www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Infallibility and Reception

Leo did not attend Chalcedon, but was represented by his legates. They came to the Council with Leo's demand that the Tomos be adopted as written, by acclamation, and without debate. The Council demurred, insisted that the Tomos be read and debated in light of the Christology of St. Cyril the Great, and made significant alterations to Leo's Christological formula before using it as the basis for the hypostatic union of Chalcedon.

Again, from the perspective of a Latin canonist, it is canonically necessary for a council to receive the approval of the See of Rome to be ecumenical (there are a number of a priori conditions as well). In reality, the Latin Church had very little to do with the Seven Councils except for Chalcedon, and it is apparent that it understood very little of the debates going on at the time. Rome, for instance, was strongly wedded to the "paleo-Nicene" theology of the First Council of Nicaea, and neither understood or accepted the "Cappodocian" or "neo-Nicene" theology of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nanzianzen that was adopted at the First Council of Constantinople. It was not until the Council of Ephesus, fifty years later, that Rome accepted the canons of the Council of Constantinople, including the Symbol of Faith that we know today as the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople.

Rome's involvement in and concern with the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils was even more limited, and of even less interest to the Western Church. For the West, Christology pretty much stops with Chalcedon--the later Councils are not really part of the Western consciousness. As for the Seventh Council, Pope Benedict himself has written that the Western Church never understood or fully accepted the deeper Christological arguments for Sacred Images as developed by St. John Damascene and St. Theodore Studites, and promulgated by the Council in 787.

Rome effectively "baptized" the first seven Councils after the fact, because, even absent formal Papal approval, it did enter their canons into its own canonical lists, and it did receive their teachings, no matter how partially or imperfectly. Subsequent councils either received some sort of Papal sanction, or simply did not involve the Eastern Churches at all (and thus are not really ecumenical), but from a legalistic Roman perspective a council isn't legit unless it receives the approval of the Church of Rome.

From an Eastern perspective, no council is legitimately ecumenical unless it is received by all the Great Churches, either explicitly or implicitly.

Marduk,

I was referring to this quote that happened much earlier in the thread. I believe it was posted by ByzBob.


For some reason, I thought there were others, but this was the only one I could readily find (unless I am confusing what I saw here with another thread, which could very well be the case. :-) ) I will see if I can find any others.

Thanks, and blessings to you.

-Scott

That is also what Pius II decreed in Execrabilis.

As far as Bishop Gasser Official Relatio is concerned, he indicated quite clearly that the pope was not required to consult the other bishops prior to issuing a decree, and that the consent of the Church could not be laid down as a condition - "either antecedent or consequent" - for a papal decree to be considered infallible.

It is fairly evident to me that the Eastern Orthodox will never accept Pastor Aeternus as a valid representation of the orthodox faith of the Church. Vatican I leads to a dead end.

the word "required" is the operative word, and as mardukm has been taking great pains to explain, the pope simply has not and cannot act apart from the Church. there is simply no one taking the absolutist petrine view.
You're tilting at windmills yet again, apotheoun.
as i mentioned to Michael, a reading of Father Pottmeyer would help a lot.

Not at all, I was just stating a fact in connection with the erroneous theory of papal infallibility that was promoted at Vatican I.

I think that the Ravenna Document, in spite of its many shortcomings, gives a better account of the nature of the Church's faith.

Except that it's not a "theory", it is a Catholic belief, not optional. To do so is to dissent from the Church and puts one's soul in peril. You are nit the arbiter if doctrines and dogmas, the Church is. As a Catholic, this is what the Church holds.

As I keep pointing out, the average Catholic does not view it this way because it is never presented as such. Yes, there is an understanding that the Pope cannot make things up nor can he change dogmas that have already been defined. However, I have yet to find a Catechism or anything other work that clearly states the Pope must consult other bishops before speaking ex cathedra. Also, when I came into the Church in the Diocese of Lincoln, no one ever explained the doctrine of papal infallibility in this way, i.e. that the Holy Father must consult bishops before speaking infallibly, and Lincoln was, and is, the most conservative/orthodox Latin Catholic Diocese in the United States.

I really believe that the perception of the doctrine and how it is explained to the Faithful has a great deal to do with reception of that doctrine in the Church.

Peace,
Scott

On a personal note, I just want to add that this discussion has been very helpful for me. As a relatively new Eastern Catholic, I am trying to find our place in the Church. It seems so often that we are just seen as appendages of the Latin Church and not really allowed to express the Faith of the Church in our own language. There seems to be much confusion about all of this, so I am happy to find discussions like this, which help me grapple with these various issues. Thank you every one.

It was mentioned earlier that the Code of Canon Law for Eastern Catholics states the doctrine of Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility. However, it is my understanding that almost all Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, Bishops, and others have repudiated the Eastern Code of Canon Law, so once again, it appears that there is much confusion on how the Faith is expressed by Eastern Catholics.

As I pointed out on another thread, Rome has allowed Eastern Catholics to maintain teachings of the ancient Church, e.g. on the procession of the Spirit in the Trinity and Purgatory, so it seems that there is precedence for Rome to allow Eastern Catholics to continue in that same vein with other doctrines.

Just a couple of thoughts as I continue to struggle with these issues. Thank you for your patience.

Many blessings,
Scott

Not so much repudiated it as pointed out it is a Western document imposed upon the Eastern Churches, and not something consistent with the Eastern Christian conception of what canons are and how they should be applied. As such, the consensus seems to be they need extensive reworking and need to be applied with discernment and oikonomia.

This article might be helpful in contextualizing Bishop Gasser's statements:

Pastor Aeternus in Perspective [docs.google.com]

See the bottom of page 9. “Likewise an infallible statement always implies the ‘consent of the church,’ even if the Pope does not obtain this consent either a prior or a posterior.”
The footnote explains:
“The argument runs roughly like this: the ‘consent of the Church is never lacking from the Pope’ because the pope is infallible, and the body of bishops could not be separate from its head, and the whole church could not fail since the Holy Spirit is guiding it. ‘For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touches upon religion…’”

So the Pope is not required to poll the bishops prior to rendering an ex cathedra statement – their agreement is assumed.

I don't mean to be rude, but isn't that a circular argument? It doesn't resolve anything in my mind.

It is precisely the assumption of consent that I reject. I hold instead that the consent of all the patriarchal Churches is necessary for a decree to be God-inspired, and this consent is made evident in the reception of the decree into the life and worship of the local Churches. Moreover, bishop Gasser asserts in his Relatio, whether supporters of Vatican I want to admit it or not, that the consent of the Church (and her bishops) is unnecessary in connection with papal definitions.

"The Pope always speaks for the Church, therefore when the Pope speaks, he speaks for the Church"

A tautology only a Latin could love. Literally.