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

Suppose it just said: "Sometimes infallibility is exercised by a group of bishops, as when the Second Council of Nicea settled the issue of icons (787), and sometimes infallibility is exercised by a single bishop, as when Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of Mary's assumption (1950)." How would that be?

Some are law and some are not. Context is important, however.


Very true. But, it does present the Roman view. Rome is not ready to jettison the later papal doctrines even in an ecumenical setting. If it were Rome's position that nothing else ought to be required of the East than what was lived and believed by them in the First Millennium, this would have been the perfect time to so state. But, instead: Rome's reply in this letter to the Melkite Patriarch was:


Earlier you wrote:


Well, this 1997 Letter [orthocath.files.wordpress.com] is one of those occasions. Rome wrote the Patriarch because it had a problem with what the Melkite Church was saying. No, communion between Rome and the Melkite Patriarchate was not broken. But, Rome made it clear that it disagreed with this direction the Melkite Church is taking. Can Melkites profess to believe everything that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches? Rome's reply:


Yes, the Melkite Synod has ignored Rome's Letter. But, Rome made its position known.


The UGCC (at least in the USA) has priests make the Profession and Oath [vatican.va] from Ad Tuendam Fidem. This I was told by a UGCC Deacon. So, yes, it has had effect on the actions of (at least part of) the UGCC.

More importantly, the promotion of Ad Tuendam Fidem by both Popes John Paul and Benedict shows again Rome's position. I think it can be argued that this is another attempt by Rome to deal with dissent, both in the Latin Church and in the Eastern Church as is evidenced by the changes in both Eastern and Western Canon Law as part of Ad Tuendam Fidem.

So, here again is an example of Rome "having problems" with what the Melkite Patriarch is saying. I have no information if Melkite priests make the Profession and take the Oath from Ad Tuendam Fidem. I'm guessing they don't.


Criticism it has most certainly. Very few canons are ignored...very few. The most important (from the East-West perspective) are facts of day to day ecclesial life. Rome is involved in every episcopal ordination of every Eastern Catholic Church in the world -- either by direct appointment or by vetting the nominating lists for episcopal elections -- patriarchal or otherwise.

So, what to make of these documents? They tell us what Rome's perspective is regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches. Pope Benedict [vatican.va] ties them all together (along with some other documents) to show, from his perspective, a coherent whole "applied to the Church's life":


From Benedict's (and John Paul's) perspective, the quotes from Vatican II or Orientale Lumen or Ut Unum Sint about Eastern Catholics recovering their ancient traditions and patrimony were never meant to suggest that Eastern Catholics should recover their traditional ecclesiology. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is proof that never meant that.

Is that inconsistent? Yes, I would say it is. Uniatism is, I believe, a flawed method of unity.

I am heartened by the fact that many Eastern Catholics disagree with the Roman ecclesiology that is enshrined in the Eastern Code of Canons. But, I think it important for us to recognize that this disagreement does not have Rome's blessing.

Not at all. I think, however, that Rome is not open to Eastern Catholics recovering their traditional ecclesiology.


Again, I don't find the desire or the attempts to change things objectionable. As I said above, I don't see any support from Rome, however, for Eastern Catholics to become "Orthodox in communion with Rome" with regards to ecclesiology.


Definitely not!

The problem I see with the application of the Zoghby Initiative is this:

When one says "I believe everything that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches," one would also need to include what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches with regards to ecclesiology. Rome is not open to Eastern Catholics doing this. Thus, the Eastern Code (CCEO).

Having said that, I also believe that communion between Churches is not a one way street. There needs to be a joint sharing of the essentials of the faith between the Churches involved.

Could there be a future scenario where the West would state in their Code their belief in papal universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility and the Eastern Code would not? Could the East operate as independent "zones" where papal universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility were not recognized? Could these be true in the West and not in the East? That wouldn't make sense.

If there isn't a sharing in the essentials of faith between two Churches, why would they be in Communion?

If the Eastern Catholics do not hold Rome's feet to the fire, who will? Rome makes certain representations to the Orthodox Churches about the implications of reestablishing communion. Just how can the Orthodox take these seriously, when it sees Rome's attitude towards the Eastern Churches already in communion with it? So, if we demand from Rome no more than what Rome has promised the Orthodox Churches, this should have the full agreement and support of every Orthodox Christian.

As Father Lawrence Cross noted, it is the duty of every Eastern Catholic to protest--"to the point of schism if need be"--any attempt by the Church of Rome to impose upon the authentic Tradition of the Eastern Churches. I think Rome knows this full well, which is why it has "agreed to disagree" with the Melkite Synod, and increasingly with the UGCC.

I think it knows full well that the Melkites are confident in their Tradition and have a long history of producing profound and subtle theologians fully capable of going to the mat with the best the CDF can put forward. The UGCC is likewise now beginning to stretch its intellectual muscles as a free and autonomous Church. The days when Eastern Catholic bishops were supine in the face of Roman oppression are fading away.

Except in Pittsburgh, of course.

What has Rome promised the Orthodox Churches?

There was no need to for that commit. Civility is needed in this conversation and this doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Dave,

You bring up valid points that I think all Orthodox and Greek Catholics should consider and ponder- how can one be Orthodox in Communion with Rome and live out traditional Eastern ecclesiology within the Catholic Communion?

Stuart also mentions some good examples and points as well. These help shed light into what some of the best minds in Greek Catholic leadership think about ecclesiology and the issue of the Roman claims of Papal Infallibility

It will be interesting to see what the new UGCC Catechism will have to say about the issue of Papal Infallibility.

I'm sure that when the new UGCC Catechism is released there'll be a number of sections closely scrutinized by East-West watchers. I think, however, that how the Catechism deals with issues related to the papacy will be the most significant.

Personally, I'm expecting good things from the Catechism. My guess expressed earlier about it not teaching papal infallibility is more of a hunch. But, like trying to guess the outcome of a papal election, likely to be proved wrong.

Hopefully, we have some posters here who are fluent in Ukrainian and who will let us know what's in the Catechism and what isn't once it's released.

As a member of said Archeparchy I must say I agree with Stuart.

And there was a time when the Byzantine Emperor exercised a similar role. That's not ecclesiology but ecclesiological discipline.

Again, That's not ecclesiology but ecclesiological discipline. And that's usually about power and not theology.

The de facto ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches is a Eucharistic ecclesiology; and there is a lot of common ground on which to build, but one has to get the ecclesiological priorities correct. Something can be most venerable and serve an important function and yet still be non-essential. An example is the patriarchate. It is a disciplinary, man-made institution and structure. It is a wonderful example, yet only a penultimate example, of the communion of churches in the One Church and the One Church we know is God-given and not man-made. In this view, which emerges from a common basis in Catholic and Orthodox theology, there are (as I reckon it) only three sine qua non meanings of church: (1) the Eucharistic synaxis, the gathering itself; (2) the ekklesia properly so called gathering around its bishop [e.g. eparchy, diocese; (1) is dependent on (2)]; (3) the communion of the catholic churches of (2) in the One Church.

So, as a test, remove all the non-essentials and consider what emerges.

Is that true? I was under the impression that was not the case within a patriarchate's "canonical territory".

I often think about that too. Moreover, I believe that the demand-no-more promises from Rome should also apply to ACoE, the PNCC, and continuing Anglicans, if any of those groups should opt for communion with Rome.

From The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: [americancatholictruthsociety.com]

But, the Church was always bigger than the Byzantine Empire. Inside the Empire his influence was there but did he control the selection of Bishops throughout the entire Church?

Granted, how to select Bishops is a discipline. But, in the Catholic Church it's a discipline that's affected by the current ecclesiological view of the role of the Pope. Even in the Latin Church, appointment of Bishops by the Pope throughout the whole world is fairly recent, not solidified until the 1800s. The ecclesiology of Vatican I (papal universal jurisdiction) supports this.



I think Eucharistic ecclesiology is a great model for the Church. As for removing the current structures in place in the Church, that's up to Bishops.

The doing of course, but why avoid testing the theology -- argue to no end about peripherals and avoid what is the essence? And it's more than just a model.