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

Hi again. In my thread on merits & indulgences I learned (to my surprise) that the Orthodox (or at least some Orthodox) believe in the idea of offering alms for the deceased and that this idea is closer to the Catholic concept of merit than I had thought before.

Soooo... this led me to wonder what the Byzantine Catholic perspective is on Papal Infallibility. I know for sure that the Orthodox would agree than any Patriarch is "infallible" when teaching in union with an Ecumenical Council. However, here I mean the particularly Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I. I have been misperceived before as perhaps trying to argue for Latin vs. Byzantine Catholicism. Let me say in advance that this is not my intention at all as I am not even Catholic myself. I know some of what Catholicism - most of it you might call "Latin" or western.

So, do Byzantine Catholics accept/believe in the Vatican I pronouncement? If not why not?

Thanks in advance for your perspective.

Eric

In actuality, this is not a question for laymen. Since ordinary Christians are subject directly and exclusively to their own eparchial bishop and (in essence) NEVER to the Pope directly, the question is one for the bishops to tackle. Catholic (Western and Eastern) and Orthodox Christians are directly subject to their own bishops and to no one else. What our bishops determine is proper for us is what they will teach. A lot of the "Papal jurisdiction" ideas come from the historical Western perspectives: being "Catholic", historically and canonically (in response to Anglican and Lutheran and Methodist 'bishops') meant being in communion with a Church that is 'headed' by the Bishop of Rome; so there was naturally an 'necessary' emphasis on the person of the Bishop of Rome.

However, the Catholic person is subject directly and exclusively to his/her bishop. His/her relationship to the Bishop of Rome is, technically, non-existent. One answers ONLY to one's bishop (and, by extension, to one's pastor -- the 'vicar' of the bishop.

Blessings!

Dear Eric,

Well, here I'm not going to try and convince you that we really all believe the same thing This is indeed the Big Sticking Point.

To tell you the truth, though, I don't think the real problem is papal infallibility as much as papal jurisdiction, ie. the claim of the papacy to universal and ordinary jurisdiction over every single bishop. At the recent Orientale Lumen Conference in Washington DC this was said in as many words by Bishop Kallistos (Ware), and I think it reflects a very mainstream Orthodox position. If we solve the question of jurisdiction, the question of infallibility will solve itself. It makes sense if you think about it: what matters is not so much papal statements as the attempt to ENFORCE those statements.

Personally, I am agnostic on this question. I have little trouble accepting the teaching of Vatican I, provided it is understood in the light of the teaching of Vatican II on the equality of all bishops. What I do have trouble with is the extreme centralization of the Catholic Church at the expense of the local Churches. I speak with some feeling on this point, waiting as we all are in the Eparchy of Van Nuys for Rome to appoint us our new bishop!

But as a simple monk I can only lament...is there a smiley symbol that can give a wan smile?

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

You write:

[I speak with some feeling on this point, waiting as we all are in the Eparchy of Van Nuys for Rome to appoint us our new bishop!]

Sorry, but I just have to ask. If you are really part of one of these 22 INDEPENDENT sui juris churches you talk about. Churches that are in 'in communion with Rome' rather than 'under it's authority'; and if you are 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' as you claim to be - then why are you waiting for Rome to appoint your next Bishop? Appoint him yourselves!

What you think you are, and what you actually are and two separate and distinct things. Are you guys so brain washed that you can't see it?

Bob (an Orthodox from an ex Byzantine Catholic background)

Eric --

Presently there is disagreement among Byzantine Catholics about this matter.

Formally, all Catholics of all particular churches and patrimonies are considered to be bound to the definitions promulgated at Catholic Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, formally all Byzantine Catholics are bound to believe, and believe firmly, in Vatican I's Pastor Aeturnus under penalty of anathema.

Having said that, there is much dissent among Byzantines about this teaching. Some Byzantine Catholic Bishops (notably Kyr Elias (Zoghby) of the Melkites) have expressed the view that Vatican I is not really an Ecumenical Council in the full sense of that word and therefore is not binding on the entire church. At the same time, there are many Byzantines who adhere fully to these definitions, giving them the full assent that Catholic teaching requires (formally).

I don't think you're going to get any consensus among Byzantine Catholics regarding the question you asked.

Brendan

Hello Brother Maximos --

"To tell you the truth, though, I don't think the real problem is papal infallibility as much as papal jurisdiction, ie. the claim of the papacy to universal and ordinary jurisdiction over every single bishop"

I think that the jurisdictional problem is the bigger of the two, but they are both related. As a Byzantine Catholic priest once told me (when I, back when I was an Eastern Catholic myself, said that jurisdiction was the major point), if the Pope really is gifted with the charism of infallibility, don't you think he should have jurisdiction, too, so that everyone can directly benefit from that charism?

It's true that if the jurisdiction is limited, the infallibility, as a practical matter, would be limited too. But if the Latins really do believe that the Pope is infallible, I think they will be very hesitant (perhaps rightly) to reduce the jurisdiction.

Brendan

Brother Maximos,

Please allow me to press this point a bit further to allow me to fully understand the Byzantine Catholic position on papal infallibility. I caught the distinction you made about not having a problem with Vatican I definition as long as it includes the collegiality of bishops as described in Vatican II. Yet I think the Catholic church does actually mean that if the Pope taught something to be infallibly true that he would not need the consent of the bishops for it to be true and binding on every Catholic person. Do the Byzantine Catholics believe this? If not, why not?

I value what your opinion on these matters is, but I would also like some feel on the "official" Byzantine Catholic position on Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

Blessings,

Eric

Dear Eric the (Well - ) Read,

Just my two cents' worth.

The Pope may act independently of the Bishops, but he cannot, CANNOT act independently of Tradition and the Scriptures as well as the continuity of Catholic teaching.

I suppose I have a bit of difficulty myself in understanding why some of our Orthodox and Catholic contributors are being so legalistic about this, as if what the Church is about is only contained in documents, pronouncements etc.

The Church also has its own life that it lives and it lives it in the Holy Spirit.

The Papacy is something that is being shaped by the Spirit to meet the different challenges in each age.

So are the roles of the various Patriarchs.

We cannot see Vatican I in isolation from subsequent developments and the ongoing life of the Church and of the Papacy today.

There is a greater sense of collegiality and the notion of the Pope as the Servant of the Servants of God today and as manifested in the person of His Holiness than was to be had at the time of Vatican I.

Do Byzantine Catholics accept Vatican I? Do all Roman Catholics accept Vatican I? The teaching on abortion and birth control? And other aspects of the faith?

Is there an official position? The official position is that Byzantine Catholics are in communion with Rome and acknowledge the teaching of the Catholic Church to be identical to its own faith.

Is Vatican I in keeping with Eastern spirituality? Perhaps not. But Vatican I isn't the final statement on the Papacy.

Alex

How does one "argue" with papal infallibity, which is both personal and unilateral?

That is the Orthodox question, since these papal concepts are totally antithetical to the contemporary Orthodox spirit.

b.

Alex,

You said:
Is Vatican I in keeping with Eastern spirituality? Perhaps not. But Vatican I isn't the final statement on the Papacy.

Agreed, but I didn't think other statements on the Papacy (e.g., Vatican II) haven't seemed to limit the Pope's personal ability to define dogma apart from the other bishops (though not apart from Tradition). Please elaborate more on what you're saying here.

"Yet I think the Catholic church does actually mean that if the Pope taught something to be infallibly true that he would not need the consent of the bishops"

Here you have the whole issue boiled down, all arround the word "consent". My understanding of Catholicism is that on the one hand the same gift of the Spirit that protects the Pope from error in certain circumtances, protects the College of Bishops, either assembled in Council, or unassembled, but still a college. Therefore the Pope and the College of Bishops would never be in conflcit.

Now, which given the civil and social situation in the 1870's, might the college of bishops be in a situation where they could not physically give their "consent"? Sure. Gallicism, Kulturkampf, etc.

In a different world, not addressed by the father of VCI, we could have a situation where it is the college of bishops who have the freedom to act but the Pope who is restricted (sort of like the Moscow Patriarch has been).

Olga

All this talk is hypothetical at the moment. The Pope hasn't taught anything to be infallibly true without the consent of the college bishops.

Please pardon my language here but I am going to use a quote that my father loves so much.

Eric did not like the quote that was here, so out of charity I have removed it

but even with the "gross" comment removed. "Ifing" away at things is not the way to go in my opinion.


I would find it very sad and disturbing if someone left the Church do to a hypothetical situation.

I can see why the Orthodox might not want to reunite until this hypothetical issue is address but to leave over it is a folly.


Your little brother in Christ,
David

[This message has been edited by dbalok (edited 07-10-2001).]

Dear Eric the (Well - ) Read,

It is true that Vatican II did not somehow change or alter what Vatican I said about the papacy.

But if the Roman Councils and other formal events were the ONLY events in which the Spirit speaks in the life of the Church, then the subject would be closed, would it not?

Yet, (Blessed) Pope John XXIII said, "I'm only infallible when I speak ex cathedra. And I will never speak ex cathedra."

What Popes do throughout their pontificates and the style they set also impacts on how the Papacy is exercised. How the Papacy is exercised today is different from how it was exercised in the time of Urban VIII or in the nineteenth century.

There is a greater emphasis on the idea of service, diakonia and martyria. There is a greater emphasis on charism rather than formalism.

I see this in the pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II. I see it in his universal appeal and his ability to transcend narrow cultural, ethnic and religious boundaries. I don't see any other religious leader representing these values or qualities. And Vatican I doesn't define the sum total of what the Petrine Ministry is or does. If it did, we wouldn't have a Pope John Paul II today.

Again, we cannot refer only to church documents etc. We need to refer also to the living practice of the Church today in the here and now.

That practice, the faith being lived out, is more important, I believe, than any church document or pronouncement of dogma.

As for the Pope's authority being absolute, Orthodoxy teaches that the bishops' power is also absolute, but there are differences as Brendan would argue (good naturedly, of course!).

There is no doubt that the Pope's authority is final and absolute. But I also consider my local bishop's authority to be the same as well. (But my bishop appreciates me not for my subservience, but for my jokes!)

I have read the documents of both Vatican I and Vatican II. Personally, I see a GREAT difference in tone and perspective on the Papacy and many other matters in the latter.

I see a development along these lines in the Popes since, especially him whom history will know as "John Paul the Great."

I come from an ethno-culturally based Church and am still with it. For me, union with Rome and submission to the Holy Father is what gives me a universal Christian vision.

I see nothing wrong with the monarchical foundation of the Catholic Church. I see nothing wrong with the monarchical foundation of Canada or Britain or any place blessed to have such a form of government.

You see, I am hopelessly lost in this respect .

If you do decide to join the Orthodox Church, Eric, don't do it for the wrong reason e.g. because it doesn't have a Pope.

For 1,000 years it did have a Pope, although the Petrine Ministry was exercised in a different way.

For me, the crux of the issue is, do the current differences in faith and church administration between Catholics and Orthodox justify the separation of the Churches? For me again, the answer is "No."

Are there problems to overcome? Certainly. But for me the Pope will always be the First Bishop and Patriarch in the universal Church, however that Ministry is exercised.

Frankly, I like the way the Pope is exercising it and I'll take him over any other Patriarch or Bishop, any time.

If I haven't made myself clear on this, Friend, then I would suggest you don't want to accept what I am saying.

May God bless and protect you!

Alex

[This message has been edited by Eric, the Inquirer (edited 07-11-2001).]

I see nothing wrong with the monarchical foundation of the Catholic Church. I see nothing wrong with the monarchical foundation of Canada or Britain or any place blessed to have such a form of government.

You see, I am hopelessly lost in this respect .

You mean hierarchical systems AREN'T inherently evil?!?