Eastern Orthodoxy - question about infallibilityDo the Do the

[dzheremi]

I have no opinion on such things. The principles that shape OO ecclesiology are not as they are so that we can make statements regarding other churches. Our ecclesiology is about how our Church works, not yours.

 

[joe370]

I have no opinion on such things. The principles that shape OO ecclesiology are not as they are so that we can make statements regarding other churches. Our ecclesiology is about how our Church works, not yours.

Was just curious…I know the CC recognizes EO sacraments as being valid…

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I know you guys do, but Orthodox don’t have concepts like “validity” that allow us to say anything about the sacraments of other churches or how/if they work. We know our own churches and their sacraments, and whatever happens outside of that context is not for us to know, as Orthodox cannot commune outside of their own communion in the first place without being excommunicated.

 

[joe370]

Yeah, I know you guys do, but Orthodox don’t have concepts like “validity” that allow us to say anything about the sacraments of other churches or how/if they work. We know our own churches and their sacraments, and whatever happens outside of that context is not for us to know, as Orthodox cannot commune outside of their own communion in the first place without being excommunicated.

 

[Vico]

Some Orthodox theologians believe that the age of Ecumenical Councils is over. It was possible before because the Emperor convenes it and he makes sure that bishops come. And even then, not all bishops come anyway. In the 5th Ecumenical Council, the Pope of Rome was exiled in Constantinople, but he refused to attend the council which was in the same city where he was living in. The Emperor threw him into prison where he suddenly said his advisers gave him bad information about the council which is why he refused to come.

Pope Vigilius declined personal attendance arguing that no Pope had even been present in a general council. But he did prepare his Constitutium for it.

The events of Pope Vigilius and Justinian and Theodora are interesting. Justinian had agreed with Pope Vigilius on holding a council to decide the issues of the Three Chapters, but Justinian would not allow it to be in Sicily (requested by Pope Vigilius to allow greater Latin bishop participation). Pope Vigilius wrote his Constitutium (on the Three Chapters issues) which was to be presented at the council instead of appearing personally. When the Constitutium arrived on May 25, Justinian would not read it, for Justinian had decided himself that the Pope was out of communion. (Council started on May 4.) On June 2, the council gave it decisions and deposed Pope Vigilius. Then in February 554 Vigilius published his Iudicatum, agreeing with the decision of the council on the Three Chapters issues. He was allowed to return to Rome by Justinian then, but died in route.

Ref: The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian by Michael Maas

 

[Cavaradossi]

Pope Vigilius declined personal attendance arguing that no Pope had even been present in a general council. But he did prepare his Constitutium for it.

The events of Pope Vigilius and Justinian and Theodora are interesting. Justinian had agreed with Pope Vigilius on holding a council to decide the issues of the Three Chapters, but Justinian would not allow it to be in Sicily (requested by Pope Vigilius to allow greater Latin bishop participation). Pope Vigilius wrote his Constitutium (on the Three Chapters issues) which was to be presented at the council instead of appearing personally. When the Constitutium arrived on May 25, Justinian would not read it, for Justinian had decided himself that the Pope was out of communion. (Council started on May 4.) On June 2, the council gave it decisions and deposed Pope Vigilius. Then in February 554 Vigilius published his Iudicatum, agreeing with the decision of the council on the Three Chapters issues. He was allowed to return to Rome by Justinian then, but died in route.

Ref: The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian by Michael Maas

Just a few minor notes. Pope Vigilius refused to participate for several reasons, the biggest one being that Justinian convened the council for the purpose of condemning the three chapters after coming to an agreement with Pope Vigilius that he would not convene a council for that purpose. The Constitutum was not written exactly with the intention that it should represent Pope Vigilius at the Council (which he refused to recognize). Rather, he only wrote the Constitutum after he was asked to give his judgment on the three chapters (as he had done several times before in private for Justinian). Gathered with 17 bishops, Pope Vigilius issued his First Constitutum (with the 17 bishops also signing the document), in which he defended the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Anti-cyrillian writings of Theodoret, and the letter of Ibas to Maris.

Justinian had his representative at the Second Council of Constantinople exploit the discrepancies between the First Constitutum and earlier documents written by Pope Vigilius (in which he condemned the three chapters) in order to make him look duplicitous. This was successful, and the council struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs (Pope Vigilius was therefore not actually deposed, as striking from the diptychs is a less extreme form of reprimand than deposing, since a bishop legally struck from the diptychs may be restored to the diptychs, but a bishop who has been legitimately deposed may never be restored to his see or to any sort of episcopal office). He was restored to communion after annulling his First Constitutum, and assenting to the condemnation of the three chapters, and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks chimo. That does help, although I do have a problem with what you say in this paragraph:

False teachings today are everywhere but so is the truth. There is an ongoing battle for the truth and depending on where you are and how you are taught some of this truth is mixed in with some of the falsehood as well. What we need to do is to defend the truth of God so that we can be better witnesses to that truth. There are two great witnesses to that truth. It is Rome and the East. God safeguards both as a parent who safeguards both of his children. It may be that parts of her whether it is in Rome or it is in the East that can be led into teachings that are not good but there is parts of her in Rome and the East that can defend it! It is up to these authorities to speak. They have by the authority given to them by God to correct and discipline when it is necessary.

(I say this fwiw, of course. Presumably you wouldn’t automatically change your view because of what someone you don’t really know posts on catholic.com, right? )

 

[Peter_J]

Do you believe that the catholic church fell into error, or can fall into error, since it is not the connected with the eastern orthodox church?

You mean the Roman Catholic communion? Yes, I believe it can and has fallen into error. If I did not believe that, I wold never have left it in the first place. I do not believe that this is necessarily connected to whether or not it is in union with the Eastern Orthodox, however.

That’s pretty much the same thing I thought when I read the above question; or rather I thought “Huh? Why would dzheremi have left Catholicism if he believed it hadn’t fallen into error (or even that it couldn’t fall into error)?”

 

[Peter_J]

What exactly is a Melkite?

Someone in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

 

[chimo]

Thanks chimo. That does help, although I do have a problem with what you say in this paragraph:

(I say this fwiw, of course. Presumably you wouldn’t automatically change your view because of what someone you don’t really know posts on catholic.com, right? )

I sense there is much more to our two great Churches than one suspects. When I studied both Churches I was seeing how God established His truth within the “authorities” He has established in East and West. It was if God had placed two “authorities” but they were of a different pattern. I thought, wasn’t incredible that God can authorize two authorities that are different from each other (on the surface) yet with the same power within. I thought of this because of the way both Churches have arrived to this day with all their bumps and bruises that had come their way and despite of what happened they are still in control of their own destiny. We could learn from each other of what makes each other arrive to their present status as this firm foundation of what the original apostles had begun.

 

[chimo]

Someone in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

Thank you Peter for this understanding. Does this mean there are Churches of the Melkite rite that you go to? For instance what kind of structure would a Church have and is it closer to the Roman rite or the Eastern rite (or somewhere in between). Any way this is the first time I have ever contacted a Melkite Greek Catholic and I want to say greetings to my Christian brother in the Faith. I am actually Greek Orthodox so we have something more in common than just our common Christian faith.

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you Peter for this understanding. Does this mean there are Churches of the Melkite -]rite/-] Church that you go to? For instance what kind of structure would a Church have and is it closer to the Roman rite or the Eastern rite (or somewhere in between). Any way this is the first time I have ever contacted a Melkite Greek Catholic and I want to say greetings to my Christian brother in the Faith. I am actually Greek Orthodox so we have something more in common than just our common Christian faith.

Yes, there are some even in the USA. Not all that many, but there’s happens to be one where I live, and there was also one where I used to live. (I started going to one back in 2002.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

From my post from another thread, but more appropriate for this thread:

The Apostolic Canon XXXIV. (XXXV.) says this:

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Yet Pastor Aeternus says:

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

So Pastor Aeternus already violated the very constitution written by the Apostles.

 

[Vico]

From my post from another thread, but more appropriate for this thread:

That statement can easily be taken without the understaning that the pope cannot speak over and against the whole Church. All that was explained at Vatican I before voting of the bishops began.

Bishop Gasser noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.
   See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.

In his relatio, Bishop Gasser answered in this way: “It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”
Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).

The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.

The last line of Pastor Aeternus already debunks this claim. The Pope is set apart from everyone else. Whatever he pronounces is irreformable by itself and not by consent of the Church.

 

[Vico]

The last line of Pastor Aeternus already debunks this claim. The Pope is set apart from everyone else. Whatever he pronounces is irreformable by itself and not by consent of the Church.

It is not a claim, but what was actually the understanding when the vote was taken. If you read the comments you will see the meaning of not by consent of the Church. A Pope that goes against the whole Church sould put himself outside the communion and would then only retains ecclesial power loosing the ability to pronounce in an irreformable way.

I think you would benefit from reading the book.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is not a claim, but what was actually the understanding when the vote was taken. If you read the comments you will see the meaning of not by consent of the Church. A Pope that goes against the whole Church sould put himself outside the communion and would then only retains ecclesial power loosing the ability to pronounce in an irreformable way.

I think you would benefit from reading the book.

Is that book infallible?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Even the claim of infallibility has a logical flaw. It all resolves around a flawed exegesis of Matthew 16:18. Basically, the Catholic Church teaches that Mat 16:18 talks about the infallibility and supremacy of the Pope. But how can we trust that such an interpretation of the passage is the correct one? Oh, because this interpretation is from the Pope, who is the final interpreter of Scripture. And who made him that? Mat 16:18. So the Pope is infallible because of said passage and that is true because the infallible Pope interprets said passage to say that he is infallible.

Chicken or egg?

 

[Peter_J]

The last line of Pastor Aeternus already debunks this claim. The Pope is set apart from everyone else. Whatever he pronounces is irreformable by itself and not by consent of the Church.

Not everything he pronounces is ex cathedra.

Even the claim of infallibility has a logical flaw. It all resolves around a flawed exegesis of Matthew 16:18. Basically, the Catholic Church teaches that Mat 16:18 talks about the infallibility and supremacy of the Pope. But how can we trust that such an interpretation of the passage is the correct one? Oh, because this interpretation is from the Pope, who is the final interpreter of Scripture. And who made him that? Mat 16:18. So the Pope is infallible because of said passage and that is true because the infallible Pope interprets said passage to say that he is infallible.

Chicken or egg?

Egg of course, it’s 7:30 a.m. But thank you for asking.

 

[Peter_J]

It is not a claim, but what was actually the understanding when the vote was taken. If you read the comments you will see the meaning of not by consent of the Church. A Pope that goes against the whole Church sould put himself outside the communion and would then only retains ecclesial power loosing the ability to pronounce in an irreformable way.

That seems a little harsh. Couldn’t he still be “in” but not have made an ex cathedra statement?