Infallibility vs Beatific Vision and East/West ecumenical dialogue

[DL82]

This is purely speculation, so please forgive if I have misunderstood, but it seems that there is a connection between two issues which cause division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism:

On the Catholic side, the doctrine of Papal infallibility suggests that the Magisterium of the Church can pronounce on doctrine as if hearing from the Holy Spirit directly. Orthodox often find this problematic.

On the Orthodox side, hesychasts claim to experience the Beatific Vision while still in the flesh, to ‘see’ God in his uncreated energies. Catholic teaching finds this idea problematic.

It seems difficult to have two authorities in the Church, one that can claim to ‘see’ God, the other to ‘hear’ him, so it is understandable that there could be conflict. 1 Corinthians 12:16-17 notwithstanding.

In some ways, I think many Catholics fail to understand that this ultimate source of authority for the Orthodox means that the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue is not so much between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as between the Pope and the monks of Athos. Orthodoxy has had heretical patriarchs before, and has deposed them. There is no guarantee that the Patriarch is preserved from error. The Ecumenical Patriarch could reconcile with Rome only to be called a heretic by the holy hesychasts, and abandoned by the rest of the Orthodox Church.

If the dialogue between the ultimate authorities of the two Churches is not hierarch to hierarch but dogmatic/hierarchical/mouthpiece (Rome) to mystical/visionary (Athos), then it is literally the eye and the ear of the Church being reconciled, as in the passage in Corinthians.

Have I misunderstood, or is this a reasonable opinion about the sources of prophetic authority in the two Churches?

 

[ThatCatholic]

The Pope isn’t positively inspired as the apostles were, rather he’s prevented from teaching error, also the Orthodox deny that infallible truth can be communicated in human words (or at least that’s what I’ve been told by Orthodox).

 

[MorEphrem]

The Pope isn’t positively inspired as the apostles were, rather he’s prevented from teaching error, also the Orthodox deny that infallible truth can be communicated in human words (or at least that’s what I’ve been told by Orthodox).

In my opinion I find that clearly false; the implications of that would mean ecumenical councils are comparatively good but still not fully true. If human words could not convey infallible truth than even the Scriptures would be nothing more than a grasp in the dark.

 

[bzkoss236]

I’m pretty sure it is incorrect to say that the Pope ‘hears’ the Holy Spirit through infallibility. I think it is more correct to say that the Pope, just as the Ecumenical Councils, is guided by the Holy Spirit in making pronouncements on statements of faith and morals. It is also to be understood that the Pope cannot declare whatever he wants as doctrine (I know you did not say this, but some think this); there are restrictions that help to judge whether what he said was an infallible statement. And the only times the Pope has used his sole infallibility has been in times of confusion over a particular teaching, under which case he stepped up to settle the matter.

Also, from my understanding, Orthodox don’t have a problem with infallibility, only the infallibility of the Pope. Part of this I would assume is from their denial of the supremacy of the Pope. They recognize the primacy of the Pope, but only as “first among equals” (I guess as like a spokes person for a group of equals instead of one as having final say).

 

[neokarny]

=In some ways, I think many Catholics fail to understand that this ultimate source of authority for the Orthodox means that the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue is not so much between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as between the Pope and the monks of Athos. Orthodoxy has had heretical patriarchs before, and has deposed them. There is no guarantee that the Patriarch is preserved from error. The Ecumenical Patriarch could reconcile with Rome only to be called a heretic by the holy hesychasts, and abandoned by the rest of the Orthodox Church.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t consider the monks on Mt. Athos the main authority in Orthodoxy. My Church undoubtably disagrees with them on a lot of issues, and what the monks say only matters so much. Further, they’re completely irrelevant to the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which are fully Orthodox.

Also, the Ecumenical Patriarch isn’t an authority over anything but those churches immediately under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. He’s certainly not an authority over my Church.

 

[jimmy]

This is purely speculation, so please forgive if I have misunderstood, but it seems that there is a connection between two issues which cause division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism:

On the Catholic side, the doctrine of Papal infallibility suggests that the Magisterium of the Church can pronounce on doctrine as if hearing from the Holy Spirit directly. Orthodox often find this problematic.

On the Orthodox side, hesychasts claim to experience the Beatific Vision while still in the flesh, to ‘see’ God in his uncreated energies. Catholic teaching finds this idea problematic.

It seems difficult to have two authorities in the Church, one that can claim to ‘see’ God, the other to ‘hear’ him, so it is understandable that there could be conflict. 1 Corinthians 12:16-17 notwithstanding.

In some ways, I think many Catholics fail to understand that this ultimate source of authority for the Orthodox means that the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue is not so much between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as between the Pope and the monks of Athos. Orthodoxy has had heretical patriarchs before, and has deposed them. There is no guarantee that the Patriarch is preserved from error. The Ecumenical Patriarch could reconcile with Rome only to be called a heretic by the holy hesychasts, and abandoned by the rest of the Orthodox Church.

If the dialogue between the ultimate authorities of the two Churches is not hierarch to hierarch but dogmatic/hierarchical/mouthpiece (Rome) to mystical/visionary (Athos), then it is literally the eye and the ear of the Church being reconciled, as in the passage in Corinthians.

Have I misunderstood, or is this a reasonable opinion about the sources of prophetic authority in the two Churches?

I have considered starting a thread on this subject. I think one of the problems with infallibility for the Orthodox is that it is completely disassociated from experience. Catholics are emphatic about the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. Just because the pope can’t err, doesn’t mean he can’t sin.

The Orthodox would find infallibility more palatable if it was correlated with impeccability, because knowledge is obtained through experience. Through the experience and acquisition of the divine energies, the saints begin to know God. They still aren’t infallible, but it is through living the Christian life that the truth is gained. They wouldn’t speak of seeing God (except as far as Gregory of Nyssa did in his commentary on Moses. He spoke of seeing the back of God). God is encountered in the darkness. Light through darkness. It is a never ending process of growth and theosis.

I am sure the Orthodox would still reject infallibility, but infallibility would make more sense to them.

 

[Rawb]

In my opinion I find that clearly false; the implications of that would mean ecumenical councils are comparatively good but still not fully true. If human words could not convey infallible truth than even the Scriptures would be nothing more than a grasp in the dark.

No, it means that Ecumenical councils are not incapable of teaching error. Councils can be held, an agreement reached, people believe they are Ecumenical, and then it is discovered they are not. It has happened before. Furthermore if someone reads canons of the council and comes to an incorrect conclusion through following the letter of the words than their intent then it could be teaching them incorrectly.

Your reductio ad absurdum is fallacious. Just because human words cannot convey infallible truth doesn’t mean they can’t convey truth. You’re presenting the fallacy of false choice. Just because the Scriptures aren’t infallible (and the Protestants are proof enough that they aren’t) it doesn’t follow that it’s a complete guess.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, I certainly wouldn’t consider the monks on Mt. Athos the main authority in Orthodoxy.

Being a center of Orthodox Spirituality, you should not consider them to be authoritative (in the sense of episcopal authority), but you should seriously consider what they have to say, instead of treating them so dismissively. When they decide to speak and say that certain forms of ecumenism violate the canons or certain practices violate the teachings of the Holy Fathers, we ought to give them a fair hearing, and consider what they have to say, because they have dedicated their entire lives to prayer, the study of scripture, and the study of the fathers.

My Church undoubtably disagrees with them on a lot of issues, and what the monks say only matters so much.

Again, when people who have dedicated their lives to reading the church fathers say that certain practices violate the canons, they should be taken quite seriously.

Further, they’re completely irrelevant to the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which are fully Orthodox.

I do not mean to be harsh, but it is indifferentist and ecumenism-influenced statements like this which illustrate why the monastics are still important to Orthodoxy. Even if the Oriental Orthodox Churches taught the Orthodox faith, that they are not in communion with the Orthodox Church means that they do not possess the fulness of the Church (the same claim that they reasonably would make about the Chalcedonian Churches).

Also, the Ecumenical Patriarch isn’t an authority over anything but those churches immediately under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. He’s certainly not an authority over my Church.

Except when concerning matters where he is given authority over the other Churches by the Canons of the Holy Fathers.

 

[neokarny]

Being a center of Orthodox Spirituality, you should not consider them to be authoritative (in the sense of episcopal authority), but you should seriously consider what they have to say, instead of treating them so dismissively. When they decide to speak and say that certain forms of ecumenism violate the canons or certain practices violate the teachings of the Holy Fathers, we ought to give them a fair hearing, and consider what they have to say, because they have dedicated their entire lives to prayer, the study of scripture, and the study of the fathers.

You’re right. While my tone may have come across poorly, I think I did accurately say not “the main authority.” An authority amongst others, yes.

Again, when people who have dedicated their lives to reading the church fathers say that certain practices violate the canons, they should be taken quite seriously.

I’ll agree they should be taken seriously, I’m just inclined to limit how much. Some online go to the extreme of wanting them as the EO’s infallible mouthpiece (as the OP seems to have come across), which I’m afraid is going too far.

I do not mean to be harsh, but it is indifferentist and ecumenism-influenced statements like this which illustrate why the monastics are still important to Orthodoxy. Even if the Oriental Orthodox Churches taught the Orthodox faith, that they are not in communion with the Orthodox Church means that they do not possess the fulness of the Church (the same claim that they reasonably would make about the Chalcedonian Churches).

I believe I’m being fairly faithful to my Church’s ethos when it comes to the Oriental Orthodox. Just read the various letters by HB John X, and his predecessor HB Ignatius IV. Specifically the joint pastoral agreement between HB Ignatius IV and HH Ignatius Zakka on the relations between our sister Churches (Antiochian and Syriac). Despite a lack of intercommunion, there’s no doubt that my Church views the OO as Orthodox in the full sense of the word. Further, I personally believe them to be fully Orthodox irrespective of my Church’s view.

I’m not sure that the OO would be uniform in how they view the state of our episcopates. There do seem to be plenty that view our episcopates as legitimate instantiations of the Church, although some (AFAIK e.g. Ethiopian monastics) don’t.

And I find the view of “the Church” being decided primarily by “intercommunion with visible, canonical Orthodox Church(es)” very unsatisfactory and malleable to human politicking.

Except when concerning matters where he is given authority over the other Churches by the Canons of the Holy Fathers.

True. I may have overstated, but I meant to contrast with DL82’s implied EP = Orthodox Pope, universal ordinary jurisdiction and all.

 

[Peter_J]

This is purely speculation, so please forgive if I have misunderstood, but it seems that there is a connection between two issues which cause division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism:

On the Catholic side, the doctrine of Papal infallibility suggests that the Magisterium of the Church can pronounce on doctrine as if hearing from the Holy Spirit directly. Orthodox often find this problematic.

On the Orthodox side, hesychasts claim to experience the Beatific Vision while still in the flesh, to ‘see’ God in his uncreated energies. Catholic teaching finds this idea problematic.

It seems difficult to have two authorities in the Church, one that can claim to ‘see’ God, the other to ‘hear’ him, so it is understandable that there could be conflict. 1 Corinthians 12:16-17 notwithstanding.

In some ways, I think many Catholics fail to understand that this ultimate source of authority for the Orthodox means that the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue is not so much between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as between the Pope and the monks of Athos. Orthodoxy has had heretical patriarchs before, and has deposed them. There is no guarantee that the Patriarch is preserved from error. The Ecumenical Patriarch could reconcile with Rome only to be called a heretic by the holy hesychasts, and abandoned by the rest of the Orthodox Church.

If the dialogue between the ultimate authorities of the two Churches is not hierarch to hierarch but dogmatic/hierarchical/mouthpiece (Rome) to mystical/visionary (Athos), then it is literally the eye and the ear of the Church being reconciled, as in the passage in Corinthians.

**Have I misunderstood, **

I would definitely say so.