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

Stuart K wrote,"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."

I wish I knew how to create those quote boxes that you all use. It would make responding easier for this old man. In any case, Stuart, I agree that history is what it is, but it is also true that the facts of history are open to interpretation. For some reason you seem to treat Rome's interpretation of those facts as something alien and sinister, and outside the apostolic Tradition. One could say that every institution in the world today is the creation of some reform, but that does not negate the continuum of history that I feel gives meaning to it all and keeps me, at least, from a cynicism that I find destructive. It is your interpretation of the facts that leads you to believe that the Gregorian reforms represented a distinct break with the Tradition, rather than the objective look at the facts that you seem to feel you have, even though the 11th century is much, much closer to the first millennium than our 21st. I think one can assume Hildebrand had his facts too.

Marduk:

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

Now this is what I was asking about. If we take a look at the what and the why of this, we may get beyond the polemics. My understanding is that Vatican I was not complete because it ended before the issue of infallibility was fully defined--to include the Church as a whole and the episcopate as a whole. So it seems to be as things are today--the press gets hold of an issue, strives for sensational spins to sell papers, and now we end with something far removed from what was intended. In addition, we have something set in concrete because it is an ecumenical council with all that that implies.

Let me know if you have a place I can access your essay.

Bob

You say this now, in the 21st century after many many centuries have passed and there have been new opportunities to understand each other with ecumenical efforts.
If you had lived 150 years after these councils (which is where we are now compared to Vatican I), you wouldn't have been saying that at all.

The clarity of time allows you to make this observation. perhaps given a millenium, you will come to the same conclusion about infallibility, that it was present all the time, and you are just looking at the whole thing from the wrong perspective.

One hundred and fifty years after Chalcedon (about AD 600), nobody thought there would be an irrevocable split between the Cyrilians and the Chalcedonians. The Emperor Heraclius was still working towards a reconciliation. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680) was still eighty years in the future, and represented yet another attempt to find a Christological formula acceptable to all parties. (See Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought for the most comprehensive coverage of the Christological synthesis).

However, with Byzantium entering into its "Dark Ages", and the Near East under Muslim control, all such efforts were doomed. Out of the need for survival, the Empire turned inward, becoming stronger by becoming exclusively "Greek", while the Orientals were encouraged to maintain their separation from Constantinople by their Muslim overlords (something similar happened with regard to the Church of the East, which was first under Persian, then under Muslim domination).

One cannot disentangle the Church from the secular politics of the era, because Church and state were not considered to be separate entities, but integral elements of a single unified civilization. The centralizing impulse of Constantinople, like the centralizing impulse of the second millennium Papacy, had the effect of alienating those on the periphery of its orbit, and gave a theological coloration to disputes whose root causes were political and cultural, not spiritual.

Agreed. However, past a certain point the agreed facts of history will not support certain arguments.


Rome changed. By itself. In isolation. And then tried to tell the rest of the Church that it, too, should change. The Christian East did not change (or, to be more precise, its changes did not represent radical discontinuities with the past), nor did it demand that the West imitate its changes. To say that the Papacy in 1100 was the same institution it was in 600 is simply to deny the facts--in the same way as saying that the Orthodox Church today is the same institution it was ca. AD 600.

What happened after that date was the collapse of the homogeneous Mediterranean culture in which the Church had developed; the rise of the Muslim empire, the loss of Christian Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia; the disruption of East-West communications (including the loss of bilingualism, which made what communications still existed more difficult to comprehend), and the gradual estrangement of the two halves of the Catholic Orthodox Church.

In the East, where the imperial administration remained intact, the structures of the Church likewise remained intact. In the West, the collapse of central secular authority and the breakup of the Empire into small successor states, required the Church to take on a secular role (including direct secular rule of extensive territories), which fundamentally changes its self-image and its structures. These changes caused the Western Church to begin viewing itself as the normative Church, whose practices and beliefs were the fullest, most perfect expression of the Christian faith. The Papacy saw itself as being not merely the first See among many, but over and above all Sees.

Not surprising, when one considers that the Gregorian popes came out of the Cluniac monastic movement, that they saw the Church as a gigantic monastery, and with themselves as the abbot. To say that this did not represent a total discontinuity with the Papacy as it was known from Gregory the Great down to John VIII (the last first millennium Pope before the entire Church of Rome imploded in decadence). For them, the Church was a communion of Churches. For the Popes of the 11th century, the Church of Rome was the Church. A look at the Dictatus Papae of Gregory VII Hildebrand neatly sums up their view of papal prerogatives--and it's something quite different from Gregory I's self-effacing claim to be nothing more than Servum servorum Dei.

Dear brother Stuart,

Are you sure about that? I have very often heard Easterns insist that the Westerns are heterodox in their belief in the simplicity of God. And there are many Easterns who, in misunderstanding the theology behind filioque, insist that the Westerns are heretics. And what about Eastern condemnations of the "Western" doctrines of Atonement and the Justice of God?

Everyone is guilty of trying to impose. We need to get beyond that and try to unite through understanding. This is my goal and my prayer.

Blessings

One hears lots of things, and they are frequently wrong. This is wrong on two counts: first, it's reductionist to say the West believes in the simplicity of God; second, no Orthodox synod, let alone an ecumenical synod, has ever denounced and anathematized Western theology.


There have been times when the Western doctrine of the Filioque has been interpreted in the West in a manner that verges on heresy, just as there were those who interpreted the Chalcedonian formula in a manner that was explicitly di-physite. But the principal Orthodox objection to the Filioque was the unilateral changing of the Symbol of Faith erected by an Ecumenical Council, which only an Ecumenical Council could change-- and in this and the entire matter of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the West pretty much conceded the field to the East more than a decade ago.


Once again, the writings of individual Orthodox theologians have no more binding effect than the writings of individual Catholic theologians. No formal Orthodox synod has ever condemned any of these. Which places your examples on an entirely different plane from the Latin Church holding a general synod, deciding that a whole range of definitions and usages specific to the Latin Church are "dogmas", and then declaring that anyone who denies them is outside of the Church of God and subject to formal theological sanction.

To use an analogy, it's one thing if an individual Congressman or Senator goes out and condemns something or someone, and quite another if the entire Congress passes a law, signed into law by the President, doing the same thing. The former is an opinion, the latter has the binding force of law.

Dear brother Byzbob,

If he wanted to extend it making the lame walk, then what he got was certainly a very long way from what he really wanted.

There's a difference between being concerned with the other members of the body, on the one hand, and using concern as a pretense to criticize that other part of the body, on the other.

Yes, the Traditionalists generally have an Absolutist Petrine view of V1 that forced them to oppose V2. But in actuality, V1 was an incomplete Council, and it was V2 that completed it. The seeds of collegiality were already well-established at V1. As even you have so expertly made manifest , Pio Nono did not get everything he wanted from V1 - that demonstrates collegiality, not absolute monarchy.

No. The definition on papal infallibility was circumscribed completely by the belief in the infallibility of the Church. If you study orthodox Catholic manuals on the Church's teaching on papal infallibility, instead of your liberal sources, perhaps that would be more clear.

You can't even respond to my query - show us from the Canons of Sardica where the Church accepted another authority after appeal to the bishop of Rome - and you think V1 expressed a misunderstanding of the Primacy?

Ahhh! So you admit (in a roundabout way) that the verse on the keys is not contained in the Decree on Infallibility. And now, you wish to mitigate your statement by claiming there is actually no distinction between the Decree on Primacy and the Decree on infallibility. Yet, would you agree that there is a distinction between moral/doctrinal teaching and Church discipline? Would you agree that there is a distinction - nay, a difference - between ecclesiastical law, which can change according to the circumstances of the times, and Divine law, which is irrevocable? If you can accept these distinctions, why is it so hard for you to accept a distinction between the Decree on Primacy and the Decree on Infallibility?

Why or how? One was a pastoral from a whole Synod of bishops, a pastoral approved by the Pope himself! Another was from the official interpretation of Bishop Gasser. And over these, you prefer liberal sources?

I am, but the problem here is that you insist on focusing on the text of the definition only, while I keep directing you to the text of the entire Decree. I am directing you to portions of the text that explain how the definition within the Decree should be understood. But for some reason, it seems you would rather agree with the Absolutist Petrine advocates. The quotes I gave agree with the text of the entire Decree, not your personal interpretation obtained through a rather legalistic focus on the few lines of the definition.

It's strange that within the Decree on Infallibility, you absolutely refuse to consider any text beyond the few sentences of the definition, yet to support your eisegetic interpretation, you depend on texts from outside the Decree itself ((namely, on texts from the Decree on the Primacy). It seems what you have done is simply cut and pasted from different sources, and created your own caricature of the papacy to rail against. That's called a straw man, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

The Eastern phronema on ecclesiology is distinctly bottom-up, even more so than the Oriental understanding, so I am not convinced with your statements. Until I read of at least one Eastern Orthodox Synod declare that the West is orthodox in all these matters, there is a very real danger that these theological opinions (which are too often readily expressed by EO) will become standardized (if not dogmatized) in the Eastern mindset.

Regarding the filioque, I disagree with you. I certainly cannot speak for the Easterns of today, but I have read enough (St. Photius' Mystagogy, the Synod of Blarchanae, St. Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus' letter against the union) to know that the objection by the Eastern Fathers was not the mere addition of the text, but their belief that the addition was a change in the Faith. There are way too many Eastern and Oriental Orthodox who still view it in that Traditional sense, and way too many who still view filioque as heretical. As stated, until I read of a Synodal admission of the orthodoxy of the Westerns on these matters.....

But I think we're going beyond the topic here, so that is all I will say.

Blessings,
Marduk

Really? He invited the Orthodox to the Council as full deliberative members. But they refused.

I agree that the Absolutist Petrine perspective is a wholesale innovation.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Scott,

Forgive me, but can you please point out those quotes? I may have missed them.

Blessings

Actually, an Ecumenical Council is authoritative by itself. Please forgive me if this comes across as insulting, but I can't put it any other way. I know a lot of Easterns who make this same objection - namely, an Ecumenical Council has no authority without the approval of the bishop of Rome. I think such Easterns are guilty of doing the same thing that the Absolutist Petrine advocates in the Latin Church are doing - separating the head from the body. Coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, I can't conceive of a body without a head. There is no point in speaking of a Council, unless one understands that a Council is composed of the body and the head together. In a Council, ecumenical or otherwise, the head and body are one entity. They always work together, not apart. Separating the head from the body is a feature of the Absolutist Petrine perspective; separating the body from the head is a feature of the Low Petrine perspective. The High Petrine perspective (the position I advocate as an Oriental and a Catholic) never ever separates the two.

I've read Absolutist Petrine advocates (mostly from the Latin Catholic Church) argue, "Pope St. Leo approved the acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and therefore the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council." I've read Low Petrine advocates (mostly from the Eastern Orthodox Church) argue, "the Council Fathers had to approve the Tome of Leo therefore the Council is above the Pope." They're both wrong. The Pope was one of the Council Fathers, in fact its head, and together with the rest of Fathers, made a ruling for the Church.

In any case, the canons of both the West and East/Orient do not make such a distinction between the Ecumenical Council and the Pope. They speak of an Ecumenical Council as one of the wielders of Supreme authority in the Church.

There's nothing novel about that. Every head bishop has that prerogative (a Metropolitan is the only one who can convene a Metropolitan Synod; a Patriarch is the only one who can convene a Patriarchal Synod, etc.). Ecumenical Councils used to called by the Secular power during caeseropapistic times. That's no longer the case. Who else has the prerogative to call together an Ecumenical Council? Who would you suggest?

There seems to be an unjustified Romophobia in a lot of discussions such as these. Apostolic Canon 34/35 states that any body of bishops cannot act without the consent of its protos. For the life of me, I cannot understand why if one replaces "protos" with "Pope," it all of a sudden becomes an issue of control and tyranny.??????? Where's the logic in that??? It appears you hold that position. Can you please explain (if you do not hold that position, please forgive me for assuming so)?

With regards to the three ways that the infallibility of the Church is exercised, I see it as a matter of practicability. The Church will utilize the form that is necessitated by the circumstances. It may be that the Pope will never again utilize the infallibility of the Church in a special way. But Scripture assures us that there will come a time of tribulation that the Church has never known. It is certainly possible that there will be a situation when the bishops of the Church are prevented from coming together in Council, or that a majority of bishops are prevented from even communicating to the rest of the Church their own judgments. Can we believe that the Church will be befeft of the guidance that Christ promised his Church just because of such circumstances? Christ stated that he would set one servant to feed his entire household in Matthew 24, and predicted that when He returns, this servant would still be there. St. John Chrysostom interpreted these passages to refer to Peter and the bishops of Rome. I cannot disagree.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Theophan,

I have not yet had the time to look for it. I should have it by this weekend however.

I just wanted to post this to let you know that amidst all my responses, I did not fail to see your own.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, from a Latin perspective, the Pope is superior to an ecumenical council. At least that is what the Council of Florence concluded and decreed. That, of course, was a contradiction of the Council of Constance, which concluded precisely the opposite: that an ecumenical council was superior to the Pope. The conciliarst Council of Basle was attempting to implement the rulings of the Council of Constance, and was opposed by Eugenius IV and the papal party, that moved the Council to more friendly territory in Florence.

Contrary to what most of us probably believe, the Council of Florence was not a "reunion council", but focused principally on the conflict between the Papacy and the conciliarists. When the Byzantines approach Pope Eugenius about reunion (a necessary condition for Western military assistance against the Ottomans), the subject was added to the agenda but never dominated it. In fact, the Papal party was glad to take it on mainly because it gave an air of legitimacy to the Council of Florence as opposed to the Council of Basle, and because the submission of the Byzantines would enhance the prestige of the Papacy and give credence to its claims of papal supremacy.

In the end, the Papacy, and the Papacy alone, achieved its principal objectives from the Council. But, as we know, the union of Rome and Byzantium was superficial at best, and was never accepted in the East (not even by the more pro-Roman Armenian Church, which rightly regarded the acts of union as tantamount to "ecclesicide" (Father Taft's word, not mine, so take it up with him).

The main, long-term effect of the Council of Florence was the crushing of the concilarist movement and the trashing of the reforms implemented by the Council of Constance (how Bellarmine could put both Constance and Florence on his list of "ecumenical" councils is a very good question, but then, objectivity was not high on his list of priorities when he compiled his list). This, in my opinion, removed all restraints from an increasingly absolutist Papacy, and made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable.

and led to the continued, historical distrust of the office of the Papacy by most of the Eastern Church - notwithstanding personal affection for some of the recent Popes.