Accepted doctrines and dogma (papal infallibility, et al)

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The 14 “General Synods of the West” were convened in order to respond to situations and issues that had arisen in the Roman Church, and, as such, can hardly be considered ecumenical. That being said, however, the Faith affirmed by those 14 Councils is, in essence, the one Faith proclaimed by the entire Church. Again the essence of what is taught is the one Faith, but the expression is explicitly Roman. While we Eastern Catholics may express things differently, we do still hold the same Faith (as I would propose so too do Orthodox Christians).

Little Boy Lost did a wonderful job summarizing the issue of the Immaculate Conception. Although the theology is steeped in Latin terms, the substance of the teaching is affirmed by both East and West.

Papal Infallibility, I’m finding, is less a theological issue than a political one. The Pope does not have the authority to wake up one morning and proclaim a new dogma; nor is his infallibility separated from the infallibility of the Church, but is rather an exercise of the Church’s infallibility. The Pope only has the authority to declare a dogma in response to issues which are proving divisive for the Church and after extensive consultation of all the bishops. When declaring a dogma in this way he is not speaking for himself, but on behalf of the entire Church and as head (or first among equals) of the college of bishops. In this sense the Pope is merely acting as the voice of the entire Church to preserve unity in charity/love. He is not over and above the Church, but acts within the Church as the servant of the Church.

Personally what I reject are the misconceptions, misunderstandings, and abuses of the Church’s teaching.

 

[ciero]

Let me just say this. This poster does not speak for all Eastern Catholics.

What Eastern Catholics reject is the Roman explanations using western theological thought. The Dogmas are not denied just the Roman definitions. We have our own way of expressing them.

NOWHERE did I claim that I spoke for any Eastern Catholic other then myself.

The problem as I see it…we Eastern Catholics are always having to modify our beliefs to “fit” the Latin definition, or explain how our beliefs fit in with the Latin explanation. Why cant the Latins stop defining things that just dont need defined?

And I guess I really don’t NOT accept those Latin beliefs…they just don’t show up in my world view.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

NOWHERE did I claim that I spoke for any Eastern Catholic other then myself.

The problem as I see it…we Eastern Catholics are always having to modify our beliefs to “fit” the Latin definition, or explain how our beliefs fit in with the Latin explanation. Why cant the Latins stop defining things that just dont need defined?

And I guess I really don’t NOT accept those Latin beliefs…they just don’t show up in my world view.

I once asked a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic friend of mine what he thought of the Pope. His response was tellingly simple: “I don’t”.

 

[brotherjoe]

I have been under the impression that in general the Eastern Orthodox churches teach the doctrine of Purgatory ever since I read that they do, although the OP indicates that they do not. I’d appreciate clarification on this one.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have been under the impression that in general the Eastern Orthodox churches teach the doctrine of Purgatory ever since I read that they do, although the OP indicates that they do not. I’d appreciate clarification on this one.

It is not officially taught but it is open for belief of any of the faithful just like the Immaculate Conception.

 

[FRANKYG]

The 14 “General Synods of the West” were convened in order to respond to situations and issues that had arisen in the Roman Church, and, as such, can hardly be considered ecumenical. That being said, however, the Faith affirmed by those 14 Councils is, in essence, the one Faith proclaimed by the entire Church. Again the essence of what is taught is the one Faith, but the expression is explicitly Roman. While we Eastern Catholics may express things differently, we do still hold the same Faith (as I would propose so too do Orthodox Christians).

Little Boy Lost did a wonderful job summarizing the issue of the Immaculate Conception. Although the theology is steeped in Latin terms, the substance of the teaching is affirmed by both East and West.

Papal Infallibility, I’m finding, is less a theological issue than a political one. The Pope does not have the authority to wake up one morning and proclaim a new dogma; nor is his infallibility separated from the infallibility of the Church, but is rather an exercise of the Church’s infallibility. The Pope only has the authority to declare a dogma in response to issues which are proving divisive for the Church and after extensive consultation of all the bishops. When declaring a dogma in this way he is not speaking for himself, but on behalf of the entire Church and as head (or first among equals) of the college of bishops. In this sense the Pope is merely acting as the voice of the entire Church to preserve unity in charity/love. He is not over and above the Church, but acts within the Church as the servant of the Church.

Personally what I reject are the misconceptions, misunderstandings, and abuses of the Church’s teaching.

Nicely said and very well explained. This is Official Church teaching and I invite everyone to look into what brother Phillip said

 

[jimmy]

One of the problems with these discussions is that it seems that some of the people are claiming that truth and knowledge come from different places or dirrections. Truth is given from top to bottom (i.e. it is recieved from the general councils and accepted). Knowledge on the other hand comes from tradition so we reinterpret that truth how we see fit. It makes absolutely no sense. Either they both come from the same place, or one or both are false.

The truth is that the councils are either an expression of the tradition, or they are not. If they are then they are binding for all. The problem comes in because there is a persistent belief that communion is necessary, despite theological differences. Many eastern Churches proclaim ‘foul’ in reference to these later councils, yet they remain in communion with the west. So it brings up the question of whether one tradition trumps another. If the west declares something like the IC as truth and attaches an anathema to it, what are we to do if the east states plainly ‘that is not a part of the tradition’? It seems that the west wants to say that ‘the pope affirmed it so you must accept it regardless of whether it is in line with your tradition’. The east on the other hand wants to say ‘if it is not in line with tradition we do not accept it; if it is not in accord with the fathers then it is false.’

 

[Nine_Two]

* we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

      o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
            + that is, when,
                 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
                 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
                 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
      o he possesses,
            + by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
      o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
      o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Doesn’t seem to leave much wiggle room.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Doesn’t seem to leave much wiggle room.

On the surface, perhaps. But one must understand the context of what was said. For one, it states explicitly the papal infallibility is, in actual fact, an exercise of the infallibility of the Church itself. Again, the Pope can not just wake up one morning and decide to declare something to be dogma. There is a long process of consultation, brought about in response to some controversy that has arisen within the Church. In the case of the Immaculate Conception, debates had been raging for Centuries among Roman theologians. Pius XII simply put an end to the debate when requested to intervene.

With regards to the last phrase that infallible statements are irreformable in and of themselves, that was inserted in response to a Gallican notion that after the Pope made an infallible declaration it would have to be further ratified by consultation. The phrase was simply inserted because the consultation would have taken place prior to the definition and any further consultation would be superfluous. (This is coming from a conversation with Mgr. Paul McPartlan, a professor of Theology at Catholic University of America, a student of Met. Kallistos of Diokleia, and a member of the Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue).

Personally I see this as preserving the tradition of the East and West. Again it demonstrates that when he is declaring an infallible dogma the Pope is functioning as the voice of the whole Church, and specifically as the head (first among equals) of the College of Bishops (not the College of Cardinals). He discusses the matter with his fellow bishops, and even with other theologians, and once consensus is reached he merely proclaims to the public what the College of Bishops has already discerned to be the faith of the Universal Church (not just the Roman Church).

 

[jimmy]

It also seems that there is a progressive understanding of doctrine in the west. This isn’t to say that there is no development of doctrine in the east, but that in the west it is an active principle whereas in the east it is passive. What I mean by active is that in the west it seems that there is this understanding that over time, the more we study an issue the more details we will be able to build and we can make further definitions of these dogmas which give us new incites into the truth. There is a conscious attempt to build knowledge and the dogmas are an expression of this. In the east it is very passive. You accept what has been handed on. Any elaboration remains just theological opinion. The only time doctrine is ever defined is when it is a serious issue for the preservation of the faith or to prevent schism. It was Phillip Rolfes post that brought this to mind with his mention of theologians debating the IC for centuries.

 

[Nine_Two]

On the surface, perhaps. But one must understand the context of what was said. For one, it states explicitly the papal infallibility is, in actual fact, an exercise of the infallibility of the Church itself. Again, the Pope can not just wake up one morning and decide to declare something to be dogma. There is a long process of consultation, brought about in response to some controversy that has arisen within the Church. In the case of the Immaculate Conception, debates had been raging for Centuries among Roman theologians. Pius XII simply put an end to the debate when requested to intervene.

With regards to the last phrase that infallible statements are irreformable in and of themselves, that was inserted in response to a Gallican notion that after the Pope made an infallible declaration it would have to be further ratified by consultation. The phrase was simply inserted because the consultation would have taken place prior to the definition and any further consultation would be superfluous. (This is coming from a conversation with Mgr. Paul McPartlan, a professor of Theology at Catholic University of America, a student of Met. Kallistos of Diokleia, and a member of the Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue).

Personally I see this as preserving the tradition of the East and West. Again it demonstrates that when he is declaring an infallible dogma the Pope is functioning as the voice of the whole Church, and specifically as the head (first among equals) of the College of Bishops (not the College of Cardinals). He discusses the matter with his fellow bishops, and even with other theologians, and once consensus is reached he merely proclaims to the public what the College of Bishops has already discerned to be the faith of the Universal Church (not just the Roman Church).

Except the problem is that it puts the Infallibility of the Pope on a higher level than that of the church.

Additionally there was no real controversy regarding the Immaculate Conception. Pius IX (Not XII) was just particularly devoted to the idea, and he set about moving to have it made doctrine following his return from exile in Gaeta.

I honestly don’t see how it can be so liberally interpreted.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Except the problem is that it puts the Infallibility of the Pope on a higher level than that of the church.

I disagree. I don’t think this makes him any more important or higher than any other bishop. He just has a role. Like a conductor of a choir. Without the choir, he can’t make music. And the choir can continue making music, but his position allows to check for dissonance and make certain movements more prominent.

I think what really does an injustice is it being intertwined with notions of jurisdiction. I think Patriarch Gregory II was right to sign the declaration of this dogma cautiously and including the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs. Maximos the confessor speaks beautifully about the need to maintain and be in communion with the See of Orthodoxy. However, we must always remember, how the Roman see often explains things is in the Roman tradition. We are obliged to understand it according to our terms.

The sad sandal as I said earlier is where you have the latin church (perhaps not even the pope himself) misrepresenting the truths proclaimed and making Eastern Catholics subservient to the Roman Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

I disagree. I don’t think this makes him any more important or higher than any other bishop. He just has a role. Like a conductor of a choir. Without the choir, he can’t make music. And the choir can continue making music, but his position allows to check for dissonance and make certain movements more prominent.

I think what really does an injustice is it being intertwined with notions of jurisdiction. I think Patriarch Gregory II was right to sign the declaration of this dogma cautiously and including the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs. Maximos the confessor speaks beautifully about the need to maintain and be in communion with the See of Orthodoxy. However, we must always remember, how the Roman see often explains things is in the Roman tradition. We are obliged to understand it according to our terms.

The sad sandal as I said earlier is where you have the latin church (perhaps not even the pope himself) misrepresenting the truths proclaimed and making Eastern Catholics subservient to the Roman Church.

The line

such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

would seem to me to contradict such ideas that they are based on the infallibility of the church as a whole.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

The line would seem to me to contradict such ideas that they are based on the infallibility of the church as a whole.

Hmm… well you have me now. Then I’m not sure what to think. Do we do what we do with other dogmas and simply discard this line?

 

[Harpazo]

Hmm… well you have me now. Then I’m not sure what to think. Do we do what we do with other dogmas and simply discard this line?

Well, then how does that make Eastern Catholics any different from Protestants?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

Pius IX was himself so inexpedient that he was once forced into exile, and later after his return managed to lose his entire realm. Vatican I came right at the end of that - the declaration of Infallibility left him so isolated that no one was willing to step in to save the last vestages of his kingdom. The force with which he forced infallibility on those who wouldn’t agree - to the extent that even supporters such as Cardinal Newman were commenting on it - leaves me unable to acknowledge an infallibility of any sort on his office.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Phillip!

… a Gallican notion that after the Pope made an infallible declaration it would have to be further ratified by consultation. The phrase was simply inserted because the consultation would have taken place prior to the definition and any further consultation would be superfluous. (This is coming from a conversation with Mgr. Paul McPartlan, a professor of Theology …

Frankly, the “Gallican” position is more correct.

For Orthodox, dogmatic issues were worked out in council (which looks for all practical purposes very like multiple synods meeting simultaneously). After which the Council isn’t finally accepted until some time has passed and it can be acclaimed at a later gathering. Sometimes the church has had to reverse itself, the representatives who met were clearly not speaking with the Holy Spirit, because the church as a whole rejected the council. That is the historical precedent and that is how we see the infallibility of the church at work.

It’s a messy business, I know.

Ultimately, the Body of Christ is a confederation of local churches all with Apostolic roots, and it has to be this way. The local churches have to agree after the ink has been set to parchment. They are the constituent parts of the whole Body of Christ, and they have to be respected.

The notion that the bishop of Rome will consult the other bishops until he is satisfied and then pull out a declaration of his own composition is still making him the sole judge of the matter. He acts when he wills to act, on issues he personally deigns important according to his own standards and according to his own schedule with his own aides. He then presents something to the world as a fait accompli, bypassing any council if he should so wish.

This is not a surprise to anyone today, it is precisely this power he claims for himself.

However there is no historical precedent for it. It was done for the first time in 1854AD, by Pope Pius IX, and some years later sought to legitimize this act after the fact by having a Council ratify the new process. It is ironic that he had to call a council to legitimize his novel bypassing of council.

Apparently, the Gallican churchmen could see that this was brewing up into a foul business, and they had to be silenced.

I am not a student of the movement, but from what has been described the condemnation of Gallicanism seems to have been just one last nail in the coffin of ye olde Orthodoxy in the west.

Your friend,
Michael

such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

Precisely.

 

[Nine_Two]

It is most interesting that Vatican I was at the time the only council called up to that time (I’m not sure about Vat II) which had no pre-determined agenda or doctrinal issues to deal with. It was well known that Infallibility would be dealt with because it was Pius’s pet issue, an issue he originally pled neutrality on (though he took it personally if anyone so much as spoke out against the timing of bringing it up, and not just against it). Not surprisingly it was the only doctrine dealt with.
One can argue that they were forced to stop the council, but the fact remains the horrible conditions that forced them to end the council early, that being the invasion and annexation of Rome, still exist and they’ve somehow managed a full council in that time period.

 

[ciero]

It is most interesting that Vatican I was at the time the only council called up to that time (I’m not sure about Vat II) which had no pre-determined agenda or doctrinal issues to deal with. It was well known that Infallibility would be dealt with because it was Pius’s pet issue, an issue he originally pled neutrality on (though he took it personally if anyone so much as spoke out against the timing of bringing it up, and not just against it). Not surprisingly it was the only doctrine dealt with.
One can argue that they were forced to stop the council, but the fact remains the horrible conditions that forced them to end the council early, that being the invasion and annexation of Rome, still exist and they’ve somehow managed a full council in that time period.

Isn’t one pre requisite for a council to be considered Ecumenical is that it was accepted by the whole church? I don’t think Vatican I or II would qualify then.

 

[Nine_Two]

Isn’t one pre requisite for a council to be considered Ecumenical is that it was accepted by the whole church? I don’t think Vatican I or II would qualify then.

I don’t consider them to be such, but I do not claim to have a common faith with Rome. Rome certainly seems to teach they are.