www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Papal infallibility

is there no infallibility in the Orthodox Church?

Clearly the Orthodox is infallible. It's teaching is true.

The question is not whether the Church, the Gospel, the Kerygma of the Magisterium of the Church is infallible, but how?

Well, if I'm right that it was 1976 and not 1987, then Professor Ratzinger's statement was very early on and does not reflect a statement by a Bishop or of the hierarchy of the Church. It was his view before he went to Rome or became a Bishop. His subsequent views would indicate he has matured in his thinking.

My interest in this discussion is more to rebut what I feel are inaccurate statements which seem to indicate that the teaching of the Catholic Church on the infallibility of the Pope is somehow open to question for Catholics.

It's a settled teaching in the Catholic Church. Eastern Catholics are called upon in Ad Tuendam Fidem (promulgated by Pope John Paul II and with a commentary probably written by Cardinal Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI) to embrace the teaching.

I am extremely curious as to why you should want to be more Catholic than the Pope, Dave. Is it not up to us Catholics to decide this, in conjunction with our bishops, who I think really don't need that much help from the Orthodox side. For your part, you should be doing all you can to impress upon the Catholics the Orthodox understanding of primacy (oh, wait--there isn't one!), or at least to work towards an Orthodox understanding of primacy, while we Greek Catholics work on defining our relationship with the Church of Rome ourselves.

Ratiznger's Graz Statement is repeated verbatim in Principles of Catholic Theology (1988), published in English by Ignatius Press.

No need to get personal, Stuart.

I think this Orthodox view of primacy [orthodoxwiki.org] to be well stated.

But, it did reflect the understanding of ecclesiology and doctrine of most Eastern Catholics at the time it was promulgated. According to the Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones [archive.org] issued by John Paul II at the promulgation of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in 1990:


More detailed information of the involvement of Eastern Catholics in the development of the text of the Eastern Code can read in English translation of the Latin Preface of the Code, which can be downloaded here. [megaupload.com]

The quote is, on its face, factually incorrect, an example of wishful thinking at best, disingenuous and prevaricative at worst. The fact that 90% of the CCEO is simply a restatement of the CC proves the point.

The very first paragraph indicates that no Orthodox consensus on primacy exists. Orthodox ecclesiology, as it presently stands, is unbalanced and fundamentally uncanonical, as Metropolitan John and some of the more objective Orthodox scholars freely admit. The current system of autocephalous national Churches has no patristic precedent and, in many instances, runs contrary to the understanding and praxis of the Church in the first millennium. It is this which creates the centrifugal forces that threaten to pull Orthodoxy to pieces, and which, ultimately, requires the return to some sort of universal primacy--a concept fully understood and freely recognized in the First Millennium, but which too many Orthodox today, influenced by a millennium of anti-Latin polemics on the one hand and the Latin Church's distorted understanding of primacy on the other, are unwilling to concede.

And it's not personal--you just seem to want the Catholics to be obdurate, which attitude I do not understand. Perhaps you are more wedded to the status quo than you care to admit?

I don't think John Paul II was being "disingenuous." This was the view of most of the Eastern Catholic Bishops at the time. The majority of them were content to adjust the Latin Code to the Eastern Church. The Preface (which can be downloaded above) makes it quite clear how involved Eastern Catholics were in the process.

There's been a lot of change since 1990. In 1990, very few Eastern Catholic Churches had Infant Communion. Most had the Filioque in the Creed. The only Eastern Catholic catechism of any note was Fr. Casimir Kucharek's Our Faith (published by Alleluia Press) which taught papal infallibility on pp. 174-175. Fr. Kucharek was a Ukrainian Catholic priest in Canada.

So, I don't think it's fair that some characterize the Eastern Code as "imposed" on the Eastern Catholics at that time.

Agreed. I said it was well stated. I did not say it is a complete answer. Still, I think it offers a good perspective and seems supportive of the need for primacy.

I fully admit that Orthodoxy has its problems.

I also think it is important to acknowledge where the Catholic Church is at this time. It is not ready to ditch papal infallibility.

And, Stuart, please stop making personal comments about me here on the Forum.

Stop telling Greek Catholics what they have to believe, and we'll be even.

My Church has a Patriarch, the Pope knows where he lives, and if he has problems with what my Patriarch says, I am sure His Holiness will inform His Beatitude about it. In the meanwhile, I will stand with my Patriarch.

When you are asked to pick a horse and given Hobson's Choice, is the horse imposed or not? I suppose it depends on how badly you need the horse. But I have spoken to many Greek Catholic bishops, priests, theologians and academics in the past thirteen years, and all of them say more or less the same thing: the CCEO was imposed on the Eastern Churches, their input was minimal, and it is a Western document whose very spirit is antithetical to the Tradition of the Christian East.

My apologies if it seemed I was saying what Greek Catholics have to believe.

My point was to bring up what Rome has to say about what Eastern Catholics should believe in these documents since Vatican II:

1) The 1997 Letter to the Melkite Patriarch on the Zoghby Initiative

2) Ad Tuendam Fidem

3) The Eastern Code of Canons

I think the documents I cited above would show a different perspective at that time.


Agreed.