Papal Infallibility in the Orthodox Churches

[joe370]

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.

Well, head of all the churches makes sense and is a little different than judge of the universe; only Jesus can make that claim. Do they (or did they) really refer to him as judge of the universe?

The answer to the question, "Why did Paschasinus even care about Leo’s direction, is: Because he was the Roman Pope’s guardian? OK…

The eastern Fathers at the council of Chalcedon did not care about Leo’s direction?

Did the eastern Fathers at the council of Chalcedon believe that Peter had spoken through Leo?

 

[dzheremi]

Well, head of all the churches makes sense and is a little different than judge of the universe;

Not really, since the point is that they’re both instances of flowery but figurative language.

only Jesus can make that claim. Do they (or did they) really refer to him as judge of the universe?

Indeed we do. I mean, it’s not the sort of thing you hear every day, but it is still officially part of the Coptic Pope’s title (and I think also his Chalcedonian counterpart, though someone in the EO communion would have to confirm that).

The answer to the question, "Why did Paschasinus even care about Leo’s direction, is: Because he was the Roman Pope’s guardian? OK…

The eastern Fathers at the council of Chalcedon did not care about Leo’s direction?

I don’t know. You didn’t ask about them at first, so I only answered about Paschasinus, since that was your question. I don’t know the answer to this new question. It is kind of irrelevant to me, as you might expect.

Did the eastern Fathers at the council of Chalcedon believe that Peter had spoken through Leo?

Again, I don’t know. Hopefully one of our EO friends can answer this from their perspective. We believe that St. Peter speaks through all the bishops who rightly divide the word of truth, as the faith of the Apostles and the Fathers is one, and that is the faith of the Church.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;10111495]Not really, since the point is that they’re both instances of flowery but figurative language.

Indeed we do. I mean, it’s not the sort of thing you hear every day, but it is still officially part of the Coptic Pope’s title (and I think also his Chalcedonian counterpart, though someone in the EO communion would have to confirm that).

I don’t know. You didn’t ask about them at first, so I only answered about Paschasinus, since that was your question. I don’t know the answer to this new question. It is kind of irrelevant to me, as you might expect.

Again, I don’t know. Hopefully one of our EO friends can answer this from their perspective. We believe that St. Peter speaks through all the bishops who rightly divide the word of truth, as the faith of the Apostles and the Fathers is one, and that is the faith of the Church.

I like to think of Jesus’ church as one church, albeit temporarily fractured, comprised of the eastern orthodox church and the catholic church. After all both can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age and both have valid Sacraments, or more appropriately, Mysteries, from the eastern perspective.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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 Paschasinus was Leo’s legate to the council. Paschasinus’ job was to represent Pope Leo at the council. If he didn’t try to carry out Pope Leo’s instructions, he wouldn’t have been doing his job.

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

I notice that apologists without fail quote this line out of context without mentioning what happens next. After this, the senate refuses to comply with this demand made by the legates, unless a specific charge is brought against Dioscoros. Only once the plaintiffs are ready to read their charges against Dioscoros, does the senate have Dioscoros sit in the center of the room, denying him a seat in the assembly, and even then Dioscoros was not denied a seat because Pope Leo demanded it, but because it was seen as improper for one having charges read against him to be actively seated in the assembly which is hearing the charges.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

Because they determined that St. Leo’s faith was the orthodox and catholic faith, the same faith taught by Peter, the other Apostles, and St. Cyril.

 

[joe370]

Because they determined that St. Leo’s faith was the orthodox and catholic faith, the same faith taught by Peter, the other Apostles, and St. Cyril.

Hmmm…Ok…

 

[joe370]

Because Paschasinus was Leo’s legate to the council. Paschasinus’ job was to represent Pope Leo at the council. If he didn’t try to carry out Pope Leo’s instructions, he wouldn’t have been doing his job.

I notice that apologists without fail quote this line out of context without mentioning what happens next. After this, the senate refuses to comply with this demand made by the legates, unless a specific charge is brought against Dioscoros. Only once the plaintiffs are ready to read their charges against Dioscoros, does the senate have Dioscoros sit in the center of the room, denying him a seat in the assembly, and even then Dioscoros was not denied a seat because Pope Leo demanded it, but because it was seen as improper for one having charges read against him to be actively seated in the assembly which is hearing the charges.

So, the bottom line, for you, is: the Catholic church is the breakaway church, and the Eastern Orthodox churches continue to be the church of Pentecost? Is that a fair assessment?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;10108725:

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?

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.

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

 

[dzheremi]

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.

 

[jinc1019]

Hmmm…Ok…

I agree, I don’t think the quote can be twisted to have that meaning…But that doesn’t mean the pope had the authority, only that he tried to exercise the authority, possibly authority he didn’t have, and failed. Even rigid Catholics have to accept that fact (although not the “possibly authority he didn’t have” part).

 

[Cavaradossi]

I agree, I don’t think the quote can be twisted to have that meaning…But that doesn’t mean the pope had the authority, only that he tried to exercise the authority, possibly authority he didn’t have, and failed. Even rigid Catholics have to accept that fact (although not the “possibly authority he didn’t have” part).

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.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;10112167:

Is that so?
“Others may do as they wish. I still maintain that the correctness or falsehood of the Coptic Orthodox Church

's particular doctrines does not depend on getting everyone to see what Alexandria is really saying. Nor does Alexandria’s being wrong (or right) depend on one’s jurisdiction or communion.”
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 (Amba Maximos Youhanna) regarding Coptic Orthodoxy?

 

[dzheremi]

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.

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.

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.

 

[mardukm]

]
Because they determined that St. Leo’s faith was the orthodox and catholic faith, the same faith taught by Peter, the other Apostles, and St. Cyril.

Hmmm…Ok…

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

 

[joe370]

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

Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

I have often wondered why eastern orthodox Christians and protestant Christians give so little credence to the obvious intent of the following passage; it seems so clear, and yet non-catholics insist that it is only referring to his profession or confession:

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, (Cephas) and on this rock (cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Like dzheremi said: “…as that is indeed the two interpretations of Church history that you see most common with Catholics and Orthodox.”

 

[dzheremi]

Isn’t the nature of the disagreement between the parties involved here (on CAF, I mean) whether or not that apostolic authority and deference is possessed of the man himself (through the promises of Christ to St. Peter or however you’d like to phrase it), or is preconditioned upon his faith? I’m asking because as far as I can tell there is no disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox on the truth of that statement in context (i.e., in the context of proclaiming the Tome of Leo to be acceptable to the Council), but much disagreement when Roman Catholics use statements such as that one to essentially stump for Papal Infallibility or the like. So this seems to me like a re-tread over the whole “You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church” idea, but under another guise. If you believe that it is the faith that is being spoken of in that passage (actually, both that and the statement on the Tome, I guess), you will read it differently than someone who sees it as evidence that the Pope of Rome is being shown to be the guarantor of Orthodoxy or what have you. I mean, I know that Roman Catholics don’t separate the two (as you’ve often said elsewhere, the two are only equatable so long as the Pope is teaching the correct faith), but it still seems sensible to characterize the debate in this way, as that is indeed the two interpretations of Church history that you see most commonly with Catholics and Orthodox: Catholics will read certain events or writings in light of their current doctrinal definitions, while Orthodox will read the same in light of their…uh…I guess lack of those same definitions. (They won’t see the “evidence” that Catholics see in these passages, I mean.)

Even though I obviously disagree with both of you on the Orthodoxy of the Tome of Leo and the status of the Council of Chalcedon as a whole, I can’t help but agree with the EO regarding the interpretation of the statement regarding the Tome, since we say similar things about our Church (because we believe it to preserve the apostolic Orthodox faith, of course), but are not so tied to the idea that it subsists on one person’s word or declaration (hence popes have been deposed, bishops excommunicated, and all kinds of other stuff has happened throughout history in response to threats to the faith, not to preserve some sort of a priori idea that so-and-so can’t be wrong, because of course we do not believe that in the first place).

Just some thoughts…not trying to start another argument, just trying to see if I’ve properly assessed the views of both sides.

 

[joe370]

Isn’t the nature of the disagreement between the parties involved here (on CAF, I mean) whether or not that apostolic authority and deference is possessed of the man

himself (through the promises of Christ to St. Peter or however you’d like to phrase it), or is preconditioned upon his faith? I’m asking because as far as I can tell there is no disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox on the truth of that statement in context (i.e., in the context of proclaiming the Tome of Leo to be acceptable to the Council), but much disagreement when Roman Catholics use statements such as that one to essentially stump for Papal Infallibility or the like. So this seems to me like a re-tread over the whole “You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church” idea, but under another guise. If you believe that it is the faith that is being spoken of in that passage (actually, both that and the statement on the Tome, I guess), you will read it differently than someone who sees it as evidence that the Pope of Rome is being shown to be the guarantor of Orthodoxy or what have you. I mean, I know that Roman Catholics don’t separate the two (as you’ve often said elsewhere, the two are only equatable so long as the Pope is teaching the correct faith), but it still seems sensible to characterize the debate in this way, as that is indeed the two interpretations of Church history that you see most commonly with Catholics and Orthodox: Catholics will read certain events or writings in light of their current doctrinal definitions, while Orthodox will read the same in light of their…uh…I guess lack of those same definitions. (They won’t see the “evidence” that Catholics see in these passages, I mean.)

Also in all frankness, I seriously doubt that the eastern orthodox churches and the catholic church will ever reconcile, regarding the correct understanding of the importance of Peter or lack thereof…

Even though I obviously disagree with both of you on the Orthodoxy of the Tome of Leo and the status of the Council of Chalcedon as a whole, I can’t help but agree with the EO regarding the interpretation of the statement regarding the Tome, since we say similar things about our Church (because we believe it to preserve the apostolic Orthodox faith, of course), but are not so tied to the idea that it subsists on one person’s word or declaration (hence popes have been deposed, bishops excommunicated, and all kinds of other stuff has happened throughout history in response to threats to the faith

 

[mardukm]

When taken in context, it is hard to understand that quote any other way.

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.

The reading of the Tome was interrupted several times by bishops from Illyria (who were even under the Pope’s jurisdiction) and Palestine

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.

who objected to Nestorian sounding passages in the Tome (most especially the one about the Word working miracles and the flesh enduring insults).

Were they objections or simply requests for clarification?

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.

I know a lot of Catholic apologists claim that the Tome is considered an ex cathedra decree. I agree with it somewhat. But, in addition, I take into account the fact that Pope St. Leo himself wished the Council to be called. I believe he expected the bishops to examine his Tome (in fact, in subsequent letters after the Council, he makes mention of the fact that the confirmation of the Council helped settle the matter), so it makes no dent in the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” that the bishops in an Ecumenical Council were called to be fellow judges - along with the Pope - on this matter of Faith. That is, after all, the purpose of an Ecumenical Council according to the Official Relatio of Vatican 1.

In any case, the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” does not claim that an ex cathedra decree is to be accepted “simply because it is issued by the bishop of Rome.” I know that is what Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine dectractors claim, but that is not true.

First of all, the Pope must determine the consensus of the Church before he issues the ex cathedra decree. Secondly, the much-maligned statement in the dogma that irreformability is not by virtue of the consent of the Church has been thoroughly misrepresented by opponents of “papal infallibility.” We’ve discussed this thoroughly in the past already. If you want a reminder how the statement does not mean “just because the Pope says so,” let me know.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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

Isn’t the nature of the disagreement between the parties involved here (on CAF, I mean) whether or not that apostolic authority and deference is possessed of the man himself (through the promises of Christ to St. Peter or however you’d like to phrase it), or is preconditioned upon his faith? I’m asking because as far as I can tell there is no disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox on the truth of that statement in context (i.e., in the context of proclaiming the Tome of Leo to be acceptable to the Council), but much disagreement when Roman Catholics use statements such as that one to essentially stump for Papal Infallibility or the like. So this seems to me like a re-tread over the whole “You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church” idea, but under another guise. If you believe that it is the faith that is being spoken of in that passage (actually, both that and the statement on the Tome, I guess), you will read it differently than someone who sees it as evidence that the Pope of Rome is being shown to be the guarantor of Orthodoxy or what have you. I mean, I know that Roman Catholics don’t separate the two (as you’ve often said elsewhere, the two are only equatable so long as the Pope is teaching the correct faith), but it still seems sensible to characterize the debate in this way, as that is indeed the two interpretations of Church history that you see most commonly with Catholics and Orthodox: Catholics will read certain events or writings in light of their current doctrinal definitions, while Orthodox will read the same in light of their…uh…I guess lack of those same definitions. (They won’t see the “evidence” that Catholics see in these passages, I mean.)

Even though I obviously disagree with both of you on the Orthodoxy of the Tome of Leo and the status of the Council of Chalcedon as a whole, I can’t help but agree with the EO regarding the interpretation of the statement regarding the Tome, since we say similar things about our Church (because we believe it to preserve the apostolic Orthodox faith, of course), but are not so tied to the idea that it subsists on one person’s word or declaration (hence popes have been deposed, bishops excommunicated, and all kinds of other stuff has happened throughout history in response to threats to the faith, not to preserve some sort of a priori idea that so-and-so can’t be wrong, because of course we do not believe that in the first place).

Just some thoughts…not trying to start another argument, just trying to see if I’ve properly assessed the views of both sides.

 

[joe370]

mardukm;10114399]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.

I had thought the same thing even in my protestant days.

I know a lot of Catholic apologists claim that the Tome is considered an ex cathedra decree. I agree with it somewhat. But, in addition, I take into account the fact that Pope St. Leo himself wished the Council to be called. I believe he expected the bishops to examine his Tome (in fact, in subsequent letters after the Council, he makes mention of the fact that the confirmation of the Council helped settle the matter), so it makes no dent in the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” that the bishops in an Ecumenical Council were called to be fellow judges - along with the Pope - on this matter of Faith. That is, after all, the purpose of an Ecumenical Council according to the Official Relatio of Vatican 1.

In any case, the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” does not claim that an ex cathedra decree is to be accepted “simply because it is issued by the bishop of Rome.” I know that is what Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine dectractors claim, but that is not true.

First of all, the Pope must determine the consensus of the Church before he issues the ex cathedra decree.

Exactly.

Secondly, the much-maligned statement in the dogma that irreformability is not by virtue of the consent of the Church has been thoroughly misrepresented by opponents of “papal infallibility.” We’ve discussed this thoroughly in the past already. If you want a reminder how the statement does not mean “just because the Pope says so,” let me know.

Blessings,
Marduk

Nice post…