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

I am happy to be corrected on this. Do you have a reference that contradicts the citation I gave, and point 10 in the one just below?

By a strictly Eastern council later given ecumenical status.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/3Const1/history.htm

What "single" bishop did?

http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/3Const1/Filioque.htm

I've already posted a nice article on the significance in this discussion of the idea of "adjust" (in the context of your previous point of not adding or subtracting words). Apparently "this" is not quite clear at all. Thoughtful people have very different perspectives on "this".

Cizinec,

Weren't his legates at every one of the Councils?

What does it matter of a Pope didn't agree with an Ecumenical Council? That's his personal opinion as a theologian, it has no binding effect on believers. Of what specific incidence are you speaking?

DJS has provided links for you.

Logos Teen

Dear DJS,


Is it reasonable for me to ask you if you are comfortable with my conclusion that you believe that Pope Leo III's had put forth these words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).8
for appeasement purposes but he really meant something else beneath the words?

I don't know but most people I know and deeply respect when they say something they mean it and from Pope Leo III�s sincere words he has conveyed it. But I�m looking at them as sincere. Of course I don�t know Pope Leo III�s heart but I was only responding to what he had written.

Your Quote

("In the East-West controversy over the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Leo declared that the Filioque of the creed was dogmatically necessary but liturgically dispensable, and he recommended its omission in the name of East-West unity.")

When and where did he declare the above quote? Before or after he had said I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).8

Denounced synodically comes to my mind to respond your request for �teeth.�

Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, and from the Son (Filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Symbol of Faith of the first and second Ecumenical Synods, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).8

I expect you will have more to say. Pardon my ignorance for I am truly not trying to spin this gesture at all and didn�t mean to do that if that is what I did. I have not read every book on every thing Pope Leo III's has said and done in his life. I�m just trying to make some sense of it as much as I am able to. Of course I make mistakes sometimes.

Thanks for you patience with me.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Logos Teen asks if the Pope's legates were not present at each of the (Seven) Councils. No, they were not at the Second Council and more particularly they were not at the Fifth Council, to which the then-Pope Vigilius took strenuous exception. Incognitus

Dear Cizenec,

The first point in considering papal nfallibility is to state clearly that it *cannot* be assumed that most Catholics, even those living in ivory
towers, have a balanced understanding of this teaching. Some recent authors have *exaggerated* what was actually defined at Vatican I. Some examples: Hans Kung, in his book, "Infallible? An Inquiry"; Brian Tierney, "Origins of Papal Infallibility"; August Hasler, "How the Pope Became Infallible:Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion".

The tendency to "inflate the category of infallibility" to a point where it envelopes almost every utterance of the Holy Father is an erroneous understanding of papal infallibility which considers it SEPARATE, PRIVATE and ABSOLUTE. This interpretation of papal infallibility was EXPLICITLY REJECTED by Vatican I. One of the reasons for the swing to the left
concerning the authority of the Bishop of Rome is this unfounded exaggeration of what Vatican I actually teaches. And the left wing rejection has caused the extreme right wing to exaggerate its claims. Perhaps a good way to balance things out is to go at the question from a negative view: VATICAN I DID *NOT* SUPPORT A DOCTRINE OF PAPAL
INFALLIBILITY WHICH IS SEPARATE, PRIVATE, ABSOLUTE.

Papal infallibility is in no sense absolute, for absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, the first and essential truth, who is never and
nowhere able to deceive or be deceived. Every other infallibility, inasmuch as it is communicated for a certain purpose, has its limits and conditions, under which it is thought to be present. One of the limitations is the
object of infallibility, namely, matters of "faith & morals." The phrase is difficult to interpret precisely. The Council of Trent had used the phrase in a much broader way, including matters of custom and ecclesiastical and
liturgical discipline. Vatican I, however, distinguished between "faith & morals" on the one hand and matters "which pertain to discipline and Church government" on the other. It would appear, therefore, that the scope of infallibility would include doctrinal matters rather than governmental and liturgical practises.

The infallibility of the Pope is NOT personal otherwise one would be speaking about infallibility as if it were a prerogative which inhered in him personally and habitually and in effect would be attributing to a man a property which belongs properly to God alone. Misunderstandings about the Pope as personally infallible were avoided mainly because of the interventions of Cardinal Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, formerly a professor of Old Testament and also of systematic theology. Guidi's intervention caused the title of chapter four of the constitution to be changed from "Concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff" to "Concerning the Infallible Magisterium [Teaching Office] of the Roman Pontiff." Guidi's
intention was to transfer infallibility from the subject (the Pope)to the object (THE DEFINITION). In the last analysis, the Council did
not go the entire distance with Guidi's suggestion, lest it fall into the Gallican distinction between the CHAIR ["sedes" - the Church of Rome] and HE WHO SITS UPON THE CHAIR ["sedens" - the series of Popes]. Instead, the Council Fathers accepted the reasoning of Bishop
d'Avanzo who stated that "if 'personal' is understood in the sense of a private person,... then personal should be rejected. But if the
word is understood as a person bearing the Church with him then [that faculty] is personal."

Papal Infallibility is NOT separate. The official explanation of the Vatican I definition opposes any notion of a separate infallibility.
Properly understood, papal infallibility is fundamentally "relational." In preparing the definition of a dogma, the Pope is, therefore, obligated to use all the means available to him to search out the meaning of the truth
even though he is not bound to his choice of means. As is stated in the documentation of the Council, "Hence, the Pope by his office and by the
gravity of matter is bound to use apt means for the correct investigation and adequate enunciation of the truth and among these means are councils, the counsel of bishops and cardinals and theologians."

It is the reality of ecclesial infallibility which, more than any other element, brings out most clearly the reason why any notion of a "separate infallibility" is a misunderstanding of what Vatican I actually defined. The Council's definition stated clearly that the infallibility of the Pope is the same "infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for the defining of doctrine concerning faith and morals." There are NOT two infallibilities, one of the Church and one of
the Pope. The infallibility promised to the Pope "when he defines" is first and fundamentally that of the Church.

Moreover, the consensus of the Church, moved by the Holy Spirit, is for the Pope, the rule of faith. It is the faith of the whole Church which limits the magisterium. In his ex cathedra definitions, the Pope has the same source as the church: the Scriptures as read within the life, teaching, worship of the Christian community, i.e., the Church's living tradition. Before promulgating any definition, the Pope therefore ought to consult the leaders of the Church in order to be certain of the consensus of the
Universal church. It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the entire magisterium of the Church united to its head constitutes the rule of faith to which the Pope ought to submit his definitions. Granting
all this, the Pope was not bound *juridically* by a strict and absolute necessity to consult the bishops in order to know the faith of the Church,
because the consensus of the Churches can very often be derived from the Scriptures, from the consent of antiquity, that is, from the Fathers of the church, from theologians, from other private ways, all of which suffice for
adequate if not full information.

It is in this context that we must understand the final words of the definition of papal infallibility: "therefore, the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church."

In a commentary written by E. Yarnold and H.Chadwick on the Agreed Statement of the Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission on Authority in the Church (1976), the Catholic interpretation of papal infallibility is neatly summed up:

"...The official exposition of the decree at the Council by Bishop Gasser made it clear that the pope's infallibility is not absolute, for the
definition confines the exercise of this prerogative strictly to matters of faith and morals where there can be no question of legitimate options being left open to any true Catholic, and where he speaks manifestly as teacher of the universal Church on doctrinal issues concerning which it is in-dispensable to preserve the deposit of faith; nor is it personal in the sense of belonging to the pope as an individual, for it belongs to him only in the exercise of his office at particular moments; nor is it separate as if the pope were exempt from the need to consult."

There is a lesson some of us are taught in childhood. It goes something like, "Don't ask questions." Another one, from the a later stage in life is, "Question Authority". I see both of these deeply engrained attitudes at odds with each other in discussions of this kind.

On the one hand some people get easily irritated when someone starts asking questions they either cannot answer or that bring up issues that are uncomfortable. So the message is: Don't ask questions. Not only is asking questions bad but it can get you into hot water as so many of us can remember growing up in these kind of families.

Many people from certain parts of the world can go their entire lives and feel perfectly at peace with the status quo. Others question their surroundings and are not at peace until they can find some meaning behind it or exhaust the possible explanations. When these two kinds of people get together there can be lots of confusion and misunderstanding.

We Catholics live in a culture in which we question everything. It's natural for us to want to know what makes things tick or why I should
believe what you are telling me.

I know how Orthodox are fond of listing all the sins and vices of western culture. And many of we Catholics are bewildered with the Eastern attitude of being completely at peace with things and accepting everything as-is and never trying to connect the dots. But are these attitudes really bad in themselves? I see they are behind a
lot of things that are either taken for granted and left as-is or taken to their logical conclusion. And people like to dress it up in
more sophisticated language like, "Reason is bad" or "paradox and contradiction are integral to faith" or the good old-fashioned, "It's a mystery; you have to take it on faith..."

Frankly, I don't know where to go with this other than simply voice my own continual frustration. We seem to talk past each other because we are coming from totally different assumptions about what's kosher and what's not, what's okay to talk about and what's not, what's okay to question and what's not. People who hate questioning authority
will have a hard time with people who love questioning authority and vice versa.

I've never seen any harm in asking questions or asking people to explain what they mean when they make a statement. But some people find that attitude threatening or irritating. What can I say, except that curiosity does not always or even often kill that cat?

Yes, review the Seven Ecumenical Council. Was the 381 Council of Constantinople was considered "Ecumenical" back then? No, it was not recognized as "Ecumenical" by the Council of Ephesus half a century later, and it was left to Pope Gregory the Great to elevate it papally to that status. Moreover, are there Ecumenical Councils that defined the Perpetual Virginity of Mary when it was questioned way back then? No, it was Pope St. Siricius in 392 who declared that Mary was a “perpetual virgin”.

Not at Ephesus at all, but later still; both the origianl Creed of Nicea and the elaborated one of Constantinople are used at Chalcedon. No mention of the Constantinopolitan synod or its Creed is in the documents of Ephesus.

Dear Matthew,

The statement I gave is not a passage from Leo, but from the Columbia Encyclopedia lined earlier.
If you google Leo and filioque, you will find that this gives a fairly typical picture of what is generally perceived as Leo's position on the filioque, from a wide variety of sources, including Orhtodox ones like Father Romanides. I cannot discount some spin here, or lazy copying of spun accounts. But I think it is clear that while Leo was counseled against the addition of the filioque, he did not wax dogmatic on the point.

I did see this quotation on the denouncement at synod, but have not been able to find the declaration of the synod. Is the so-called denouncement consistent with the historical summary that I cited or does it go further? Was an encyclical on the matter sent out to the entire church, or at least to all of the churches using the filioque. Was this denouncement announced, for example, in Spain? I haven't been able to turn up anything on these points yet. But without promulgation one cannot conclude that declaration binding on the whole church was being made.

That's fine. But it's more reliable to consider a persons writing and actions as a whole, when trying to discern the scope of the meaning to some particular phrase or act. Otherwise the interpretation degenerates to "proof-texting".

This comes from Volume 1 of Pelikan's Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, p. 291:

"The achievement of a correlation between the practice of infant baptism and original sin was first made visible in Cyprian [of Carthage]. It had apparently been the custom for some parts of the church to baptize infants on the eighth day after their birth, but Cyprian insisted that this was too long to wait: 'If, when they subsequently come to believe, forgiveness of sins is granted even to the worst transgressors and to those who have sinned much against God, and if no one is denied access to baptism and to grace; how much less right do we have to deny it to an infant, who, having been born recently, has not sinned, except in that, being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death by his first birth! [The infant] approaches that much more easily to the reception of the forgiveness of sins because the sins remitted to him are not his own, but those of another.' "

I understand this argument, and it contains questions I have.

Just the same, I can see the same sort of argument being used against the idea of the infallibility of the Church herself.

What happens when Church councils contradict each other?

What happens when one set of hundreds of Eastern bishops says, "A, not B," and another set of hundreds of bishops says, "B, not A"?

These things have happened.

When does the Church speak infallibly and how can one tell?

How does one tell a council that is holy and ecumenical (and therefore infallible) from any other kind?

Wait a couple of hundred years until it appears that most believers have accepted it?

Do "most believers" even know anything about the Church's councils?

How does one tell which among the claimants to the title "Church" is the genuine article?

If you say "Orthodox doctrine," how does one identify that without assuming up front what is Orthodox and what is not?

Dear Friends,

I can see the headlines now - "Orthodox and Catholic Churches agree on pope's primacy - but there are still some notable holdouts on the Byzantine Forum!"

John Meyendorff often described the role of the Petrine Primacy as being a way to underscore the Church's unity (in the first millennium).

Popes and Councils worked together in those "good old days." And they must find a way to work together again.

Has any Orthodox theologian speaking on ecumenical issues come out dismissing a future role of the papacy in a united Church?

Have I been away that long?

Alex

I agree with Alex.

The answer to your question, Linus, is through the Life of the Church.

Dear DJS,

Your Quote

("In the East-West controversy over the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Leo declared that the Filioque of the creed was dogmatically necessary but liturgically dispensable, and he recommended its omission in the name of East-West unity.")

I don't know how and who concluded the above statement or if it is some sort of a scholarly consensus, but implicitly there's an inconsistency that has "Teeth" rather terrible I might add. Insofar as the notion that
(the Filioque of the creed was dogmatically necessary but liturgically dispensable) has a real gnawing action because liturgical and dogmatic consistency should be traditionally maintained. If the traditional relationship
is in conflict and inconsistent then there are serious problems. I think it is reasonable to conclude that. I think it is further reasonable to state that when very significant Church matters had been addressed the information went out. Although that process could be attacked by the falsehood of the evil one, enemy of truth. the liar. I think it is also reasonable and understandable that Leo III's action of engraving the silver plates with the original Nicene creed (without the Filioque) had a serious meaning. I think this engraving was done knowing full well that some people may not agree and might just tear up any document or even rewrite it if they didn't like it. Sometimes people even try to rewrite history. Nowadays we would call it things like fraud or disinformation, manipulation, tampering, intellectual dishonesty etc. But it is important to be truthful especially when it come to matters of faith and the Holy Church, after all these are matters that are not just about physical life but the spiritual life and the souls of so many people including our own. These matters are not intellectual playthings and I think Pope Leo III was well aware of it, because we all have to give an account on the fearful Day of Judgment.

If I�m being presumptuous or if my reasoning is wrong or inaccurate I would be grateful for your sincere response, insofar as that is not my intention.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

You raise an important point with respect to liturgical and theological consistency.

Certainly, the Fathers of old would have insisted that the way we worship indicates what we believe.

The "Filioque" (and I believe we on the Byzantine Forum have probably produced more volumes on it than all the theological commissions combined ) was one of those words that was limited by the language in which it was expressed - it made perfect sense in Latin, but spelled heresy in Greek.

And in English, it is a term that could be confusing at best, especially since the Latin Church denies that it believes there are two Origins of the Spirit within the Trinity (to say that would truly be heresy, no matter which Church one belongs to).

I think that the ultimate resolution of this impasse has to do not with more volumes on the theological aspects, but with the other issue of whether any Church has the right to unilaterally add or subtract from a Creed that was meant to express the faith of the universal Church?

I would say, "No."

Alex