Do Eastern catholics believe in papal infallibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VARC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VARC

Guest
Do Eastern Catholics believe in papal infallibility?

Please excuse my ignorance. I am a Catholic of the Latin rite and for me to even doubt this is a mortal sin that will damn me if I don’t repent. Does the Pope demand the same assent to this dogma of eastern catholics as he does of latin catholics?
 
It depends who you ask and what his point of reference is. Most on this board would say yes as it is a proclaimed dogma from an ecumenical council of the universal Church. Some here and many elsewhere will say no because it was not an enunciated belief of the Catholic Church when union was established and the council was not ecumenical and it is therefore a local teaching that only applies within the Latin Church.

I am far from an expert, but to my knowledge there is not a definitive ruling from anyone to point to as proof and it is an area the Vatican currently looks to be in the latter’s favor based on the agreed terms of the ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox.
 
So if I start attending an eastern catholic church I am not compelled to believe it under pain of damnation?
 
VARC said:
So if I start attending an eastern catholic church I am not compelled to believe it under pain of damnation?
Click to expand...
Attending an EC Church does not make you an EC. It makes you a Latin who is bound to the Latin Church and all her canons and dogma and is exercising his right to commune in any Catholic Church.

In order to become an Eastern Catholic and to be bound to the Eastern canons, you would have to attend an Eastern Catholic church for some time and then petition your Latin bishop and the Eastern bishop for a change of canonical enrollment. After that was approved, you’d be an Eastern Catholic.

At that point, you could then come back here and watch people argue over whether Eastern Catholics are held to understand post-schism councils to be ecumenical or whether Latin dogmas and/or the Latin theological underpinnings to those dogmas apply to Eastern Catholics.

Short of a direct statement from the Vatican, I don’t think you’ll get a straight answer on this one. Ask the Ruthenian metropolitan then ask the Melkite patriarch–both heads of Eastern Churches in union with Rome–and consult the websites of some Maronite parishes and then Archbishops Elias Zoghby’s books and you’ll get a wide variety of answers right now.
 
Woodstock said:
Attending an EC Church does not make you an EC. It makes you a Latin who is bound to the Latin Church and all her canons and dogma and is exercising his right to commune in any Catholic Church.

In order to become an Eastern Catholic and to be bound to the Eastern canons, you would have to attend an Eastern Catholic church for some time and then petition your Latin bishop and the Eastern bishop for a change of canonical enrollment. After that was approved, you’d be an Eastern Catholic.

At that point, you could then come back here and watch people argue over whether Eastern Catholics are held to understand post-schism councils to be ecumenical or whether Latin dogmas and/or the Latin theological underpinnings to those dogmas apply to Eastern Catholics.

Short of a direct statement from the Vatican, I don’t think you’ll get a straight answer on this one. Ask the Ruthenian metropolitan then ask the Melkite patriarch–both heads of Eastern Churches in union with Rome–and consult the websites of some Maronite parishes and then Archbishops Elias Zoghby’s books and you’ll get a wide variety of answers right now.
Click to expand...
Interesting. It seems like a double standard to me. If I hold doubts about papal infallibility then I’m damned. But if a marionite does, that’s okay. I was baptized a catholic in 2001. I should have chose eastern catholicism instead. That mistake may have cost me my soul.
 
VARC said:
Interesting. It seems like a double standard to me. If I hold doubts about papal infallibility then I’m damned. But if a marionite does, that’s okay. I was baptized a catholic in 2001. I should have chose eastern catholicism instead. That mistake may have cost me my soul.
Click to expand...
First, the Latin Church does not condemn for doubts. Plenty of notable saints had doubts, some for decades. It only condemns for willfully and knowledgeably choosing to not believe.

With that in mind, if the latter group is correct that Eastern Catholics are not bound to believe in Papal Infallibility, or if some middle group is correct that they are not able to reject it as false but at the same time are not required to take it into their own faith lives, that does not mean it is somehow a bad thing within the Latin Church. The Latin theology and patristics support it.

If you are finding that the Latin theology is not the best expression of the faith for your personal salvation, you are more than welcome to explore Eastern and Oriental Catholicism. The 7 different rites used by the 23 different Catholic Churches have different liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimonies, cultures and circumstances of history and each has its own manner of living the faith. To become an Eastern Catholic means you accept all of those differences and place yourself under their authority. If you are a Latin who doesn’t like this or that, it is best to work within your own Church to conform your intellect and will to what the Church teaches and practices. If you find yourself embracing all of the East including its theology and spirituality, then it is spiritually beneficial to place yourself under Eastern Catholic authority and to live the Eastern faith. If you feel called to exploring this, get started! Liturgy is probably at 10 AM tomorrow and you still have time to find your closest Eastern or Oriental Catholic church tonight.

As a side note, the Maronites are the most western of the Easterners. You won’t find too many who would say they don’t think you are bound to papal infallibility. If you intend to explore the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, considering your struggles, I wouldn’t start there.
 
Unfortunately, there is really no way out of it. It is a binding teaching for all Catholics, both East and West. Some feel it isn’t, but just because it is a more recent declaration doesn’t mean one can ignore it…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Alexius said:
Unfortunately, there is really no way out of it. It is a binding teaching for all Catholics, both East and West. Some feel it isn’t, but just because it is a more recent declaration doesn’t mean one can ignore it…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
Click to expand...
That seems to be the most consistent idea. I assumed that Eastern catholic just ignored it. I wonder how the Roman catholic church even begins to try to convice easterners of papal infallibility. Not a lot of Patristic quotes for that idea.
 
I am far from an expert, but to my knowledge there is not a definitive ruling from anyone to point to as proof and it is an area the Vatican currently looks to be in the latter’s favor based on the agreed terms of the ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this is a reasonable conclusion at all. Even if the Catholic Church were to say that Vatican I was not “Ecumenical”, it doesn’t follow that the idea of Papal Infallibility applies only within the Latin Church, or that it is not the general stance of the Vatican.

It can’t be held that something is fundamentally correct within the Latin Church, but an error in another Church. That isn’t reasonable, nor is it Catholic. Things may be expressed differently, but to say that the Pope is infallible for Latins, but not for the other Catholics defies all notions of universality of Faith, and any kind of true Communion. For what it’s worth, this idea isn’t put forward by any authorities in any Catholic Church; a mere handful question the binding nature of Vatican I, but no one says that it is binding on Latins but not on others.

Papal Infallibility is either True or it’s not; there is no Church boundary on it. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
 
I am afraid you can’t avoid this dogma just by switching to an Eastern Catholic church (I assume you were asking for that reason). Of course, there is much more sympathy in the East for doubters, but it is binding none the less. If you doubt this dogma in the Latin rite, you will get no sympathy from your hierarches…:o

P.S. I understand your dilemma…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
VARC said:
Can any body answer this question? I’m going to guess and say that they don’t believe in papal infallibility. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I Believe in Papal infallibility in very limited circumstances: when the pope speaks Ex-cathedra on a matter of morals or doctrine, and it must be done so it is affecting the whole church, and it must not contradict prior dogma.

That leaves a LOT of turf uncovered… since the whole church is many rites, definitions and changes to Liturgy of one rite definitely are not the whole church.

Now, matters like the recent clarification eradicating limbo, that does affect the whole church, and is a matter of doctrine. It is thus most likely infallible.

The whole EF/NO issue: not likely infallible, since it affects one rite only, not the whole of the church. Now, if His Holiness B XVI comes out and says “All Catholics may ask their pastors to celebrate according to the 1962 rubrics of their Church Sui Iuris, and the pastors must give all due consideration to doing so”… THAT would be far more close to the mark…

The literal definition has been twisted so far out by both the liberal and traditionalist factions that neither sees that the truth is that infalibility is not attaching to much.

By the same token, however, the Pope will not publicly teach error… but B XVI allowing the EF now doesn’t bind his successor from disallowing it; the only way for that would be a separate church sui iuris using the EF… since a new church sui iuris, by definition, is something affecting the whole of the church, as it alters the very structure of the church as a union, and each church sui iuris has a right to hold its traditions.
 
Truthfully I didn’t think that the Eastern rite was some sort of backdoor out of having to accept papal infallibility. I just wanted to find out if the easterns got a “pass” for ecumenical reasons. It wouldn’t make any sense if they did but a lot of the ecumenism doesn’t make sense. If I can’t resolve this papal infallibility problem, I’m not heading to the eastern rite. I’m heading to the Orthodox.
 
VARC said:
Truthfully I didn’t think that the Eastern rite was some sort of backdoor out of having to accept papal infallibility. I just wanted to find out if the easterns got a “pass” for ecumenical reasons. It wouldn’t make any sense if they did but a lot of the ecumenism doesn’t make sense. If I can’t resolve this papal infallibility problem, I’m not heading to the eastern rite. I’m heading to the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Good luck! 👍

Sorry, can’t help you there. I’m not too fond of Papal Infallibility myself…:o I think it’s the one major reason Orthodox and Catholics will not reunite…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
VARC said:
Truthfully I didn’t think that the Eastern rite was some sort of backdoor out of having to accept papal infallibility. I just wanted to find out if the easterns got a “pass” for ecumenical reasons. It wouldn’t make any sense if they did but a lot of the ecumenism doesn’t make sense. If I can’t resolve this papal infallibility problem, I’m not heading to the eastern rite. I’m heading to the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
It might be worth exploring just what it is about Papal Infallibility that troubles you. There certainly is a different approach to it in the East, and the Vatican IS moving more in that direction of understanding.

Sometimes our problems with an idea depend largely on how it’s perceived and carried out, rather than a fundamental flaw in the idea itself. This may or may not be the case for you and Papal Infallibility, but it’s worth looking into if it means resolving a problem you have.

So let me ask, what problems do you have with Papal Infallibility?

Peace and God bless!
 
The Melkite Patriarch at the time of Vatican I deliberately left without signing the decrees, and when forced to do so, he added something to this effect: “Provided the privileges and perogatives of the Eastern patriarchs are not diminished.”
 
The Vatican has also opened the door to the post-schism councils not being ecumenical with the Ravenna document.

We’re talking about your salvation, VARC, and you are relying on the responses on a message board which treats all people 13 and older as equals, regardless of religious affiliation or faith formation. I encourage you to use the answers here, my own included, only as a starting point for your research. Start reading some books on the Eastern Catholics on both sides of the arguments, attending Eastern Catholic churches, reading the Bible and lives of the saints, praying, seeking guidance from clergy, and taking advantage of the sacraments, especially confession and the Eucharist. Only then will you be in a place where you should make decisions that will affect your salvation.
 
Aramis said:
Now, matters like the recent clarification eradicating limbo, that does affect the whole church, and is a matter of doctrine. It is thus most likely infallible.
Click to expand...
Just a clarification…

First, the recent statement did NOT eradicate limbo. All it did was state that there is good reason to hope for the salvation of children who die before Baptism because of God’s infinite mercy. (Thus, limbo seems unnecessary).

Second, it did NOT come from the pope. It was a statement of the International Theological Commission. This is a body that got together to explore the issue. Their statements are intended to help the Church explore a particular area; they are not doctrinal pronouncments.

Thus, one is still free to believe in limbo or not. Of course, it seems better to not in light of everything, but one is not under an obligation to do so.

Hope this helps! 🙂
 
The law of non-contradiction/singularity of truth requires that Papal Infallilbility cannot be both true and false. Either It is true, and is so for all Catholics or it is false and the Latin Church is in error and has perverted the Apostolic Faith. If it is true then all Catholics must adhere to this teachings. If it is false then it seems that all Catholics should be standing in front of the Vatican protesting this dogma every day. I for one believe that the Latin Church is completely orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top