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

The link that is "nebulous" is entitled Orthodox Unity:Supporting the Dialogue between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. It says nothing of Rome, and so the question remains: "What is different in the stated positions between Rome, and Alexandria and Antioch?"

Pretty much nothing. Everybody is on the same sheet of music regarding Christology (hence my statement above about the possibility of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox both being in communion with the Oriental Orthodox but not each other). The Catholic dialogue with the Church of the East is much further along than that between the Orthodox and the Assyrians, but the Christological statement between the Assyrians and Rome is quite similar to that between Rome and the Orientals.

Quit the irony. And if so, i.e if C and OO, and EO and OO are in communion, then should it not imply that ...

I'm moving this discussion over to the "Miaphysitism" thread. I hope no one minds.

Dearest Father Ambrose,

As a Copt, I'm rather offended by your presentation of this. The Christological Agreement between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church (indeed, with all the individual OOC's) was based on a humble recognition of each other's mistakes. There was misunderstanding from both sides. You make it seem like it was all Rome's fault. I was not yet in communion with Rome when these Agreements came to pass, and I can assure you that the Copts did not approach the matter with a triumphalistic attitude.

Humbly,
Marduk

Rome was hardly a factor at all in the schism of the Coptic and Chalcedonian Churches. Egypt's relations were mainly with Constantinople, and the separation was due principally to political and cultural differences between the Imperial regime in Constantinople and Coptic majority in Egypt.

Thank you, brother. That's standard history among Copts.

Blessings

Dear brother Apotheoun,

For an Eastern, you have a very Latin understanding of the papacy. As far as the Code of Canons, though they were promulgated with papal authority, both the 1917 and 1983 Codes were initiated and formulated collegially. Episcopal requests for a standardized Code had been around since the Council of Trent. The fact is, the Pope has never done anything independently of or singularly in the Church. He has always done things in response to the needs of the Church and in a collegial manner. To paint the papacy otherwise is fearmongering, IMHO.

TBH, I don't believe I am "reinterpreting" Vatican I. I'm taking its teaching literally and, more importantly, contextually. Naysayers of the papacy think they are taking its teaching literally, but that is only because they focus on little snippets of the Vatican 1 Decree, without taking the history, the context, nor the background comments of the Fathers into account.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually the Copts maintained and continue to maintain that they had principled and valid theological (not semantic or political) reasons for rejecting Chalcedon. This article [britishorthodox.org] is a good summary of their position.

Essentially, vatican I establishes that the pope may promulgate dogma without convening a council. It doesn't (at least not anywhere credible I've seen) permit the pope to do so without collegial agreement. It's just that no longer does a formal council need to be called once the Pope has gotten feedback from the other bishops.

It also says that the Pope can't make errors in matters of morality and doctrine when speaking ex cathedra... essentially, when functioning as the supreme teacher. Not every doctrinal discussion by a pope is ex cathedra, therefore not every doctrinal discussion is infallible.

Is Lumen Gentium a credible source?

From Lumen Gentium (paraphrasing Vatican I):

Dear brother ES,

The theological basis notwithstanding (and a given, besides), Copts generally view the hardening of hearts as a direct result of Constantinople's imperial imposition of a parallel hierarchy in Alexandria, with the concurrent and subsequent persecution of the non-Chalcedonians.

Blessings

Dear brother ES,

You should pay attention to the rest of that quote from LG, as well as the context:
"The infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as the deposit of divine revelation, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. This is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith...For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person."

So we see that a decree ex cathedra is not a monarchial exercise, but gives heed to the Church past and present (Sacred Tradition and his brother bishops). It seems you think that the charism of infallibility is the charism of omniscience or the charism of inspiration. If papal infallibility was indeed omniscience or inspiration (whereby the Pope does not pragmatically nor theologically require the input of the Church), then I can understand your position. But since it is not, I am very puzzled as to the basis for your objection.

You should read the Apostolic Constitutions on the dogmas of the IC and the Assumption. It clearly details that the decrees were made in response to the requests of the rest of the Church. Requests for the definition of the IC existed for several centuries, and were especially numerous during the pontificate of Pio Nono's predecessor, Pope Gregory XVI. Requests for a solemn definition of the Assumption were initiated when the dogma of the IC was promulgated. So the Pope, despite the misrepresentation of non-Catholics, did not promulgate these dogmas simply on his whimsical fancy. I've read polemicists claim that the dogma of the Assumption was promulgated by the Pope simply to show that he could do it. If he was truly trying to establish a dictatorial/monarchial prerogative, he would certainly not have related in the Apostolic Constitution the facts that (1) he was acting in response to the intiatives of the Church, and (2) he requested the feedback of his brother bishops before making the decree.

This notion of papal infallibility as a purely monarchial exercise of the papal prerogative is a fantastic caricature that has no basis in fact or theology.

Blessings,
Marduk

But given the Tridentine ecclesiology of the time, this meant, effectively, the requests of just one particular Church, for in truth the Catholic Church and the Church of Rome were considered coterminous.

Today, under the ecclesiology of communion, the Catholic Church itself consists of twenty-odd particular Churches, and the assent of all would be needed to make an ex Cathedra decree. Given the extent to which Vatican II stressed the legitimacy and authenticity of the Eastern Traditions, as well as the greater self-confidence of the Eastern Catholic Churches secure in their ecclesial status, such assent would be difficult if not impossible to obtain. If, as Rome has been doing for some time, the concerns of the other Eastern Churches are also taken into consideration, then as a practical matter, it is impossible to obtain the assent needed for any ex Cathedra decree. Ergo, as I have repeatedly asserted, the entire matter is moot. One might as well talk about the ability of the Pope to place the United States under the interdict, as to talk about infallibility as though it were a substantive issue.

My point is not to say that the Pope can merely formulate dogma on a whim- he is supposedly speaking for the entire Church, guided by the deposit of Revelation, and the working of the Holy Spirit should constrain him from inserting his personal idiosyncrasies into the process, if the dogma were true. [i]That is precisely why he does not need to consult with the Church when exercising his infallibility[/i]. As the "Pastor of all Christians", he can in fact formulate dogma, by the authority vested in the Church, without consultation with other bishops or convocation of a council- "without the approval of others". That is what the definition plainly states. If anything, the Vatican II view made it stronger. In practice, the Popes who chose to exercise infallibility did in fact prudently consult with the Church, but this does not alter the fact that Papal infallibility does not [i]require[/i] such a consultation.

The Catholic encyclopedia, expanding on the official definitions of the dogma, gives the following conditions for an exercise of Papal infallibility:

[quote]# what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
# the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible. infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

* The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
* Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
* Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
* Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible. [/quote]

Among these conditions, nothing about consulting with the rest of the Church is mentioned. In fact, "his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible."