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

I'm sorry, I've overstated the case a bit, but Stuart's position is hard to pin. He rejects the dogma of Papal infallibility, but by some logical contortions does not consider it to really be a dogma. In this way, he doesn't actually have to say it's heresy, even though it's wrong, thereby allowing him to simultaneously reject the Roman Catholic faith and remain in communion with Rome.

For some very substantial reasons that are profoundly theological (let us start with absence of apostolic succession for one thing, and the theological defects of the Thirty-Nine Articles as another), as opposed to the separation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, where the divisive issues are most definitely not theological.

I guess that is why one must not look at things in such a black or white manner as you are seeking to do. A Catholic may validly and freely look at Vatican I and conclude it is the worst theology in the whole world. What he may not do is to say it is wrong. He may also call for the Church to take a fresh look, and express the teachings regarding the authority of the Bishop of Rome better, and to prepare that teaching with the entire Church (including all of Orthodoxy). If you study Pope John Paul's call for a re-examine of the role of the papacy you'll see he did just that.

Some things will eternally remain difficult to define. We can look at the Eucharist and know exactly what it is while still seeing it as the Mystery that it is. The role of Peter is not all that different, I think. Others might disagree.

What heresy, pray tell?

Now, the doctrine of infallibility is merely the logical culmination of a trend which became evident in Rome as early as Pope Victor and the Quartodeciman controversy. Throughout the centuries, at various times and in various ways, the Bishop of Rome has claimed for himself a primacy that was essentially a jurisdictional supremacy over other Churches. And, at various times and in various ways, the other Apostolic Churches pushed back against these claims. At the Council of Chalcedon, the legates of Pope Leo the Great insisted that the Tome to Flavian be accepted as written, by acclamation, without debate or amendment, and the Fathers of Chalcedon simply ignored this request. At other times, the Pope of Rome insisted on something more than being first in precedence, and again, the Eastern Churches rebuffed him. During the Photian controversy, the Pope claimed the right to intervene unilaterally in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople, and eventually Constantinople reasserted its independence in the Synod of 879-880.

Yet, for all that, and for all the various breaches of communion between the sixth and ninth centuries, at no time did the Church of Rome ever consider the Church of Constantinople not to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; and at no time did the Church of Constantinople ever consider the Church of Rome not to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Indeed, for several centuries after the allegedly definitive break of 1054, both Churches continued to recognize the ecclesial identity of the other, and seek for reconciliation.

The hardening of attitudes comes only after a long estrangement during which political forces created enduring animosity between East and West, resulting in each Church developing independently of the other--to the detriment of both.

So, there are Two, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Churches. Or you could say that there is an "invisible church" which allows for two visible manifestations in schism from each other. Either way, the notion that it is merely "sin" that divides the churches, and that there are no real doctrinal discrepancies, is untenable from the perspective of anyone, in either communion, who has a coherent understanding of what his church teaches. If this is really what the Catholic Church has been saying, then I must say that Rome has completely self-destructed after Vatican II. God forbid that we unite with such an incoherent mess.


Is papal infallibility a divinely revealed dogma, or is it false? As long as Rome maintains the former, nothing has changed (to say nothing of filioque, papal supremacy, purgatory, etc.).

Perhaps then at the Second Coming --- or as Pope John indicated.

Oh, I am quite comfortable saying it was wrong. History will back me on that. But I think we have to distinguish between something being wrong and something being heretical. In the first place, matters of Church governance can never be elevated to the level of dogma because dogma can only be applied to the mysteries of God and the economy of salvation. God did not establish the full-blown institutional structure of the Church, which is something that grew organically in response to pastoral needs, and which, therefore, can change over time. The papacy, as part of that institutional structure, has changed repeatedly over time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. The same can be said of the internal structure of every Church. Orthodox and Roman Catholics seem to take for granted that they ecclesiology and ecclesiastical structures of their respective Churches is fixed, but that not only ignores the very different structures of other Churches, such as the Copts, the Armenians and the Assyrians, but also the ways in which the structure and governance of their own Churches has changed--and continues to change.

If the papacy was truly a divine institution, then it would have been manifested in its fullness from the beginning, and there would be no possibility of change in the past, or of reform in the future. You cannot amend or waive something that God ordained. But we know the papacy has changed, and continues to change, and will change more in the future.

I have said before, and will say again: The Petrine Primacy is a ministry of service to the Church as the People of God. The Papacy exists to serve the Church, the Church does not exist to justify papal perquisites. Whenever the exercise of the Petrine Ministry becomes a stumbling block to unity and undermines the faith of the People of God, it is the exercise and definition of the Petrine Ministry that must change, not the People of God to conform to the Papacy's self-conception of the Petrine Ministry. That makes the tail wag the dog.

Therefore, I can say that Pastor aeternus was a mistake, and, in light of the situation in which the Roman Church found itself in 1870, and its own self-image, it was an understandable one; but not something that in any way undermines the fidelity of the Church of Rome to the Apostolic Tradition, simply because the definition and exercise of the Papacy is not central either to the Gospel or the Church's kergyma. It is a secondary, almost peripheral issue that has been elevated to a prominence it does not really merit.

That is exactly what is being done when the dogma of Papal infallibility is rejected. To say that papal infallibility is wrong is to say that Vatican I is wrong.

A call to re-examine to the role of the Papacy is just that- a call. It does not entail any concrete steps in any direction, nor any meaningful change. Has the Vatican repudiated papal infallibility or papal supremacy, or not? Some theologians expressing vague doubts, some popes making vaguely conciliar statements, simply do not cut it when we are talking about a supposed divinely revealed dogma.

No, there is one Church, which is comprised of many Churches (just as there is but one Eucharist, offered in many ways in many different places). In the first millennium, to use the terms "Catholic Church" and "Orthodox Church" in the manner we do today would be considered silly (in fact, I consider it silly). It was understood that there was no such thing as the "universal Church" defined as some sort of pyramidal, hierarchical structure. There were, in fact, many Churches, in communion with each other, and all of these together formed the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

At various times, and for various reasons, communion among these Churches was broken--sometimes for doctrinal reasons, at others for administrative ones, and occasionally just because of a clash of personalities. It was understood that such divisions were unavoidable due to the sinfulness of man, and were to be healed as rapidly as possible--but in the interim, the other side did not cease to be part of the Church.

The notion that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were exclusive and mutually antagonistic entities is something that occurs only after centuries of growing estrangement, in which each turned inward, involved with its own problems, its own controversies, its own interests. And gradually, over time, each ceased to recognize itself in the other.

But, just as sisters who have been estranged for years may no longer recognize each other, but do not cease to be sisters, so the two families of Churches continue to be sisters--they share a bond that cannot be broken.

It is really quite amazing, reading these posts, to see the contortions to which people will resort to avoid recognizing the other as sharing the same patrimony of faith. You erect mountains out of mole hills, elevate matters that were never cause for contention or separation in the first millennium into critical theological issues today. The differences in essentials between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church are not significant, and with charity they can be overcome.

But part of the difficulty is the unwillingness of the faithful to accept the legitimacy of practices, beliefs and expressions that happen to differ from those of their own Tradition. This is true of both Roman Catholic (and some Eastern Catholics) and of the Orthodox. The difference, though, is the hierarchy of the Roman Church has accepted, and formally teaches, the legitimacy of the Eastern Traditions, and endeavors to restore them in their fullness to the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome (sometimes against the will of the Eastern Catholics themselves), while I am increasingly convinced that a substantial body of Eastern Orthodox faithful and many of their hierarchs have profound problems accepting as legitimate any theology or mode of theological expression that is not explicitly Byzantine (and this extends to their attitudes towards the non-Byzantine Eastern Churches, too).

But they should consider that a Church which is not both fully Western and fully Eastern can have no pretensions of ecumenicity, for it embraces only one aspect of a multi-faceted Tradition. It also embraces an attitude of pride and pretension, the kind that causes people to put ridiculous bumper stickers on their cars that read, "The Orthodox Church--Teaching the Truth since AD 33". Those who know Church history can only cringe when they see it.

It is no wonder that you are "Embatl'd." I'd say, on the basis of Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus, that the infallibility of the Church and the Pope as defined is a divinely revealed dogma for all Catholics. It is in some ways a hard saying, like "Outside the Church, no salvation." As there, one must read what it says and not more (or less) than what it says.

снова и снова и снова! What I see being proposed here is the branch theory, something I hear anathematized every Sunday of Orthodoxy. Sorry, no sale!

Hey, Howz about dem Stillers?

Alexandr

Mostly the fault of the Orthodox. The ball was tossed into their court. They finally got what they said they wanted all along--the opportunity for a full and open discussion of papal prerogatives and the exercise of primacy. And what did they do? They backed away from it as though it was radioactive. What Orthodox primates have actually bothered to engage the Holy See on this issue? None. Instead, we get continuing acrimony about. . . uniatism! Good thing we exist, otherwise the Orthodox would have no choice but to grapple with the one substantive issue dividing the two communions.

Why the Orthodox reluctance to take up Pope John Paul II's challenge? I suspect, to some degree, they never took it seriously, never expected any Pope to make such an invitation, and when he did, they were caught flat footed.

Beyond that, I believe the Orthodox have not yet seriously debated the issue of primacy among themselves (otherwise they might be dealing better with the crisis of autocephaly and the centrifugal forces pulling the Orthodox communion apart). Many Orthodox hierarchs and theologians are quite willing to say what primacy is not, and what Orthodoxy will not accept, but very few have offered any affirmative vision of what primacy ought to be, how it ought to be exercised. That's hard work, the kind that gives one headaches, and it is so much more fun to throw rocks than it is to build up something.

Good news, of course, is many Orthodox are beginning to recognize the defects in their own ecclesiological situation, and their own crying need for some sort of primacy to provide a counterpoise to unbridled conciliarity--and a good many of them concede that from an historical and ecclesiological perspective, that primacy by right belongs to the Church of Rome.

But until such time as they are willing to sit down and offer their own vision of how that primacy is to be defined, and how it will be exercised, nothing at all will happen. It is almost as though they want Rome to read their collective minds and unilaterally impose sweeping reforms until such time as the Orthodox rise to their feet as one and shout "That's it! We'll take it!" Not a very productive way for them to use their time, though.

Read some Church history before tossing around meaningless terms as incantations against serious discussion.

Whoa there my fine friend, you neither know me, my education nor my history so I suggest that you learn some manners before you accuse others of not knowing their Church history.

Alexandr

RSV Acts 1:15  In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,... 2:1  When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place... 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them,...