Papal Infallibility in the Orthodox Churches

[Nine_Two]

I am curious to know why there is no reference to looking to God’s Word for your answer? This is my first login to this site and this question intrigued me. I was very disappointed to see that people turned to “philosophy, the church Fathers etc…” for their answers. I have little to no experience with practicing catholics or their religion, but should these answers not be simply sought out in the bible?

I would think verses like Romans 3:23 - For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God would mean that even popes a re sinners and therefore fallible.

In addition, what about Galatians 3:22 - But the scripture hath concluded ALL under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given unto them that might believe

And finally 1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

How does catholicism reconcile these verses with papal infallibility…actually I’m going to look that term up for a sec to see if I can find something out…
ok my research shows that the dogma of papal infallibility was only instituted in 1870 by Pope Pius lX.

If possible can someone give me possible biblical verse references to look up what papal infallibility is based on? Thank you!

Because neither Catholics nor Orthodox believe in Sola Scriptura. We see scripture as a part of Holy Tradition. Additionally those verses you quote can’t be brought into an argument against the actual Catholic belief in Papal Infallibility without eisegesis which falls apart pretty fast (and I say this as someone who disagrees with Papal Infallibility).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Please stop misrepresenting the Catholic Faith. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Please show us where the Church teaches that all infallibility rests on the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

Can your local bishop teach ex cathedra? I don’t think so.

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PH.HTM

 

[mardukm]

I understand all of that; at least the teaching of it. But, this doesn’t answer the question. The original question was about HOW the Catholic Church reconciles the problem that the tradition of the Orthodox Church says no tradition of infallibility ever existed.

When I was not yet in the Catholic communion, I thought when Catholics said “infallibility,” it referred to some sort of magic power that AUTOMATICALLY makes everything the Catholic Church teaches to be without error. That’s what I heard from all my Orthodox teachers, so that’s what I believed. It was only after I started reading what the Catholic Church herself was teaching that my (mis)understanding was corrected.

I do believe that what the Catholic Church teaches about infallibility in general is believed by the Orthodox Churches. It is just that the OC’s don’t conceive of it under that name. I think Orthodox would express it as “the unique guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to the Apostles and their successors in order to correctly teach the Faith.”

I think the term “infallibility” is too bound up in non-Catholic misunderstandings of the papacy for the word itself to be immediately acceptable to the Orthodox Churches generally.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Can your local bishop teach ex cathedra? I don’t think so.

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PH.HTM

So does the Catholic Church teach that an ex cathedra decree is the ONLY way that infallibility exhibits itself in the Church, so as for you to be able to proffer the misrepresentation that “all infallibility rests in the Pope?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

There were times when rome was appealed to, to settle disputes which the local churches they themselves could not settle, but I can’t think of any time where rome forced itself on to the other churches without that specific church asking Rome in the first place. .

 

[ConstantineTG]

So does the Catholic Church teach that an ex cathedra decree is the ONLY way that infallibility exhibits itself in the Church, so as for you to be able to proffer the misrepresentation that “all infallibility rests in the Pope?”

Blessings,
Marduk

Can you show me an example of any case where the Pope is not involved in declaring anything infallibly?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Can you show me an example of any case where the Pope is not involved in declaring anything infallibly?

Not really, but then again that makes sense in the context of an eccumenical council with all the church, but I can’t think of a case where he alone in opposition to other churches made such a declaration and expected the other patriarchs to accept it.

 

[jinc1019]

As I said in my previous post, history regarding infallibility ALONE didn’t persuade me, but this isn’t the only factor upon which I based my decision. I also looked into:

1. The philosophical and theological traditions of each faith. I found that the Roman Catholic was more substantial. This one was probably the most persuasive for me, being a student of philosophy. I found a moral system that I couldn’t argue against.
2. The fruits of each faith. This one is not a logically sound argument, but there is something to be said for the fact that the Catholic Church has a much larger presence and influence in the world.
3. I feel more in place/ at peace in the Catholic faith. Regardless of my great respect and admiration for the Divine Liturgy and Eastern tradition, I never felt that way in Orthodox churches.
4. Even only considering the issue of papal infallibility, history didn’t prove it to me, but it also didn’t disprove it. I could honestly see where both sides were coming from. if I had based my decision solely on this factor I wouldn’t have joined either, since neither persuaded me.

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing with everyone. I thought you brought up a lot of really good points.

 

[jinc1019]

When I was not yet in the Catholic communion, I thought when Catholics said “infallibility,” it referred to some sort of magic power that AUTOMATICALLY makes everything the Catholic Church teaches to be without error. That’s what I heard from all my Orthodox teachers, so that’s what I believed. It was only after I started reading what the Catholic Church herself was teaching that my (mis)understanding was corrected.

I do believe that what the Catholic Church teaches about infallibility in general is believed by the Orthodox Churches. It is just that the OC’s don’t conceive of it under that name. I think Orthodox would express it as “the unique guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to the Apostles and their successors in order to correctly teach the Faith.”

I think the term “infallibility” is too bound up in non-Catholic misunderstandings of the papacy for the word itself to be immediately acceptable to the Orthodox Churches generally.

Blessings,
Marduk

Very interesting thoughts, although it wouldn’t really make sense then for the churches to have ever separated if that’s what they always believed.

 

[jinc1019]

There were times when rome was appealed to, to settle disputes which the local churches they themselves could not settle, but I can’t think of any time where rome forced itself on to the other churches without that specific church asking Rome in the first place. .

Very good point. I cannot, in my limited knowledge, think of a situation either. Can anyone else?

 

[mardukm]

Can you show me an example of any case where the Pope is not involved in declaring anything infallibly?

There isn’t and there shouldn’t be because the head bishop must be involved in all matters of great import that goes beyond any singular diocese. Surely, a matter of dogma falls under that heading.

Can you show me an example of any case where the Pope unilaterally made an ex cathedra declaration? Or can you show me an example of any case where the entire Magisterium of the Catholic Church was not invloved in declaring something infallibly?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Can you show me an example of any case where the Pope is not involved in declaring anything infallibly?

That is the crux of the issue. The approval of the Pope on a doctrinal matter is both a necessary and sufficient criterion for infallibility, something which is unacceptable to us.

 

[mardukm]

Very interesting thoughts, although it wouldn’t really make sense then for the churches to have ever separated if that’s what they always believed.

It wasn’t what they believed that caused the separation on this particular matter, but what they thought the Catholics (or the Latins, at that point) believed.

Here’s an example of a point of disunity based on a misunderstanding: Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius thought that the Latins were teaching that the Son is a source of the Holy Spirit. Of course, that is not what the Latins or Florence taught. The Easterns were orthodox in their belief, but because they mistakenly assumed the Latins were teaching something differen (the different theological approach and terminology of the Latins did not help any), a schism on that particular matter ensued.

Also, I’m pretty sure the term “infallible” wasn’t used until rather late in Church history (perhaps the 10th century?). The term itself being unknown in Tradition would naturally lend to misunderstandings.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

There isn’t and there shouldn’t be because the head bishop must be involved in all matters of great import that goes beyond any singular diocese. Surely, a matter of dogma falls under that heading.

Can you show me an example of any case where the Pope unilaterally made an ex cathedra declaration? Or can you show me an example of any case where the entire Magisterium of the Catholic Church was not invloved in declaring something infallibly?

Blessings,
Marduk

The Official Relatio makes it clear that there is no necessity for the Pope to seek the consent of his fellow bishops, because the Scripture and Tradition are sufficient to establish the consent of the Church.

 

[mardukm]

That is the crux of the issue. The approval of the Pope on a doctrinal matter is both a necessary and sufficient criterion for infallibility, something which is unacceptable to us.

But that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches. For an Ecumeincal Council, the CC teaches that the approval of the bishops is also required. For an ex cathedra decree, the official Relatio of Vatican 1 explains that the consensus of the present preaching of the Magisterium is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope.

The “necessary” part is Catholic teaching; the “sufficient” part is the misunderstanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

But that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches. For an Ecumeincal Council, the CC teaches that the approval of the bishops is also required. For an ex cathedra decree, the official Relatio of Vatican 1 explains that the consensus of the present preaching of the Magisterium is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope.

The “necessary” part is Catholic teaching; the “sufficient” part is the misunderstanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, the Official Relatio says the opposite, that the consent of the bishops is not necessary.

1. But the issue is pressed by saying (and this is the third axiom): the consent of the Churches is a rule of faith which even the Pope ought to follow, and therefore he should consult those who rule the Churches before he makes a definition in order that he may be certain about the consent of the Churches. I reply. The matter has come to its extreme point and we must accurately distinguish between true and false lest we suffer shipwreck in port. It is true that the Pope in his definitions “ex cathedra” has the same sources (“fontes”) which the Church has, viz., Scripture and tradition. It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from all that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because this consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the consent of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church’s consent.
2. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the Tradition of the Church of Rome, that is, of that Church to which faithlessness has no access and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree. Therefore that strict necessity *, such as is required for a dogmatic constitution, can in no way be demonstrated. It can happen that there be so difficult a case that the Pope thinks it necessary, for his own information, to ask the bishops, as an ordinary means, what the sense of the Churches is, as he did, for example, in the case of the Immaculate Conception. Such a case, however, is not able to be established as a rule.*

 

[ConstantineTG]

There isn’t and there shouldn’t be because the head bishop must be involved in all matters of great import that goes beyond any singular diocese. Surely, a matter of dogma falls under that heading.

Thanks for agreeing with me

 

[mardukm]

The Official Relatio makes it clear that there is no necessity for the Pope to seek the consent of his fellow bishops, because the Scripture and Tradition are sufficient to establish the consent of the Church.

Actually, the Official Relatio does not say there is no necessity. It simply says that it cannot be established dogmatically that the consensus of the Church must be obtained directly from the bishops themselves. I guess what I’m saying is that we should distinguish between practical necessity and dogmatic necessity.

To be perfectly concise, the debate revolved around the claim that the unanimous consent of the bishops must be included in the definition. The response was not geared towards a denial that at least some bishops in the natural course of things would be consulted, but that EVERY bishop must be consulted for an ex cathedra decree to take place, or for the consensus of the Church to be determined.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for agreeing with me

If you mean that the Catholic Church teaches that there is a collegial element(the head and body together) in all the decrees of the Catholic Church, then we are in agreement.

If you mean that it is the Pope alone that determines infallibility (which is what you actually stated), then you are misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s teaching, and we are not in agreement.:nope:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PH.HTM

Am I missing anything here? I cannot find anything in this statement pointing that infallibility is drawn from anyone else but the Pope. There is nothing here preventing the Pope from acting unilaterally nor requiring the assent of even one other bishop before the Pope can declare something ex cathedra.