Papal Infallibility in the Orthodox Churches

[joe370]

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

Could you share them with me? All of them…I would like to research them…Thanks…

 

[joe370]

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

Is the following an accurate assessment in your opinion:

The letters of Honorius did not contain any binding ex cathedra statement; he made no doctrinal decision. He approved the request of Sergius that silence should be observed regarding the question of “a single or double operation” in Christ.

“Exhorting you that avoiding the use of the newfangled term of a single or double operation…” (Kirch 1064); and again, “It is not necessary for us to give a definitive decision on this matter of one or two operations” (Kirch 1068).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Council of Chalcedon

Which was convened by the Emperor.

Why does Leo’s authoritative opinion even matter?

Because he is a bishop of the Church, a Patriarch nonetheless. I mean, what is the point of a council if people there or at least in this case sent representatives there cannot speak? Council means every bishop is part of the process, not merely observers.

Why not just settle matters on their own?

The issue is a matter of the universal faith. That is what an Ecumenical Council means, all Bishops are summoned. Even those who did not come would need to accept the decision of the council for it to be Ecumenical.

Why is Leo considered the head of all the churches?

He is not, you’re proof-texting.

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

If the office of the Pope is Petrine, why do they even need to make that exclamation? Isn’t it already a given? The Orthodox understanding of Peter as the Rock is that Peter’s profession of the orthodox faith made him the rock where Christ will build His Church. St. Leo’s profession of the orthodox faith did the same for him. But this is not inherent to the office of the Pope of Rome, such honor is only given to one who professes the true faith.

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

It is the orthodoxy of his statement that is the barometer, not his office. If it was his office, then he could have said anything and it would have to be accepted, even if it was blasphemous and heretic.

Then again I fast forward to Pope St. Martin. If it was already established that Pope St. Leo the Great can speak infallibly, why didn’t Pope St. Martin do the same? Obviously what Pope St. Leo did was not issue an ex cathedra statement. The exclamation of the other bishops is their acceptance of Pope St. Leo’s statement, which means they have the option to reject it if it was heterodox. Besides, as history has proven it, the issue of Christ’s nature was far from being settled even after this council.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Could you share them with me? All of them…I would like to research them…Thanks…

Pope St. Martin was deposed and imprisoned because the faith he was teaching (while orthodox) was opposed to the faith the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople was professing (which was heterodox, but the point here is that the Pope was not above the other bishops, not even the Emperor).

Also around the middle of the First Millennium, the Pope needed to be confirmed by the Emperor to take the Papacy

Every Papal controversy was settled by the Emperor. It is easy to say today that the Emperor never deposed the rightful Pope, but back then they didn’t know who was the rightful Pope. The one who wasn’t deposed was decided as the rightful Pope so why would he be deposed in the first place?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is the following an accurate assessment in your opinion:

The letters of Honorius did not contain any binding ex cathedra statement; he made no doctrinal decision. He approved the request of Sergius that silence should be observed regarding the question of “a single or double operation” in Christ.

“Exhorting you that avoiding the use of the newfangled term of a single or double operation…” (Kirch 1064); and again, “It is not necessary for us to give a definitive decision on this matter of one or two operations” (Kirch 1068).

My point about Honorius isn’t about infallbility but supremacy. It was only since the turn of the Millennium when Popes started claiming that they are above temporal rulers. Today no council can ever depose the Pope. But clearly that wasn’t the case in the First Millennium, there was no teaching that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone. Honorius definitely was judged by the other bishops.

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;10108215]Pope St. Martin was deposed and imprisoned because the faith he was teaching (while orthodox) was opposed to the faith the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople was professing (which was heterodox, but the point here is that the Pope was not above the other bishops, not even the Emperor).

Not the best example. LOL

Also around the middle of the First Millennium, the Pope needed to be confirmed by the Emperor to take the Papacy

By the emperor in the east? Could you provide a credible source so that I could investigate…

Every Papal controversy was settled by the Emperor. It is easy to say today that the Emperor never deposed the rightful Pope, but back then they didn’t know who was the rightful Pope. The one who wasn’t deposed was decided as the rightful Pope so why would he be deposed in the first place?

Emperors settling spiritual and doctrinal matters? sources…? Did not realize that an emperor had the authority, from God, to depose a pope or settle doctrinal matters. Of course they could have if they wielded the necessary temporal power… by force…

 

[joe370]

Which was convened by the Emperor.

No problem. Constantine did too…

Because he is a bishop of the Church, a Patriarch nonetheless. I mean, what is the point of a council if people there or at least in this case sent representatives there cannot speak? Council means every bishop is part of the process, not merely observers.

 

[joe370]

My point about Honorius isn’t about infallbility but supremacy. It was only since the turn of the Millennium when Popes started claiming that they are above temporal rulers. Today no council can ever depose the Pope. But clearly that wasn’t the case in the First Millennium, there was no teaching that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone. Honorius definitely was judged by the other bishops.

And they were wrong to claim that they were above temporal rulers. They were suppose to be spiritual leaders, and, according to the following the bishop of Rome was the head of all the churches.Sure there was corruption at times when monarchies and the church began working together, both in the east and the west.

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 was he considered head of all the churches?

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG, what gave the bishop of Rome, at the time, the right to tell Dioscorus I of Alexandria (another bishop) what he could or could not do? Surely the council needed no one’s permission e.g. bishop of Rome, to step up and remove him?

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."

 

[joe370]

Pope St. Martin was deposed and imprisoned because the faith he was teaching (while orthodox) was opposed to the faith the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople was professing (which was heterodox, but the point here is that the Pope was not above the other bishops, not even the Emperor).

Also around the middle of the First Millennium, the Pope needed to be confirmed by the Emperor to take the Papacy

Every Papal controversy was settled by the Emperor. It is easy to say today that the Emperor never deposed the rightful Pope, but back then they didn’t know who was the rightful Pope. The one who wasn’t deposed was decided as the rightful Pope so why would he be deposed in the first place?

In the middle ages, when an emperor happened to be well-endowed financially thereby putting him in a powerful position to assemble great armies, no doubt there were times when he would march on Rome, besiege the bishop of Rome, if need be, and force him to obey the imperial edicts or suffer the consequences. My point is: no matter what an emperor did or a corrupt bishop in Rome did, Jesus’ church is built on Cephas and the gates of hell will never prevail, therefore bad popes and bad overbearing emperors could not cause problems, doctrinally speaking, and they never have.

It is the belief of the CC too that Peter’s profession of the orthodox faith made him the rock where Christ will build His Church. You are rock and on this rock I will build my church and the gates…

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;10107163:

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?

Since there no late fourth/early fifth century explicit and systematic understanding of enhypostasis either, then why should your line of reasoning not logically exclude this christological concept? As to the incipient understanding of papal infallibility in the first millennium, what see did Hegesippus reside at for nearly twenty years to confirm genuine apostolic teaching had been correctly transmitted? what see was acknowledged by Irenaeus as the standard of reference for orthodox doctrine?

SanctusPeccator;10107163:

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.
Perhaps there is no identical consistency because the sturm und drang of historical circumstances has necessitated the continued development of the Deposit of Faith? Hence, your observations would only seem valid if the Church were living in a temporal vacuum?

Further, none of the text [from *Pastor aeternus] explicitly states the pontiff is “set apart” as a separate and isolated potentate from his fellow bishops of the episcopal college. Since the Catholic understanding of papal infallibility was later clarified in Vatican II’s Lumen gentium, the role of the pontiff vis-à-vis episcopal collegiality manifests a distinction (not separation) within the overall context of ecclesiology.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;10107163:

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.

“This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church” (Prologue to Pastor aeternus).
Apparently your response is unaware papal infallibility is essentially limited by the divine constitution of the Church underlined above (such fundamental elements being the episcopacy, sacred tradition, and the scriptures)? Therefore, the pope could never theoretically (let alone in practice) arbitrarily interfere with the proper exercise of the respective bishops’ ordinary and immediate [jurisdictional] power or reduce them to mere vicars of the pope (cf. Leo XIII’s Encyclical Letter [of 29 June 1896] on the Unity of the Church Satis cognitum, no. 14).

This limitation seems further supported according to the testimony of a relator [Bishop Federico Maria Zinelli] for the Deputation of the Faith during the debate over papal infallibility, i.e., the pontiffs are also bound by the divine and natural law to the edification and not to the destruction of the Church:
“et nemo sanus dicere potest, aut papam aut concilium oecumenicum posse destruere episcopatum caeteraque iura divina in Ecclesia determinata [and no one who is sane can say that either the Pope or Ecumenical Council can destroy the episcopate or other divine laws determined by the Church]” (Joannes Dominicus Mansi’s Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Tomus Quinquagesimus Secundus, col. 1114d).

SanctusPeccator;10107163:

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.

Why would the implict existence of a belief not prompt an **explicit **understanding of it in the future? Because one cannot perceive explicit examples of a nineteenth-century understanding of papal infallibility [before 1870], it must then indicate the concept never existed? Much as the embryonic stages of these primitive “seeds” of Mariology underwent doctrinal development, why not also the principle of papal infallibility? Since your response accepts the Theotokos was not solemnly defined explicitly until 431, how would this be any different with papal infallibility being solemnly defined explicitly in 1870?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;10107295:

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.

While one grants this is applicable to your particular situation as an Oriental Orthodox, perhaps others who do not have a dog in this hunt may circumspectly choose to suspend judgment?

 

[dzheremi]

Others may do as they wish. I still maintain that the correctness or falsehood of Rome’s particular doctrines does not depend on getting everyone to see what Rome is really saying. Nor does Rome’s being wrong (or right) depend on one’s jurisdiction or communion.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Did the council’s members accept the doctrinal definition of the hypostatic union with the acclamation, “Peter has spoken through Leo.”

No, when they spoke that line, they affirmed the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Tome. This is why the fathers of the council also exclaimed that the faith of the Tome was in agreement with the faith of St. Cyril, whom they regarded as being a Christological authority whose writings were approved by the Council of Ephesus. They were not accepting the Tome as a doctrinal definition by fiat, but were signaling their belief that the Tome taught the orthodox faith.

 

[dzheremi]

ConstantineTG, what gave the bishop of Rome, at the time, the right to tell Dioscorus I of Alexandria (another bishop) what he could or could not do?

Nothing did, and nothing does. You don’t need to be a non-Chalcedonian to see how HH St. Dioscorus and Alexandria with him ignored Pope Leo’s 445 letter urging Alexandria to conform its practices to those of Rome. So if Pope Leo’s word was suddenly infallible because he had guards that listened to him at Chalcedon six years later, this infallibility must’ve been very new indeed…

 

[joe370]

Nothing did, and nothing does. You don’t need to be a non-Chalcedonian to see how HH St. Dioscorus and Alexandria with him ignored Pope Leo’s 445 letter urging Alexandria to conform its practices to those of Rome. So if Pope Leo’s word was suddenly infallible because he had guards that listened to him at Chalcedon six years later, this infallibility must’ve been very new indeed…

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

 

[joe370]

No, when they spoke that line, they affirmed the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Tome. This is why the fathers of the council also exclaimed that the faith of the Tome was in agreement with the faith of St. Cyril, whom they regarded as being a Christological authority whose writings were approved by the Council of Ephesus. They were not accepting the Tome as a doctrinal definition by fiat, but were signaling their belief that the Tome taught the orthodox faith.

Why did they say, “Peter has spoken through Leo”?

 

[joe370]

Others may do as they wish. I still maintain that the correctness or falsehood of Rome’s particular doctrines does not depend on getting everyone to see what Rome is really saying. Nor does Rome’s being wrong (or right) depend on one’s jurisdiction or communion.

Agreed.

 

[dzheremi]

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?

Because he was the Roman Pope’s guardian…? :ehh:

I mean, you might as well ask why Alexandrians refer to their Patriarch as the judge of the universe. The difference being that when we say it, we don’t mean it to be taken literally.