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

"If not, and the same truth that is expressed in an Ecumenical Council is held elsewhere (ie. the Oriental Churches), then why is reception of that Council binding on all?"

If we can get to the point where we agree that the faith of councils 4,5,6, and 7 are the same as that held by the OOs (which appears to be the case), IMO the best way to proceed would be to have a reunion council to come up with a formulation, a restatement, of what's in councils 4,5,6, and 7 that is acceptable to both the EOs and the OOs.

"If anything, it seems that having a Pope is a much simpler process."

Readily admitted.

"And I still see the Pope, although he is Polish and Latin, as having a universal appeal and message that transcends culture and rite. I don't see this in any other patriarch and I don't mean this in an antagonistic way."

The Pope is the most visible Christian leader, that's certain. It's going to be that way for a long time. In addition, the present Pope is a well-meaning, holy person -- highly regarded by many both inside and outside Catholicism. Not all Popes will be as universally inspiring and appealing as this one, however, and that's why the focus in discussing these issues must be on the office of the Papacy and not the person of John Paul II.

"Also, although there is much talk of "Orthodoxy" in a universal sense, I don't think many European Orthodox would accept such a "trans-cultural" definition"

Frankly, it's quite possible, as I have written elsewhere, that we are in the final stages of 'rites', such as they are. If the Vatican is right, for example, that rites are the expression appropriate for a particular cultural context, the fact that the world is gradually and yet inexorably approaching a global monoculture seems to undermine the very continued existence of rites. Perhaps Tom Friedman is right in that there will always be an underclass of indigenous culture operating in tandem with the global elite monoculture -- will, then, the church's system of 'rites' remain tied to the indigenous undercultures, or will a new, homogenized, probably largely western, 'rite' develop out of the global monoculture for global use? Perhaps such a result would be the best for everyone, because it would obviate the need to resolve these vexing differences between what the Vatican considers 'rites', and would reinforce the logic of one global universal church with one leader and one 'rite' (without any of that being an imposition ... but rather the logical outrgrowth of the developing global monoculture).

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

You are a Counsellor in more ways than one!

Seeing as how closely agreed we are, I sometimes walk away from a conversation with you wondering if I am really Orthodox after all, but haven't realized it yet? What do you think?

My own view is that cultural distinctiveness will always be around as expressions of belongingness to particular "in-groups" and as ways of expressing one's distinctiveness apart from the great cosmopolitan mix.

Rites don't only refer to what goes on today, but also serve to maintain continuity with the past which is another reason why no matter how similar we become, we will still want to remain distinctive.

But that is my view and there is that matter of prelest you know . . .

You see the problem I have with you, Brendan, is that I can agree with you completely and still we are not in communion with each other.

Maybe it's not our problem but that of our bishops, do you think?

Yes, yes, there's that business about The Truth and I can already hear you telling me about it.

I can already hear my wife telling me about it too

I am waiting for a modern liberal scripture translator to ascribe the words, "What is truth" to "Pilot."

That way he can provide evidence that it's all "up in the air."

Take care, Counsellor!

p.s. why can't other conversations between Orthodox and Catholics be as civilized as ours?

Alex

[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 07-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 07-11-2001).]

Papal Infallibility was the sticking point
for me in deciding between Catholicism and
Orthodoxy. When I meet Eastern Catholics
who reject PI, I wonder why they aren't
just Orthodox. . . on the other hand, my
own view on PI seems inadequate to some
Latins.

Someone said they are an agnostic on
PI. That's essentially what I am. My
spin is this: I do not discern that any
ex cathedra statements have been heretical--
that is, none of them go against the teaching
of the first 7 councils. On the other hand,
they go beyond what is in these councils.
For the most part, these dogmas could be
articulated in a way that would be acceptable
to Easterners, but unfortunately they are
described in a way that really only fits
Western theology (e.g. Original sin and the
Immaculate Conception). My view is that
the "ontology" of these claims need not
be entirely correct, but that the practical
conclusion of them is--e.g. Mary was
protected from the effects of original sin
in a way that others are not. I'd add
that there at least has to be ample
evidence in the tradition for such claims,
even if it does not meet consensus.

Having said all this, I would say that
PI is really a pretty weak thing. . . if
a statement violated tradition clearly,
then it could not be a true ex cathedra
statement. If it is basically in line with
tradition (even if lacking consensus), then
it cannot be essentially harmful to the
Church (if many Fathers believed it, etc.),
and therefore it will not lead the church
into error--i.e. it will not render the
Church fallible. The only real possible
abuse, then, would be if a Pope declared
something that was not strictly ruled out
by Councils, but which also had little or
no support in the tradition. But this
hasn't happened, and while I do not theoret-
ically rule out the possibility that it
could (which might mean to some that I
do not really "believe" in PI), I say I
don't have to worry about whether PI is
"really" true if such a circumstance
never arises.

Here's a general question: would any
of you Eastern Catholics leap to the
Orthodox if a Pope ever "okayed" female
ordination? On my scenario, such permission
could never be given ex cathedra, as there
is no traditional support for it. . .hence,
if a Pope called for this, it would be
proof of error (though not on an ex cathedra
matter). But if it wasn't error on a
fundamental teaching, would this require
labelling it a "heresy" and thus breaking
communion with Rome? I'm inclined to
say "yes," but I'm not sure.

Melkman

Dear Melkman,

It is clear that if the Pope should ever teach an heretical doctrine, and what is heretical is not often clear, then we have the obligation to oppose him.

St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine actually outlined a number of conditions under which we are not only to "break" communion with an heretical Pope, but also oppose him, including the scenario in which a Pope would try to destroy the Church (!).

Rome's perspectives on this are much more developed that those of Orthodoxy.

For example, what does one do with a Patriarch who was a known collaborator with an atheist secret police organization?

In Rumania, the Patriarch was asked to step down. But what does this do to the idea of owing allegiance to such a Patriarch, his canonicity etc.?

That is a much more serious issue, I believe, than the hypothetical one of a Roman Pontiff falling into heresy.

Historically, as well, the other Patriarchates were dominated by heresies much longer than Rome ever was. This is what has been confirmed to me by an Orthodox theologian as well.

Alex

Historically, as well, the other Patriarchates were dominated by heresies much longer than Rome ever was. This is what has been confirmed to me by an Orthodox theologian as well.

Alex[/B][/QUOTE]

Certainly not since 1054. Since the Great Schism, the West has been the hotbed and incubator of many heresies, from which the Orthodox East has been spared; but only by the grace of God and not because of "intrinsic Orthodox superiority."