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

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.

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?

I've never read that the Melkites complained about infallibility.

Once upon a time, the need for an institution narrative was declared dogmatically, because the Latin Church had declared, dogmatically, that the elements are changed through the utterance of the words of institution, in keeping with scholastic hylomorphic sacramental theology.

"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"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Finally, as far as Vatican I is concerned, although I appreciate your attempts to reinterpret that council in a more "Eastern" way, it (i.e., that particular synod) is not really important to me since I do not accept the idea that it is an ecumenical council.

Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has finally dawned when -- under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast -- the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter's tomb. The Councils -- both the twenty ecumenical ones and the numberless others...It is but natural that in opening this Universal Council... Ecumenical Councils, whenever they are assembled... As regards the initiative for the great event which gathers us here, it will suffice to repeat as historical documentation our personal account of the first sudden bringing up in our heart and lips of the simple words, "Ecumenical Council." ... we wish to narrate before this great assembly our assessment of the happy circumstances under which the Ecumenical Council commences... The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously... That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men... That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council... Venerable brothers, such is the aim of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council...

I think you are right.

If the Pope did not intend something to be a proclamation of dogma binding on the ENTIRE Catholic Church then it does not possess infallibility.

The Pope's exercise of infallibility demands that the Pope must isssue a proclamation on faith or morals by which he intends to bind the WHOLE church.

So it's the branch theory, minus the Anglicans...

What, mutatis mutandis, concerning dogma and infallibility, would be said of the Orthodox communion of churches?

From these words, openly proclaimed, I know what the Pope understood he was opening. I'm sure Eastern bishops were present, understood the Pope's words too, and did not walk out. I'm sure they stayed for the deliberations, took part in them, and signed the final documents.

Sometimes, I ask myself, maybe with naivete: If am in full communion with Rome, and I have nothing to change in my Creed, in my Liturgy, which are the same ones as in Orthodoxy, why am I not in communion with the Orthodox Church, and why is the Orthodox Church not in communion with Rome?

Not branch theory, just the history of the Church in the first millennium. Wish more people would read up on that.

In my naivte, I ask myself the same question.

You seem to think that Rome remains part of the church, even after it falls into heresy.

In my naivte, I ask myself the same question.

Do you believe that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are equally true? That is a form of the branch theory.

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

To a considerable extent, I do too. I'm also sure the Pope's words indicate he was calling an Ecumenical Council, the second of that kind at the Vatican.