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

Dear brother Theophan,

I hope you don't mind my input.

The Vatican Council was formally opened in December, 1869.

The papal Dogmas were not on the original agenda, and there was no intention to define papal infallibility. It was a question proposed by only less than a handful of bishops charged with making preparations for the Council. A rumor somehow leaked out, and the press blew it out of proportion.

The papal Dogmas were only added in March, 1870, after several governments, due to all the rumors, had threatened to interfere with the Council because of fear that papal infallibility would be defined to include the Pope's deposing power. This is notwithstanding the world-wide editorial battles between and among Catholic, non-Catholic, and secular periodicals on the topic since even before the Council began, a topic that had not even yet been placed on the agenda.

Thus, as a response to the rumors that were agitating the entire world, the Pope was forced to add it to the agenda. Even then, it was not at the top of the list. But when rumors of war threatened, the Pope was again forced to revise the agenda and placed the proposed papal dogmas at the head of the list.

This is an extremely summarized version of the events. I wrote a rather lengthy essay on it at CAF giving all the details (with dates, the Council agenda list, quotes, etc.). I'll try to find that and place the text here, or a link (which one do you think would be advisable?).

Blessings,
Marduk

Q: Do you then equate the question of who Peter is with the question of who Jesus of Nazareth is? The early councils were concerned with the burning question of what it meant that He become one of us, and the soterological implications of that union. "What is not assumed is not healed." Vatican One's concern in Pastor Aeternus is who Peter, or rather his successor, is. Therefore, I submit we are not on equal ground in comparing the 1870 council with the early Christological based councils.

Bob,

the point was that Stuart made his case that papal infallibility
The fact is that both Chalcedon and Ephesus did damage to the cause of Christian unity due to the schisms that occured becuase of these councils.
I was pointing out the flimsy logic of his argument because they can equally be applied to these cases as well.

Actually, they can't. The schisms resulting from both Ephesus and Chalcedon were the result not of substantive differences, but from a combination of terminological misunderstandings and secular issues (e.g., the desire of Alexandria to dominate Antioch, and then the desire of Constantinople to dominate Alexandria). Not did any divisions result immediately after these Councils--historical investigation shows the process of separation in both cases took decades, even centuries; in the case of the Orientals, it was the Muslim Conquest, and not theological issues, which caused Constantinople to cease working towards a solution acceptable to all. Similarly, that the Church of the East was largely within the boundaries of the Persian Empire made further rapprochement with Constantinople difficult.

Also, the issue under discussion at both Ephesus and Chalcedon (as well as the remaining three Councils) were fundamentally theological. The issue at stake at Vatican I was, at most, ecclesiological, and more likely, a simple matter of Church governance. In other words, Vatican I dealt with issues of a tertiary nature, not at all related to the core of the faith. And, while the matters of Ephesus and Chalcedon involved the whole Church, those of Vatican I merely encompassed the Church of Rome, which did not at all consider the viewpoints or opinions of any other Churches because, well, because Rome did not think any other Churches existed. Yes, the so-called "universal Church" was certainly one of the most provincial and solipsistic in history, and in its arrogance simply assumed that what it decided, unilaterally, was correct, just had to be correct for everyone, everywhere, and at all times.

Yet Vatican I was nothing less than wholesale innovation, unless one chooses to ignore one and a half millennia of Church history--which Latin apologists have been known to do, from time to time.

So, to both the Latin and the Oriental interventions, I say, "non placet".

I find your point of view most puzzling. Why be in communion, or even in union, with such an ecclesiastical body that has so solipsistically distorted scripture and the Tradition of the true Church? Sounds like the Anti-Christ that Rev. Paisley and others like him have been ranting about for years. I think you have a chip on your shoulder, brother Stuart. I always thought ecclesiology was, at least, deeply rooted in Christology and ultimately most theological rather than a simple matter of Church governance and discipline.

Because family is family, even if we don't agree with everything every family member says or believes. Every southern family at least, has one dotty aunt who thinks she's Queen Victoria, or an uncle who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt. Some might shun them, but we just ignore their eccentricities and appreciate them for who they are.

In the case of the Bishop of Rome, he makes certain claims which are not central to the faith, and have no bearing thereon. They do not rise to anything worth the severing of communion, and besides, the primacy rightly belongs to the Church of Rome. Our jobs, as Eastern Catholics, is to help him rediscover precisely what that term means.

Also, and not to press the point, the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves are not without fault. Looking for the perfect Church? Be prepared for perpetual disappointment.

Be that as it may, the Bishops of Rome have made those claims for a long, long time. They have been exaggerated at times, but for the most part refined and developed. What is more the churches in union with Rome have affirmed those prerogatives in councils, whether one considers them ecumenical or not. "Pastor Aeternus", the decree at issue, was refined and put in perspective by "Lumen Gentium" at Vat II with a large number of our Eastern Catholic bishops present and assenting. I'm not looking for the perfect Church, just a more Catholic one that breathes a little more deeply and efficiently with two lungs. I just find your point of view a little pinched, and in need of some oxygen.

Yes, the popes have made those claims for a long time, and for an equally long time those claims have been rejected by the Eastern Churches.

I'm breathing just fine, nothing pinched at all. I desire what the Catholic Church claims it desired--a Church that achieves unity in the Holy Spirit based on the normative ecclesiology of the first millennium. Nothing more, nothing less.

If that means the Papacy must change, so be it. The Papacy is a ministry of service to the Church, not the other way around, so if the Papacy becomes a stumbling block to unity, it must redefine itself in a manner that does not.

As for the Orthodox Churches, their ecclesiology is equally uncanonical, and in need of dire reform (as the more honest among Orthodox theologians will concede). At the end of the day, both sides will find it necessary to abandon some of their most deeply held presumptions and perquisites, so that all might be one, as God and the Father are One.

Not the Eastern Churches in union with Rome! Tell me you want documentation,and I'll refer you to brother Marduk. I think your opinion and that of Stuart are very much your own, and do not reflect the views of the churches to which you belong.

That begs the question. The normative ecclesiology of the first millennium is precisely the issue. What was it? You seem to dismiss Rome's point of view as hubris. I find that disingenuous.

History is what it is. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his own facts. An objective look at the facts shows the Papacy as it exists today is largely a creation of the Gregorian reforms of the 11th century, which represented a distinct break with the Tradition that had governed the Church through the first millennium. Just as there arose a pharaoh who knew not Joseph, so there arose Popes who knew not the East and its ways, considered them alien and heretical wherever they diverged from Roman practice, and which had the muscle to get its way. The history of the second millennium is the history of the Roman Church going off in one direction by itself, and the Orthodox Churches going off in another direction by itself. Absent communion with each other, each developed exaggerations and distortions of the authentic Tradition; only the reestablishment of communion on the basis of status quo ante will heal them. The settlement of the Second Photian Council is a good place to start.

I like this approach very much. I think it reflects very well the way the Church has always handled things.


Stuart, could you please give some supporting books, documents, links for this? I have some Orthodox friends of various jurisdictions (especially ROCOR), who refuse to accept any claims that the Orthodox have an ecclesiology that is uncanonical. My instinct tells me that you are correct, but I would like to know more because right now, all I have is their word against yours. I'd like to read more so I can speak intelligently about this. I really would appreciate any help you could offer. Thanks.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Marduk,

Thank you. Yes, I have been tracking all the discussions, and it seems to be one big circle most of the time. However, you still have not answered the quotes that were given earlier from various Fathers of Vatican I that refute your position about that council and how to understand the Decree. There seem to have been Council Fathers, who do not support the position you offer and say the opposite of what you say. I would like to hear your thoughts on those, please.

Peace,
Scott

Marduk,

Thank you for this answer and for referring me to this.

I think there is one correction that needs to be made in what you wrote above:


If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church teaches that an Ecumenical Council has no authority whatsoever by itself. In other words, the bishops of the Church cannot gather in an Ecumenical Council without the approval of the Bishop of Rome.


I agree with how you have chosen to frame the issue; however, it still does not answer the question I have about the practical relationship between the three ways in which infallibility is expressed in the Church. It still seems to me that any gathering of bishops is now seen merely as an advisory board to the Pope because they cannot decide anything without his approbation. Even if a majority of bishops passed something at an ecumenical council, the Holy Father still holds the supreme veto power, so an ecumenical council seems pointless these days from the perspective of the Latin Church. Plus, the decrees of the councils are promulgated by the Pope and not by the Council itself, so basically, the Council appears to be a mere advisory board to the Pope and not a body that has any authority on its own.

Now, I recognize that an Ecumenical Council would not be complete without the participation of its president, but it would also not be complete without any of the other patriarchs of the pentarchy. It would seem ludicrous to call an Ecumenical Council to which the Patriarch of Alexandria was not a part, for example. In that respect, I understand the need for the participation of the Bishop of Rome.

I don't mean to be difficult, but in the midst of this entire discussion, none of this is clear to me. I am beginning to think that no one really has a clear understanding of it, which is why no one can explain it to me. Perhaps, the fault is not mine; however, I will continue to try to grasp this all as best I can. I appreciate your patience as well as that of everyone else. Please pray for me.

Peace and blessings,
Scott