All churches in communion with Rome believe in papal infallibility.
The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome.
The Eastern Rite Churches in communion with the Pope are not “separate”. They are in communion. They embrace the full Catholic faith, incuding papal infallibility.
The Eastern Catholic Churches, those in union with Rome, believe in Papal Infallibility. It’s one deposit of faith with different disciplines/practices.
Some (or at least one) Eastern Catholic priests do some creative things with the doctrine of papal infallibility. One I spoke to told me (in a one-on-one conversation) that what papal infallibility really means is that the Pope must be consulted first on doctrinal questions. That is not what I have always understood by the doctrine.
That is the theory, although I have met some Eastern Catholics who have serious doubts. These remain in communion with Rome because they either believe it is right to do so anyway or they are being loyal to the church and community their parents raised them in. It may seem contradictory, but some people don’t put Rome first, but it is part of a package deal.
That is an important part of it. The other part is that when the bishops of the world cannot come to an agreement on a doctrinal matter, the Pope is the “tie-breaker” (that’s a layman’s way of putting it).
I would be interested to read what you think the doctrine of “papal infallibility” means.
Those who have serious doubts normally misunderstand “papal infallibility” to be a one-man show, but it’s not.
A lot of Eastern Orthodox and Catholics do not fully understand the Faith, but remain in their respective Churches. That part of the spirit of apophatism, right?
A lot of Christians are that way. I think this is more the case for those Christians not raised in Western cultures.
Rome is first if and when it is necessary, but not all the time. That’s what primacy is all about. What is it about primacy that is “contradictory” to your ecclesiological understanding as an EO Christian?
He was probably referring to the Absolutist Petrine excesses. I hope that misinterpretation of Catholic doctrine is “developed away” too.
I think most people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, confuse ultramontanism (the High Petrine view) with NEO-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view).
There has been no time in my life when any matter has gone beyond my Bishop. There has been no matter from Rome that has contradicted my Bishop.
The church itself is infallible.
If it weren’t for the pope, many people would have been arian, as many bishops were
Would just like to point out that it was not the Pope ALONE who was not Arian. Whatever the Pope did, it was a collegial action.
I think the VI definition is fairly clear: when the Bishop of Rome speaks ex cathedra (as the universal paster) on a matter of faith and morals, he is incapable of erring and his declarations are binding on the whole Church and “irreformeable”, regardless of who agrees or diagrees with it or whether the whole Church consents to it.
The blue portion actually has an important premise that people often miss, a premise contained in the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus. Lack of consideration of this important premise results in a gross misunderstanding of “papal infallibility.”