Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Hesychios]

That doesn’t sound familiar. Can you elaborate?

There was a period in history where the state made worship according to the rites at the ‘Great Church’ of Hagia Sophia the standard across the empire. It was held as an ideal that uniformity in worship was preferable to diversity (something we have seen elsewhere). It helped alienate the several local synods and fomented schism with the pre-Chalcedonians. (This model was followed later in the west, as the Gallo-Roman rite absorbed the others around it.)

This episode in history was actually the midwife of the Melkites, which explains the name.

Later, as the empire shrank in size patriarchs relocated to Constantinople, which gave the EP a lot more influence. This was not a permanent situation, but no one knew it at the time.

After the Turks gained control of Constantinople the EP became responsible for the Rum Millet, which was a potentially powerful position, the potential (and actual) corruption and abuse very high and also a very dangerous office to hold. This accounted for a high turnover in that position. It was during this time that the unions of Brest and Uzhorod occured

All of these excesses are not canonical and do not exist today, they are not considered proper to Holy Orthodoxy which attempts to follow the guidelines of the early canons.

 

[Ubenedictus]

There is politics everywhere. Are you saying that such a thing doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church? To think that one Church is perfect other than the Church in New Jerusalem at the end of time is a far fetched dream.

If you want politics, perhaps find out why the Ukrainian Catholic Church doesn’t have a formal patriarchate yet despite constant calls for it.

russia would give you an answer.
Ubenedictus

 

[Hesychios]

russia would give you an answer.
Ubenedictus

Actually Rome has to give the answer. IF they don’t want make a public statement on it then don’t blame outsiders. Rome has the control.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I agree, but what does any other Catholic believe?

Perhaps if they were to come around to what some Eastern Catholics have believed and continue to believe the schism would come to an end.

The Papacy has changed over time, no one denies that, the changes are actually pretty well documented. So what the average Catholic believes about it has had to change as well. Some don’t move along as fast as others, and Eastern Christians are quite conservative by nature.

That Zoghby Initiative might be good for the average Catholic to adopt universally, no more developments, no more doubts, perhaps no more schism.

i doubt this, zoghbys’ primacy is honor alone, this isnt the catholic idea. A honor alone approach wont be accepted, if peter will confirm his brothers in the faith he will need authority sufficient to do so, some father thinks he did have that authority, but i point im very sure of is this, it would be very hard to for the orthodox to think of the popes’ primacy as more than honor.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Actually Rome has to give the answer. IF they don’t want make a public statement on it then don’t blame outsiders. Rome has the control.

so you say, i think that is just the picture you want others to see. What happen when rome makes that statement? That is the question. The answer is simply, russia will think of rome and have a bitter taste in the palate. The little ecumenism will crash and burn.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Actually, no, you are wrong. Because episopacy is not reduced to one bishp of Antioch, st Meletius. But, all espisopacy deriving its authority from Rome, according to rc ecclesiology,

i think i saw a quote from cyprain talking about rome as principal church and the fount of the sacredotal power. Maybe i missed the quote correct me if he didnt say that

if you dont know who the Pope is, and do not have true succession, then the whole church crumbles.

By the way, the fact that they didnt know who the Pope was, and needed many councils to settle the issue, proves that the Council is above the Pope, and not the other way around.

i doubt this, are you implying that the presence of a pope implies that the shouldnt be a council? Or are you saying that the councils existed because there was no pope? If you are thinking about this then you are wrong.

One local bishop does not resume all episopacy. But in rc ecclesiology, the Pope resumes all the Church.

what do you mean by ‘resumes’?

And the western schism simply disprove Vatican I and the claim that the Pope(as Vatican I understands his position) is needed to end the disputes and for peace within the Church.

haha! So because the pope didnt end the eastern schism means he isnt need? How do you make you conclusion?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I just want to make sure I understand something.

According to you, the Maronite patriarch is under the Pope, not merely in communion with him. Is that correct?

Thanks

something like the pope excercise primacy over the patriarch.
Ubenedictus

 

[steve_b]

Is this question addressed to Orthodox, Eastern Catholics or both?

I noticed a lot of the responses are either from Orthodox or those on their way to Orthodoxy.

I don’t think it’s any surprise what Orthodox think about it.

That’s a valid observation.

(all emphasis mine)

From Melkite A. Elya. He quotes the following during Q&A in how an Eastern Catholic is to view papal teachings and encyclicals
Apr 2-2-2003

c. 597 CCEO: The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.”

c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.”

Bp John further writes

"The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: "

*“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” *
(Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

“If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

therefore, according to canon 43, Bp John draws a clear distinction between Orthodox and Catholic. That subscription he states, is the litmus test. If one can’t subscribe to that canon, they are not in union with the pope, and are not Catholic.

CCOC (codes of canon law of Oriental Churches) jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

 

[Hesychios]

so you say, i think that is just the picture you want others to see. What happen when rome makes that statement? That is the question. The answer is simply, russia will think of rome and have a bitter taste in the palate. The little ecumenism will crash and burn.
Ubenedictus

The Pope can easily (and should) explain why *he has decided *he will not give the Syro-Malabar church and the UGCC patriarchates.

If he will not, all kinds of wild rumers and urban legends proliferate, and the faithful are scandalized. That is irresponsible.

 

[Hesychios]

TrueLight;9427420:

I noticed a lot of the responses are either from Orthodox or those on their way to Orthodoxy.

I don’t think it’s any surprise what Orthodox think about it.

"The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: "

*“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) **he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” ***
(Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

Some Eastern Catholics don’t seem to agree with this. I could be wrong but it seems our brother Marduk would call this terminology absolutist. Perhaps he can clarify if he thinks so.

He is definitely an Eastern Catholic NOT on his way to Orthodoxy.

 

[dvdjs]

All of these excesses are not canonical and do not exist today, they are not considered proper to Holy Orthodoxy which attempts to follow the guidelines of the early canons.

This history has echoes in recent times. I think that it is fairer to say that the EOC is still working out what primacy and the associated canons means in our age.

 

[Peter_J]

so you say, i think that is just the picture you want others to see. What happen when rome makes that statement? That is the question. The answer is simply, russia will think of rome and have a bitter taste in the palate. The little ecumenism will crash and burn.
Ubenedictus

Sounds like we already know what Rome is going to say.

 

[Trebor135]

Indeed. Later today I’ll go through his posts and cite here in the thread what caught my eye.

The posts I linked to earlier in the thread contain a number of statements and conclusions that I would take exception to. But their author looks at the doctrine of infallibility in a frank way that I haven’t encountered elsewhere. Below I cite the parts of his posts that merit being engaged.

From “Dave Armstrong on Infallibility”:

His major Scriptural argument for infallibility is Acts 15:28. It is also the passage Theodore Abu Qurra used when he first invented conciliar infallibility in the 9th century.

But the passage does not teach the a priori infallibility of ecumenical councils. All it says is that after the Apostles had agreed on the issue, they believed that the Holy Spirit had spoken. …

Armstrong rejects Protestant explanations (that this was isolated and unusual and restricted to the apostolic age) of Acts 15:28 as if they were the only arguments against this passage teaching infallibility. But of course it is as simple as this: the passage does not mention infallibility, the a priori immunity from error of ecumenical councils’ dogmatic definitions.

…

Infallibility works only if God guaranteed it, if Christ taught it and if the Apostles passed it on. This is what Vatican I claims. If and since Vatican I is wrong on this and infallibility is a medieval theological opinion that made it to a conciliar teaching, then for the sake of truth it is better to question conciliar infallibility than to abandon faith or reason.

As far as Tradition goes, Armstrong sometimes appeals to the development of doctrine, but sometimes he seems to hint that the Church believed in infallibility from the very start. Specifically, he quotes Pope Leo, Thomas Aquinas and Francis de Sales. The only one of these with a doctrine like that of Vatican I is Francis de Sales, which simply confirms the fact that the doctrine is no older than the Middle Ages.

From “Papal Infallibility debate”:

1. But Jesus promised the Church that the gates of Hades would not prevail, that whatever Peter would bind would be bound in heaven, that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church to the fullness of the truth, that he would be with his Church till the end. So he can’t allow the Pope to err.

• But the Church still recognizes the Pope can err in all kinds of matters (even faith-related, just not ex cathedra statements, which are very few), so the question is how we want to understand truth and the nature of Jesus’ promises. None of the early fathers interpreted any of those passages to mean that the Bishop of Rome can make solemn dogmatic statements which cannot err. …

1. But there are quotes from the Fathers saying that no error can come from Rome and that the Roman See has never erred.

• Again, that as such would prove too much for the dogma, for the dogma restricts papal infallibility to solemn declarations, of which there is no official (not to mention) infallible list. Most theologians think these sorts of declarations started long after the Fathers, in the Middle Ages or as late as the 19th century. The way Rome didn’t err was by keeping the Christological faith of the universal Church, not by defining new infallible dogmas on its own.

1. But there you have it: the Roman See always kept the true Faith. The Pope was never heretical.

• This is true only from the perspective of the ones that agree. According to the Nestorians and Monophysites, the Pope was heretical. Later the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants thought the same. After Vatican II Traditionalists and Sedevacantists think he is.

1. But Jesus prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail. God couldn’t let the Church go astray.

• The verse doesn’t talk about Peter’s successors, and again the early Christians wouldn’t have understood it that way. And we’re not in the position to say what God couldn’t do: he allowed the great schisms, heinous sins committed in the name of the Church, the Galileo affair, the Arian crisis and the Vatican II confusion. I wouldn’t like him to have allowed all that. So it’s totally possible that God would allow the Church to make dogmatic mistakes, as long as the core of the truth (the Gospel and the Apostolic faith) are preserved, as they are.

1. That’s too big of a leap, in none of the cases mentioned above did the Pope make an infallible declaration that was in error.

• This is precisely the problem: in the face of mistakes the scope of infallibility is narrowed down. But then the argument becomes futile that infallibility is needed to preserve the Church in truth, if it only concerns a couple modern definitions (such as the Marian dogmas). How did the Church manage to stay in the truth for all those centuries without infallible definitions? …

1. But the consensus of the Church believes these traditional dogmas, the Pope consulted the bishops and found universal agreement, it is the faith of the Church.

• The sensus fidelium isn’t enough, it has been declared to have been revealed, and general revelation is taught to have ended at the death of the last Apostle, so you have to find it in the 1st century or in the next generations as a strong tradition. …

1. The dogmas were implicitly revealed, and you have to understand the development of doctrine.

• The development of doctrine is a modern idea. Not that it is false, but the point is that the Apostles and Fathers always denied that something could be added to the faith. Growing insight is very different from solemn declarations: we could believe the Marian dogmas as theological opinions that deepen our devotion, but we cannot require anyone to believe them as divinely revealed under the pain of anathema.

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

From “Catholic Answers on Papal Infallibility”:

The Catholic Answers Tract on Papal Infallibility

…

Keating’s article here] begins by saying what papal infallibility is not. Among other things, it is not only the Pope that is infallible but also the bishops in union with him (the ordinary and universal magisterium), when they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. This teaching, first taught officially at Vatican II (LG 25), Keating claims we have “from Jesus himself” in Lk 10:16 and Mt 18:18.

Jesus didn’t say anything about the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium in solemn doctrinal teachings. He said that people would be hearing his voice when the 70 disciples preached the gospel of the Kingdom (Lk 10:16) and that the Apostles could forgive sin and excommunicate (Mt 18:18).

The infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium is a product of the Counter-Reformation, as far as we know, and it has never been dogmatically defined. The same goes for the infallibility of ecumenical councils, which was first suggested by Theodore Abu Qurra in the 9th century.

Early Church and development

Keating goes on to say that the doctrine of papal infallibility is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in the Church. But the historical study of Brian Tierney suggests just that: it appeared rather suddenly in the Middle Ages. I am not aware of Catholic Answers materials dealing with Tierney.

Keating basically admits that the doctrine was not taught explicitly in the Bible or in the early Church, rather, it is “implicit” in the early Church and in the three Petrine texts (Mt 16, Lk 22, Jn 21). He admits that Christians “developed” an understanding of papal infallibility, and the “clear beginnings” of this development are seen in the early Church.

Here Keating cites Cyprian and Augustine, and these are the texts James White shows here] do nothing to show these fathers believed in papal infallibility. One might defend Keating’s tract by saying he only talks of the beginnings of a development. But Keating does not even try to justify his “development” approach…

Maximalism or minimalism?

… Keating points out there are many teachings which haven’t been defined and that infallibility only applies to “solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals”. He does not specify what he means by “solemn” and where simply “official teachings on faith and morals” would belong (these, of course, are the most common!).

This ambuguity is quite standard. The positive presentation only excludes discipline and unofficial teachings from infallibility. But when cases of erroneous official doctrine are presented, the defender retreats to the word “solemn” and restricts infallibility to only a few cases. Usually it is not asked how the distinction between doctrine and discipline has traditionally been understood and whether it was Vatican I’s intention to restrict papal infallibility to only a few cases.

The same applies to the examples from the Bible and Church history. The Gal. 2 case as well as the cases of Liberius, Vigilius and Honorius are dismissed because they do not meet the requirements for an infallible definition set out by Pastor Aeternus. It is not asked how the Council Fathers interpreted these requirements, nor is it asked whether such distinctions were recognized by Jesus and the Apostles or the early Church.

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

More from “Catholic Answers on Papal Infallibility”:

Speculation with unproven assumptions

Keating continues with a theological speculation about infallibility where he states the Tridentine understanding of infallibility: “[The Church] must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.” But this can be maintained with a general indefectibility and without solemn papal additions to the deposit of the faith (such as the Marian dogmas).

A related argument goes as follows: if the Church ever apostatized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; “because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church”. This is naive. As long as there are people baptized and believing in Christ and gathering in his name and as long as the Eucharist is celebrated, the Church endures.

One would need to define “heresy”, “Church”, “apostatize”, and see how these terms have been understood throughout the centuries. We would see that Keating’s logic stands on fallible ground – his assumptions are unnecessary and unapostolic.

One more time Keating commits the same mistake: “Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true”. The Church is “God’s spokesman” – 1 Tim 3:15 and Lk 10:16 cited as purportedly evidencing the same mindset. Of course the Church is God’s spokesman when it proclaims Christ and his gospel faithfully. But this needn’t have anything to do with new dogmatic definitions about Mary in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Again Keating’s above sentence is initially very wide-ranging (the Church cannot teach heresy) and fits well with the idea that the Church is God’s spokesman. But the second sentence restricts this to “anything it solemnly defines”, again leaving the interpretation vague enough to help run from counter-arguments. Keating knows that there are problematic magisterial documents, that Bishops and even local councils can teach heresy, that large parts of the people of God have believed heresy, etc.

No explanation is given why “Church” should be equated with “solemn” (the meaning of which remains unexplained) definitions (also unexplained) of the magisterium (the development of which is also ignored).

Evert’s article

Jason Evert’s article here] adds little to Keating’s. He often confuses papal infallibility (which he is trying to defend) with the infallibility of the Church. Again 1 Tim 3:15 is cited as well as Cyprian, and, lo and behold, Robert Sungenis! But no patristic evidence is given for this intepretation of Mt 16.

The Irenaeus passage is quoted, again (as almost always) ignoring the fact that Irenaeus has presented the faith/tradition he is talking about in 1,10,1, and it doesn’t include papal infallibility. The same goes for the Sixtus quote: Rome was authoritative because it bore witness to the truth, truth was not made truth by Roman decisions. None of these quotes absolutely preclude the possibility of future error.

Evert also argues from the parallel between inspiration and infallibility. Incidentally, Scott Hahn argued similarly just recently on Catholic Answers Live. “If God could take fallible men and use them as authors of infallible Scripture, why couldn’t he make fallible Popes infallible, too?” Well, of course he could, but this is pure speculation in the absence of evidence that he did.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Strange, considering the Early Church thought of its Ecumenical Councils and its products, like the Nicene Creed, as infallible.

That is problematic, to say the least. If the infallibility of councils was recognized before the councils came to a conclusion, why did so many feel free to contradict them? Furthermore, what about the curious case of Chalcedon, where the council rejected the use of the formula ‘from two natures’, while the next ecumenical council, the Second Council of Constantinople, allowed for the formula ‘from two natures’ to be used? Which of these was infallible, the first in rejecting the formula, or the second in conditionally accepting the formula?

 

[steve_b]

Some Eastern Catholics don’t seem to agree with this.

Then as Bp John says, by rejecting canon 43, they aren’t in union with the pope…ergo they aren’t Catholic. (link was provided to his quote and its context)

by extension he also added canons c 597 & 599.

list of canons jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html
H:

I could be wrong but it seems our brother Marduk would call this terminology absolutist. Perhaps he can clarify if he thinks so.

what I posted was a direct quote from E Canon law. Therefore, terminology was agreed upon by the Churches of the East or there wouldn’t be such a law among Eastern Churches … true? It’s not absolutist terminology. In fact, if you can find the term Absolutist in any Church document, relating to the pope, would you please give the reference, I’d like to see it.? Thanks in advance :tiphat:
H:

He is definitely an Eastern Catholic NOT on his way to Orthodoxy.

Well said.

Apparantly the Melkite Church has a worldwide membership of ~1.5 million. With ~700,000 of that total in Syria and the middle East in general. I don’t know how large the Eparchy of Newton is, so I don’t know how many people Bp John speaks for. Just thinking outloud, If he is off base in his teaching, I would think he wouldn’t be on the Melkite Eparchy of Newton website answering peoples questions . :twocents:

 

[steve_b]

More from “Catholic Answers on Papal Infallibility”:

That’s very misleading the way that link is identified

 

[Trebor135]

That’s very misleading the way that link is identified

You’re right. It never occurred to me that the way I cited that blog post could bring confusion. Wishing to be concise, I simply mentioned the title, without realizing the link might be misconstrued as actually going to a Catholic Answers tract.

My apologies.

 

[Nicea325]

Pride…pride…pride…from both sides! I am more than willing to give- and- take in order to unify our churches. Something can be done to get it accomplished and I am all for it.