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

Dear Ignatius,

I'm glad you don't think so either!

Alex

Well, if I did think they were evil then obviously God was doing SOMETHING weird when He set up the Church.

I figure I'll give Him the benefit of the doubt and say that hierarchies are fine and that most of the problems with them stem from the people involved.

People forget that even the U.S. was set up in a hierarchical model (local, state, federal governments). Newsflash: we're not a democracy.

Dear Ignatius,

A professor of British history I met recently told me the early American leaders were actually pro-monarchist e.g. Alexander Hamilton.

He quoted one of them from that time period soon after the Declaration of Independence who said that having gotten rid of the Crown, America was placed on an uncertain course the end result of which would definitely be a civil war the likes of which the world would have never seen before. He was right, of course.

What I find amazing is how Americans could ever have persecuted Catholics because of their loyalty to the Pope as if he were a "foreign potentate."

Alex

What I find amazing is how Americans could ever have persecuted Catholics because of their loyalty to the Pope as if he were a "foreign potentate."

This actually will probably bring back to the original topic of this thread.

The persecution of Catholics in the U.S. is easy to understand because it really is linked to the issues of papal infallibility and papal jurisdiction, IMO.

A lot of the early U.S. settlers were from England, homeland of Anglicanism. The Puritans were unhappy with the Church of England and they came over. The other Anglicans were still busy trying to bury the Catholics back home. They would see little, if any reason to change attitudes in the New World.

The fact is that the Anglicans and any other Protestant denomination MUST be anti-Catholic in the sense that they have to hold the Church to be absolutely wrong in nearly all of her claims. Ergo, NO papal infallibility (but my pastor turns out to be right in almost every issue if I'm a Protestant).

As far as the Pope being a "foreign potentate", well he IS. Besides, I think the Papal States were still in existence when the colonies were being founded. (As an aside, they should obviously be given back to the Church.)

However, this issue really was nothing more than a smoke screen for the prejudice that many early settlers had against the Old Faith.

Sad, but for Protestantism to justify its own existence then Holy Mother Church has to be transmogrified into the Whore of Babylon.

Dear Ignatius,

Yes and you are more than correct, of course.

But Anglicanism under King Charles the First started to take a turn for the better, in most cases.

The Catholic Church has always admired the "Church of Charles and Laud" and they certainly led to the development of the High Church tradition and John Henry Newman.

High Anglicans honour King Charles as Saint and Martyr.

An Antiochian Orthodox priest I know, himself a convert from Anglicanism, had an Eastern icon of King Charles written.

His colleagues, Anglican converts to both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, keep the icon for private veneration. The priest recently had a large one set up at the back of his church before a votive candle stand. He says his bishop hasn't told him to take it down so he's keeping it up .

Charles was unwilling to persecute Catholics and indeed he thought of himself as a Catholic (however we may think of this).

A Jesuit once suggested to the King that he become a Catholic. The King replied, "But, sir, I already am a Catholic!"

His son, Charles II, was obliged to attend a Presbyterian service.

Afterwards, when asked what he thought of Presbyterianism, the King let slip the words, "Not a religion for gentlemen."

When he realized what he had said, he quickly added, "And Anglicanism is not a religion for Christians!"

Alex

Alex,

It's great that Charles refused to persecute Catholics. However, it is sad that he did not (or felt he could not) return England to union with Holy Mother Church. I am afraid that Anglicanism has wreked havok on England and there is still some latent hostility toards the country's own spiritual roots there.

Of course, this whole issue brings up the fact that, no you're not a Catholic if you don't belong to the Church except insofar as you have a valid Baptism. As for me, it's all I can do to live a holy life with ALL of the Sacraments at my disposal.

Dear Eric,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"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."

As you can see from the number of posts your question has generated in the past few hours, this is THE hot topic!

I cannot give you the "official" Byzantine Catholic position. To say that we are bound by everything said in Vatican I and II is overly simplistic, because quite frankly this places us in a contradictory position. On the one hand these councils instruct us to regard the papal claims as de fide. On the other hand, Vatican II especially instructs us to observe our own theological traditions in which these papal claims are, to say the least, problematic.

So, we are in a quandarry. Most of our eastern Catholic bishops are frankly more concerned with keeping our Churches alive. The last thing they want is to become lightning rods for conservative reaction. So they keep out of this debate altogether. I sympathise with them.

So I can't really give you an "official" Byzantine Catholic view. The only thing that I can say for certain is that as Byzantine Catholics we are obliged to agree with the Roman Church that her claims are not heretical. I think it is permissible, though, for us to regard the way these claims are exercised in practice and the language with which they are made in theory both leave much to be desired. Not only may we say this, but on the basis of the Pope's own request made in his 1995 encyclical letter, "Ut Unum Sint", I think we are obliged to say this.

Personally, I have made my own peace with the doctrine of papal infallibility. I see it as simply one more incarnation of the general infallibility of the Church. Nor do I have a problem with accepting the primacy of service the pope, bearing in mind that service and authority in Christ amount to the same thing (e.g. Matt 20:26)

But I do find myself reluctantly agreeing with the point Robert Tallick made, however offensively he put it. It is a sign of the anomolous existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches that we must wait on Rome even for the appointment of our own bishops.

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

", I think the Papal States were still in existence when the colonies were being founded. (As an aside, they should obviously be given back to the Church.)"

Except the Church wouldn't take them back.

Olga

Glory to God for all things!

The Russian Catholic Church does profess belief in Papal Infallibility. At the Petrograd Synod of 1917, attended by, Bl. Leonid Feodorov, Exarch of Russia (1879-1935,) most of the Russian clergy, and many laymen, canon 1 states

" We believe and profess that the Ecumenical Hierarch, the Pope of Ancient Rome, is the visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ, the Pastor and Teacher of All Christians, and we consider it our sacred duty to render to him unconditional obediance in all things."

The acts of this synod was confirmed at the later 1939 synod attended by Bl. Klement Sheptitsky, Exarch of Russia (1869-1951.) Mtr. Andrew Sheptitsky (1865-1944) presided over both the 1917 and the 1939 synods.

At his 1923 Moscow trial Bl. Leonid defended his continued defiance of the Bolsheviks by his submission to Rome. He stated, "The supreme pastoral authority of the Roman Pontiff is a dogma of our Catholic faith, and submission to the man whom we consider to be the representative of Jesus Christ on earth is a strict obligation for us."

Later, while imprisoned at Solovki Monastery, converted into a prison by the Bolsheviks, Bl. Leonid felt obliged to defend the Vatican I to his Russian Orthodox fellow prisoners. Absp. Hilarion Troitzky of Moscow (1886-1929) resisted. In the face the Catholic martyr's persistence and erudition the Orthodox martyr relented stating, "Understood in this manner, I can no longer see why this dogma could not be accepted by the Eastern world."

It is reasonable to conclude not only that the two Russian martyred exarchs and the Ukrainian bishop confessor believed the dogma, but they also thought that it was binding on Russian and Ukrainian Catholics.


[This message has been edited by Doulos of Fatima (edited 07-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Doulos of Fatima (edited 07-11-2001).]

Dear Doulos,

You are more than correct.

The Russian and Ukrainian Catholic New martyrs could have saved their lives simply by signing a paper that said they rejected the Papacy.

As you know, my grandfather did so during his imprisonment in a Soviet jail, something for which he did penance for the rest of his life.

Alex

The grace of Martyrdom is a singular guft of God, given to those He wills for the defense of the faith and the building up of the Church. If the Russian and Ukranian New Martyrs received this gift because of their belief in papal infallibility then so be it. So much the better FOR US.

In my own opinion from what Alex has said of his grandfather the man was a dry martyr in his later life of penance, which seems to have helped him live a life of holiness.

I can only assume that he and the New Martyrs are the best of intimate friends and they welcome him in their company.

In addition to participating in this forum, I also participate in the Orthodox/Roman Catholic discussion forum. A certain Orthodox participant in that forum put the following question to myself and to all the Catholics on the list: how can you know whether or not a dogma has been defined "ex cathedra"?
This is a very good question. Certainly, Vatican I came up with a set of criteria for this. But it isn't always clear whether those criteria have been met. Given this, it would seem to me that most solemn papal pronouncements are not initially received as infallible statements but merely as authoritative. The determination that a statement was "ex cathedra" seems to come after the fact, i.e., after it has been pondered and received as such by the bishops, priests, and laity. To give an example from history, no Chalcedonian Christian will doubt that the Tome of Pope St. Leo contains true Christological teaching. Nor can we doubt that it was true even before it was ratified by the Council. But the reception of the Tome by the Council and by a great part of the Church guaranteed its "ex cathedra" character. I think if one looks carefully at the history of that Council, one will find that Leo's Tome was certainly considered authoritative even before the Council. But it was only the conciliar and lay reception which guaranteed its fully normative character.
In short, what I'm saying is that we can only know that a papal pronouncement fulfills the requirements of an "ex cathedra" statement by a kind of hindsight. We look back to see how it was received by the faithful.

It is well-known among those in the Catholic Church who have studied the doctrine of papal infallibility that Catholic teaching allows for the possibility of a heretical Pope. This means that it is possible for a Pope to publicly teach heresy. The faith of the Roman Church holds that this could never be done in an "ex cathedra" manner. Yet the question remains, how could we know this with absolute certainty? The guidelines of Vatican I help in this regard, but they do not seem to me at present to be sufficiently objective in this regard. In the end, I don't think that the search for objective guidelines really helps. We must fall back on some sort of reception by the faithful.

Ed

Dear Ed,

As a matter of fact, Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic and his successors, until the twelfth century, were required to renew the anathema on him.

However, the Papacy cannot invent new doctrines, but simply pronounce on what is already within the Church's life as expressed by Scripture and Tradition.

When Pope Pius XII decided to declare the Assumption of Mary an infallible doctrine, he actually consulted with all the Catholic bishops of the world. The great majority were in favour.

An Ex Cathedra statement is a serious thing and has been taken seriously by the Roman Church.

Another expression of infallibility or indefectibility is when a Pope canonizes a Saint.

Some have suggested that one way in which the Papacy could develop that MIGHT be acceptable to the Orthodox could be when a Pope would ratify the decisions of an ecumenical council of the world's bishops in union with him.

The Papal charism of indefectibility could then be exercised along with that of the Bishops and other Patriarchs at once while having the consent of the entire Church on what is being ratified.

Those decisions could certaily be accepted as guided by the Spirit, Who leads us into all truth.

But the Spirit does that already in the Catholic Church.

He will bring us into union and harmony.

Alex

Dear Ed,

There is another problem the Orthodox are experiencing with respect to the Oriental Orthodox over the issue of the Ecumenical Councils, as you know.

That is the issue of the Oriental Orthodox having to accept the 7 Councils, since they only accept the first 3.

It is an interesting debate all around.

There are those who say that the doctrine contained in the 7 is already accepted by the Oriental Orthodox so there is no need for them to receive another four Councils at which they were not present.

Others say differently!

So if an Ecumenical Council is the highest doctrinal court of the Church, so to speak, is the Council the ONLY medium by which Truth is established in the Church.

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?

Others also argue that there are nine Councils, not seven, but that is another matter.

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

Which is not to denigrate the role that an Ecumenical Council has and continues to have in the Church.

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.

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, even if certain Greek and Russian churchmen would consider their cultural and ritual expressions of Orthodoxy to be somehow "normative" for everyone else.

They are not . . .

Alex

Dear Ignatius,

I accept your kind and loving words in the Spirit in which they are offered by you!

I wish my grandfather could have known you.

Alex