Papacy and Eastern Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdvanceAlways
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AdvanceAlways

Guest
Hi folk. I know similar threads regarding this discussion have been posted before, but when I was reading some old threads, I only found myself more confused.

Do the Eastern Catholic Churches accept the infallibility and supremacy of the Pope? As I was reading some discussions on this forum and on an Eastern Catholic forum, I found a lot of posts from Eastern Catholics (not Orthodox) who openly rejected the infallibility of the Pope, claimed that any Dogmatic statements after 1054 are invalid, and that the councils post 1054 are invalid.

What does this mean for the unity of the Church? If Latins are teaching papal supremacy as dogma, some Eastern Catholics are rejecting that… how are we a truly united Church? It does seem at times as though the Orthodox Church is far more united than the Catholic Church…

I’ve always understood that the Eastern Catholic Churches approach theology, worship, and spirituality in different ways than the Latin Church, but I was surprised to see people who identified as Catholic blatantly saying that the Catholic Church is wrong. Is this a common outlook of Eastern Catholics? I’m more than a little confused… I do not post this to be offensive, I was just really surprised.
 
Ughh, too late for me to edit now. After reading some more threads, I think I get this a little more. While I am still troubled by those who have outright rejected Papal infallibility, would it be fair to state that an Eastern Catholic way of looking at these questions could be that the issues surrounding Vatican I and infallibility as dogma are accepted, but that it is theologically possible to try to reach a more nuanced approach because the formulations at the council only came from a Western approach in a Western context?
 
AdvanceAlways said:
Ughh, too late for me to edit now. After reading some more threads, I think I get this a little more. While I am still troubled by those who have outright rejected Papal infallibility, would it be fair to state that an Eastern Catholic way of looking at these questions could be that the issues surrounding Vatican I and infallibility as dogma are accepted, but that it is theologically possible to try to reach a more nuanced approach because the formulations at the council only came from a Western approach in a Western context?
Click to expand...
If so, I would very much like to see an Eastern Catholic interpretation elaborated here.
 
Although I won’t go into whether or not I think the the later councils are relevant to the Oriental Churches (especially when they start looking more like local synods and not even close to councils), I would just like to point out that those who make the claim that the cut-off is post-1054 are exclusively Byzantine and it is another Byzo-centric (if you will) truth-claim that I don’t quite buy.
 
All Catholics are required to accept all Catholic dogmas, even if they then go on to discuss or explain them in their own theological language. That includes Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, everything.

I’m also interested in hearing Eastern perspectives on this issue again, but the fundamental requirement to maintain Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy applies to the entire Catholic Church, not just part of it.

(And yes, I know that by shifting the focus from Magisterial teaching to orthodoxy I’m providing an opening for one of the Eastern explanations I’ve heard, but I won’t try to reproduce that explanation myself.)
 
Vatican I was, most assuredly, the most unfortunate obstacle thrown in the path of union between the Churches. The saddest part is that a dogma was proclaimed for no reason other than a pope was having a tantrum from losing a castle or two. That kind of a fit makes the hijinks of the Kardashians and company look tame in comparison.

Thankfully, Pope Benedict helped lay a framework to approach repairing the immeasurable damage Vatican I wreaked on ecumenism. He recognized Eastern Catholics and Orthodox would be much more comfortable if we used the praxis of the First Millennium as a starting point for union.

It is exceedingly difficult to wrench the results of Vatican I from all its ultramontane baggage. If somehow this can be accomplished, it must be interpreted in light of the ancient practice of the First Millennium. When Vatican I is interpreted in a vacuum or only in light of the last 1000 years it is incomprehensible and produces the rockstar papacies of Pius XII and John Paul II and all of the other absurdities we have seen over the years.

Roman/Latin/Western Catholic may argue that “all Catholics” must accept Catholic dogma, and this is a circular truth, but they must realize that if they want that to be the practice then they must stop formulating their dogmas and doctrines in purely scholastic and western forms.
 
Denho said:
Vatican I was, most assuredly, the most unfortunate obstacle thrown in the path of union between the Churches. The saddest part is that a dogma was proclaimed for no reason other than a pope was having a tantrum from losing a castle or two. That kind of a fit makes the hijinks of the Kardashians and company look tame in comparison.

Thankfully, Pope Benedict helped lay a framework to approach repairing the immeasurable damage Vatican I wreaked on ecumenism. He recognized Eastern Catholics and Orthodox would be much more comfortable if we used the praxis of the First Millennium as a starting point for union.

It is exceedingly difficult to wrench the results of Vatican I from all its ultramontane baggage. If somehow this can be accomplished, it must be interpreted in light of the ancient practice of the First Millennium. When Vatican I is interpreted in a vacuum or only in light of the last 1000 years it is incomprehensible and produces the rockstar papacies of Pius XII and John Paul II and all of the other absurdities we have seen over the years.

Roman/Latin/Western Catholic may argue that “all Catholics” must accept Catholic dogma, and this is a circular truth, but they must realize that if they want that to be the practice then they must stop formulating their dogmas and doctrines in purely scholastic and western forms.
Click to expand...
I understand all this, but I guess I don’t understand how some could just choose to ignore the dogma and pretend that it doesn’t exist. How can at this point, Rome try to come up with a situation pleasing to the East without causing massive schism in the West? If Pope Francis were to declare that Vatican I has been completely misinterpreted and from here on out, the Church will universally adopt Eastern ecclesiology, drop Papal infallibility, concede to the Orthodox that he is merely first among equals, we will see the biggest schism since 1054.

I do understand the need for the Eastern Catholic Churches to return to their Eastern roots, but I am genuinely confused by some of the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” types who seem to simply want what the Orthodox Churches want of the papacy. Why be Catholic if one wants Orthodox eclesiolog? Why should the Catholic Church always be the institution declaring deference? Again, I mean none of this as an insult, I am legitimately curious.
 
MorEphrem said:
Although I won’t go into whether or not I think the the later councils are relevant to the Oriental Churches (especially when they start looking more like local synods and not even close to councils), I would just like to point out that those who make the claim that the cut-off is post-1054 are exclusively Byzantine and it is another Byzo-centric (if you will) truth-claim that I don’t quite buy.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, you’ve got that right. 😃 👍
 
Denho said:
Vatican I was, most assuredly, the most unfortunate obstacle thrown in the path of union between the Churches. The saddest part is that a dogma was proclaimed for no reason other than a pope was having a tantrum from losing a castle or two. …

It is exceedingly difficult to wrench the results of Vatican I from all its ultramontane baggage. If somehow this can be accomplished, it must be interpreted in light of the ancient practice of the First Millennium. When Vatican I is interpreted in a vacuum or only in light of the last 1000 years it is incomprehensible and produces the rockstar papacies of Pius XII and John Paul II and all of the other absurdities we have seen over the years.

Roman/Latin/Western Catholic may argue that “all Catholics” must accept Catholic dogma, and this is a circular truth, but they must realize that if they want that to be the practice then they must stop formulating their dogmas and doctrines in purely scholastic and western forms.
Click to expand...
Sounds like I could have written myself, but ya beat me to it. 😃 Well … I’ve done it in the past so I guess ya beat me to it this time. 😉
 
Denho said:
Vatican I was, most assuredly, the most unfortunate obstacle thrown in the path of union between the Churches. The saddest part is that a dogma was proclaimed for no reason other than a pope was having a tantrum from losing a castle or two. That kind of a fit makes the hijinks of the Kardashians and company look tame in comparison.

Thankfully, Pope Benedict helped lay a framework to approach repairing the immeasurable damage Vatican I wreaked on ecumenism. He recognized Eastern Catholics and Orthodox would be much more comfortable if we used the praxis of the First Millennium as a starting point for union.

It is exceedingly difficult to wrench the results of Vatican I from all its ultramontane baggage. If somehow this can be accomplished, it must be interpreted in light of the ancient practice of the First Millennium. When Vatican I is interpreted in a vacuum or only in light of the last 1000 years it is incomprehensible and produces the rockstar papacies of Pius XII and John Paul II and all of the other absurdities we have seen over the years.

Roman/Latin/Western Catholic may argue that “all Catholics” must accept Catholic dogma, and this is a circular truth, but they must realize that if they want that to be the practice then they must stop formulating their dogmas and doctrines in purely scholastic and western forms.
Click to expand...
Is this the way any Catholic should speak of an ecumenical council or the teachings of their own Church?
 
jimmy said:
What he said was the truth. Is the truth now disrespectful? I think the west needs to learn to be respectful.
Click to expand...
If someone is in communion with the Pope, how do you reconcile picking and choosing what you want to follow? Yes, Latins do need to be more respectful of the East, but at the same time, I see a lot of disrespect toward the West coming from some in the East who profess union with the West.
 
jimmy said:
What he said was the truth. Is the truth now disrespectful? I think the west needs to learn to be respectful.
Click to expand...
I would never speak of another person’s Church, much less my own Church, with language like “a dogma was proclaimed for no reason other than a pope was having a tantrum from losing a castle or two. That kind of a fit makes the hijinks of the Kardashians and company look tame in comparison.”

That is simply not respectful.

Also there is the matter of doctrinal orthodoxy and a general attitude of faithfulness and submission to the leaders of the Church, though I don’t think any poster so far as explicitly said he/she rejects the dogma of Papal infallibility. At the very least though there is the possibility that someone could read these kinds of posts and come away with the impression that for some Catholics at least adherence to even the most formal and binding of Church teaching is optional.
 
AdvanceAlways said:
If someone is in communion with the Pope, how do you reconcile picking and choosing what you want to follow? Yes, Latins do need to be more respectful of the East, but at the same time, I see a lot of disrespect toward the West coming from some in the East who profess union with the West.
Click to expand...
Aelred_Minor said:
I would never speak of another person’s Church, much less my own Church, with language like “a dogma was proclaimed for no reason other than a pope was having a tantrum from losing a castle or two. That kind of a fit makes the hijinks of the Kardashians and company look tame in comparison.”

That is simply not respectful.

Also there is the matter of doctrinal orthodoxy, though I don’t think any poster so far as explicitly said he/she rejects the dogma of Papal infallibility. At the very least though there is the possibility that someone could read these kinds of posts and come away with the impression that for some Catholics at least adherence to even the most formal and binding of Church teaching is optional.
Click to expand...
I don’t think one can equate the two. In the case at hand, no one is saying that the Councils are false. They are perfectly valid and acceptable as General Synods (“Councils” if one prefers) and their canons are absolutely binding on the Church(es) that called them and accepted them. That said, whether they do, in fact, bind any other Church, even one “in union with Rome” and/or even one that may have had a presence at said Council(s) is, however, questionable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top