Papal Infallibility in the Orthodox Churches

[dzheremi]

The most interesting question I’ve seen in this thread by far. Unfortunately, it cuts in all directions.

With all due respect to SanctusPeccator, is it really? I am willing to concede that as an ex-Roman Catholic there are probably many things about that faith that I never fully understood (or properly understood, or however it is best phrased), but I definitely question this assumption that because misunderstanding abounds, then we should/would accept those things that we do not currently accept if we only had the “proper” understanding of them, whether we’re talking about the distinctive doctrines of Rome, or those of the Nestorians, or those of the Protestants, or whoever else is out there. As I’ve been involved in plenty of dumb arguments on this board (too many, really) wherein my interlocutor held to some semblance of this idea, I’ve pretty much lost any and all faith in the idea that greater understanding of Roman doctrine can or should lead to agreement on any particular point. And if the point is not to lead to agreement, but just to understanding for its own sake, then why are any of us talking to each other?

I have a brain, eyes, and a computer. If I want to, I can access every Vatican proclamation that is available on the Vatican’s official website, and understand it to a reasonable degree. So when someone says or even implies anything along the lines of “Rome’s understanding of X is Y; your understanding of X is Z, so therefore your criticism is invalid/you’re dumb/you actually would agree with Rome if you understood it”, I can’t help but think to myself that neither Y or Z are actually X, so how does my misunderstanding help, bolster, or exonerate Rome? It seems that this is a sly way of avoiding having to discuss the correctness of the Roman position in itself, by forcing us all to play by Rome’s rules when of course to Rome nothing she herself does is in the least bit unorthodox, so those who would label her as unorthodox would have to mistaken.

A concrete example of what I mean:

1. Some Protestants believe that Papal Infallibility means that the Roman Pope is Infallible whenever he says anything about anything.
2. Those Protestants are mistaken, in that this is not what the Papal Infallibility teaches, according to the declaration of the doctrine at Vatican I in 1870 (i.e., that is not Rome’s own understanding of what she herself is saying).
3. The declaration of Papal Infallibility as put forth at Vatican I in 1870 is unacceptable to many Christians, and furthermore cannot be made to be acceptable to a great many Christians. In other words, it is not a matter of clarifying the position itself so that its opponents will understand it as Rome does – it’s simply the fact that the idea itself is wrong, no matter if any individual understands it as Rome does or not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The declaration of Papal Infallibility as put forth at Vatican I in 1870 is unacceptable to many Christians, and furthermore cannot be made to be acceptable to a great many Christians. In other words, it is not a matter of clarifying the position itself so that its opponents will understand it as Rome does – it’s simply the fact that the idea itself is wrong, no matter if any individual understands it as Rome does or not.

Perfect summary of the crux of every debate on Papal Infallibility between RCs and non-RCs

 

[SanctusPeccator]

With all due respect to SanctusPeccator, is it really? I am willing to concede that as an ex-Roman Catholic there are probably many things about that faith that I never fully understood (or properly understood, or however it is best phrased), but I definitely question this assumption that because misunderstanding abounds, then we should/would accept those things that we do not currently accept if we only had the “proper” understanding of them, whether we’re talking about the distinctive doctrines of Rome, or those of the Nestorians, or those of the Protestants, or whoever else is out there. As I’ve been involved in plenty of dumb arguments on this board (too many, really) wherein my interlocutor held to some semblance of this idea, I’ve pretty much lost any and all faith in the idea that greater understanding of Roman doctrine can or should lead to agreement on any particular point. And if the point is not to lead to agreement, but just to understanding for its own sake, then why are any of us talking to each other?

I have a brain, eyes, and a computer. If I want to, I can access every Vatican proclamation that is available on the Vatican’s official website, and understand it to a reasonable degree. So when someone says or even implies anything along the lines of “Rome’s understanding of X is Y; your understanding of X is Z, so therefore your criticism is invalid/you’re dumb/you actually would agree with Rome if you understood it”, I can’t help but think to myself that neither Y or Z are actually X, so how does my misunderstanding help, bolster, or exonerate Rome? It seems that this is a sly way of avoiding having to discuss the correctness of the Roman position in itself, by forcing us all to play by Rome’s rules when of course to Rome nothing she herself does is in the least bit unorthodox, so those who would label her as unorthodox would have to mistaken.

A concrete example of what I mean:

1. Some Protestants believe that Papal Infallibility means that the Roman Pope is Infallible whenever he says anything about anything.
2. Those Protestants are mistaken, in that this is not what the Papal Infallibility teaches, according to the declaration of the doctrine at Vatican I in 1870 (i.e., that is not Rome’s own understanding of what she herself is saying).
3. The declaration of Papal Infallibility as put forth at Vatican I in 1870 is unacceptable to many Christians, and furthermore cannot be made to be acceptable to a great many Christians. In other words, it is not a matter of clarifying the position itself so that its opponents will understand it as Rome does – it’s simply the fact that the idea itself is wrong, no matter if any individual understands it as Rome does or not.

Seems logical if one is to ultimately ascertain the validity of disputant’s point of contention to make certain their understanding is first accurate and correct?

 

[joe370]

I have a question about papal infallibility and the Orthodox Churches. If I remember correctly, the Orthodox Churches generally reject papal infallibility and infallibility in general. They seem to rely more heavily on tradition. I am not Orthodox so I wouldn’t know, but please correct me if I am wrong!

But my question is, was there ever a time prior to the Great Schism where the Orthodox Church did accept the concept of infallibility, even if it wasn’t called that? One of my primary objections to infallibility (which I have even as a Catholic) is that the tradition of the Church is the primary reason Catholics are called to believe it. It is said that it has ALWAYS been the tradition of the Church dating to the first Apostles. But, the Orthodox Churches say no, and obviously those churches are just as old. So who is right? The reason it’s so important is because, in either case, the Church may have the authority, but they may NOT have infallibility authority. I am not saying I know either way; I am just saying that the possibility is there if there truly has always been a difference in tradition.

I would love to hear from both Orthodox supporters and Catholic supporters. For me, it is truly one of the most important “stumbling blocks” to my Catholic faith. Thanks in advance!

The question I had to ask myself was: Does God continue to ineffably preserve doctrinal truth (aka infallibility) within His church, and will God continue to preserve truth until His return? Scripture seems to support such a notion:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. John 14

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. John 15

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. John 16

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” John 16

 

[ConstantineTG]

Seems your response has oddly disregarded the aforementioned nuanced distinction in the historical development of this Catholic dogma? As any purported exercise of papal infallibility would necessarily reflect the ecclesial consciousness of its time, it would be fallacious to apply a nineteenth-century understanding to past events in ecclesiastical history. It would be equivalent to mistakenly stating that since Leontius of Byzantium’s concept of enhypostasis was not explicitly mentioned in Cyril of Alexandria’s Christological works, it must therefore be a false innovation.

But the problem is that there is really no such thing as Papal Infallibility in the First Millennium. It is not even a matter of a different understanding in the context of the time and culture a doctrine or dogma is examined. This is a case of something was never there, and then it is there. Can you tell me under what context was Papal Infallibility understood at any point in the First Millennium?

How exactly is it clear? Appears that would be the case only if this particular statement [from *Pastor aeternus

] is intentionally isolated from the overall context of Catholic ecclesiology? Where does it specifically state the Roman pontiff is separate from his brother bishops in the episcopal college?

Nope. Obviously you have internet access, go ahead and read the entire Pastor Aeternus. In fact, yes, even if you look at history and how dogmatic definitions were made in the First Millennium, you would quickly say that from whatever perspective there is no consistency between the early Church and today.

I’ve already highlighted the part where the Pope is set apart from the Church. Not only from the other bishops, but the entire Church. Backread if you want to find out.

In what specific context would this be applicable? Further, where does it categorically state the exercise of papal power is arbitrary and unlimited (as your posts seem to infer)?

Where does it say that it isn’t? The limits it set only says “faith and morals”. Which means the Pope can pretty much say anything is immoral or moral. There are no other limits set. The Pope can say that fornication is moral and feeding your cat is immoral, there is nothing in Pastor Aeternus that prevents that from happening. He cannot infallibly decree that the sky is red, because that is not a moral or faith issue.

Interesting…so if one applies this problematic standard, then such dogmas as Homoousios, Theotokos, Hypostatic Union, etc., should immediately be rescinded since the first generation(s) of the Church evidently did not know about them?

Of course it did. That is the basis why they were adopted. In connection to your first statement, you seem to confuse understanding with the actual existence of belief. For example, the Church was never called the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church in the First Church, does that mean a Church called Catholic or Orthodox is not the First Century Church? Obviously the nature of the Church as Catholic (neither Gentile or Jew, servant nor free, woman or man) has been there in the beginning. What is introduced is just a present-day (at their time) context of what has always been taught. Mary did not become the Theotokos in the 4th century, she became the Theotokos when she gave birth to Christ. The title being assigned later does not change the fact that she is what the title suggests from the beginning. The Pope being infallible is a new thing because he was never infallible in the First Millennium. Not for one second. Theology can change because theology is nothing more than the understanding of the faith. The faith itself cannot change. Papal infallbility introduces a new concept to faith. Using theological language such as hypostatic union, etc., is just theological development.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The question I had to ask myself was: Does God continue to ineffably preserve doctrinal truth (aka infallibility) within His church, and will God continue to preserve truth until His return? Scripture seems to support such a notion:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. John 14

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. John 15

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. John 16

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” John 16

There is no question about this. But the thing is, does the Holy Spirit speak only through the Pope? Was Peter the only one who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? That is important here when looking at these passages and linking them to Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTGBut the problem is that there is really no such thing as Papal Infallibility in the First Millennium. It is not even a matter of a different understanding in the context of the time and culture a doctrine or dogma is examined. This is a case of something was never there, and then it is there. Can you tell me under what context was Papal Infallibility understood at any point in the First Millennium?

So the catholic church, when defining the Trinity for example, in the 4th century, did not believe that the process of officially defining that particular dogma (when it was being challenged) was being guided, albeit ineffably, by the holy spirit?

If the holy spirit was in fact guiding the process then the Trinitarian dogma can be considered inerrant aka infallible. If not, then perhaps Arius and company were right and the catholic church was wrong.

 

[joe370]

There is no question about this. But the thing is, does the Holy Spirit speak only through the Pope? Was Peter the only one who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? That is important here when looking at these passages and linking them to Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

Well, the holy spirit will not guide the Eastern Orthodox church and the Catholic Church into all truth, unless of course it could be shown that both the CC and the EOC shared the same beliefs which sadly is not the case. I suppose the only way we can really know is if, upon our demise, we make it through those pearly gates at which point we can finally ask Jesus.

 

[joe370]

There is no question about this. But the thing is, does the Holy Spirit speak only through the Pope? Was Peter the only one who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? That is important here when looking at these passages and linking them to Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

No, the holy spirit does not speak ONLY through the pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So the catholic church, when defining the Trinity for example, in the 4th century, did not believe that the process of officially defining that particular dogma (when it was being challenged) was being guided, albeit ineffably, by the holy spirit?

If the holy spirit was in fact guiding the process then the Trinitarian dogma can be considered inerrant aka infallible. If not, then perhaps Arius and company were right and the catholic church was wrong.

The definition of doctrines in the First Millennium was not by the authority of the Pope alone, nor was he principal to it. In fact, in some Ecuenical Councils, the Pope wasn’t there at all (not even representatives or legates).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, the holy spirit will not guide the Eastern Orthodox church and the Catholic Church into all truth, unless of course it could be shown that both the CC and the EOC shared the same beliefs which sadly is not the case. I suppose the only way we can really know is if, upon our demise, we make it through those pearly gates at which point we can finally ask Jesus.

We will see the full truth eventually regardless where we go. The problem really is if when we see the truth and realize we oppose it.

 

[joe370]

The definition of doctrines in the First Millennium was not by the authority of the Pope alone, nor was he principal to it. In fact, in some Ecuenical Councils, the Pope wasn’t there at all (not even representatives or legates).

There are examples of councils in the east deferring to the bishop of Rome, when they could not settle the matter. I am sure you are aware of them?

 

[joe370]

We will see the full truth eventually regardless where we go. The problem really is if when we see the truth and realize we oppose it.

Good point.

 

[joe370]

The definition of doctrines…

It seems pretty clear, (at least to me) from scripture that Simon, renamed Kepha had a unique commission given to him by Jesus, e.g. the keys of the Kingdom. Jesus promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said, I tell you that you are Peter, (Cephas) and on this rock (cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. This seems like pretty clear language in terms of hell’s inability to alter doctrinal truth in Jesus’ church built on Cephas, at least to me anyway.

Moreover, Jesus knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, LOL…so it stands to reason that the metaphorical keys would be passed on to a successor (each successive generation) and that is what we see. When Peter died, a successor took his place and this will continue until Jesus returns. Of course I understand that you do not embrace this and I respect that. I love both the CC and the EOC. Both have valid sacraments!

 

[ConstantineTG]

There are examples of councils in the east deferring to the bishop of Rome, when they could not settle the matter. I am sure you are aware of them?

Can you cite with Ecumenical Council this is and how exactly did the Eastern Bishops defer to the Pope?

I’m not saying that the Pope never spoke at any Council nor was completely disregarded. Any bishop who professes Orthodoxy is hailed by the Council regardless if he was Pope of Rome or not.

All I’m saying here is that anyone with a preconcieved notion of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility would instantly interpret the Pope’s actions during an Ecumenical Council as a sign of that. But if you look at all the councils you will see that other people besides the Pope have done the same exact thing. What is hailed is the orthodoxy of faith, not the pronouncement of one who is pressumed to be supreme and infallible. On the other hand, the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned Pope Honorius.

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;10107679]Can you cite with Ecumenical Council this is and how exactly did the Eastern Bishops defer to the Pope?

I’m not saying that the Pope never spoke at any Council nor was completely disregarded. Any bishop who professes Orthodoxy is hailed by the Council regardless if he was Pope of Rome or not.

Sure. Of course I am not trying persuade you of anything…

 

[joe370]

There is more to that but I digress…

 

[joe370]

Can you cite with Ecumenical Council this is and how exactly did the Eastern Bishops defer to the Pope?

Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop 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.”

Why does Leo’s authoritative opinion even matter? Why not just settle matters on their own? Why is Leo considered the head of all the churches?

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘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!’”

If the Petrine office is not important then why say Peter has spoken through Leo?

The great and holy and universal Synod…in the metropolis of Chalcedon…to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo … being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all …and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness…

If the metaphorical keys were not handed on to successors then why say: …being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter

 

[dzheremi]

Seems logical if one is to ultimately ascertain the validity of disputant’s point of contention to make certain their understanding is first accurate and correct?

But that’s my point: There is no logical connection between making sure that someone understands what Rome is really teaching and Rome’s teachings being correct. The two are not related at all, in fact. I, as an Orthodox Christian, 100% agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an accurate reflection/presentation/collection of the actual teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. But at least some of those teachings are wrong.

I mean, sure, to the extent that you can educate someone on what your church teaches, by all means do so, but simply saying “Well, Rome doesn’t teach that” is not really an answer to many (I would say the vast majority) of the objections to Rome’s particular doctrines, at least so far as concerns the objections coming from Orthodox Christians (Protestants, I don’t know…that’s a whole other kettle of fish, I think). In most cases, we’ve read the official Vatican teachings (some of us are even former RCs ourselves) and simply disagree, and no amount of re-explanation/re-presentation is going to change that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is more to that but I digress…

Explain please. But there are more examples of Popes being deposed either by council or by the Emperor or both.