www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Question on Papal infallibility

Dear Greg,

We agree!

Dogma cannot be changed or ignored. Vatican I declared that the Pope is empowered with the infallibility of Christ's Church when he teaches in certain restricted situations. To my knowledge a pope has spoken in this fashion once, when the Assumption of Mary was defined.

What can change and grow is our ability to understand and apply what dogma teaches us about reality in the world in which we live. As we move toward reunion among the Churches, it seems to me, we can dicuss what the dogma of Infallibility means without denying what we know already.

With your indulgence, I'd compare what we're talking about with a seemingly unrelated example from a field outside of theology.

The medical community is exploring new ways of dealing with cancer (no, I'm not comparing Papal Infallibility to cancer - just an example that is pretty clear). The fact is that cancer exists and that cannot be denied. A range of options for treatment has expanded as the world in which cancer is found has advanced technologically.

The reality of cancer has not changed, but the way that we understand it and treat it has. To simply stop research about cancer because what is being studied about it seemed to be at odds with what we knew at any given time would be counter productive. To do so would have left us with a much smaller range of treatment options and less hope for a cure.

The Pope has invited the Orthodox to work with the Catholics to try to find a way that the Pope can exercise his Petrine ministry in service to the Churches. In doing so, he has denied nothing. I think that as this work goes along, we will come to see the truth in what Vatican I has said in the context of what Vatican II taught; and in the context of what the bishops and John Paul II are teaching; and in the context of what the Orthodox bring to the discussion.

I think that the explorations, when they occur, will be a blessing to the Churches. I cannot agree that we should not talk because one word has been spoken about Infallibility at Vatican I.
The dogma of the Trinity has been clarified for us as the result of discussion and disagreement among the churches. I think that discussion and disagreement among the Churches of our time will lead to similar clarification about infallibility. There is nothing to fear! The Spirit is still at work.

I believe that the Spirit can write straight with crooked lines. About the issue of the Infallibility of the Churches He is still speaking, in my opinion.

I hesitate to speak in regard to the Byzantine expression of our common Faith. Let me just say that it is my understanding that the Holy Father has asked Byzantine Catholics to return to their roots. He asks them to find those roots in the expression of Faith in the teachings of Byzantine Orthodox Churches.

If I understood correctly, except for the teaching on the role of the Pope among the Churches, the Truth taught among those Churches is common to all of the Churches that make up the Catholic Communion.

Respectfully, I have never heard a Byzantine Catholic deny the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope. Perhaps I missed it. Can you give me some examples of when this has been done here or elsewhere?

Thanks for taking the time to respond!

Steve

[ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

This is an interesting discussion.

I think that the major point from the Orthodox perspective is not the exercise of the Petrine ministry, but rather the dogmatic issues that underlie this problem. That is, even though we may reach a common understanding on the utility of this or that role for the Bishop of Rome in the Church universal, Orthodoxy cannot accept that universal papal jurisdiction and unilateral papal infallibility are a part of the dogmatic deposit of faith. Therefore, these matters are not simply pragmatic matters of how the church should function, but rather dogmatic matters of what she believes and in this dogmatic respect Byzantine Catholics do not hold the Orthodox faith.

I agree with Steve that Rome has put the "exercise" issue on the table ... but it has not (indeed it really cannot) put the "dogmatic" issue on the table, because this is an affirmed Catholic dogma. And as long as the dogmatic issue is not on the table, there cannot be real progress toward a unity of faith. There is a crack in the door, of course, because Catholicism *does* allow "development of doctrine" -- such that Catholicism could subsequently redefine the dogmatic aspects of jurisdiction and infallibility in a way that is acceptable to Orthodoxy ... but that involves putting the dogma, and not just the exercise, on the table.

All of the thorniest issues between Rome and Orthodoxy are dogmatic in nature -- whether the filioque or universal status of the Latin marian dogmas, or the Latin dogmatic pronouncements regarding the Papacy. We can talk until we are blue in the face about complementary traditions, but if there is to be unity of faith it must be based on unity of dogma, and at this point there is not unity of dogma. This is a serious issue, and it's not a political, cultural or historical issue, principally, but a dogmatic issue.

And, ultimately, this is what informs our understanding of Byzantine Catholicism, and why we take issue with the nomenclature used by some in the Catholic communion relating to "Orthodox in communion with Rome" -- it denies that there are dogmatic differences in play here, because at the present time holding to these various Catholic dogmas is not consistent with the Orthodox faith, as the Orthodox faith does not, currently, affirm these Catholic dogmas. This, of course, does not mean that BCs have no right to exist -- of course, they can and should continue to practice their faith as they see fit. But it does explain why we Orthodox can't consider them to be "Orthodox". "Eastern Catholic" or "Byzantine Catholic" (since we all pretty much accept the pragmatic use of the shorthand word "Catholic" for the present-day Roman communion) are perfectly acceptable and more accutrately descriptive of the situation of these churches.

Brendan

Someone said elsewhere that Paul VI referred to the "ecumenical councils" after the seventh as "general councils of the West", and that that view is encouraged.

Does this mean that Catholicism formally doesn't see numbers 8-21 as ecumenical? Because if this is so (and I don't have the facts messed up), then what we have is the Pope "infallibly" declaring himself infallible. With all due respect to my Catholic friends (especially since I once believed that this infallibility was possible, but now I'm not so sure, so I ask to learn more), how is this possible?

It seems to me that in order for the Pope to be infallible, it would have to be by declaration of an ecumenical council, and if the Catholic Church still regards Vatican I as ecumenical, then all is well for them. But if they are not now viewed as ecumenical anymore, but rather as Western councils, how does this affect infallibility as a "dogma proclaimed by an ecumenical council"?

Honestly, and again with all due respect, the Pope infallibly declaring himself infallible (no matter how many restrictions are placed on it) just sounds kinda silly to me. There's gotta be more to it than this though, right?

Dear Brendan,

First of all, a happy and blessed Pascha to you and your entire family!

(Shouldn't you be in Church? ).

And it is always good to see you in the thick of such a papalist crowd as on this thread!

The point you make about Byz. Catholics with respect to Catholic dogma is an excellent one and one that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.

Even if the case can be made, and I believe it can, that all other dogmas of faith in the RC Church find their corollary in Orthopraxis today, that of the Papacy certainly doesn't, unless one is content with the "Primacy of Honour" title alone, which certainly falls short of what current RC teaching on the Pope is all about.

I also think that "Orthodox" can be used to denote the Orthodox Church, and that is certainly the most obvious usage for this term.

But it was also used in the first millennium of the United Church and so what is "Orthodox" or not can be open to interpretation, as can its usage accordingly.

You'll have to forgive us for using this appellation for ourselves as Eastern Catholics.

Whenever we've discarded it, or the spirituality it implies, we've put ourselves on a slippery slope toward becoming what we are not through losing a sense of our Eastern Christian identity.

But God bless you and all you Orthodox Christians!

Alex

I would affirm that enough hope exists for reconcilation that the dialogue should continue and our respective churches should look for new ways to grow in unity with each other and all Christians. We should also recognize that reconcilation is a virtue in its own right, not just as a path towards corporate reunion.

We don't know where the Holy Spirit will lead us. Let's trust in the Spirit and not lock ourselves in to dated formulas.

I think the nature of the later western Councils is not a worthwhile point of discussion (and I note our Orthodox Church authorities rarely raise it as an issue of division). Quite likely we may mean different things when we say "Ecumencial Council".

Sometime some people here write as if during an Ecumencial Council is the ONLY time the Spirit operates with Christ's promise to the Church. ("Flys in on seven occassions, then flys back to heaven and roosts there, never to visit earth again!") I reject that. The Spirit is all over the place, in many situations, forums, and means.

Axios

<<Someone said elsewhere that Paul VI referred to the "ecumenical councils" after the seventh as "general councils of the West", and that that view is encouraged.>>

I've heard that statement before. I wonder if this is an 'apocryphal' quotation, or a quotation taken out of context. It might have been a statement made by Paul VI only in passing.

In other words, how much weight does the above statement have? Does anyone know the source of the "quote" from Paul VI and what was said in the sentences before and after that alleged statement?

I, myself, tend to think that the Councils which took place after the schism are not ecumenical in the full sense. They were not all ecumenical in the sense of unversal, in that the patriarchs and majority of Eastern bishops had no part in them. But this does not mean that they cannot be ecumenical and applicable to all in the sense that they, in essence, represent the faith of the whole Church. As an Eastern Catholic I accept the teachings of the Councils recognized by the Catholic Church, including those after the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. But I also know there needs to be some qualification here. Since these Councils were primarily or sometimes soley Western their deliberations were carried out in a Western approach, reflected Western theology, and were in accord with the Western tradition. In other words these Councils' documents were aimed primarily at those who were considered Catholics at that time, i.e., Roman Catholics, and reaffirmed Catholic teaching in Roman Catholc language and Roman theological imagery. Some matters of these Councils had to do exclusively with Western concerns, such as liturgical prescriptions, or addressing specifically Western theological concerns. But even these had some elements that were universally applicable. I see, for example, the 2nd Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) as an affirmation of the universal Church's teaching on Liturgy and Eucharist, especially in the first chapters. But the rest of the document has to do primarily and often exclusively with the Roman liturgy. In fact, article 4 of the introduction of the liturgical Constitution says: "Among these principles and norms are some which can and should be applied to the Roman rite [Church and liturgical rites] and also to all the other rites. The practical norms which follow, howeveer, should be taken as applying only to the Roman rite except for those which, in the very nature of things, affect other rites as well."

The bishops at the Second Vatican Council were a little more conscious about the existence, importance and distinctiveness of the non-Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churhces and traditions. Because of this they were careful to note that some matters treated by the Council applied to all Catholics and some specifically to Roman Catholics.

The problem is that most of the other Councils after the 7th Council did not share this consciousness and their work was directed primarily to Roman Catholics because they were seen as the only real Catholics left, as the Eastern communities were considered no longer part of the one Church. They perceived not only that all Roman Catholics were Catholics but also that all Catholics were Roman Catholics. Remember that many of these councils were held before the various reunions that took place over the years. Although some Eastern Churches were already united to Rome, this reality was certainly not in the consciousness of most Catholics.

I think that if there were to be a reunion of Catholic and Orthodox churches, the fact of the existence of other "Ecumenical Councils" would have to be faced. I have been trying to formulate an approach to this whole problem about the recognition of all the Council considered ecumenical by Catholics. I find it useful for myself, to make make a distinction (not division) between the first seven commonly accepted Ecumenical Councils and the other Councils considered ecumenical by Catholics. (I say distinction, not division because I view all the councils to be a continuity, and an exercise of the Church's magisterial authority. An example I use in making my distinction is taken from the terminology commonly used concerning the Bible. Part of the Old Testament is universally accepted by Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Jews. But there are sections in the Old Testament that are not accepted by some, especially Protestants and Jews. These are the so-called "deuterocanonical" books. Historically there have been disagreements concerning the canonicity of the books called deuterocanonical. But these books are now accepted by Catholics and Orthodox. Maybe just as we have deuterocanonical books of the Bible, we would have come to recognize that we have "deutero-Councils". These "deutero-Councils" are valid and authentic, but also also contain elements, terminology, approaches, emphases, which are in accord primarily with the Latin tradition. Then there needs to be a process by which it will be determined which elements are universal and which ones are Latin Church-specific.

Sorry for rambling here, but I'm trying to work things out myself.

I think that there is oftentimes a lack of rigor in the use of terms.

Since bishop is the highest office in the sacramental church (not, of course, in the monarchical model), then all bishops are of equal sacramentality. The Pope, then, as 'successor of St. Peter" is the senior member of the college of bishops, i.e., the senior pastor.

But, it is a big leap for me to understand how universal pastor gets transformed into universal legislator or determiner of doctrine. I think that this is the attitude that rubs Eastern and Orthodox fur the wrong way. (I am still convinced from reading some of the documents of Vatican I, that the purpose of the 'doctrine' was intent upon backing up the Western European monarchical worldview and had more political than theological objectives.)

Thus, the question is: can one legitimately add to the pastoral role of Pope/bishop to include 'definer of doctrine' outside the context of a Council? I don't think so. The idea that the legitimate role of the Council can be transferred to an individual is beyond legitimacy, no matter who the individual. We must always remember that the Church consists of all of the baptized, ALL of them. While bishops, as a group, constitute the synod of pastors of the universal church, allowing them to abdicate their role as pastors to just one of them is parallel to saying that the faithful abdicate their responsiblity for the Church to the clergy. And this is patently not true. (Otherwise, we layfolks could legitimately just withdraw from financial responsibility to the Church, from our roles in apostolates like those to the sick, the poor, the un-churched, etc., and just say: well, THEY'RE responsible because we've decided to have it that way.)

I know that some of the intensely ROMAN of the Roman Catholics don't want to hear any of this, but the fact is, there is a lot of very legitimate history and theology in the church that strongly militates against this ability of the bishops to abdicate their conciliar role to another, even the most senior bishop. It's part of the 'essential functions' of the bishop's job description!!!

Christ is Risen!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axios:
[QB]I would affirm that enough hope exists for reconcilation that the dialogue should continue and our respective churches should look for new ways to grow in unity with each other and all Christians. We should also recognize that reconcilation is a virtue in its own right, not just as a path towards corporate reunion.

We don't know where the Holy Spirit will lead us. Let's trust in the Spirit and not lock ourselves in to dated formulas.


There can be no real uniy without truth and since the truth rest securly in the bosom of the Catholic Church, then it makes perfect sense that no true union of Christians can take place without them accepting all the reveled beliefs of the Catholic faith. If reunion just means a vague intercommunion with one another without anyone having to reject any previous beliefs then that wouldnt not be a true unity but rather a false union at the expense of truth.

Truth is the most important thing that the Catholic Church posseses. All that she teaches in all matters is correct since she can neither decieve nor be decieved. Why one Earth is the unity of all Christians so important as to make some ecumaniacs willing to either compromise or throw away certain (If not all) reveled truths in favor of such a "show unity".

What next, will the spirit lead us to an inter faith unity in a one world religion? Sounds more like feel good liberalism to me then any sort of sound doctrine.

Robert K.

Dear Robert,

I have difficulty fully accepting your post as it seems to differ with the very authority you are defending, namely the Pope.

The Pope has said that not only are we Orthodox not in heresy, but "even schism is too strong a word" for what separates us. Yet if the charism of protection from error of the Holy Spirit stops with the Catholic Church, how have we Orthodox preserved ourselves from heresy after 1,000 years of seperation and loss of this charism? Dumb luck? Can man, using only natural reason, babble on for one thousand years without falling into hersey at least once? Yet we avoided it?

You write that :


Is this not what you Catholics did to heal the western schism? No Council or Pope has ever dogmatically defined that either the French or Italian succession was the true succession (though learned opinion exists). Both popes resigned and a new, single pope was elected.


Because Christ wills it.


Axios

Dear Axios,
I think it can also be said that the Church ( Bishops and Laity are infalible) this charism is not solely limited to the Pope. The Pope has this charism as a part of his office as chief shepherd of the Church, it is also collegialy shared with the "College of Bishops" and the sensus fedelium.
Im not sure where this is stated in the Documents of Vat II are but im sure someone with more expertise than I will be able to cite it.


That being said I think it is reasonable to state that the Orthodox being of Apostilic Faith share this indefectability of the Church.

Any comments.
Stephanos I
Unworthy monk and Archsinner.

[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: Stephanos I ]

Because Christ wills it.


Axios[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes he does, but only in the full unity of his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - The Catholic Church! That is the only global religion moved by the spirit that the Holy Father wants for all men and it wil be accomplished but only in the correct manner.

I never said that I thought Orthodox were heretics. The Catholic Church never professed that belief (But many, many Orthodox as I can testify, believe such about Catholics). The Pope may think schism is too strong a word for the present divisions, but in the technical sesne, the traditional term for those who posses valid orders and profess no heresy but not in communion with the Holy See is that they are in schism.

Indeed, I hope that the seperation between East and West ends soon but not by the Catholic Church compromising her faith and doctrine. That would be only a shamful appeasment for the sake of a visible but false union that would be doomed to failure from the start.

I will admit that I am somewhat uncomfortable with the Churches present ecumania and seriously doubt that any sort of workable unity will ever be reached unless a compromise is made by someone (And the Catholic Church will not make that compromise). Certainly unity could be quickly achieved with the Orthodox, if they so desired. But it is impossible to have any sort of unity with dissident protestants because not only do they lacke a sacremental church structure but also deny many truths of the Catholic (And Orthodox) Church.

I pray that some good will come out of the ecumenical movement but, in reality, it has so far produced nothing substansial and probably never will unlss the above mentioned criteria I have listed were to occur.

I fear that Pope John Paul, in his quest for Christian unity, has become almost like Captain Ahab chasing endless miles in search of an un attainable white whale.

Robert K.

Dear Greg,
Maybe I misunderstood the original question about Papal Infalibility.
It seems that you jumped on to universal jurisdiction, which is a totally different matter.

As to both of these issues, is it not the doctrine of the Latin Church.
1. That the Pope enjoys the Charism of Infalibilty in his own person.
2. That the Pope has Universal Jurisdiction.

How that applies to his exercising these is not a matter which is defined, at least not fully.
Let me remind you that historically Vatt I was never a completed Council due to the Political circumstance during the 1870's.

Vatt II clarified this somewhat but by no means is the last word on the matter.There is still room for the further clarification of how this Charism is defined in an understanding that is acceptable to both Churches.

We need mutual respect, prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Stephanos I

Robert,

I have to disagree with the extreme liberalism and naturalism you suggest in your last post.

You say: the Catholic Church "is the only global religion moved by the spirit"

Then you say: "I never said that I thought Orthodox were heretics. The Catholic Church never professed that belief"

and you say: "for the present divisions...the traditional term for [the Orthodox] who posses valid orders and profess no heresy but not in communion with the Holy See is that they are in schism."

So, Orthodoxy is not moved by the Spirit, yet has avoided heresy and kept valid orders for one thousand years, in multiple cutures and circumstances and without a central authority. That is a amazing feat! All of this can be done by man without the aide of the Spirit!

I am afraid I do not share you high view of man or your low view of the grace of the Spirit. I don't believe natural reasoning alone could have kept the Orthodox Church on the path of all of our common points with Catholicism over the past thousand years.


On a second topic you say: "it is impossible to have any sort of unity with dissident protestants"

Any sort of unity? Your Pope says sorts of unity already exist with the Protestant Churches. When he spoke to the European Council of Churches, he mentioned "an imperfect unity" which he called on Catholics and Protestants to build on.

Imperfect unity seems to contradict the impossibility of any sort of unity.

Maybe the fact that you disagree with the non-dogmatic statements of the Pope and I, a non-Catholic, find value in them is the basis to hope we can have unity!

Axios

Dear DavidB:

Before I take my turn in answering your original post, which is the subject matter of this thread before it veered away aimlessly, let me state that, from a CATHOLIC (especially Latin) point of view:

(1) INFALLIBILITY was granted/conferred by
Christ to His Church;

(2) the Catholic Church believes that she
is "the" Church established by Christ; and

(3) there are three "organs" through which the
voice of infallible authority makes itself
heard, namely:

i. the BISHOPS dispersed throughout the
world in union with the Holy See, which
is the "Ordinary Magisterium" of the
Church;

ii. ECUMENICAL COUNCILS under the headship
of the Pope; and

iii. the POPE himself separately.

Now, if we re-read the first paragraph of your quotation from the Catholic Pages Forum, the 1st sentence refers to the 1st organ of infallibility; the 2nd sentence to the 2nd organ; and the 3rd sentence to the 3rd organ, or to Papal Infallibility. So, the poster's question in that Forum cannot be answered intelligibly at all.

Your own request for guidance refers ONLY to PAPAL INFALLIBILITY when you posed the question:
"Can the Pope out of the blue declare that, say for example, that Judas is the Co-Redemptrix?"

I think the answer is obvious: NO, he cannot!

Infallibility, whether exercised by the Church, by an Ecumenical Council, or by the Pope is limited to doctrinal pronouncements on "faith and morals" only. The "faith" in this limitation refers to the original deposit of faith and, as we all know, Judas was a traitor, and cannot be declared by any Pope, or by the Church at large, or by an Ecumenical Council for that matter, a "Co-Redemptrix."

AmdG

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Dear Amado,

Very good and too the point.

If I may add to your third point "iii. the POPE himself separately."

A subpart (b) which is divided into two parts:his Ordinary magisterium, and his more famous EX-Cathedra statements.

With regards to ex-cathedra pronoucements there are two objects,primary & secondary.

Primary objects is what has been revealed for our salvation, whether written in Scripture or handed down in tradition which pertain to matters of faith or morals.

Secondary objects are not in the original deposit of faith but are intimately tied to revelation and judged necessary for its preservation & explanation.

Vat I refrained intentionally from stating anything with regards to secondary objects. Pastor aeternus used the verb "held" instead of "believed" a term reserved for assent given to divine revelation only.

So that aspect is still open for debate.

Blessings

Tom