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

Dear Cizinec,

Yes, the life of the Church is the life of the Holy Spirit breathing in the Body of Christ.

As one Anglo-Catholic speaker once said, "If the Holy Spirit teaches us that ultimate ecclesial unity is to be found in communion with Rome, who are we to accuse the Spirit of bad theology?"

Alex

Warning: This is long and anyone who reads this in its entirety is entitled to Houston for some homemade salami and beer. I should also warn you to keep a trash can or other liquid holding apparatus nearby.

I apologize for not responding to this discussion further. I am in the process of reading a couple of books that will further muddy the issue for me. I think that through this discussion I am beginning to understand my objection/requirement for clarification more clearly.

To me, infallibility involves more than a single pronouncement from a single bishop, from Rome or elsewhere. Bishops typically pronounce things already practiced or believed by the Church. Take, for instance, the discussion of Perpetual Virginity. This was not something that was never taught or used in liturgy and then given to a bishop in a dream or through some exercise in logic. It was something that was �always� taught by the Church "everywhere". Certainly that �always and everywhere� is a difficult proposition, although that is the way the Church saw it at the time. What the Pope did was clarify (or merely state) theologically something the Church was already believing and professing. For whom he clarified the issue (just the Western church?) is subject to debate. I think if you could have posed the question, the Pope would have agreed that this was not an innovation.

The problem arises when a single bishop claims for himself and those placed in his charge the fullness of the entire Church. That is exactly what infallibility does. It allows a single man (or a single office, the damage is the same) to be the sole interpreter of the Deposit of Faith. That one office (the Bishop of Rome) has a tendency to interpret the Deposit of Faith in a way that addresses only the concerns, beliefs, teachings and professions of its own direct concern, i.e. Roman Catholics. When the pope searches the teachings of the Church, to which church does he look? Popes have had a tendency to pretend there is no other church but the Roman Church and that this one church makes up all that is theologically important in the Church "always and everywhere". I grant there are a (very) few exceptions, but as a whole that is the way of things.

From some of the explanations I read here, �infallibility� may not be the proper term. If it follows the pattern of the declaration of perpetual virginity, then, yes, the Pope makes an infallible statement when recognizing what the Church (not just the Roman Church) through the Holy Trinity has already declared.

When the pope declares something where the entire Church Herself, whether in what it believes, teaches or confesses, has not spoken, and where this, the pope�s, declaration unilaterally affects the Church as a whole, the Pope is not infallible (although his declaration may be correct). He is a bishop and patriarch stating his opinion, which I grant should be given the weight of an opinion from a bishop and patriarch. If that is how infallibility is viewed, then all bishops are infallible and the designation is gratuitous. In that case, I disagree with the use of the term �infallible.�

If it means that the papacy has the right to unilaterally declare something where the entire Church has not spoken and where no church is effectively consulted but the Roman Church, then it is properly designated as �infallibility�. It assumes that the Roman Church is the most important church and its life is more valuable than the life of the other churches. That is the practical effect of it; mind you, not the stated principle. Since the church before the schism did not clearly and unambiguously hold papal infallibility and since the claim would substantially increase the theological power of the Roman bishop, I think Rome has the burden of proof. From the proofs I have seen, I do not believe it has met that burden and disagree with infallibility.

I think the Roman Church may be setting itself up for some real theological messes if this is maintained, with the Eastern Catholic churches dragged along with it. Without the support and confirmation of the Eastern churches with which the pope is in schism, it provides the opportunity for an individual to single-handedly destroy all that is orthodox in the Roman Church. What if an ultra-liberal pope is elected? Certainly not soon, but say in seventy years. Say this pope makes theological changes that undermine a decision of one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and he makes these changes binding and openly declares that he is making the statement ex cathedra. To whom will the Catholics seek help if this happens? A council to which the pontiff will not approve? I have read on other posts that at that point the pope would no longer be pope. Who will tell him? Won�t this just lead to another division in the Roman Church?

Dear Matthew,

Dear Matthew,

As to consesus, google around and see.

One of the links I gave (or maybe another that I didn't) made note of this. The Franks made this argument to Leo, as an argument for the insertion. Leo replied that there are many theologically sound ideas that are not expressed in the Creed. One of the links I gave you also noted that an analogous argument was in effect used by the non-Chalcedonians at Chalcedon: no new doctrines to be added to that expressed in the Creed. The argument was not a successful one, notwithstanding the fact their opponents re-applied the anathema against alterations to the faith expressed in the Creed. This interplay helps to understand the meaning of "this" as used by Cizinec.

And if you read Pastor Aeternus, or look over proclamations of this character, you will note that you are expressing a Catholic perspective. With two provisos: first, as you note all people , all places, all times, represents some difficulty in a very general sense. (But you are mistaken if you think IC was proclaimed without attention to traditional teachings of the East). Second, the doctrine does leave open the possibility for unilateral action by the Pope: a dire prospect which we all certainly hope never materializes. You will also note that the idea that the Pope could invent new doctrine, as through revelation, is specifically excluded. This is about explixcation of the already received deposit of faith.

This may be true in day to day expression, but not in proclamations in which, I think it is more customary for the Vatican to think and act universally, simply because they see that as their responsibility.

Yes, more prone to misunderstanding than co-redemptrix. I advocate "banana".

Well I think that it simply assumes that communion with Rome is the visible mark of unity in the church. As such, the Papacy subserves a special function in signing-off in the orthodoxy of developing theological ideas and expressions. This role in effect exists and has existed independent of its explcit definition in Pastor Aeternus.

This is fundamentally a question of belief: is the Holy Spirit at work in this church; will Christ defend and protect his bride? I'm loosing no sleep over this possibility.

Dear DJS,

I have not read everything you have post on this forum and I'm wondering if you are of the Byzantine Catholic rite and would difine yourself as Orthodox in communion with Rome or another rite? I ask this so I can understand more clearly your understanding. Thanks

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

I am of the Byzantine Catholic Church. From cradle on my way to grave - byl, jesm, i budu.

I am not so sure about the definitions:
I am happy to say that I am Byzantine Catholic; Orthodox in communion with Rome annoys many Orthodox. I am undecided therefore on whether to use the phrase or not. It is probably fairer to say, with a little whimsy and much regret, that I am an excommunicated Orthodox.

Dear DJS,

Does rome accept the Nicene creed being said in Byzantine Catholic rite Churches in the original Orthodox way without the filioque or with it, or are both acceptable to use nowadays?

Thanks.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

I believe that in Passaic, Parma, and Van Nuys, there has been explcit instruction from the bishops to omit the filioque. In Pittsburg no central orders have been given; some parishes continue to include, but at the recent Odpust the Creed was chanted without the filioque. I suspect this is OK with Rome, but I think they are encouraging us to omit it.

Personally, I just follow suit, depending on where I am. I assure you that my notions, simple as they are, of the Trinity are not affected by my saying/not saying it.

Dear DJS,

Thank you for sharing your background a bit. Perhaps you could help me to understand something from your perspective as a Byzantine Eastern rite Catholic. I recently asked a Catholic Priest to further comment on his quote "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church."

His response has been around for a while. My question to him in short was: I write seeking your further commentary regarding your understanding to your statement "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church."

Are Orthodox Christians inclusive in the Latin definition of the Catholic Church?

His response was:

"Those who refuse to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff are in schism, which includes the Orthodox; those who deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from BOTH the Father and the Son are in heresy, as well. I hope for full reunion based upon the fullness of truth and submission to the Holy Father, but I would rather die for the Faith, than deny �Filioque.�
As for the Pope, I have no knowledge of the manner in which he recites the Creed, but I assume he does so in accord with Catholic Tradition."

I ask you DJS since Byzantine Catholics ask for the intercessions of Orthodox Saints who did not submit to the Roman Pontiff and embrace Roman Catholic theology and have been and are now considered to be heretics and in schism how is this matter rationalized or reconciled in your mind or heart? It seems like it may be quite vexing to me. Certainly, you should see it as a contradiction or is my reasoning and logic flawed again? I await your reply.

Thanks.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew:

As in the case of the shields of Leo, I think you are reading too much into things: insertion of the filioque does not mean an embrace of all Latin theology. Likewise omission of it does not implicate a rejection of the filoque theology. Just like Leo. At any rate, I am not much of a theologian, Deo gratia.

I don't have a problem with Orthodox Saints, even those who were at direct odds with the Union. I regard St. Alexis Toth, for example, as patron of stubborn, stiff-necked, hot-tempered Rusnaks - of whom I am the greatest. I am delighted that he is recognized as a Saint, it gives me great hope.

I have never encountered any RC, let alone an RC priest, who regarded me as a schismatic or heretic. Or treated my BCism with anything other than interest. Others on this forum do relate such horror stories, though. Such an opinion is, of course, of no consequence and is thus not worth regarding. I am a bit embarrassed but such ignorance, but not vexed by it.

I don't see Orthodoxy and Catholicism as mutually exclusive. I don't feel compelled to choose a side. Or better, I feel compelled to choose the side of an the undivided church. I am not responsible for this schism and am doing my best to remain as oblivious to it. I regret that I am not able to be entirely oblivious to it. It is the responsibility of our bishops - all of them - to fix it, and I wish they would take this responsibilty more seriously.

Dear DJS,

I think that most Orthodox Bishops take all spiritual matters very seriously, in fact I'm sure of it. One of the problems that I think many Orthodox Christians see physically is the departure of liturgical tradition within the Roman Catholic Church. Just in my lifetime I've noticed how the Latin mass was celebrated and how the Latin Church looked 25 years ago compared with today. In many new Latin Churches there are not many statues or icons and the tradition has been reduced. In fact, it looks like the Roman Catholic Church is moving further and further away from her traditions year by year. I have a very educated and dear friend of blessed memory who was RC and converted to Orthodoxy who actual wept streams of tears over in front of me when we had discussed the matter. I would tend to think that many more Roman Catholics weep as well. Anyway, my point being that I think adherence fully to tradition is very important since people really suffer because of it.

Thanks for your prior reply and patience with me.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

The whole deposit of faith is not at the mercy of whoever happens to be in the Chair of Peter, so to speak. Campaigns to convince the Pope to change an infallibly taught Church doctrine of faith or morals betray a fundamental error -- namely, that the truth can be changed by say-so; ironically, it attributes to the pope more power than he has ever claimed. A doctrine of faith or morals is not true because the pope solemnly teaches it; he teaches it because it is true. His teaching of it may be how we come to know of it; but it would be true even if he never said it. Asking the pope to change definitive Church teaching is as futile as asking him to change the law of gravity.

Papal infallibility does not imply a power to make new revelations -- that is, to disclose divine truths previously unknown. The whole Christian revelation was delivered to the apostles. The pope, in the exercise of infallibility, merely explains it without adding anything to it. The pope has no power to add, change or eliminate any doctrine, but only to guard, expound, explain, defend or define doctrine.

There are many number of things that the pope cannot do in religion. He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack and false interpretation. We believe that God will so guide him that his decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defense or unfolding of what Christ revealed.

The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament, he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them. His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy. He cannot take away the divine authority of any of his fellow bishops as long as they are Catholic bishops in normal possession of their sees; though he can, as chief authority of the Church on earth, under certain circumstances, try, suspend or depose an unworthy bishop. The pope can, in extraordinary circumstances, rearrange dioceses; he cannot abolish the universal episcopate.

The Church of Christ, by her Founder's constitution, is ruled by bishops who are the successors of the apostles, among whom, as among the apostles, one of their number is chief. Each Catholic bishop receives his jurisdiction from God; though he must use it in the union of his fellow bishops, and in canonical obedience to the Bishop of Rome, who is his chief and who has the role of "confirming his bretheren".

Papal infallibility is but one mode of the Church's Magisterium. It needs to be seen alongside the other forms of official teaching.

Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body -- His own mystical body -- gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.

Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. The council's dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility, nor does that definition imply a "circular demonstration" by which the council would make the pope infallible and the pope would render the same service to the council. It should however, be borne in mind that the council without the pope has no guarantee of infallibility, therefore the conciliar and the papal infallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence. An infallible statement of Divine truth is the voice of Christ speaking through the mouth of the visible head of His mystical body or in unison, in chorus, with all its members. The united voice of the whole Church has a solemnity, impressiveness, and effectiveness, an external, circumstantial weight, which is wanting in simple ex-cathedra pronouncements. It works its way into the minds and hearts of the faithful with almost irresistible force, because in the universal harmony each individual believer hears his own voice, is carried away by the powerful rhythm, and moved as by a Divine spell to follow the leaders. Again, the bishops who have personally contributed to the definitions have, in that fact, an incentive to zeal in publishing them and enforcing them in their dioceses; nay the council itself is an effective beginning of its execution or enforcement in practice. For this reason alone, the holding of most Eastern councils was a moral necessity- the great distance between East and West, the difficulty of communication, the often keen opposition of the Orientals to Old Rome made a solemn promulgation of the definitions on the spot more than desirable. No aids to effectiveness were to be neglected in that centre of heresies.

These considerations further account for the great esteem in which conciliar definitions have always been held in the Church, and for the great authority they universally enjoyed without any detriment to, or diminution of, the authority of the Apostolic See. From of old it has been customary to place side by side, in the rule of faith, the authority of the councils and that of the popes as substantially the same. Thus, we read in the formula, or profession of faith imposed by Pope Hormisdas (514-23) on the Eastern bishops implicated in the schism of Acacius: "The first [step towards] salvation is to keep the rule of orthodox [rectae] faith and in no wise to deviate from the constitutions of the Fathers [i.e. councils]. But the words of Our Lord to St. Peter (Thou art Peter . . . ) cannot be passed over, for what He said has been verified by the events, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without spot or stain. Wishing by no means to be separated from this hope and faith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, in his time Bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned in the Council of Ephesus by Blessed Celestine, Pope of Rome, and by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria . . . We declare and approve all the letters of Leo, Pope, which he wrote concerning the Christian religion, as we have stated before, following in all things the Apostolic See and professing [praedicantes] all its constitutions. And therefore I hope to be worthy to be with you [the pope] in the one communion which this Apostolic See professes, in which lies the entire, veracious, and peaceful solidity of the Christian religion. . . ." It should be noted that in this formula the infallibility of the Apostolic See is the centre from which radiates the infallibility of the councils.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

But "banana" has many different names in our country:
1. saging na saba
2. saging na lakatan
3. saging na latundan
4. prinsesitang saging

and all of these are "bananas"