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

It's about the words, not the man; here I think Ott puts it well.

Okay, I missed this one and I really have to ask: Do I need to go digging around in scholarly papers and archives to find out what Rome actually believes? Are the dogmatic definitions and the Catechism really so unreliable and misleading? Has there been some shift in Rome's thinking, behind the scenes, where "Let him be anathema" has come to mean, "We'll let it slide"? If a dogmatic definition, accompanied by an anathema, is not an absolute statement, then nothing is. The truth can be complex, it can be paradoxical, but it's never... squishy. How are Catholics supposed to know what they believe? I used to think Catholics who support abortion might be inconsistent, but maybe things just aren't so absolute as all those threats of excommunication might lead one to believe.

So, the plain reading of papal infallibility is wrong. What does it actually mean then? Please provide some extracts from all those scholarly dissertations that demonstrate that papal infallibility really means something entirely different from what it apparently means.

The reference to Gallicanism is a red herring. Just because papal infallibility was promulgated in response to Gallicanism does not somehow diminish the force of the dogma outside of that context, anymore than the Nicene Creed loses absolute value now that Arianism is no more.

Someone's in a nasty mood today!

The point is that you are proof-texting, pulling a quote and putting your own understanding behind it. One correctly needs to look at any single quote within the context of the entire teaching of the Church. My first question to you would be why have you not looked to the current catechism as your main source of information? That is where the average Catholic would go. See my point? Are you out to understand or to hurl fireballs? It seems that you are only seeking to hurl fireballs. One could do what you are doing with the theology of any Church - including Orthodoxy.

Pretty much nothing. I have said several times that it is most unlikely any future Pope will ever speak ex Cathedra again. Changes in ecclesiology and a revised understanding of the role of the Papacy pretty much ensure it. As I have also said, infallibility is very much like a nuclear weapon--if you have to use it, then you have failed. Since Vatican I, there has been precisely one (1) ex Cathedra declaration, on a totally innocuous issue on which there was widespread consensus not only in the West, but also in the East. One gets the impression Pius XII did it simply to show it could be done. Like the atom bomb tests at Bikini Atoll, the wonder weapon was publicly demonstrated, shown to work, and put away (hopefully never to be used again). And so it has proven.

I think most Popes since Pius XII have considered the whole thing an embarrassment that they wish would go away but which is to visible to quietly discard (in the manner Pius XII quietly discarded papal claims of temporal supremacy back in 1958). The ultimate solution is probably a "clarification" that leaves the doctrine intact, but hedges it about with so many caveats that it can never be employed. Such is the Catholic Way, and if the Orthodox are smart, they'll accept this sort of face-saving measure.

It is also important to look at what the Catholic Church does, in addition to what it says.

John-
I already quoted the catechism in this thread, but I can do it again:



In what way is this different from the Vatican I definition?

While we're looking at the Catechism, here is how the Catechism defines heresy:

Is Papal infallibility "some truth which must be believed", or is it not?

Every practicing Roman Catholic I know was taught that the Pope is infallible. Every Ukrainian Catholic I know was taught the same (in the Liturgy he's referred to as the Most Holy Universal Pontiff) Every Orthodox Christian I know believes that that is a core doctrine of our church. Yet all of us, RC's, EC's and Orthodox have supposedly gotten it wrong.

In other words, you want us to lie. We should unite based on a lie, so Rome can save face.

Artful ambiguity is at the heart of charity.

I think that sums it up nicely.

ES,

I will be away from my computer for the next week and I don't have time now to talk about this in depth. To address some points briefly:

1. No, they are not necessarily misleading, but they take place in a specific context. Most people are not interested in something - be it papal primacy or ὁμοούσιος - beyond the cathechism or liturgical statements. For those who are - and especially those who would object to them - I do expect that they would do a serious study of the subject. This includes a basic grasp of whatever secondary and primary sources they have available, and a willingness to consult other secondary and primary sources once they find them. This is merely a matter of fundamental academic discipline (which you automatically step into when you want to learn more).

For instance, the bit about "et non ex consensu Ecclesiae" explicitly addresses a Gallican claim and was formulated in that context. I hate to say this, but your dismissal of the need to understand Gallicanism makes me wonder if you really want to understand any of this.

2. In the case of Nicea, ὁμοούσιος has a specific meaning. Were one to complain about ὁμοούσιος, I would expect them to have AT LEAST a basic grasp of the primary sources and secondary sources which cover its previous usage in Greek philosophy, the historical context of the council, the council itself, the objections, the alternatives to the formulation, and at least some knowledge of its interpretation in subsequent history.

Knowing some of the things found in liturgical texts, as well as the things various ascetics have said about the Trinity in mystagogical texts would be good too (one of many examples I think of here is Abbot Vasilios Gondikakis' book Hymn of Entry).

If one didn't have that background, and only quoted, say, "The Orthodox Way" or "The Mystery of Faith"* in their objection to ὁμοούσιος, I would not take them seriously.

3. Some things are universally accepted. Other things have different interpreations. For instance, every monk on Mount Athos will affirm the Symbol of Faith. Every monk on Mount Athos will say "abortion is wrong" (it was interesting to see their enthusiasm for President Obama dim when I told them "Obama's position on abortion is as bad as PASOK's). That said, if I asked them about the policies Ecumenical Patriarch, I'd get a wide array of answers, some of which oppose each other. Likewise, if I asked them "should I be Catholic or Orthodox" I'd expect a certain answer from most them. But to that question, one of them - who took the time to talk with me in depth, understood my situation and understood some issues far better than anyone else who I met in my brief time there - suggested remain Catholic for reasons that are between me and him.

4. Finally, I will not provide extracts from these works. It would take too much time (which I don't have now) and it wouldn't be fair to the author. I have given you two citations, which I will do again:

Hermann Pottmeyer, "Recent Discussions on Primacy in Relation to Vatican II" in Cardinal Walter Kasper, ed. The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue (Paulist Press, New York, 2006), translated by the Pontifical Council for Promiting Christian Unity. [I don't know if this is available through Amazon, if not try Paulist Press itself or the Newman bookstore in Washington DC. This book also cites plenty of other books - most of which are not in English - and I'd expect anyone who seriously talks about Papal Primacy to at least have an understanding of those works]

For a "dummified" (i.e. short, unfootnoted and written for a general audience) version of this, try Hermann Pottmeyer, Towards a Papacy in Communion: Perspectives from Vatican I and II (Herder and Herder, New York, 1998). I got mine through Amazon.

I don't believe these are the last word on the subject, but they are good pointers to the world of scholarship on the subject and are "good enough" for me who does not have the resources to study this further.

Markos

* simply IMHO, I think those books are the best "catechisms" for the so-called "Byzantine" tradition of Christianity.

ES,

Firstly, your original post set up the whole thread for a discussion of only that quote from Vatican I.

Secondly, the quote from the current catechism does not include the sentence from your original quote: "Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable." If you look at the various documents since Vatican I the emphasis clearly changes from the idea of a pope doing whatever he pleases to a pope pronouncing a teaching that the Church has always believed (and speaking with and within the Church). One of the things you seem to be missing is that one must be very careful in examining church documents. You are most familiar with those of your own Church. Other Churches speak differently. And you surely know that one must sometimes read them with reference to the context of history. An American can pick up the current catechism or Bible and get a decent grasp on what it says. But in some cases he must study to understand the larger context. And in others one must look at later understandings to see how such a teaching was received or modified or understood by the larger Church.

You asked: Is Papal infallibility "some truth which must be believed", or is it not?

Yes. but that does not mean that one can look to a single quote from Vatican I as the end all of what the Church teaches. Look at ALL of what the Church teaches. And understand that individual Catholics can look at that teaching as horrible theology that needs another look while still accepting the essentials that the Successor of Peter has a special authority and even infallibility in the Church.

The root of infallibility - the pope speaking infallibly when he speaks with and for the Church - can be seen in history and in the Holy Scriptures. In Acts 15:7 Peter spoke and effectively ended the debate (showing authority) even though James had replaced him as the Bishop of Jerusalem (and was the host bishop of the council). In Matthew 16:18 the Lord did give the keys to Peter in a way in which he did not give it to all the apostles. How that translates into a specific understanding of authority and infallibility does not undermine that.

John and Markos- The whole point of this discussion is not whether Papal infallibility is true or not. As I've already said several times, I'm not here to evaluate the truth or falsity of that dogma. My question this whole time has been: Does it make sense for a Catholic, Eastern or Western, to deny Papal infallibility and at the same time remain in communion with Rome?

Since you admit that Papal infallibility is a "truth which must be believed," I am going to assume that your answer to this question is, "No, it does not make sense for someone who denies Papal infallibility to remain in communion with Rome." Am I correct?

Moreover, I am assuming you agree that someone who denies or obstinately doubts Papal infallibility must be, according to the definition of the Catechism, a heretic. Am I correct?

It entirely depends on how important you think the issue is. I happen to think it somewhere in the third or fourth tier of pressing issues faced by the Church, therefore, believing the entire matter is moot in any case, I simply ignore it.

That depends. I know Eastern Catholics who accept that authority and ministry of the Successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome as less then the Latin Church would like but far more than most Orthodox would accept. They hold such beliefs honestly. People are human and you can't force them into boxes.

No. Such is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Orthodox Christians reject papal infallibility. Yet the Catholic Church considers the level of communion with the Orthodox to be "profound". I would say such individuals (who totally reject infallibility) are wrong, and very likely have not fully considered the matter. But in any event only a bishop may declare heresy so the question is a moot one. [You're coming across as if you really want the Catholic Church to start declaring heretics everywhere.]

In the end, however, I've met people who reject the way the Latin Church has defined infallibility; which is rather different then a total rejection of infallibility. They can do so legitimately so long as they do not reject infallibility itself (and probably call for a better definition from the Church, one we see with a shift to an ecclesiology of inclusion rather then exclusion).

Off topic a bit, but not too much: Asian Pilgrim rightly reminded us to use the term "Sister Churches" correctly. In it's clarification [vatican.va] Rome made clear that "Sister Churches" applies not to Rome and (for example) and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured. Instead, it is applied between Particular Churches (i.e., Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem are all Sister Churches). [The term could also be applied in this way to even dioceses for where the bishop is there is the Church.] It made this clarification in part because it most certainly does consider the communion that we believe exists with Orthodoxy so profound that it is - with the Catholic Church (Rome) - mother and equally one, holy, catholic and apostolic. It believes this even though there are obvious issues keeping us from a common chalice and Catholics do not consider Orthodox to be heretics. Or, more simply put, Catholics do not believe that Orthodoxy is a separate Church despite the differences but rather one and the same despite the issues. Orthodox may believe differently (that's OK).