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

Catholicism, particularly Eastern Catholicism (or as many of us here prefer to say "Orthodoxy in Communion with Rome") is more than just official documents from the Latin Patriarchate.

And the Catholic ecclesial polity is nowhere near worked out (at least vis a vis the context of the 22 autonomous Churches of the Catholic Communion). Eg How does the Vatican distinguish which Papal directives apply to only the Latin Church and which apply to all the Churches of the Catholic Communion (if indeed any can without the ratification of the Holy Synods of those churches).

Latins and Latin canonists (and I would bet any money) most of the monsignori apparachnyks of the Vatican dicasteries are unable to distinguish between the Pope's Patriarchal actions and those which have to do with the entire Communion. (Not surprising sociologically because dominant cultures have a hard time understanding minority cultures)

As to the CCEC - it did not and does not reflect the reality of the majority of the Eastern Catholic Churches - that's just not how canon law works in the Catholic Communion. It was defacto done by Fr. Zuzek SJ, a Latin Church academic canonist working out of canon law faculty of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome (which is why it is basically a carbon copy of the Latin Code). How could 1 canonical code be imposed on Churches so different and disparate in rites, theologies, spiritualities, and church discipline as between the Byzantines and Ethiopians and Chaldeans and Malankaras (each as different from each other as from the Latins).

Let us not be fooled by an overly simplistic understanding of the complexities within the Catholic Communion. Catholicism is not as monothilic as outsiders often assume.

And things continue to develop, e.g. from the time of Vatican II to the time of the CCEC, we developed (and even the Vatican developed in its understanding of us) from rites to 22 Autonomous Churches!

Interesting to compare the huge differences between the 2 "twin" documents of the CCEC and the Instruction on the Liturgical Application of same.

Take a moment to read John Paul's explanation of the CCEO and the English translation of the Preface to the Latin edition. He documents the involvement of the Eastern Catholic Bishops in this process:

Sacri Canones [archive.org] -- Sacri Canones by Pope John Paul II (1990)

and the English translation of the Latin Preface to the CCEO can be downloaded from here. [megaupload.com]

Things were much different back then in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Most Eastern Catholic Bishops operated with a much more latinized perspective.

Consider that Alleluia Press (publisher of Byzantine Daily Worship!) was then publishing Our Faith [amazon.com] by Fr. Casimir Kucharek [findagrave.com] which explicitly taught papal infallibility. Personally, I doubt that Christ our Pascha (the new UGCC Catechism) will do so but that remains to be seen...

How things were in the generation before 1990 (when the CCEO was promulgated) can not be interpreted by today's situation.

I would agree.

As to Eastern Catholicism, there aren't too many documents to go by as of yet. There are statements from the Melkite Patriarchate but not a lot of stuff in print.

The Eastern Catholic Churches did publish the catechetical series Light for Life, but those do not portray themselves as full size treatments of the Faith. (In one volume, though, it does seem to imply that there are only 7 Ecumenical Councils.)

However, Christ our Pascha (the upcoming UGCC Catechism), is being presented as a full-size presentation of the Faith. It's scheduled to be released in Ukrainian this month. I've asked around and one source estimates the English version to be available within the year. If it does not discuss papal infallibility, that would be BIG NEWS.

Herbigny, if you get a Ukrainian copy soon please tell us what it says (or does not say!)

I don't find any need for you to apologize. You're stating the facts as is presented in the documents you cite. To be in union with Rome is to be union in faith and morals as taught by the Pope of Rome.
As you know from reading the various threads on this Forum, there are Eastern Catholics, both clergy and laity, who agree and there are Eastern Catholics, both clergy and laity, who disagree.

Perhaps the Eastern Catholic Churches can write new Roman canons, and involve some of their bishops in the process.

It might be better to say it is not nearly as monolithic as outsiders often need to assume.

My point has always been such documents are not law, but need to be understood in the context in which they are received.


Has had no impact on the position of the Melkite Synod, which still endorses the initiative and relies upon it in its relations with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.


Has had no visible effect upon the beliefs or actions of the Melkite Patriarchate--or for that matter, the Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Kyiv.

3)
Is openly criticized throughout the Eastern Catholic world, its canons ignored when they impinge either upon the perquisites of the Eastern Ecclesiae sui juris, or when obedience is considered pastorally imprudent by the hierarchies of those Churches.

As these are understood within the context of the Tradition of the Eastern Churches. We're not Latin clones or Roman Catholics with a cabaret license, or "Oreo cookies". We are not "in union" with the Pope, but in communion with the Church of Rome, of which the Bishop of Rome is the head.

Also, the word "union" itself is both misleading and offensive. It implies that the Eastern Catholic Churches are nothing more than ritual adjuncts of the Latin Church, which invariably leads to misidentifying us as "Eastern rites of the Roman Catholic Church", rather than true Churches entitled to the fullness of their patrimony in all regards, not just when these are consistent with the understanding and usage of the Latin Church.

If the Pope has trouble discerning the difference between the usage of the Latin Church and the fullness of the Catholic Faith, then there is a problem in the way the Petrine ministry is being exercised.

Despite being renounced by the Catholic Church in the Balamand Declaration, it seems uniatism is a hard beast to kill, both as a mindset and as a modality of unity.l

Many good points, but I think that while discussing whether the CCEO was really 'composed by the Easterners themselves' or not, we may be missing the greater significance of JPII's words: they essentially imply that the justification for much of the CCEO was the latinized state of much/most of Eastern Catholicism at that time. Hence, there is good reason to change much of it the next time it is rewritten (assuming that the Eastern Catholic Churches don't revert to the latinizations of a few decades ago). That's a pretty good reason to be hopeful.

For whatever reason it may or may not "discuss papal infallibility," or put a particular spin on an issue or, as is such a Church's right, to speak to its faithful in its terms and theological vocabulary, in the end it should be understood that it teaches in accord with the Churches with which it is in communion.

Here follows a particular, authoritative expression of the Catholic Faith. It expresses the beliefs of the Catholic communion, the Catholic Church. It can be interpreted to give its full content and reworded accordingly but should not have its teaching wordsmithed out of existence or into a different meaning.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
link [scborromeo.org]


* The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

415 PO 4; cf. Mk 16:15.
416 LG 25.
417 LG 12; cf. DV 10.
418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I:DS 3074.
419 DV 10 § 2.
420 LG 25 § 2.
421 Cf. LG 25.
422 LG 25

dear ajk,

Really you believe the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is a catechism that reflects the theologies, ecclesial polity, etc. of the entire Catholic Communion, and specifically the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Mr. Brown,

Am I to understand that you object to Eastern Catholics believing and living a more Eastern (even Orthodox) Faith? I gather you find that objectionable (it is because you feel if we do so, we should no longer maintain our communion with Rome (the 1st)?)?

Is your position that we should opt for a more Uniate (i.e. Latinized half/napiv) faithlife?

That would force a lot of us to make a choice, thereby clearing the air a bit.

I would think that if Christ our Pascha does not teach papal infallibility that would be very significant. This is an official catechism that has been vetted by the Eastern Congregation in Rome. If the UGCC Bishops and the Eastern Congregation think that papal infallibility is not important enough to put into their official Catechism, that would indicate a major shift and have significant ecumenical implications.

I laying odds that it will not teach papal infallibility -- at least explicitly. I could be wrong on this and we'll shortly find out. I did recently correspond with someone who had some input early on with the new UGCC Catechism and asked if they could speak to whether it would discuss papal infallibility. The reply was:


If the new UGCC Catechism is silent on papal infallibility it would no doubt cause some ripples in the East-West continuum and some people in the West (or with Western leanings) would likely complain to the other bureaucracies in Rome. If, in that scenario, such an absence of teaching of papal infallibility survives those complaints that would be even more significant.

Yes I do insofar as such a broad based treatment can. I quoted a specific example with several sections. What of each one, how should they be judged?

...papal infallibility...papal infallibility...papal infallibility...

Yes, but there's a framework for papal infallibility within, for instance, the section of the CCC that I quoted. What of the whole and this particular dogma within the whole?

What is to be gained or implied by not teaching papal infallibility? If a particular Catholic church is denying it, then say so. If not, then why not teach it in order to present the complete picture. With regard to giving instruction in the faith, what is gained by not presenting the fullness of what is believed? I would ask again as I did above: I quoted a specific example with several sections. What of each one, how should they be judged? What of papal infallibility within the framework presented in the CCC for example. Can there be clarifications giving an Eastern perspective? Sure. If I may without the appearance of too much hubris quote myself even quoting myself from a previous post:

I pray that the UGCC catechism (for instance) rises to the challenge instead of avoiding it.