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

I am personally not inclined to view that person as a heretic. Why? Because I don't know if that person has a misunderstanding of the dogma or not. That is why the dogma itself needs to be discussed IMO, at least from the perspective of the Eastern Catholic who denies it. I mean, I understand if you don't want to talk about it, but the focus here is Eastern Catholics who deny it. So would you be averse to an investigation as to why an Eastern Catholic would deny it?

Blessings

Stuart,

I think you are missing our brother, Seraphim's point. The term "dogma" is used very cautiously in the EOC, and held in great reverence. To say something like "the dogma is all bark and no bite," makes no sense, because in the EO understanding of dogma, you cannot possibly under any circumstances be in communion with anyone who holds something to be dogmatic when you do not, nor can you be in communion with anyone who holds something *not* to be dogmatic when you do. That is what dogma means, period.

Furthermore, if the RCC and/or ECCs interpret the term dogma in any way differently, it is then one more point of contention between them and the EOC.

(It has been said that ecumenism is not about trying to deny or minimize our differences, but to proclaim what it is that makes us unique, and then try to understand each other.)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The sin of heresy, according to the mind of the Catholic Church, is, objectively speaking, very serious. Rejection of the defined dogmas of the Church constitute grave matter for the serious, or mortal, sin of heresy, which, of course, involves cutting oneself off from God. This is on the objective level. Individuals who fall into this sin (or any sin) are judged by God on the subjective level. God reads the heart. What is the person's level of knowledge? Is he/she sincerely convinced of the correctness or truth of this position? Only God judges the culpability of the individual vis a vis any sin committed. I can say objectively, that a person who rejects a Dogma of the Church is in grave spiritual danger, but I cannot make any statement as to that person's level of culpability before God. The Catholic Church teaches that for a person to be fully culpable of any serious or mortal sin, there must be (1.) serious matter (heresy is in this category), (2.) sufficient reflection (deliberate, "cold blooded" consideration of the level of seriousness of the sin), and (3.) Full consent of the will (i.e.-I know this sin is seriously offensive to God, but I'm going to commit it, anyway). As to whether it makes sense for an Eastern Catholic (or any Catholic) who rejects Papal Infallibility (or any defined Dogma of the Church), to remain in the Church, I do not see how it does. To be very honest, if I thought that the traditional Eastern Orthodox teachings on these matters constituted truth, I'd make a bee-line to the closest Eastern Orthodox Church. My only dilemna would be whether to talk to OCA (which has a parish in my town) or ROCOR (which has a parish in the next town over).

Dn. Robert

I understand the point full well. I think it is the Orthodox who do not understand, or choose not to understand, that due to historical circumstance, the Latin Church became extraordinarily sloppy in its use of the word "dogma", applying it with equal zeal to core matters of faith on the one hand, and minor matters of liturgical usage or theological expression on the other. It is understandable that they would do so once the ecclesiology of the Roman Church came to see itself as coterminous with the entire Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, and there are no other true Churches). This, combined with an increasing degree of centralization made it natural to put any decision into "dogmatic" terms, even when the matter under discussion was not suitable for dogmatization.

This situation pertained roughly from the thirteenth century through the middle of the 20th century, but changes in Latin ecclesiology, in theological methods and expressions, and in historical awareness, have led to a precarious situation in which the Latin Church is burdened by a number of conciliar and pontifical degrees clothed in the language of dogma that it knows full well are not really dogmatic. And so, on the one hand, it tries to uphold these dogmas and on the other tries to ignore or ameliorate them. Of all of these misnamed dogmas, however, only papal infallibility has any serious import for the Catholic Church, since it is only papal charisma that holds the whole structure together--another way of saying there are many Catholics for whom the Pope is the be-all and end-all, without whom there is no Church.

Eastern Orthodox Christians think this way because the Western Church has often presented papal primacy as an authoritarian office, which is bound by nothing but the pope's good -- but changeable -- will, and by divine law as a particular pope understands it at a given moment.

I addressed this in a post some years ago here at the Byzantine forum, click the link below to read that post:

Canon Law Question

I agree. Much of what Latin Catholics think of as dogma is not in fact dogma.

I found this on the Melkite Eparchy of Newton's website. It is a question and answer from Bishop John.

[quote]The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: "The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise." (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)


I accept this statement, and I guess that is why I'm a Greek Catholic. As Bishop John says further down in this question/answer "The Melkite Church is a hundred per cent Catholic, but not a hundred per cent Orthodox."

Still I think that an understanding of western dogmas in an eastern light is important. So how we understand Papal Primacy and infallibility is important. Can there be an Eastern way of understanding this important issue that divides us? I think so. Can Eastern Catholics disagree on how we understand this teaching? Yes I think so. Does that make them heretics in the eyes of Rome? No I don't think it does.

We need to as other have said look at what really Constitutes a dogma.

This issue will only be decided when the whole Church is reunited and can come together in love and clarity of the Holy Spirit. After this then we can find a way forward.

On a personal note this discussion has made me reflect a little on myself and my own beliefs and well I thank you all for that.

I still love Archbishop Zoghby but I can see how his understanding can be problematic.

I like Father Deacon Robert would run to the nearist EO Church if I thought it wasn't important to be in Communion with the Holy See.

I disagree with Bishop John, and agree instead with Archbishop Zoghby. Bishop John, as a bishop in America, was appointed by the Pope and not by the Holy Synod, and that is why his views represent - what I would call - a Latinized position.

Concerning the CCEO the Melkite Patriarch has said: "the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!" [Meeting of the Synod of Bishops in Rome, Sept. / Oct. 2001]

I think it will be interesting to see what the new Ukrainian Catechism says about these important issues.

I agree that the Code of Cannons of The Eastern Churches is a very latinized document.

I have read some things that concern me about the UGCC's new catechism, but I will not be able to make a real judgment as to its orthodoxy until it is published.

Dr. Henry,

When Boniface VIII declared that it was necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved, was he not intending to speak with the full authority of his office on a matter of faith?

I say this because the Pope did not *aquire* the power of infallibility at Vatican I, either he had it all along, or he never had it at all.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Not one to often engage in direct conversations on the topics of this forum (reading and reflecting - without feeling the need to spout out personal opinion - being one of my few better habits), I'd like to take a jab at this topic.

First, a few points of clarification:

1) I am a Melkite Greek Catholic priest.
2) I was originally an Antiochian Orthodox priest.
3) Many of my reasons for 'swimming the Tiber' were and are personal, some were theological, at lest one I believe was the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
4) I confess myself as a prayerful follower of the teachings of our venerable father Elias Zoghby on the issues of inter-church relations between the Church of Rome and the Churches of the East.

Now... As to the Infallibility of the Pope of Rome; the quoted definition from the First Vatican Council reads:


What exactly is this definition stating?

Firstly, it refers to a particular kind of circumstance; namely, an occasion in which the Pope will speak "Ex Cathedra". It is my understanding that this indicates a situation in which the pronouncement will be intended to express the belief and decision of the Roman Pontiff. In other words, the Pope must be intending to speak as the Pope (Patriarch of the West - even if Pope Benedict doesn't like the title), and primus inter pares of the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

Secondly, the object of consideration is limited specifically to 'defining doctrine or morals'.

Thirdly, this infallibility is said to be possessed "by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter... which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy..."

From these observations we can conclude that the true subject and beneficiary of infallibility of which this definition speaks is primarily the Church. Thus, the matters under consideration at the time of a papal 'declaration ex cathedra' must concern an issue of doctrine or morality which is already manifest in the Church. This is a necessary condition for the definition to meet the standards of infallibility.

This being so, we see and admission that infallibility is a characteristic of the Church, granted by the Grace of God in the oversight of the Holy Spirit. As our Lord promised, “I am with you until the end of the Age” through “the Counselor who will lead you into all things”.

It is this general belief in infallibility that allows us to affirm the Apostolic teachings of the Church Fathers, the definitions of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, and the divinely inspired orthodoxy of our Divine Worship, etc..

Now as to the question of whether the Roman Pontiff possesses this infallibility we find that the crux of the matter is not infallibility itself but “ex cathedra”. I am quite comfortable to state I believe the Pope has the gift of infallibility because I also believe that the Seven Ecumenical Council each and collectively possess it, and that individual hierarchs, synods and others have each exercised this gift over the millennia. This is because the definition basically argues that X is a true teaching of the Church. The Pope asserts as an authoritative definition that X is a true teaching of the Church. Thus X is a true teaching of the Church.

The fear and caution expressed by the Orthodox Churches is (rightly, in my humble opinion) that a Pope might propose as an infallible statement something contrary to what the Church teaches, either something completely new or at odds with the deposit of Faith.

But as I noted above, the definition of papal infallibility doesn’t argue that X is true because the Pope says it is; it argues that X has always been true and the Pope is stating it ‘definitively”.

As I stated, the real issue is “ex cathedra”. What are the specific criteria that constitutes defining ‘this’ statement as an “ex cathedra” statement while ‘that’ one is not. (This is similar to the linguistic philosophical question of “performatives”.) Unless “ex cathedra” can be distinctly clarified, the whole definition of papal infallibility is incoherent and thus cannot be affirmed as a dogma of the Church.

In this matter, I merely state my own theologoumenon that “ex cathedra” must entail the following:

1) The Pope intends to speak as the primus inter pares and Supreme Pontiff.
2) The doctrine or moral issue has a clear record of historic evidence in favor of the position he intends to endorse.
3) The issue so endorsed cannot contradict or nullify the revealed Truth already accepted as part of the deposit of Faith.

The fact is that if one reads to two documents ‘defining’ the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin one sees precisely these concerns addressed. In each case there is witness given to the ancient teachings, practice and historic interpretation of the ‘doctrines’ under consideration. Thus, both ‘doctrines’ would pass the test of being infallible statements of the Faith.

However, I would note the following caveats:
1) The Immaculate Conception only makes sense doctrinally when viewed through the lenses of mediaeval scholasticism and therefore only applies in those terms. For the Eastern Christian whose theology is free of the scholastic tradition, the ‘doctrine’ can affirm only that the Virgin was specially chosen to be the Bearer of God.
2) The Assumption is already held by the Eastern Churches as the Dormition. The whole original argument (aside from the question of whether the Pope had the right to proclaim it as a doctrine) hinged on the notion that the assumption took place before the Virgin fell asleep. In fact, the encyclical that proclaim the doctrine does not say this and leaves the question open. However, given that the historical belief of the Church at least strongly implies that the Theotokos had died (i.e., when they buried her in the tomb) before she was assumed body and soul into Heaven, presents a solid case for the Orthodox understanding, which view Rome is slowly coming to acknowledge.

So having broken my customary silence, I will assert along with the venerable Archbishop Elias of thrice blessed memory, that there have been only seven true Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Catholic Church. If one studies the documents and decisions of the other synods in question, it is patently obvious that these councils typically deal with issues singularly related to the Church of Rome and her dependencies. The Second Vatican Council is the closest in scope and nature to the Seven Councils – and it was by no means a ‘doctrinal’ council; much like the Penthekte in some ways.

Right. I’ve probably said way too much so I’ll just see what, if anything, this little tome elicits.

As far as the First Vatican Council is concerned, I agree with Archbishop Zogbhy who said: "Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone."

Dear Father Deacon Richard,

Pope Boniface VIII was not talking about infallibility, but primacy. In any case, whether Boniface's statement meets the conditions for an ex cathedra statement is in disupte within Catholicism. I'm personally one of those who believe it was not, plainly because it failed to meet two of the criteria - namely, 1) it is a matter of Faith or morals; 2) that it be addressed to the whole Church. It failed to meet the first criterion because Pope Boniface VIII intended it in relation to the Pope's political power (whereas the V1 definition clearly assigns infallibility only to theological matters); it failed to meet the second criteria because it was only addressed to King Philiip of France. Besides, it was promulgated in the context of a Council of 80 bishops, so it clearly, even on that point, was not an exercise of papal infallibility.

Humbly,
Marduk