www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Infallibility and Primate of Jurisdicion - acceptable by EC?

At least it is a bit clearer of an epithet than the old "Byzantinism" that the latinizers used to throw around in the late 19th and early 20th century.

For me as an Eastern Catholic being in communion with the Holy See bears witness to the unity that our Lord desires for His Church. It shows that two distinct and Apostolic theological traditions can co-exist and the Church, as Pope John Paul II said can breath with two lungs. Latin Catholics need Greek Catholics and vise versa. This doesn't mean we should force our particular Catholic tradition on another Catholic tradition. The Pope, the head of the Catholic Communion and he presides in love with his Brother Patriarchs of the East.

I am a Catholic and I am Orthodox. It wasn't till the Great Schism that these two terms came to be used by the Eastern and Western Churches to describe themselves, before that they were interchangeable. For us Eastern Catholics we again use the terms interchangeable. And I would have no problem for a Latin Catholic was to use the term Orthodox.

Many Latin Catholics view the Church in a narrow sense that all Catholics have to be Latin and many don't even know the Church is a diverse communion of Churches. This diversity is a witness to the true Catholicity of the Church. The Church in enriched with the many different theological traditions with in her- Coptic, Byzantine, Latin, Maronite, ect.

If the Popes can accept this I don't see why Latin Catholic faithful can't? The question for me then is- do you want us Orthodox Eastern Catholics to be in Communion with Rome? I ask this out of love and respect but it seems that you keep asking us to go over to Orthodoxy if we can't accept certain Latin teachings? It seems to be that to me, perhaps I am wrong. Pray for me brother.

Distinctions must be made between dogmatic teachings which are intended for, received, and accepted by, the Universal (all particular Churches in Catholicism) Church (i.e. "De Fide" teachings), and theological opinion (theologumena) where there is freedom for discussion and disagreement (i.e. as in the question as to whether Our Lord would have taken a human nature had there been no Fall-there are Saints coming down on both sides of that question). Papal Infallibility and Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction are in the former category.

Deacon Robert Behrens
Eparchy of Passaic

Why? Be precise.

I agree with Stuart. One needs to be precise. If I were to develop that I'd say that there is a foundational part of papal infallibility and papal jurisdiction that is dogmatic but that 99% is not dogmatic. After all, Pope John Paul II did ask the East to help him develop a new understanding of the papacy that can serve a reunited Church. If he put so much of these two items on the table for re-understanding then those parts are certainly not dogmatic.

I agree fully with John and Stuart on this matter.

I would also like to know what these particular doctrines, labeled "de fide" by the First Vatican Council, carry so much weight, when many other doctrines also labeled "de fide" by earlier Western councils have been laid aside. One example that comes to mind is the teaching of Florence that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as from a single source" (complete with anathemas for those who deny it), which of course is contradicted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its 1996 "Clarification".

Another would be the teaching that the Words of Institution are necessary to "confect" the Eucharist, which has been superseded by the older patristic understanding that the entire Anaphora is a single consecratory act (thus allowing celebration of the Qurbono of Addai and Mari without the Institution Narrative). There are many other examples of the Western Church calling its own particular usage or mode of expression de fide, when in fact it was no such thing. Why, then does Pastor aeternus not fall into the same category?

One does not deny that the Church of Rome has a particular primacy, or that there is a specific Petrine Ministry that falls to the Bishop of Rome, but for 1800 years there was no intimation that the Bishop of Rome possessed any special charism of infallibility (and quite a few of them vigorously denied it), or that the Church of Rome possessed the right to intervene unilaterally into the affairs of other particular Churches. Therefore, one has to wonder whether these Papal attributes, like the temporal supremacy of the Popes, is not just an artifact of its particular place and time.

They are defined by an Ecumenical Council, Vatican I, which was ratified by a Pope. In addition, Papal Primacy is strongly rooted in the Gospels, esp. in Our Lord's conversations with Peter. Despite what some on this forum would say, all Catholics, including Eastern Catholics, are bound by the dogmatic "De Fide" teachings of the Catholic Church, including those of all 21 Councils. Any good Orthodox would tell you that "being in communion with" means that you are in full agreement on defined Dogmatic teachings with the Church you claim to be "in full communion with". This is why Eastern Orthodoxy distributes the Holy Eucharist, and the other Sacraments, only to those who fully belong to a canonical Orthodox Church. It is assumed that these faithful accept fully what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. Most Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions will not offer the Sacraments to "Orthodox in communion with Rome", since being in "communion with Rome" assumes you accept Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, and all of the other defined Dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, which Eastern Orthodoxy generally rejects. Speaking for myself, if I had a problem with those teachings, and if I thought that Eastern Orthodoxy was in possession of the Fullness of the Faith (and was correct on its take on Papal Infallibility, Primacy, etc.), with Catholicism not being in possession of such fullness, I would make a bee-line to, probably, the ROCOR parish in the town next to mine (and they are not burdened with things like "inclusive language" and truncated Liturgy). However, I am a convinced Catholic, and ,therefore, accept those teachings. The "Zoghby" approach does not work. It's been repudiated both by the Pope and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (and, I think, Constantinople). We,as Eastern Catholics, can differ with the Latins on Liturgy, on disciplines, on theological approach (assuming no contradiction with Scripture, Holy Tradition, Dogma, etc.), but not on what are taught as "De Fide", infallibly-defined matters of Faith and Morals. With all of that being said, I admire the various Orthodox jurisdictions with whom I've come into contact, and I am friendly with many Orthodox clergy and laity. However, sadly, we still have these dividing issues which must be resolved before there is a renewal of that desired state of "full communion". Hope this sheds some light.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

If I remember correctly, John Paul II asked for assistance on how the Papal Primacy is to be exercised.

Dn. Robert

Pope John Paul II was much more specific than that:

The long and short of it is that Pope John Paul II holds fast to the idea that the dogmatic elements of the ministry of Peter are unchanged throughout history, that we must look to how that ministry was understood in the first millennium when the Church was fully united, and work to a new understanding of papal ministry that is consistent with the first millennium and will serve the Church going forward. Obviously there are directions the Catholic Church will not go, but PJII left the discussions wide open.

Of course, Rome could view Corinth as a suffragan Church, insofar as it was founded by St. Paul, and Rome at the time considered its foundation to both Peter and Paul. As such, Rome had a pastoral responsibility to Corinth. Also note that Corinth appealed to Rome, and that Clement did not just happen to be intervene on his own. Nobody denies the appellate jurisdiction of Rome, which is affirmed by the Council of Sardica (342) and accepted in both the East and the West. This is very different from Ea Semper's "universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction", which is an innovation of the First Vatican Council (whose ecumenicity is definitely open to question).

You do know, Father Deacon, that there is no "official" list of "ecumenical councils"? The list was compiled by Robert Bellarmine in the 17th century as a polemical device in the Counter-Reformation, and has no real doctrinal standing. Moreover, Bellarmine's list is full of ambiguities and lacunae. For instance, it accepts the Anti-Photian Synod of Constantinople (869-870) as being "ecumenical", and rejects the Photian Synod of 879-880, despite the fact that the latter overturned the acta of the former (which were burned in a copper bowl), was ratified by Pope John VIII, and was recognized as binding upon the Church of Rome for more than three centuries. See Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism, and The Ecumenical Councils.

As Father Taft says, Church history liberates us.

Even as it concerns the historic primacy, Rome's position is not unique, because -- as St. Gregory the Great pointed out -- ". . . though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us.'" [Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40]


Finally, as I wrote in a post some time ago here at the Byzantine Forum:

The pope has no power over the other sui juris Churches, because any concept of supreme power of one bishop over another bishop, or of one Church over another Church, destroys the reality of communion, which is not about power over others, but is about reciprocity and sharing in the common divine life of the body of Christ. In fact, in an ecclesiology of communion, or what Fr. Schmemann calls, a "eucharistic" ecclesiology, it is not possible for one Church (or one bishop) to have power over another Church (or bishop), because each and every particular Church is the full realization of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. In other words, authority in the Church cannot be thought of as "power over others," but must be understood as "service" to others. Thus, it must not be thought of in legal or jurisdictional terms, but in terms of service and love in support of communion. As Fr. Schmemann explains, "The essential corollary of this eucharistic ecclesiology is that it excludes the idea of a supreme power, understood as power over the local Church and her bishop," because as he goes on to say, "A supreme power would mean power over the Church, over the Body of Christ, over Christ Himself," and this idea is simply contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers ["The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," pages 38-39]. Bearing in mind what I have already said, it is clear that the "sacred authority" of popes and patriarchs -- which is founded upon the unity of the sacrament of orders -- is one of service, and so it must not be thought of in monarchical, legalistic, or jurisdictional terms. Moreover, this "sacred authority" is held equally by all who possess the grace of sacramental ordination to the episcopate. Ultimately, the eucharistic ecclesiology of the first millennium is opposed to the universalist ecclesiology of the Latin Church of the middle ages, which only developed due to the Scholastic isolation of the Latin Church from the great patristic tradition of the earliest centuries of the Christian era that is the common patrimony of both East and West.

Some clarification on the words of Institution and the Anaphora of the Assyrian Church. I don't know who the author of the blog is, but he makes the point that Rome states that it holds to the necessity of the words of Institution, and that the Anaphora in question contains those words in a scattered, incoherent manner.

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/addai.htm