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

I am curious to understand the position of those Eastern Catholics who reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The implication of communion with the Pope is that you have the same faith as the Pope. Part of that faith is the dogma of Papal infallibility.

Vatican I says:


So, to those EC's who reject this dogma, I ask: How do you not fall under this anathema? How are you not, in the eyes of Rome, heretics who should be considered excommunicated latae sententiae?

I imagine my presentation is a bit simplistic, I just cannot think of any logical subtleties that I'm missing here. Please educate me.

who are these EC's who supposedly reject papal infallibility? What have I missed somewhere? I am not aware of any EC's in this situation. Anyone know???

I would be careful about asking the question in such a way. It would be better asked within the understanding of how Pope John Paul II asked Orthodoxy to help him redefine the papal ministry for a reunited Church.

Much has happened since Vatican I.

What concrete developments have taken place that would change the situation so dramatically? Is Rome on the verge of repudiating Vatican I? Because nothing less than that will dull the force of Papal Infallibility as a proclaimed dogma. The alternative is "re-interpreting" the dogma to mean exactly what it was not intended to mean.

I don't know how many of them there are, but they are often followers of Elias Zoghby. They consider Vatican I to be a local and not an ecumenical council. Papal infallibility is at best considered a theologoumenon. There are some of these folks on this forum but, rather than name names, I'll let them jump on this thread and speak for themselves.

Speaking only for myself on this one.....

...I'd suggest you read the book by Father Herman Pottmeyer "Towards a Papacy in Communion", or for a narrower, scholarly, and footnoted discussion, the paper he presented at the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue a few years ago*.

Either one blows away a good number of myths about Papal Primacy/infallibility that exist in some popular imaginations, in old catechisms, and apologetic pamphlets with facts (which could probably only be found in the original language) and historical context.

Markos

*the papers of that dialogue were published in a book by Paulist Press - I'm not at my home now, but can get a citation if desired

I am a follower of Archbishop Elias Zoghby. Oh no....

Pope John Paul II has mad mention of it that he is willing to work for a understanding of Papal Primacy and infallibility in a reunited Church. We must look at the First Vatican Council. Was there an Eastern Catholic Presence? Was Eastern Theological opinions expressed and taken into consideration? From what I understand of the First Vatican council the answer is that there was not a huge Eastern presence at the council and that their opinions were not weighed very much. For a much better look at what the modern day Roman Catholic Church feels on these important issues look at the documents of Vatican II (which had many Eastern Catholics at and their theology was heard as equal) and also the writings and sayings of JPII and Benedict XVI

I think that many Eastern Orthodox think that the Pope can say anything at any time and it’s a statement that’s Infallible. (This is not the case) Two statements have been declared infallible and it is VERY unlikely that a Pope will be making another one any time soon.

I accept Papal Primacy (in love) and I feel it is important to be in Communion with the Western Church and if Pope John Paul II was willing to dialogue on this important discussion then we to should be open to it. I am what I am- an Eastern Christian who holds to what the Orthodox Church teaches and am in communion with the Roman See, as the Church of the First Millennium understands it. Oh wait; there is that Archbishop Zoghby again.

Praying for reunion and understanding between all Apostolic Churches.

First, I'd like to comment on the belief that there are EC's or OC's who deny papal infallibility. From my own personal experience, I've never met one who denied papal infallibility, though I have met EC's who believe it is just theologoumenon. I've yet to meet an OC who denies papal infallibility is a dogma. Like I said, that's just my own limited experience.

When I was an Orthodox not yet in communion with Rome, I had many misconceptions about papal infallibility. The main ones were 1) only the Pope is infallible (I believed in the infallibility of the Church) and 2) the person who is Pope is infallible (I did not believe any one person could be infallible). In the process of studying Catholicism, I was corrected of these misconceptions, but I didn't give in quite so easily. I thought to myself, "even if not only the Pope is infallible in Catholic teaching, it's obvious that they believe that the source of any infallibility in the Catholic Church is the Pope." That misconception was the toughest one for me, but by the Grace of God, I was corrected in that misconception as well.

But I do have one big complaint, which has yet to be resolved. It's not against the teaching, however, but against current Latin Catholic apologetics on the matter. I find a total dependence on papal infallibility to explain the orthodoxy of the Church, with a concurrent neglect of the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council and/or the infallibility of the body of bishops. It's simply impossible that papal infallibility is the source of orthodoxy, because that charism has, as Latin Catholics admit, been used so very rarely in the history of the Church, so I can't understand why their apologetics have such a myopic focus on papal infallibility.

[quote=Nelson Chase]I think that many Eastern Orthodox think that the Pope can say anything at any time and it’s a statement that’s Infallible.
[/quote]

I think that the only Orthodox who could think like are the Orthodox living in Outer Mongolia who have never heard of Papal Infallibility... How's that for an Irishism!? LOL!

[quote=mardukm]First, I'd like to comment on the belief that there are EC's or OC's who deny papal infallibility. From my own personal experience, I've never met one who denied papal infallibility, though I have met EC's who believe it is just theologoumenon. I've yet to meet an OC who denies papal infallibility is a dogma. Like I said, that's just my own limited experience.
[/quote]

Some rather concrete denials of papal infallibility in this letter....

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Markdum operates under the misapprehension that acknowledging something as a theologumenon indicates assent to its truth, but that overstates the case. A legitimate theologumenon is nothing other than a personal theological opinion which is not overtly heretical. One may believe it is correct, or one may not.

If I state that the doctrine of papal infallibility is a theologumenon of the Latin Church, that does not indicate that I, as a Greek Catholic, believe it is correct. All I say is a Latin may believe it (indeed, by Latin standards, must believe it), and that I, as a Greek Catholic, have no objections to him believing it. I object, however, to any assertions that I, as a Greek Catholic, must believe something which is alien to the Tradition of my Church.

Part of this, no doubt, comes from the Latin tendency to conflate papal primacy with papal supremacy and infallibility. I believe in papal primacy, but I do not believe in either supremacy or infallibility, neither of which was known to the early Church, neither of which was ever endorsed by Churches of the Byzantine Tradition in the first millennium.

I see a lot of vague references to ways in which Rome has changed its attitude. They are more respectful of the East; they are more inclined to dialogue, etc. I'm also seeing explanations of what papal infallibility is not, as if misinterpretation were the issue here. People are referencing various documents which supposedly evince a dramatic shift in Latin attitudes, but there are no concrete examples given.

I still don't see any indications that the dogma has been mitigated or altered in any way.

Here's what the new catechism says, based on the decisions of Vatican II:



What's changed here?

Whatever Popes John Paul II and Benedict XIV may say, they consider Papal Infallibility to be a dogma, an article of faith, and they assume that all those in communion with them believe the same too- otherwise, they wouldn't be in communion with them. I don't mean to sound black and white here, but the whole point of proclaiming a dogma is to create a black and white situation- one either accepts the dogma as such or severs communion.


You hold to some of what the Orthodox Church teaches and are in communion with Rome under false pretenses (namely, that you share their faith and accept all their dogmas).
The Orthodox Church teaches that the filioque and papal infallibility are heresies, and that the See of Rome is vacant. The Zoghby formula is nonsensical both from an Orthodox and a Catholic perspective. It is both cafeteria Catholicism and cafeteria Orthodoxy.

When, in the history of the Church, has a solemnly proclaimed DOGMA been at the same time an optional theologoumenon? The whole purpose of proclaiming a dogma is to say, "this is not optional- this is what we all believe." If you still reject the dogma, you should not be in communion with those who uphold it. Papal supremacy and infallibility are, by definition, not local and not mere opinions. To say that Papal infallibility is just for the Latins is to make it completely meaningless. We are talking about absolute truths here and not systems of measurement or exchange rates- if Papal infallibility is true in Rome, it has to be true everywhere; if the Pope proclaims something infallibly in Rome, it is infallible everywhere.



It indicates, rather, that you fall under the anathema of Vatican I, since you deny that it is "a dogma divinely revealed", which is a part of the dogma's definition. "So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."


The dogma, like all dogmas, applies to the entire communion and not just to Latins. To be in communion with the Pope today means to share all of the dogmatic formulations of the Pope and to accept his authority as Rome currently understands it.


Since Papal supremacy and infallibility, by definition, have a universal application, if they are contrary to the tradition of the Byzantine churches they are contrary to the tradition of ALL churches, of the entire Church. To say that Papal supremacy and infallibility only apply to Latins is a contradiction, which defeats the whole purpose and meaning of the doctrines to begin with. If Papal infallibility does not apply to the East, then it is not a true dogma, nor a theologoumenon- it is plainly wrong and, since it has been proclaimed as dogma, for all Christians to believe, it is actually heretical.

This leaves us with a simple choice- is Papal infallibility right or wrong? If it is wrong, than the Pope is heretical for imposing it as dogma, and no one who disagrees with it should be in communion with the Pope... unless the Catholic Church has become a bastion of relativism.

Dear Seraphim,

Your analysis is right on the mark. I tried to make these points as a serious Eastern Catholic Deacon who accepts all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. One either accepts the dogma of Papal Infallibility (and all the other teachings) as the entire Catholic Church understands it, or one doesn't. I do. With that being said, I agree with those posters who point out that the outside world has a lot of misconceptions as to what this teaching actually says. My understanding is that, in essence, the Pope of Rome, as pontiff of the Universal Church, is protected by the Holy Spirit against teaching error when it is his intention to teach some matter of Faith or Morals "ex cathedra". It is to be a dogmatic teaching at the highest level of belief, which is affirmed to be certainly true (and there are conditions to be met for a declaration to be considered "ex cathedra"-memory fails as to those specific conditions). This teaching is, in a way, a negative protection against the Church teaching heresy on the dogmatic level. When the Pope teaches in this way (a very rare occurrence), he possesses the same protection from the Holy Spirit that is possessed by an Ecumenical Council (in communion with, and ratified by the Pope)when it makes solemn, dogmatic teachings. It does not say that the Pope cannot be a heretic. If, for example, the Pope intended to teach "ex cathedra" that Our Lord Jesus Christ DID NOT rise from the dead, the Holy Spirit would prohibit this from happening, one way or another. It's just another way of saying that God is in charge.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Ah, but is it a dogma? Only one Church has declared that it is, and the majority of Churches--indeed, the majority of Christians have not. reception is essential for any dogma to be considered as such. As always, people also ignore the large number of "dogmas" solemnly declared by the Latin Church that have nothing to do with any other Church. As is the case with papal infallibility, it is something declared by the Latin Church for the Latin Church, without any consideration or consultation with any other Church.


I am in good company, then--including the Patriarch of my Church. If the Pope has a problem with Patriarch Gregorios, then he hasn't made it public.


The dogma is all bark and no bite. Basically, your argument has no foundation, because it is mere assertion.


This is sort of like a line from the Mel Brooks remake of To Be or Not to Be, concerning an obscure Polish actor who calls himself "world famous". "I've never heard of him", says a German gauleiter. "He's world famous in Poland" responds Brooks. For papal supremacy and infallibility to be universal, they have to be recognized and received universally. Sort of like the dialogue between Owain Glendower and Harry Hostspur from Henry IV Part II:

Glendower: I can summon spirits from the firey deep.
Hotspur: So can I, so can any man. But when you call, do they answer?

With infallibility, it's the same thing--when the Pope calls, does everybody answer?