|
0 members (),
652
guests, and
109
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,518
Posts417,611
Members6,170
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 33 |
Hi All. I'm RC but am NOT here to "argue" about this. Rather, I want to know how Eastern Catholics officially see this issue. I am bothered by this doctrinal stance myself which causes me to wonder about Orthodoxy. Anyway, here's my question:
Q: Do Eastern Catholic churches officially believe in papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I?
For myself, it disturbs me that the RC church departed from the ancient standard that an ecumenical council is the only way to define doctrinal issues.
I'm sure this issue must come up a lot here... hope I didn't annoy you by asking.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885 |
All Catholics accept the definition of Vatican I. The definition came from a Church council, it has official status for the whole Church. It defines the Papal role in the Church and what being in communion with the Pope means, aceptance of the role of Pope of Rome as it is defined.
ICXC
NIKA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
One must read the document Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I with meticulous care, and check all the references and the background of the document to determine precisely what it does and does not say. There are surprises in that document.
At the same time, one must also keep in mind what a theological and doctrinal "definition" actually is.
In practice, the question could be put cynically as to what proportion of Roman Catholics genuinely believe in papal infallibility - not in the sense of being willing to give lip service to it, but in the sense of being willing to act upon it.
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885 |
I think a few people have an idea that the Pope can and does make such statements often and on a range of issues. As I understand it they are rare and not arrived at quickly, as a lot of consultation goes in first. Also what comes under the definition is also not understood either. Angela would for example be most pleased if eating chocolates was to be required on all days ending in a Y  , or on days when it rains in the outer isles  ICXC NIKA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 543
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 543 |
Most theologians hold that canonization (not beatification) is an infallible pronouncement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Eric,
As per your problem with papal infallibility and parting from the "ancient" ways of defining infallibility, an oak tree doesn't look much like an acorn, but it is the same thing, and if you ask me, an acorn that remains an acorn has something wrong with it...
Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828 |
Erik I'm afraid you've been misinformed sir. Vatican I did not part from any ancient tradition, at least in Western Theology. There has long been a thread of patristic thought which said all churches must agree with this church (to paraphrase St Irenaeus) moreover Pope St Leo the Great, Gelasius I and Felix II all taught explicitly by the 5th century that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council were not binding until confirmed by the Pope. Naturally this idea was not accepted throughout the Church but if you're going to judge Church teaching through the eyes of the Vincentian canon you'll end up encountering a few problems as illustrated by Cardinal Newman here in Chapter 1 of his \'Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine\' [ newmanreader.org] .
"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724 Likes: 2 |
Angela would for example be most pleased if eating chocolates was to be required on all days ending in a Y , or on days when it rains in the outer isles And the problem with this is? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 194
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 194 |
The Pope is only infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra". As Orthodox Catholic posted five years ago, Blessed Pope John XXIII said "I'm only infallible when I speak 'ex cathedra.' And I will never speak 'ex cathedra.'"
This is a very significant statement by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Infallibility does not attach to every utterance of the Pope. There have only been three occasions when a Pope has spoken "ex cathedra" and declared a Dogma of the Church (by Church, I mean the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church referred to in the Nicene Creed):
(1) the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854;
(2) the Dogma of Papal Infallibility; and
(3) the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary.
That is the complete list, folks. No ifs, no ands, no buts about it.
Canonization of a saint is not an infallible act. For example, the Church had to reconsider the canonization of St. Christopher when it came to light that he may not have ever existed. The same was true of other canonized saints who were later "de-canonized".
Teachings in letters or encyclicals are not infallible. For example, we now know the 14th century teaching that the sun orbited the earth was dead wrong. Small comfort to Galileo who had to recant his theory of the solar system to avoid being burned at the stake.
Pope Paul VI's Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which prohibits artificial birth control is not an infallible Dogma of the Church. Some Orthodox Churches - by the way, they are included in the word "Church" in the Nicene Creed - teach that birth control may be an acceptable practice if the husband and wife want to space the ages of their children for legitimate reasons. This teaching may become the position of the rest of the Church sometime in the future. Who knows?
Why are these doctrines not infallible? Because they were not made "ex cathedra". It is unlikely a fourth Dogma will ever be declared by a Pope without the clear support of a strong majority of the Church, Catholic and Orthodox. He probably would also want a majority of Anglican and Lutheran theologians to be in agreement.
I doubt any objection from the Mormon Church would prevent proclamation of a Dogma agreed to by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. On the other hand, I hope the theologians listen to what the misguided souls in Salt Lake City, Utah have to say. You never know - they may have a valid point.
JP
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Dear JP, Is it an infallible doctrine of the Church that Christ rose from the dead? The limit of infallible (=true) statements of the Church to those extraordinary exercises of the magisterium via ex cathedra pronouncements is unwarranted, either by the documents of Vatican I, the tradition, or the most recent elucidation of the structure of the Church in Lumen Gentium. Wow, that was a convoluted sentence. Anyway, see this passage from Lumen Gentium, and see how it doesn't square with what you said: Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)
26. A bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood," (48*) especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered,(49*) and by which the Church continually lives and grows. This Church of Christ is truly present in all legitimate local congregations of the faithful which, united with their pastors, are themselves called churches in the New Testament.(50*) For in their locality these are the new People called by God, in the Holy Spirit and in much fullness.(167) In them the faithful are gathered together by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated, that by the food and blood of the Lord's body the whole brotherhood may be joined together.(51*) In any community of the altar, under the sacred ministry of the bishop,(52*) there is exhibited a symbol of that charity and "unity of the mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation."(53*) In these communities, though frequently small and poor, or living in the Diaspora, Christ is present, and in virtue of His presence there is brought together one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.(54*) For "the partaking of the body and blood of Christ does nothing other than make us be transformed into that which we consume". (55*)
Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop, to whom is committed the office of offering the worship of Christian religion to the Divine Majesty and of administering it in accordance with the Lord's commandments and the Church's laws, as further defined by his particular judgment for his diocese.
Bishops thus, by praying and laboring for the people, make outpourings in many ways and in great abundance from the fullness of Christ's holiness. By the ministry of the word they communicate God's power to those who believe unto salvation(168) and through the sacraments, the regular and fruitful distribution of which they regulate by their authority,(56*) they sanctify the faithful. They direct the conferring of baptism, by which a sharing in the kingly priesthood of Christ is granted. They are the original ministers of confirmation, dispensers of sacred Orders and the moderators of penitential discipline, and they earnestly exhort and instruct their people to carry out with faith and reverence their part in the liturgy and especially in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. And lastly, by the example of their way of life they must be an influence for good to those over whom they preside, refraining from all evil and, as far as they are able with God's help, exchanging evil for good, so that together with the flock committed to their care they may arrive at eternal life.(57*) Note also that the definition of papal infallibility has no requirement that the pope click his heels three times and say "Now I'm speaking infallibly!" He merely has to declare, by virtue of his office, that a teaching is to be held definitively by all the faithful. That's it. No magic "Ex Cathedra" mumbo jumbo. Pope John Paul II made infallible statements about abortion and euthanasia following exactly this formula in Evangelium Vitae. Finally, the whole focus on infallibility is wrong-headed. Is the doctrine true? Then it is infallibly true. I can infallibly say that 2+2=4, and I can also infallibly say that contraceptive sex is wrong, because both positions are true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828 |
I agree with Psedo-Athanasius. The focus on infallibility is definately mistaken particularly since it assumes that Papal infallibility is supposed to be used in the positive . Papal infallibility is evoked only when a proposition of the Church is directly attacked, under threat or challenged by waning faith. This factors into Bl Pius IX own teaching that infallible pronouncement are referable to the Apostolic deposit.
You are unlikely consequently to get Pope's left and right making ex cathedra declarations but that doesn't mean what they teach contains error or is false. Indeed, for the ordinary magisterium to err would undermine the conviction re-emphasised in Lumen Gentium 25 that all the Church's teaching is in some way guided by God. There are huge and vast areas of Catholic teaching not dogmatised either by Pope or General Council but that doesn't make them debateable.
The ordinary magisterium is like a sculptor finding a shape in the stone once its carved an outline it cannot destroy that shape for something else lest the design be ruined. Pope's will not contradict their predeccessors only further refine their teaching. The Catholic Church's teaching on birth control, women priests, homosexuality etc.etc. doesn't need to be defined ex cathedra. It already has a sculptured structure which cannot be removed without ruining the shape in the stone.
"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
No one has yet succeeded in providing an adequate set of criteria for determining when a given statement is or is not ex cathedra. So let's leave that one out of it. The Pope did not define infallibility - Vatican I did (the very idea of any man "defining" his own infallibility has only to be stated to be seen as ludicrous).
Then, of course, there are such interesting matters as Liberius and Honorius.
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 194
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 194 |
Pseudo-Athanasius:
There has been no need for the Pope to declare "ex cathedra" that the Resurrection of Christ is a Dogma of the Church. This is because that Dogma is already contained in the Creed.
Similarly, the Pope has not declared "ex cathedra" that the Trinity is a Dogma of the Church. Once again, that is already contained in the Creed. I don't want to get bogged down in the whole filioque controversy.
There are people much brighter and better educated than me who can explain what "ex cathedra" means. I do know, however, the Pope has to make it very clear to all concerned that he is speaking "ex cathedra" in order to declare a Dogma. Recall the posting by Orthodox Catholic about Blessed Pope John XXIII.
Doctrines may, and do, develop over time through discourse and debate. An example is the concept of Limbo which has been discussed for the past 800 years. Another example is the virgin birth.
Since the Dogma of the virgin birth of Jesus is already contained in the Creed, there has been no need for the Pope to declare "ex cathedra" this Dogma. It is interesting to note, however, that Mary's perpetual virginity is neither a Dogma contained in the Creed nor one declared by the Pope.
In my opinion, there is no need to declare Mary's perpetual virginity as a Dogma in light of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Some Lutherans and Anglicans may disagree based on their understanding of Sola Scriptura. As with the filioque, I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of the merits of Sola Scriptura.
Dogmas are set in stone. That is why Dogmas are so rare. No formal declaration of a Dogma has occurred since 1950.
JP
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by monksilouan:
Most theologians hold that canonization (not beatification) is an infallible pronouncement. Then if that is the case, despite protests from the anti-Palamites, then the Pope's request for the Eastern Catholics to add St. Gregory Palamas to our liturgical calendars was both infallible and authoritative! :-) Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
