped by modern RC theology.

Orthodox theology can help out a lot here.

Also, the movement to enshrine and promote papal infallibility sometimes seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction to the (paper) enemy of conciliarity, especially in the 15th century.

That too should be revisited. When the IC dogma was proclaimed, the Pope DID consult with the world's bishops before going ahead with its definition. Could this not be a solid modern example of a kind of "conciliar" decision, even though a formal Council was not convened?

Alex

Thank you, Deacon. And I definitely agree with you that it's similar to the Byzantine view of ecumenical councils -- and, I think, also similar to the process the early church went through in deciding which books were part of the holy scriptures.

Ray and Alex, is the paper you two have been talking about (the one by Alex's Redemptorist friend) available online? Also, can one of you provide a link to Ray's website?

Thanks in advance,
Peter.

OK. You can borrow my car.

(boy this guy really knows how to twist an arm)

Dear Alex ... it always seems to me that I confuse more people than I might make a bit of sense too. Most of the time I regret my posts - the next day - as un-readable.

But it has seemed to me of late that the type of union that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are looking to the past for (and not agreeing on) .... had really not existed in the way each imagines. But in fact ... these two "myths" actually presage the union yet to come.

East and West were nicely separated before ... by distance, delays in communications, language, ethnic nationality and boarders ... etc... but all that is fast disappearing. It used to be only at the edges .. but now .. the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox live next door to me and only down the street from me.

The effect is that the two major churches are being pressed together. Crunched into one mass. Competition with each other is wasted time and energy compared to the fact of a shrinking Christendom.

Picture two sailors in a boat arguing .. while the boat itself is sinking. At some point it will dawn on them both to stop arguing and cooperate together to keeping the boat from sinking.

Anyways .. it seems to me that these two myths contain the ingredients for the recipe of a union (that had never really existed before) to be formed in the near future.

The main hurtle to be overcomes is agreement on a way to share 'Infallibility'. Once the mistake of using that word was made .. there is no retraction .. and so it must be shared somehow someway.

Negotiations will eventually accomplish that ... and bingo! A better more fuller understanding of how Roman Catholic 'infallibility' is inextricable tied to Orthodox 'infallibility' ... will be announced and endorsed by all .. and we (perhaps) can all get back to the real substance of spiritual life.

These are my thoughts. It is only a matter to time.

Would you care to quote here some of that paper your student wrote? (if he does not mind). Maybe just a potion of the more interesting parts.

-ray

I agree completely that we should be focused on when the charism should be utilized; it's not a power to be thrown around willy-nilly any more than an Ecumenical Council.

I also agree that the circumstances of Ecumenical Councils point in the direction of when Papal Infallibility should be invoked, and I think that the promulgation of the IC should be the proper "working model" to consider when discussing this charism. If anything I see Papal Infallibility as the lynch-pin of Conciliarity rather than standing above or against it. It's the hub that holds the wheel together from within when the usual fallout of a Council could otherwise threaten to pull the Church apart (as it has numerous times in the past).

My previous post was simply to point out that we often argue over straw-man examples of Papal Infallibility rather than the actual definition, and to back up the assertion that Papal Infallibility is a participation of the Church's Infallibility as Vatican I itself attests.

Peace and God bless!

Ray,

I agree completely that both sides have their own concept of how things existed in the past--and need to be restored--and that both of these concepts are distorted. Just how distorted they are, and what the right one should be, is something that none of us can say for sure. It can be hoped that continued dialogue will help to bring about clarification.

(If you think about it, the division came about precisely when both sides were shocked into the realization that "the other" side saw their relationship in a very different way from how they saw it ...)

Yes, good point--and let's hope it will be in the near future!

FWIW, the term 'infallibility' goes back a lot farther than Pius IX and Vatican I. Just last week, someone posted a papal document from the XI century on these boards, in which the Roman Pontiff spoke of his office as being 'infallible.'

Having said that, though, it seems to me that as long as we look at infallibility first and foremost as a charism of the Church, there is a possibility of finding a common ground.

I don't think the vicissitudes of this world will ever cease, and when this problem is resolved new challenges will come up just as they always have. If God had wanted it differently, He certainly could have arranged it!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Richard, the fact the Pope made a claim of infallibility does not mean the rest of the united church accepted it. You should check out what has been called the last gasp of conciliar governance in the Latin Church. The case involving Apiarius. When the Pope tried to get involved, the African Church told him to stay out of the issue. Oh yes, I forgot to mention the fact that the letter from the North African Church to the Pope was written by a certain Bishop of Hippo named Aurelius Augustinus...St. Augustine of Hippo! You can find out more about the case in Wikkopedia or... even better.. by consulting Gary Will's "Why I am Catholic." In fact, he traces the manner in which gradually the Papacy claimed power in this work. It was a gradual process that ended in vatican I (See August hasler's comments on the topic). Bishop Timothy Ware also shows the eastern church's rejection of the concept by providing many of the documents from the East on the topic in his book "The Orthodox Church."

I attach, the section from the Wikkopedia on the topic. WWills' discussion is better.

"Apiarius of Sicca was a Roman Catholic African Bishop convicted by the Bishops of Africa of numerous unspecified crimes in the early 5th century AD, and excommunicated by Bishop Urbanus of Sicca Veneria. In 418 Apiarius appealed his convictions directly to Pope Zosimus (Term of Office: March 417 - December 418) by-passing the African Bishops appeals system. Pope Zosimus, citing the Nicene Canons, sent legates to assess the charges. The Canon citation: "When a bishop thinks he has been unjustly deposed by his colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop shall have the business decided by judices in partibus"; was not of the Nicene Canons, but rather part of the Sardica Canons. The Bishops of Africa, not finding the statement in their copies of Nicene Canons, sought copies of the Nicene Canons from the Archbishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Pope Boniface (Term of Office: December 418 - 423) took over the appeal by Apiarius of Sicca in 418 at the death of Pope Zosimus. In 419 the Bishops of Africa sent the copies of the Nicene Canons obtained from Alexandria and Constantinople to justfy their position that the Nicene Canons did not permit Pope Zosimus actions."

One wonders why Rome's set of canons from Nicaea contained something that neither in the set of those in Alexandria and Constantinople. I have my own beliefs, But I keep them to myself. It was not the first time or the last time that canons had been doctored in various jurisdictions.

More detail on Apiarius is available in the Catholic Encyclopedia available on the web. It treats the issue in great detail The first paragraph is rather interesting. I attach the text without any changes:


"Apiarius...A priest of the diocese of Sicca, in proconsular Africa. Interest attaches to him only because of his appeal to Rome from his bishop's sentence of excommunication, and the consequent protracted parleying between Rome and Carthage about the privileges of the African Church in regulating its own discipline. In the resentment which the peculiar circumstances of the case provoked in many African bishops opponents of the Papacy read the denial by the Church of St. Augustine of the doctrine of Papal supremacy; and thus the case of Apiarius has come to be the classical example in anti-Roman controversial works, illustrating the fifth-centruy repudiation of Papal claims to disciplinary control. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594a.htm)"

If one reads the entire article in New Advent, the conclusion of the author is that Church of Africa was in line to accept Rome ". . . as a last court of appeals in disciplinary cases," as exemplified by the proceedings involving the appeal of one of their the priests, Apiarius of Sicca.

The African bishops were complaining to the Pope more about the arrogance of the Pope's legate, Faustinus.

Emphasis mine.

Amado

Dear Amado,

So you are for the Pope?

Cheers,

Alex

Dear Alex:

As passionately as you are!

Have a nice weekend, too!

Amado

Unfortunately, you should consider the source of the material. You used the catholic Encyclopedia and I know I CITED it. Me thinks you protest too much. Did you really expect the CE to agree with the conclusion that the letter was anti-papal! Go read Wills. You are too trusting. This is a case of best evidence and thewCE has its own ax to grind! Contrast it with the Wikki-pedia or any really good Church history. You are ignoring the fact or turning a blind eye to the fact that the canons had been doctored. To be blunt, the canons from Constantinople and Alexandria did not support papal intervention, a fact that you blithely ignore.

Your wisdom is showing.

-ray