www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholics and Papal Infallibility

With all of the above being said, it does not mean that there should be anomosity between Orthodox and Catholics, only a recognition as to what both churches truly believe. Catholics believe that Orthodoxy possesses a true status of "church", has real hierarchs, real clergy, and real sacraments. We each recognize that the other has, at least, a great part of what each considers to be the "fullness of the Faith". Theological dialogue must be pursued, with the intent of, ultimately, healing the Great Schism. But, there must be resolve on both sides not to do damage to Truth. The Schism will be healed in God's good time, when the Holy Spirit desires this to happen. Had to get this in, because I do not want to foster any animosities.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Yet every Eastern Orthodox with whom I've discussed the matter claims the Pope is not bound by or can violate the canons of the Church on the rationale that his approval was necessary for the validation of the Canons, and can just make them up as he goes if he feels like it. I doubt these Orthodox live in Outer Mongolia.

Humbly,
Marduk

One Church which happens to believe that it has universal jurisdiction and supremacy over all Catholics. By your logic, there can be no such thing as heresy, since the heretics don't agree to the councils or dogmas that condemn them.


It is declared by the Latin Church for the entire Church. They don't need to consult with anyone else since, from their perspective, they have supremacy and infallibility.


Has the Patriarch issued a formal or public declaration to the Pope, indicating his dissent from Roman Catholic dogma? If he has not done so, then he is being deeply dishonest.


It's not my argument- this is the assertion of the Pope. If the Pope's assertion is correct, you are a heretic. If it is wrong, he is a heretic.


Why are you in communion with him, if you don't believe what he believes?

Or it could be the case that an Eastern or Oriental Catholic believes it, but simply does not seek to impose it on the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox brethren. Like I said, I was only expressing my experience. Now, I've met one who actually does not believe in papal infallibility.

We're in agreement here.

It goes without saying I believe in papal infallibility. And as an Oriental, I have no problem with papal supremacy. Each OOC uses that word to refer to its head bishop, but we don't use it in the sense of the Latin or Eastern Tradition. To Orientals, it simply means "highest." To (some) Latins and (most) Easterns, it means "highest" and "solitary." To Orientals, supremacy is always practiced in collegiality, and is reflective of presidency. The Eastern and Latin understanding tends towards a perception of monarchy, whereby the Easterns reject it and some Latins accept it. I do think that "primacy" is the better term to use perceptually and objectively.

Naturally, I believe papal infallibility and primacy are evident from the time of the Apostles and the belief is present in East, West, and Orient in the early Church, most evident from the documents of the Ecumenical Councils.

Blessings

And what, in your opinion, is the status of those Eastern Catholics who openly reject any of these dogmas? Does it make sense for them to still commune in a Catholic church?


Yes, this is exactly what the Vatican I definition says. I'm assuming that Stuart and others like him know this as well, and they still reject the dogma.

Dearest Father Ambrose,

I was referring to Eastern Catholics (EC's) and Oriental Catholics (OC's). Are there any patriarchal encyclicals from Eastern or Oriental Catholic hierarchs denying papal infallibility that you know of?

Humbly,
Marduk

The EOC's were invited to Vatican 1 as deliberative members, but they refused (issues of pride notwithstanding).

And by what standard in the early Church do you make this judgment?

Blessings

Dear brother StuartK

Can you please give a direct quote from your Patriarch that denies papal infallibility?

Blessings

If the Vatican ignored the Melkites, what makes you think they would care what the Orthodox think?


By the standard that people who rejected Church dogma, or dogmatized false teachings, were anathematized.

I believe that the early Fathers, and especially the Ecumenical Councils, testify to papal infallibility. There are numerous quotes proving it (for the Catholic). The only response a non-Catholic has ever given is that all these quotes imply at most a belief in the orthodoxy of the Pope at that time, not infallibility. But doesn't orthodoxy imply infallibility of the teaching office?

So we have numerous quotes that one party can at least be interpreted to mean infallibility. The other party interprets it otherwise.

But is there anything at all from the early Church that could indicate that belief in papal infallibility is a heresy? If not, then, again, I would ask, what basis do certain EO have for asserting that it is a heresy?

Blessings

Marduk, the discussion here isn't whether infallibility is true or not. It's about whether it makes sense for Eastern Catholics to deny Papal Infallibility and still remain in communion with Rome.

I've never read that the Melkites complained about infallibility. Rather, their reservations were on the definition of papal primacy, and even then simply on the basis that it should ensure the rights of the bishops (which it did). It's simply false to claim that the concerns of the Melkites were ignored, especially as a whole pararaph was added to the final Decree specifically to address the concern of the Melkites. Namely:
This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of the ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the Apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers, I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one."

I'm talking about how you determine it is a heresy in the first place(i.e., early written patristic testimony that can at least be intepreted in that sense).

Blessings

If I am not mistaken, there have only been two dogmas that have been defined as infallible by former Popes:
1) the Immaculate Conception of Mary (1850s)
2) The Assumption (Dormition) of Mary (1950s).
I believe that all Eastern Christians accept the Dormition of Mary as defined dogma.
Many do not accept the Immaculate Conception because of differences in interpretation of what Original Sin is and its consequences.

Noted. But it seems why papal infallibility would be rejected would be a legitimate subtopic for discussion? I mean, what if it's a misunderstanding of the teaching? I myself find rather objectionable interpretations of papal infallibility from Latins, and certainly would not accept the teaching based on how these certain Latins explain it.

But it seems Brother Stuart has already informed us his reason for not believing it - he believes it is not present in the early Church. I believe the early Church, especially the Councils, testify to papal infallibility (personally, I find St. Ignatius of Antioch's testimony rather convincing).

Blessings

I'm not arguing for or against the dogma per se. I do believe it's a heresy but I'm not interested in discussing that here. I'm interested in seeing a coherent defense on the part of Eastern Catholics who reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

Since you recognize that Papal Infallibility is dogma, you must also recognize that those who reject it are anathematized. If papal infallibility is a true dogma, and someone says it is false, then is that person not a heretic?