Papal Infallibility in the Orthodox Churches

[Cavaradossi]

It is hard to understand why the Fathers of Chalcedon singled out St. Peter among the Apostles for any other reason than that he had a unique role among the Apostles. And it is hard to understand why the Fathers connected St. Peter to Pope St. Leo and no one else among the illustrious names mentioned by the Fathers of the Council, except for the fact that Pope St. Leo held the same place among the Fathers of the Coucil that St. Peter had among the Apostles.

It is easy to understand why the fathers of the council connected St. Leo to St. Peter; it is both because he held fast to the faith of Peter and his position in the governance of the Church at the time, as first in the diptychs. Were it because of his position in the governance of the Church alone, then it holds that Vigilius’ Constitutum (which he declared to be in force by the power of the Apostolic See) ought to have received the same reception, but instead we know that it was outright rejected.

Most of the interruptions were because of difficulties in language - the Tome was in Latin and had to be translated. A few were due to their hearing it for the first time, while having been assured previously from others that it was correct (remember that almost the entire Church had subscribed to the Tome before the Council was even convened). and there were certain statements that seemed to divide Christ.

The Acts of the Council makes it pretty clear that the objections were to certain Nestorian-sounding passages in the tome.

Were they objections or simply requests for clarification?

Objections.24. When there was being read the part of the aforesaid letter that contains the words, ‘For the payment of the debt owed by our nature divine nature was united to the passible nature, so that – this fitting our cure – one and the same, being the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, would be able to die in respect of the one and would not be able to expire in respect of the other’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Aetius the most devout archdeacon of imperial Constantinople read out the chapter of Cyril of sacred memory, the late bishop of the city of Alexandria, containing the words, ‘Since again his own body by the grace of God tasted death on behalf of everyone, as the apostle says, he himself is said to have suffered death on our behalf, not as though he entered into the experience of death in regard to his own nature (for to say or think that would be lunacy) but because, as I have just said, his own flesh tasted death.’
25. Likewise when there was being read the part that contains the words, ‘For each form performs what is proper to it in association with the other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles while the other has succumbed to outrages’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Aetius archdeacon of the holy church of Constantinople read out the chapter of Cyril of sacred memory containing the words, ‘Some of the sayings are particularly fitting to God, some again are particularly fitting to man, while others occupy a middle position, revealing the Son of God as God and man simultaneously and at the same time.’
26. Likewise when there was being read from the same letter the part that contains the words, ‘Although indeed in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man, nevertheless that because of which the outrage is common in both is one thing and that because of which the glory is common is another, for he has from us the humanity that is less than the Father, and he has from the Father the Godhead that is equal with the Father’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Theodoret the most devout bishop of Cyrrhus said, ‘There is a similar instance in the blessed Cyril which contains the words, “He became man without shedding what was his own, for he remained what he was; he is certainly conceived as one dwelling in another, that is, the divine nature in what is human.”’

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I believe that the authority of the Pope depends on his orthodoxy. Many Latin Catholic theologians have expressed the belief that a Pope who is in heresy is no longer Pope. I don’t believe in the claim that it is right “just because the Pope says so.” I think there are very few Catholics who believe that.

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s not what I was saying at all. “Just because the Pope says so” is nowhere in my post, or any other post I’ve seen in this thread, as far as I’ve noticed.

Rather, the idea is that there is a difference in what we understand “Peter has spoken through Leo” to mean, and it goes back to how we conceive of the governance of the Church. For Roman Catholics, it is common to read verses and conciliar proclamations as evidence for the modern understanding of the Roman Papacy. For the Orthodox, they are evidence that the early church did not function according to the model of a single infallible bishop governing over the whole church. So the two look at the same documents and come to opposite conclusions. That’s all.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;10114025:

dzheremi;10112234:

I absolutely agree with that statement. If Alexandria is wrong (i.e., if Alexandria is advancing ideas that are wrong), then it does not matter what particular justification there are of them. Something tells me that there is some kind of anti-Rome prejudice being read into my statement that is not really there. It’s not about the particular See, it’s about the particular ideas. I agree with Alexandria’s ideas and practice of the faith to the extent that I understand them

, and disagree with at least some of Rome’s versions of the same.
As noted earlier [by Cavaradossi], seems it would be the underlined phrase that would influence one’s interpretation (and accurate comprehension) of said doctrines? So, why would one not agree with the respective understanding of George Habīb Bibāwī or Max Michel Hannā (Anba Maximos Youhanna) regarding Coptic Orthodoxy?
For the same reason that I wouldn’t ask Catholics “why not agree with Jack Chick’s interpretation of Catholicism?” That is a silly question.

Puzzled as to why is it silly to sincerely question if someone’s understanding accurately reflects the tenets of a particular belief system (especially when it is not their own)?

I don’t know what your point is in posting here as you do, but my point is actually that it isn’t all about an individual’s understanding, because neither of us (Orthodox or Roman Catholic) are churches of personal interpretation. I more or less have to throw in that line about “as far as I understand them” because that’s the recourse of people around these parts to anything that disagrees with Rome — “oh, you don’t UNDERSTAND it properly”, etc., as though anyone’s personal understanding is the key to whether or not a particular doctrine is correct or not. That’s just foolishness. But I put that in there to preempt exactly the kind of response as you have given; to recognize, in essence, that my understanding of the faith is not infallible either, and there are likely things that I don’t understand about both of our communions. But that says nothing about the doctrines themselves. Those are available for study and reflection and comparison to the Fathers (our standard in Orthodoxy) at any time. So we very rarely have this idea of “so and so doesn’t UNDERSTAND” in our church, as far as I can tell. I would wager dollars to donuts that “Anba” Maximos understands very well that he is a leader of a foolish and contemptible schism. It’s not hard to see the motives of such a person.

If the validity of a particular teaching is to be objectively ascertained, is there not a obligation to determine if the disputed teaching has been accurately and correctly presented first?

So it is funny to me that in trying to engage me in an argument along some lines that appear to say “your interpretation is just yours, and you could just as easily be wrong” (a point I’m not even disputing, that’s just not the point), you appeal to some crazy person who claims to be the leader of the Most True Orthodox Christian Church or whatever nonsense, who has 10 parishes in all of Egypt (I’m pretty sure the Presbyterians have more, and they’re a tiny fraction within the milieu of Christianity in Egypt) and was “ordained” also by a tiny schismatic group in America, and has to depend on those sham credentials to pass himself off as anything at all. This would be like me appealing to the likes of Pope Michael and then pretending that his existence says something about Roman Catholic doctrine.

So I think you’re missing the point completely, my friend.

As your point was implicitly acknowledged from the outset, was never aware there was any argument to speak of? A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted in such discussions since personal experience has taught controverted teachings are subject to exaggeration and misrepresentation (which is a major disincentive toward any consideration for religious conversion).

 

[dzheremi]

If the validity of a particular teaching is to be objectively ascertained, is there not a obligation to determine if the disputed teaching has been accurately and correctly presented first?

I don’t know about validity or non-validity, but I do remember mentioning earlier that official Vatican documents are available to be read by anybody, so if that’s not getting accurate Roman Catholic teachings, I don’t know what is.

As your point was implicitly acknowledged from the outset, was never aware there was any argument to speak of? A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted in such discussions since personal experience has taught controverted teachings are subject to exaggeration and misrepresentation (which is a major disincentive toward any consideration for religious conversion).

Again, my point is not that this doesn’t happen. My point is that what Rome teaches and what is correct are not necessarily the same thing, so even if there has been misunderstanding, it does not follow then that Rome is right. The two are not logically connected at all.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

I mentioned nothing about infallibility. Why is the bishop of Rome referred to as the head of all the churches? Why did Paschasinus even care about Leo’s direction?

Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out." Council of Chalcedon

Apparently both Cavaradossi and dzheremi have illustrated an inadequacy in citing patristic substantiation for the purported existence of papal primacy (let alone papal supremacy)? Seems any adherents from the Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy would give greater credence to the testimony from the personages of Eastern Christianity?

 

[dzheremi]

Can’t speak for others, but the example given here certainly doesn’t wash with me. In fact, I kind of laughed a little bit because it just bears out what I’ve been taught about Chalcedon from Coptic sources about the poor treatment of out teacher St. Dioscoros. If it were Easterners instead saying it…eh, who cares, really…we commemorated the martyrdom of St. Clement, Pope of Rome, just yesterday in the Synaxarium reading as part of the liturgy (together with the martyrdom of St. Peter I, the 17th Alexandrian Pope). He gets an “Axios” just like everybody else that the Church recognizes.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;10115111:

If the validity of a particular teaching is to be objectively ascertained, is there not a obligation to determine if the disputed teaching has been accurately and correctly presented first

?
I don’t know about validity or non-validity, but I do remember mentioning earlier that official Vatican documents are available to be read by anybody, so if that’s not getting accurate Roman Catholic teachings, I don’t know what is.

Noted, but just wish to emphasize it is another matter whether someone’s interpretation accurately reflects a correct understanding of those teachings?

SanctusPeccator;10115111:

As your point was implicitly acknowledged from the outset, was never aware there was any argument to speak of? A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted in such discussions since personal experience has taught controverted teachings are subject to exaggeration and misrepresentation (which is a major

disincentive toward any consideration for religious conversion).
Again, my point is not that this doesn’t happen. My point is that what Rome teaches and what is correct are not necessarily the same thing, so even if there has been misunderstanding, it does not follow then that Rome is right. The two are not logically connected at all.

Agreed; however, the validity of the respective tenets (whether Assyrian Church of the East, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Protestant) is made much more difficult to ascertain if they are not accurately presented and correctly understood from the outset?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;10115217:

Apparently both Cavaradossi and dzheremi have illustrated an inadequacy in citing patristic substantiation for the purported existence of papal primacy (let alone papal supremacy)? Seems any adherents from the Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy would give greater credence to the testimony from the personages of Eastern

Christianity?
Can’t speak for others, but the example given here certainly doesn’t wash with me. In fact, I kind of laughed a little bit because it just bears out what I’ve been taught about Chalcedon from Coptic sources about the poor treatment of out teacher St. Dioscoros. If it were Easterners instead saying it…eh, who cares, really…we commemorated the martyrdom of St. Clement, Pope of Rome, just yesterday in the Synaxarium reading as part of the liturgy (together with the martyrdom of St. Peter I, the 17th Alexandrian Pope). He gets an “Axios” just like everybody else that the Church recognizes.

Just seems Severus of Antioch would better reflect the viewpoint of the Oriental Orthodox on the nature of papal primacy than Paschasinus of Lilybaeum? Rather interesting to note that while Patriarch Dioscorus I was deposed during the third session of the Council of Chalcedon, he was not condemned as a heretic?

 

[dzheremi]

I guess. And of course HH Pope St. Dioscoros wasn’t condemned as a heretic. He wasn’t one. He continued to be venerated in the Chalcedonian Church of Egypt for several decades after Chalcedon (this apparently got the Chalcedonian Patriarch Timothy III Salophakiolos in trouble), even.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I guess. And of course HH Pope St. Dioscoros wasn’t condemned as a heretic. He wasn’t one. He continued to be venerated in the Chalcedonian Church of Egypt for several decades after Chalcedon (this apparently got the Chalcedonian Patriarch Timothy III Salophakiolos in trouble), even.

Yes, originally he was still commemorated locally because his deposition was for failing to show up for trial after being summoned three times (meaning he was found guilty for conducting Second Ephesus improperly), but and not on the basis of any sort of conviction for heresy. Only later did he get branded as a heretic.

 

[jinc1019]

When taken in context, it is hard to understand that quote any other way. The reading of the Tome was interrupted several times by bishops from Illyria (who were even under the Pope’s jurisdiction) and Palestine, who objected to Nestorian sounding passages in the Tome (most especially the one about the Word working miracles and the flesh enduring insults). Each time, only after these objections were dealt with by showing the Tome’s agreement with Cyril, did they continue reading the Tome. It is clear in context that agreement with St. Cyril was the measuring stick of Christological orthodoxy, and that Pope St. Leo’s Tome was not accepted simply because it was issued by the bishop of Rome.

Very interesting!

 

[jinc1019]

I wouldn’t be so quick to give in to that interpretation. What Cavaradossi says is certainly true, but there is something else going on here aside from acknowledging the oneness of the Faith taught by Pope St. Leo, St. Peter, the Apostles, and St. Cyril. Here is what the Council Fathers exactly said:
“This is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.”
Twice there is mention of the Faith of the Apostles. If the point was merely the Faith shared by all, there would have been no need to mention St. Peter distinctly. But St. Peter was indeed singled out, and they mention his name in connection specifically with Pope St. Leo, not Patriarch St. Flavian, nor Pope St. Cyril. St. Peter had a unique role among the Apostles. All the Fathers knew what this meant, and the fact that they attached him to Pope St. Leo specifically says more de facto than some are willing to admit.

Blessings,
Marduk

Assuming of course that the interpretation that all bishops are successors to St. Peter is wrong.