Papal Infallibility in the Orthodox Churches

[jinc1019]

The Orthodox question whether there are any “validly” (as you say) bishops outside The Orthodox Church. For us apostolic succession only remains while you are in Communion with and maintaining the faith of The Orthodox Church. So the answer to your question is no. We are only certain there is one Church.

Ok great! Thanks for your help. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[Nine_Two]

1. Do they claim to act infallibly? Or just act to the best of their ability and traditions?

Infallibility probably isn’t anything we’d claim directly. Everyone is fallible. What is infallible is the ancient teaching of the Church. Everything that is set down in line with (and not in variation with) those teachings must be likewise infallible, but anything that differs is fallible (though not necessarily wrong)

1. Why do the Orthodox Churches believe they have the authority to do this? Do they believe other churches can form based on those principles so long as they have validly ordained bishops? Like if a bunch of bishops in the Catholic Church decided they wanted to form their own church and break off, could they do that under Orthodox theology?

The Orthodox Church claims its teaching authority based on apostolic succession and an unchanging faith. While a number of churches can claim apostolic succession, that is bishops appointed by bishops who were likewise appointed going back to the apostles, other churches cannot claim the faith of the Church.
Therefore when bishops break off from the church, their claim to apostolic succession becomes moot, as they are no longer part of the church.
I hope that is understandable.

 

[mardukm]

As for that recent thread, you can’t even back peddle without insulting people.

What was the insult? Please back up this senseless statement.

I asked a simple question and you jumped on me for daring to question the Great Catholic Faith

Because I asked the question “Is this really the issue?” I jumped at you? Is that rational?

(incidentally, in the apologetics forum, people overwhelmingly agreed that the post which sparked the question was the one that was misled)

So what? Several agreed with my statement that the Grace is quantifiable in the sense that we can experience an increase in Grace. Why didn’t you consider them as jumping at you?

when you’re called on it you claim that you never questioned anyone’s motives

I didn’t. And I asked you for evidence that I attacked you in that thread. Yet you didn’t present any. and now you are here making the same claim without any proof again. It’;s more clear now why you support CTG.

and that really everyone else is evil for questioning your motives

And this statement really does wonders for your credibility.

(I also find it quite vindictive of you to bring that up to question my motives here, while fearing to answer me there).

Where did I bring up your motives? Let me repeat what occured. I asked “Is this really the issue?” Then presented my pov.

You responded. "No, it’s not “the issue”, it’s a question that I’ve never considered before and which came to me when I read the OP’s post. Not every question is an attack on the Catholic Church."

Then I asked, “Who said anything about an attack?” and tried to get the discussion back to the matter by stating “Can we get back to the issue please?” But YOU couldn’t let it go.

So stop pretending that I was vindictive or was trying to question your “motives” when I was only repeating what you stated. The fact that you couldn’t let it go after I asked us to get back to the issue at hand demonstrates it was all on you. It was all in your mind and you let it get out of hand in your own mind leading to your polemic post.

Don’t worry, I’ve got thick skin. I take irrational statements for what they are - irrational - and don’t worry about them too much.

Once you’ve cooled off, come back, and we can join in friendly discussion again.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jinc1019]

Infallibility probably isn’t anything we’d claim directly. Everyone is fallible. What is infallible is the ancient teaching of the Church. Everything that is set down in line with (and not in variation with) those teachings must be likewise infallible, but anything that differs is fallible (though not necessarily wrong)

The Orthodox Church claims its teaching authority based on apostolic succession and an unchanging faith. While a number of churches can claim apostolic succession, that is bishops appointed by bishops who were likewise appointed going back to the apostles, other churches cannot claim the faith of the Church.
Therefore when bishops break off from the church, their claim to apostolic succession becomes moot, as they are no longer part of the church.
I hope that is understandable.

That makes perfect sense, yes. Although, I am still confused about how new issues are dealt with if tradition seems to be the primary way by which the Orthodox Church deals with theological problems. Many theological issues were, at one time, new problems that the Church had to develop at one time and couldn’t rely on its tradition to solve. So how does the Church address these problems when they are new?

 

[jinc1019]

Infallibility probably isn’t anything we’d claim directly. Everyone is fallible. What is infallible is the ancient teaching of the Church. Everything that is set down in line with (and not in variation with) those teachings must be likewise infallible, but anything that differs is fallible (though not necessarily wrong)

The Orthodox Church claims its teaching authority based on apostolic succession and an unchanging faith. While a number of churches can claim apostolic succession, that is bishops appointed by bishops who were likewise appointed going back to the apostles, other churches cannot claim the** faith of the Church**.
Therefore when bishops break off from the church, their claim to apostolic succession becomes moot, as they are no longer part of the church.
I hope that is understandable.

Also, what exactly do you mean “faith of the Church”? Do you mean holding to traditional Church teachings?

 

[Rawb]

That makes perfect sense, yes. Although, I am still confused about how new issues are dealt with if tradition seems to be the primary way by which the Orthodox Church deals with theological problems. Many theological issues were, at one time, new problems that the Church had to develop at one time and couldn’t rely on its tradition to solve. So how does the Church address these problems when they are new?

In Council. There really are very few new problems that exist. Everything is a repeat of some heresy or doctrine. When those heresies were new the Fathers looked at what had been believed and taught by the apostles. Thus, even while Arianism had spread to almost all of The Church, in the Council it was revealed that that was not what had always been believed.

The faith of The Church is the Orthodox faith - what is taught and believed by the Fathers, The Scriptures, The Liturgy, our prayers, our hymns, our Iconography, the saints, the traditions…that’s all the faith.

 

[Nine_Two]

In Council. There really are very few new problems that exist. Everything is a repeat of some heresy or doctrine. When those heresies were new the Fathers looked at what had been believed and taught by the apostles. Thus, even while Arianism had spread to almost all of The Church, in the Council it was revealed that that was not what had always been believed.

The faith of The Church is the Orthodox faith - what is taught and believed by the Fathers, The Scriptures, The Liturgy, our prayers, our hymns, our Iconography, the saints, the traditions…that’s all the faith.

I endorse this answer.

 

[jinc1019]

I appreciate the response, and it makes a lot of sense, but going back to those original issues…I am sure there were problems the apostles had not addressed. What did the Orthodox do about those issues?

 

[Nine_Two]

I appreciate the response, and it makes a lot of sense, but going back to those original issues…I am sure there were problems the apostles had not addressed. What did the Orthodox do about those issues?

We can look to pre-messianic Jewish tradition. If Christ didn’t put something in a new light (for example the Sabbath), we should assume the traditional Jewish stance.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, brother CTG’s misrepresentations have been refuted a few times.

You’ve never refuted anything I posted. Still waiting though. I’ve already given you a few days while I self indulged in video gaming addiction and still all I get is more polemics like this, and no refutations based on facts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I appreciate the response, and it makes a lot of sense, but going back to those original issues…I am sure there were problems the apostles had not addressed. What did the Orthodox do about those issues?

Problems are tackled as they happen. Councils are held to figure them out. As Nine_Two pointed out, usually the Orthodox will just follow the older Jewish tradition. It may take a long time to settle things, but that is good. It is better than declaring things settled only to realize decades or centuries later that it was a huge mistake.

 

[jinc1019]

Problems are tackled as they happen. Councils are held to figure them out. As Nine_Two pointed out, usually the Orthodox will just follow the older Jewish tradition. It may take a long time to settle things, but that is good. It is better than declaring things settled only to realize decades or centuries later that it was a huge mistake.

Ok, I think I have it down now. Thanks for the response!

 

[truthseeker32]

I thought this blog post was relevant to the discussion:

“An Eastern Orthodox Christian Looks West”

devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/

 

[jinc1019]

I thought this blog post was relevant to the discussion:

“An Eastern Orthodox Christian Looks West”

devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/

Very good and interesting story.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought this blog post was relevant to the discussion:

“An Eastern Orthodox Christian Looks West”

devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/

How do you really accuse one side of polemics without hurling a bunch of your own? History is ugly, that is a fact. We can spend a lot of time digging up dirt for every Church and we’ll find plenty. Even a close examination of the Bible will reveal that it wasn’t all fine and rosy during the time of the Apostles, the First Council of Jerusalem is a testament to that.

I do believe that a universal, all-encompassing Patriarch is beneficial to the Church today. We didn’t have Archbishops/Metropolitans in the First Century. We didn’t have Patriarchs in the Second Century, these are all developments. But the Papacy is not a universal Patriarch, nor is the Ecumenical Patriarch. I was reading something yesterday from Fr. Hopko regarding the role of the Papacy in a united Church, and I pretty much agree with these points:

•The bishop of Rome would be chosen by the church of Rome. His election, because of his church’s unique position among the churches, and his position in the world, may have to be affirmed in some way by the patriarchs and the primates of autocephalous (i.e. self-governing) archbishoprics and metropolias throughout the world. But like the election of all Christian bishops, the pope’s selection and installation would be the canonical action of the community that he oversees. A “college of cardinals” appointed by the pope and having nominal ministries in Rome would no longer exist.
•The pope would not select and appoint bishops in any churches. He would, however, affirm them in their ministries, and may even do so in some formal manner, as every bishop is called to affirm his brothers with whom he holds the one episcopate in solidum. The pope would surely have the right and duty to question the choice of a candidate for the episcopacy, especially for a regional presidency, whom he considers unsuited or unworthy of the office. He may even have the opportunity to review candidates and offer his opinion before an election occurs, especially of a presiding bishop. But the pope would do this like any other bishop or primate of a regional church. He would have no right or power to interfere in the internal affairs of any church or diocese other than his own.
•The pope would appoint commissions and departments composed of competent people from all the world’s churches in communion with Rome to assist him in his service as Christianity’s world leader and chief spokesperson. He would also organize regular gatherings of the primates of the world’s churches to support him in his global mission. The pope would have a commission dealing with Christian doctrine and theological thought in the world’s various churches, but no Roman office would exist with authority to take disciplinary action in doctrinal matters which, when required, would be handled by the local bishop. The churches’ bishops, and not a team of theologians in Rome, appointed by the pope, acting on his authority and speaking in his name, would constitute the Church’s magisterium.
• Each bishop would oversee the members of his flock. He would be especially attentive to the intellectual, charismatic and activistic members of his church, and would exercise appropriate pastoral guidance, direction and discipline in their regard. The local bishop would forbid Holy Communion to a church member who denies Christian doctrines and/or practices that he and his brother bishops are ordained to proclaim and defend. Should a bishop be charged with teaching false doctrines or engaging in immoral behavior, or allowing those in his pastoral care to do so, he would be judged by the synod of bishops to which he belongs, even should he be its president. If found guilty of wrongdoing, his own synod would discipline or depose him. If he wishes to appeal his case, he may turn to the bishop exercising presidency among the churches of his region. And, as a last resort, he may appeal to the bishop of Rome as the Church’s highest president. The pope would not have the power to make authoritative juridical decisions, but would exercise the ministry of intercession and reconciliation. The same right of appeal to regional presidencies, and ultimately to the pope of Rome, would, of course, be available to any church member charged with wrong teaching or doing.
•The bishop of Rome would also cease being an official head of state. As Christianity’s global leader, however, it is well that he would live in a place with minimal risks of governmental and political interference in his ministry. The place where the pope would live, where the interchurch commissions and departments would also be located, would be governed by a layperson assigned by the Roman church. Heads of state would relate to the pope solely as a Christian bishop and spiritual leader.
•As leader of the world’s Christians, the Pope of Rome would travel extensively. He would take full advantage of contemporary means of transportation and communication. He would master electronic media to serve his ministry in proclaiming Christ’s Gospel, propagating Christian faith, promoting ethical behavior, protecting human rights, and securing justice and peace for all people. He would be the servant of unity among all human beings, first of all his fellow Christians, not as an episcopus episcoporum, but as a true servus servorum Dei.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

 

[ConstantineTG]

There are a few fundamental errors with the Papacy:

1. Papal Supremacy as Divine Right - currently we believe that the Pope, by his office, is Supreme and Infallible. Even if Matthew 16:18 does mean that Jesus appointed a “visible head of the universal Chruch”, remember that Peter was given the keys because of the true (orthodox) faith he professed, not because he was just appointed to it by choice. I believe it is a wrong approach teach that this is based on the office inherited, not on the faith professed. Also we do teach than a heretic Pope vacates the chair, but how can that happen when the Pope has decreed that no one on earth may judge him? Its a paradox. A Pope should be subject to his peer bishops, as Peter was taken to task by Paul, and he further writes “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder,” (1 Peter 5:1). Elder by the way is “presbeutros”, which is what we call today as priests. In the early Church there was no distinction between episkopos and presbeutros, James is described as presbeutros in Acts. The bishop that we come to know today is simple the senior presbeutros.
2. Universal ordinary jurisdiction - the Pope should have some say the same way a Patriarch or Metropolitan has in dioceses that are part of their guidance, but not in a manner equal to the local Bishop himself. Peter never did that. There is a fundamental difference between approaching someone for advice and following that advice, and you just telling others what to do without them asking for it.
3. Infallibility - this shouldn’t be his alone. There is only one who is infallible, Jesus Christ. The Pope, as the chief spokesperson of the Church (as Peter were) may declare in behalf of all the bishops essential dogma of the faith, but not by his own authority. It should never be “ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae” (from himself and not from the consensus of the church ) as defined in Pastor Aeternus.

 

[Reuben_J]

There are a few fundamental errors with the Papacy:

1. Papal Supremacy as Divine Right - currently we believe that the Pope, by his office, is Supreme and Infallible. Even if Matthew 16:18 does mean that Jesus appointed a “visible head of the universal Chruch”, remember that Peter was given the keys because of the true (orthodox) faith he professed, not because he was just appointed to it by choice. I believe it is a wrong approach teach that this is based on the office inherited, not on the faith professed. Also we do teach than a heretic Pope vacates the chair, but how can that happen when the Pope has decreed that no one on earth may judge him? Its a paradox. A Pope should be subject to his peer bishops, as Peter was taken to task by Paul, and he further writes “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder,” (1 Peter 5:1). Elder by the way is “presbeutros”, which is what we call today as priests. In the early Church there was no distinction between episkopos and presbeutros, James is described as presbeutros in Acts. The bishop that we come to know today is simple the senior presbeutros.

You are right insofar what you have written. But that is not how the Pope operates or functions in actual practice. So that’s a misunderstanding on your part. Similarly about the Pope infallibility. The Pope is infallible but in practice he never exercises this power unilaterally. It is always in consensus with the Church – the College of Cardinals, bishops and theologians.

Peter was specifically given the key, so there is no argument about it. But Christianity is not like dictatorship or some banana republics that we see today. The Spirit speaks through her Church. But that Church nevertheless needs a head and that head is the Pope.

The appropriate approach to see the role of the Pope is to see how it actually works in the Vatican today not the dark days of war and intrigues during the middle age and earlier. Even then we saw many saintly Popes, in fact the majority of them.

Of course even a Pope can be heretic. We saw many of that and they can be removed. The Church will not lose even with such Popes because the truth will prevail and heresy will never be accepted. That’s why the Pope is not everything. He is only Pope if he is functioning as what he should be. Today the Church is more transparent and heretic Pope is the thing of the past.

 

[Reuben_J]

1. Universal ordinary jurisdiction - the Pope should have some say the same way a Patriarch or Metropolitan has in dioceses that are part of their guidance, but not in a manner equal to the local Bishop himself. Peter never did that. There is a fundamental difference between approaching someone for advice and following that advice, and you just telling others what to do without them asking for it.

Again this not what actually happens. The Pope does not micro manage and therefore he and his power cannot be the same with a local bishop. In fact a Pope has no say in what a local bishop does who can virtually do what he likes in his diocese except if it obvious against the law of the church. If that happen the parishioners can petition to the Pope and investigation will be made whether the local bishop heresies or not.

The Pope in his capacity as the Bishop of Rome will be like any other bishops, would only have his jurisdiction in his diocese of Rome.

1. Infallibility - this shouldn’t be his alone. There is only one who is infallible, Jesus Christ. The Pope, as the chief spokesperson of the Church (as Peter were) may declare in behalf of all the bishops essential dogma of the faith, but not by his own authority. It should never be “ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae” (from himself and not from the consensus of the church ) as defined in Pastor Aeternus.

Of course. It has never been done alone. It is always with the church. In principle he can do it alone, him being the Pope but it is never done alone. That is not the way it is done and this fact is universally understood by the church. The Pope can give pastoral instructions or encyclicals to the flock but this is always regarded as his personal teaching and thought.

Catholics do revere these teachings when they come, out of submission to the head of the church as is submission to our local priest and bishop. But these are all fallible.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are right insofar what you have written. But that is not how the Pope operates or functions in actual practice. So that’s a misunderstanding on your part. Similarly about the Pope infallibility. The Pope is infallible but in practice he never exercises this power unilaterally. It is always in consensus with the Church – the College of Cardinals, bishops and theologians.

But the fact is, it is the Pope just choosing to do so right now. Clearly stated in the dogma is that he doesn’t really need the approval of anyone else. It is like a King who is an absolute monarch. He doesn’t need to ask anyone for their opinion, but if he wants to he can. But that doesn’t relinquish his authority to decide and rule unilaterally. Pastor Aeternus is clear that the Pope can declare things infallibly without need of any other bishop’s approval. If we he wants to go through a conciliar process, nothing is stopping him from doing so. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have the power to do things unilaterally. He does, and it is as clear as day.

Peter was specifically given the key, so there is no argument about it. But Christianity is not like dictatorship or some banana republics that we see today. The Spirit speaks through her Church. But that Church nevertheless needs a head and that head is the Pope.

The Church has a head, it is Christ. Even in Peter’s Epistles he has talked about the stones that build up the Church, and he equates himself as a stone like all other. The only unique stone is the cornerstone that is Christ.

My point is, Christ gave Peter the keys not as an office, but because of Peter’s own profession of faith. We just install men to the office of the Papacy without regard for their own faith, believing that the Holy Spirit will just take care of that part. As we can see with Paul’s admonishment of Peter, Peter wasn’t always perfect. And as we can see with the history of Popes who are heretical and/or immoral, one who occupies the office isn’t exactly protected from error. We always say, “but the Pope will be prevented from teaching error.” How do we know that? So far we have accepted everything the Pope teaches as free from error. But again as history has proven, there were times that many bishops have taught in error (including the Pope) and it wasn’t until a long time after before people figure out that there were errors. And worse, we’re not even allowed to question the Pope.

The appropriate approach to see the role of the Pope is to see how it actually works in the Vatican today not the dark days of war and intrigues during the middle age and earlier. Even then we saw many saintly Popes, in fact the majority of them.

No, the proper approach is to look at the entire history. We can’t just take a snapshot of history and say it works. That is not fair. Not only with the Papacy but with everything. There is a fundamental problem with imperial power being given to a bishop, whether directly like the Pope, or like in the times in the history of the Orthodox where the Patriarch and the local ruler were scratching each other’s back.

Of course even a Pope can be heretic. We saw many of that and they can be removed. The Church will not lose even with such Popes because the truth will prevail and heresy will never be accepted. That’s why the Pope is not everything. He is only Pope if he is functioning as what he should be. Today the Church is more transparent and heretic Pope is the thing of the past.

They can’t be removed anymore. The Pope today cannot be judged by anyone on earth, even by all the bishops of the Church. That changed over the turn of the First Millennium into the Second when the Pope declared to the rulers of Western Europe that he is above them and above all earthly authority, even bishops. Only God can judge him. I forgot the name of the Papal Bull, but there is a Papal Bull for that.

So if he can’t be judge, how do we declare him a heretic? How do we depose him?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again this not what actually happens. The Pope does not micro manage and therefore he and his power cannot be the same with a local bishop. In fact a Pope has no say in what a local bishop does who can virtually do what he likes in his diocese except if it obvious against the law of the church. If that happen the parishioners can petition to the Pope and investigation will be made whether the local bishop heresies or not.

Of course he does. Motu Proprio means “on his own impulse”. How many Motu Prorpio’s have the Pope issued? Summorum Pontificum is fairly recent, and bishops cannot question it. In fact, the laity are told that if the bishops do not follow Summorum Pontificum, the laity has a right to appeal to Rome directly.

The Pope in his capacity as the Bishop of Rome will be like any other bishops, would only have his jurisdiction in his diocese of Rome.

That is absolutely not true. Pastor Aeternus again is explicitly clear that the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction. And it also states that just because he doesn’t normally exercise it, it doesn’t mean he can’t. And just because you can’t cite in history when he did it, doesn’t mean he never had the authority (which I think is a complete copout and pathetic excuse to introduce NEW doctrine into the Church).

Of course. It has never been done alone. It is always with the church. In principle he can do it alone, him being the Pope but it is never done alone. That is not the way it is done and this fact is universally understood by the church. The Pope can give pastoral instructions or encyclicals to the flock but this is always regarded as his personal teaching and thought.

Catholics do revere these teachings when they come, out of submission to the head of the church as is submission to our local priest and bishop. But these are all fallible.

Again, Pastor Aeternus is clear that the Pope doesn’t need anybody else’s permission or agreement. If he seeks them, it is because he decided to do that, not because he must do that. It is clear that he does not.