C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Coptic Orthodox certainly do have the Pope
- Status
A
A_G
Guest
The Coptic Orthodox pope is not Pope Benedict XVIThe Coptic Orthodox certainly do have the Pope
They are not in Communion with Rome
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
That’s where the dogma of Papal Infallibility comes in, so that we know the Pope will never bind people to error with the authority of Christ. All Catholics are indeed subject to the teaching authority of the Pope, but because of Papal Infallibility we know that this will never conflict (on matters of faith or morals) with our higher loyalty to God. Without Papal Infallibility it would be possible for a moral paradox to arise in which it would be impossible to avoid a sin against faith- rejecting either Apostolic Tradition or the teaching authority of the Church which is upheld by and authoritatively interprets that Tradition (thus ultimately pitting one aspect of Apostolic Tradition against another).
All this actually has to do with the teaching authority of the Pope. When it comes to his universal jurisdiction to tell a person what to do, Papal authority, or Church authority as a whole, ends when you are ordered to do something sinful. The “universal” dimension of Papal jurisdiction is that all Catholics fall under it, not that it covers every conceivable circumstance in which a Pope might ask someone to violate his or her well-formed conscience by a sinful act.
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
You forget that the Patriarch of Alexandria is also a Pope. So we do have a Pope, just not one who thinks he has universal jurisdiction or papal infallability.
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
But, what if the Pope were to teach heresy? Would this then entail that the heresy becomes truth simply because it was taught ex-cathedra? (Sign of Contradiction, Karol Wojtyla, Geoffrey Chapman, p. 101ff) using them to illustrate this novel doctrine of universal salvation) It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church, more devastating now than in any previous pontificate (with the probable exception of pope Paul VI’s). Only God can so judge him,
nor is it for us to judge him juridically —the pope has no superior on earth —or to declare unquestionably null all his acts, (not that I necessarily agree with this)
but we must make a judgment of his words and actions inasmuch as they affect our eternal salvation, as our Savior said:
Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. (Mt. 7:15)
(The above was taken from the SSPX website)
I just can’t wrap my mind around the fact that catholics truly believe that the Pope of Rome can in no way ever teach any error, even if his teachings contradict that of an earlier Pope. If this happens, then was the earlier pope wrong, or the latter (in your opinion)?
J
jam070406
Guest
I struggle with this. Pius V condemned changing the Liturgy and then Paul VI changed the Liturgy. Now there is chaos, fighting, division, two Liturgies. I don’t get it.
A
Aramis
Guest
The list of titles on the Coptic papal website asserts “13th apostle” and “Supreme judge of the Universe”…You forget that the Patriarch of Alexandria is also a Pope. So we do have a Pope, just not one who thinks he has universal jurisdiction or papal infallability.
Sorry, but that’s about as explicit as one can get about claiming universal jurisdiction without using the word “jurisdiction.”
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I believe he was also called, at one point, the “New Pharaoh!”
Patriarchs do seem to have a penchant for declaring outlandish titles and jurisdictions for themselves . . .
The Pope of Alexandria was the first to use the papal title and the first to have immediate jurisdiction over all of Christian Africa, over every single priest and parish church.
And there was the Greek city of Alexandria - and then the rest of Africa . . .
And every single Pope of Alexandria from St Mark the Evangelist until now is a canonized Saint of the Coptic Orthodox Church (Pope Shenouda must wait the 50 years from his death before he will be canonized - he is already called “Saint” and is venerated by so very many - myself included).
Alex
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
Nearly all of the ancient Apostolic Sees (the Pentarchy) hold such titles. But I was speaking from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, not oriental orthodox (non-chalcedonians/monophysites).
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I don’t know exactly what is being referenced by the SSPX website but they aren’t exactly model Catholics, as you may know. Also this thread is not supposed to be about Papal infallibility so I’ll try to be brief, though I guess the topics do connect.
Basically, Papal Infallibility is a dogma defined by an Ecumenical Council which says that the situation you describe cannot arise, for it would mean a terrible victory of Satan over the Church and a moral paradox in which one could not avoid sinning- you would have to withhold your assent from one binding teaching or another, or from both.
When presented with a claim of this kind of contradiction happening there are three main things to look at.
First, see if both teachings even happened. There are a lot of myths out there.
Second, if both statements were really made by Popes, you look at the level of authority vested in each of them. Not everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth or from his pen is infallible. It’s possible for a Pope to say something wrong in a homily or a speech on a Papal trip for example, or even in something like an encyclical if he does not clearly bind all the faithful to what he is teaching. This isn’t to say the Pope’s teachings can be casually disregarded if they are not infallible statements, but in these cases we have a kind of ordinary authority more like what I believe you are familiar with in the Orthodox Church.
Third, if both statements do engage Papal infallibility, you might have something analogous (not to put Papal teaching and Scripture on equal footing) to when someone claims the Bible contradicts itself. You look for ways of interpreting both sides of the supposed contradiction to avoid rejecting one in favor of the other, or rejecting the authority in question as a whole.
In a hypothetical example though I’m not aware that this exists in reality, let’s say one Pope issued an infallible statement that there is no salvation outside the Church and another issued an infallible statement that we can hope for the salvation of non-Catholics. An anti-Catholic might say “Aha! The Popes have contradicted each other infallibly!” But an orthodox Catholic would interpret both statements in light of each other through something like the belief that if any non-Catholics are saved it is through some connection to the Catholic Church, and so they are ultimately saved within the Church even if they are not during their lives visibly a member of Her. We would reject interpretations of either statement which would truly contradict the other. This is not doublethink, but interpreting the idea of “outside the Church” in different senses for the different statements.
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
What you are saying here isn’t too foreign from what I have been taught in Orthodoxy. What I have been taught is that the Church is infallible, through the grace of the Holy Spirit acting through the consensus of an eccumenical council which makes the common belief of the whole body of the faithful official teaching of the Church. But this authority is vested in the Church, and not in one bishop. This, I would say, is a difference between our churches.
The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother OrthodoxJosh,
There is not a single instance in the history of the Catholic Church up to this day when the Pope of Rome acted in a unilateral, monarchical manner, so I do not know where Absolutist Petrine advocates get support for their ideas, nor where non-Catholic polemicists get those same ideas. Maybe the non-Catholic polemicsts get their ideas from the Absolutist Petrine advocates, and the two groups go around in circles disagreeing with each other, while missing the whole point.
Blessings,
Marduk
This is a common belief and teaching of the Catholic Church, too.
Actually, the Catholic Church nowhere teaches that the authority of the Church is vested in one bishop alone. This is an exaggeration promoted by Absolutist Petrine advocates in the Catholic Church (primarily Traditionalist Catholics and members of SSPX, who are actually in schism from the Catholic Church).
There is not a single instance in the history of the Catholic Church up to this day when the Pope of Rome acted in a unilateral, monarchical manner, so I do not know where Absolutist Petrine advocates get support for their ideas, nor where non-Catholic polemicists get those same ideas. Maybe the non-Catholic polemicsts get their ideas from the Absolutist Petrine advocates, and the two groups go around in circles disagreeing with each other, while missing the whole point.
Blessings,
Marduk
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
What you are saying is both very interesting and confusing at the same time. Why would the pope need to be infallible if, as you say, “There is not a single instance in the history of the catholic church…when the pope acted in a unilateral, monarchical manner…”Dear brother OrthodoxJosh,
This is a common belief and teaching of the Catholic Church, too.
Actually, the Catholic Church nowhere teaches that the authority of the Church is vested in one bishop alone. This is an exaggeration promoted by Absolutist Petrine advocates in the Catholic Church (primarily Traditionalist Catholics and members of SSPX, who are actually in schism from the Catholic Church).
There is not a single instance in the history of the Catholic Church up to this day when the Pope of Rome acted in a unilateral, monarchical manner, so I do not know where Absolutist Petrine advocates get support for their ideas, nor where non-Catholic polemicists get those same ideas. Maybe the non-Catholic polemicsts get their ideas from the Absolutist Petrine advocates, and the two groups go around in circles disagreeing with each other, while missing the whole point.
Blessings,
Marduk
Perhaps I didn’t get my first point across in the best possible way. Our belief is that infalibility is vested in the Church, and not in a particular apostolic see/bishop who occupies this throne.
If I am understanding you correctly, it seems that you are saying that the catholic church agrees with the above statement. But that can’t be true, since it has been promulgated as a doctrine in your church that the office of the pope of rome, and by extension, the person of the pope of rome is vested with infallibility when speaking on matters of morals or doctrine, (I hope I got that right) ex-cathedra. If I am wrong I welcome correction on this point.
Thank you for your insightful and very interesting posts on many of the topics on this forum.
The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother OrthodoxJosh,
Thank you for your response. I hope my own response offers some clarification.
(1) “Papal infallibility” is regarded as the infallibility of the Church exercised in a unique way by its head bishop, not the infallibility of one person. This is exactly what the Vatican 1 dogma asserts - that the infallibility of the Pope is “the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed.” Also, permit me to offer correction on your statement that it is the person of the Pope of Rome who is vested with infallibility. That is not true at all. Infallibility is vested, rather, in the OFFICE of the papacy, which is a PUBLIC office OF THE CHURCH. In fact, the Fathers of Vatican 1 explicitly changed the title of the Decree on the infallibility from “The infallibility of the Pope” to “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope” PRECISELY to avoid the misconception that it is the Pope as a person who is infallible.
(2) When the Pope exercises infallibility, he does not exercise it above, nor separated from the Church or his brother bishops, but as a MEMBER of the Church and the College of Bishops. As our Canons state (reflecting the teaching of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2)
Canon 333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.
(3) When the Pope exercises infallibility, he is not permitted to contradict the sensus fidelium of the Church nor the present preaching of the whole Magisterium.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Pastor Aeternus, Ch.4.6.
And according to the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 (which is the explanation of the Decrees given by the Committee that formulated the Decrees):
The consensus of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for your response. I hope my own response offers some clarification.
As you’ll notice, when there is disagreement in the Church over a doctrinal issue, authority is narrowed down, so there will be a decision maker. Normatively, it is the Ecumenical Council (the body of bishops around the world, united to its head bishop) - the Ecumenical Council exercises the infallibility of the Church in a unique way to make this decision. The infallibility invested in the office of the papacy is ALSO the infallibility of the Church exercised in a unique way, narrowed down even more. It is for those instances when the whole Magisterium of the Church (her bishops) cannot be united on a particular doctrinal issue. Since it cannot be decided by the body, it is given to the head bishop to decide who is correct. This decision is granted the charism of infallibility, since it is in regards to a doctrinal or moral issue. The Orthodox have a similar principle on canonical issues in Synod - the head bishop is considered the “tie-breaker.”
Understood, but one can already see the principle of a “narrowing authority” on issues that are in contention. If the whole Church is in disagreement over a doctrinal issue, the infallibility of the Church is exercised in a unique and more narrow way by the bishops. The Catholic principle simply takes it a logical step further on the rare and unique occasion when the bishops themselves cannot give a unanimous decision on a matter.
The Catholic doctrine agrees with the Orthodox principle in several ways:
(1) “Papal infallibility” is regarded as the infallibility of the Church exercised in a unique way by its head bishop, not the infallibility of one person. This is exactly what the Vatican 1 dogma asserts - that the infallibility of the Pope is “the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed.” Also, permit me to offer correction on your statement that it is the person of the Pope of Rome who is vested with infallibility. That is not true at all. Infallibility is vested, rather, in the OFFICE of the papacy, which is a PUBLIC office OF THE CHURCH. In fact, the Fathers of Vatican 1 explicitly changed the title of the Decree on the infallibility from “The infallibility of the Pope” to “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope” PRECISELY to avoid the misconception that it is the Pope as a person who is infallible.
(2) When the Pope exercises infallibility, he does not exercise it above, nor separated from the Church or his brother bishops, but as a MEMBER of the Church and the College of Bishops. As our Canons state (reflecting the teaching of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2)
Canon 333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.
(3) When the Pope exercises infallibility, he is not permitted to contradict the sensus fidelium of the Church nor the present preaching of the whole Magisterium.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Pastor Aeternus, Ch.4.6.
And according to the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 (which is the explanation of the Decrees given by the Committee that formulated the Decrees):
The consensus of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
I will give but one example here. You say that the pope may " not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine," but what about when pope Paul V expressly forbade the changing of the liturgy of the catholic church, and then pope Paul VI turned around and changed it anyway? Something very new and very different things were being taught from the office of the bishop of Rome at those times. I know you will come back with some answer that we can’t just look at one pope contradicting another, but that we must understand the context of both teachings, but the fact remains those are two very different teachings coming from the office of the bishop of rome. Again, it is precisely in consensus of the entire body of the faithful, and not one office (if that suits your sensabilities better) that infallibility is vested.
A
Aramis
Guest
Josh:
Papal infalibility is two overlapping things:
Lots of other things are binding upon Catholics but are not dogmatic; they fall under item (1). Items such as Humanae Vitae, Anglicanorum Coetibus, and Ecclesia Dei.
Even if, in the long term, they turn out to be suboptimal, in the short term, they are what the church needs, and there is no doctrinal error in them. They might include some really BAD disciplinary choices, and yet be free of doctrinal error.
Papal infallibility doesn’t protect the popes from long-term bad decisions. Just from Heresy and doctrinal error.
Papal infalibility is two overlapping things:
- the Pope is protected from leading the church into error and teaching error
- the Pope in unity with the bishops can declare dogma infallibly.
Lots of other things are binding upon Catholics but are not dogmatic; they fall under item (1). Items such as Humanae Vitae, Anglicanorum Coetibus, and Ecclesia Dei.
Even if, in the long term, they turn out to be suboptimal, in the short term, they are what the church needs, and there is no doctrinal error in them. They might include some really BAD disciplinary choices, and yet be free of doctrinal error.
Papal infallibility doesn’t protect the popes from long-term bad decisions. Just from Heresy and doctrinal error.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother OrthodoxJosh,
Thank you for your responses.
The Pope is not speaking to or representing a local Church. He is addressing and representing the Church universal. We do not expect that local bishops, even local head bishops require the charism of infallibility in the exercise of their office. As Sacred Tradition tells us, there is an authority higher even than local bishops and local head bishops that actually is the court of final appeal on matters of Faith or morals. As stated, this is normatively the Ecumenical Council. And we agree that an Ecumenical Council indeed exercises the infallibility of the Church in a unique way for this purpose. But what if the body of bishops themselves cannot agree? Obviously the one to whom they appeal to settle the issue on this UNIVERSAL matter must necessarily be endowed with the infallibility of the Church in a unique way in order to settle the matter.
And yes, contrary to what you’ve probably heard from non-Catholic polemicists, and Absolutist Petrine exaggerators within the Catholic Church, the exercise of papal infallibility can only be utilized upon the appeal of the bishops. The Pope cannot just wake up one morning and say to himself, “I think today is a nice day for a dogma.” That’s not how it works. Pastor Aeternus specifically outlined the manner in which the charism of “papal infallibility” is initiated:
“Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, following the long-established custom of the Churches and the manner of the ancient rule [of faith] reported back to this Apostolic See those special dangers which arose in matters of faith, so that harm to the faith might be especially repaired in that place where the faith can suffer no defect.”
There is nothing in the V1 Decree that could even be construed to mean that the Pope at his whim and fancy can create a new dogma.
Logic also dictates that if the body of bishops appeals to the head bishop to settle a matter of faith or morals for the Church universal, they are themselves recognizing that they are appealing to an authority that can actually settle the matter. That certainly implies infallibility.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for your responses.
Well, like I said, they are only similarities, but there is an important difference:
The Pope is not speaking to or representing a local Church. He is addressing and representing the Church universal. We do not expect that local bishops, even local head bishops require the charism of infallibility in the exercise of their office. As Sacred Tradition tells us, there is an authority higher even than local bishops and local head bishops that actually is the court of final appeal on matters of Faith or morals. As stated, this is normatively the Ecumenical Council. And we agree that an Ecumenical Council indeed exercises the infallibility of the Church in a unique way for this purpose. But what if the body of bishops themselves cannot agree? Obviously the one to whom they appeal to settle the issue on this UNIVERSAL matter must necessarily be endowed with the infallibility of the Church in a unique way in order to settle the matter.
And yes, contrary to what you’ve probably heard from non-Catholic polemicists, and Absolutist Petrine exaggerators within the Catholic Church, the exercise of papal infallibility can only be utilized upon the appeal of the bishops. The Pope cannot just wake up one morning and say to himself, “I think today is a nice day for a dogma.” That’s not how it works. Pastor Aeternus specifically outlined the manner in which the charism of “papal infallibility” is initiated:
“Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, following the long-established custom of the Churches and the manner of the ancient rule [of faith] reported back to this Apostolic See those special dangers which arose in matters of faith, so that harm to the faith might be especially repaired in that place where the faith can suffer no defect.”
There is nothing in the V1 Decree that could even be construed to mean that the Pope at his whim and fancy can create a new dogma.
Logic dictates that if the authority of the Church narrowed down to an Ecumenical Council is infallible for the sake of settling an issue of faith or morals, then the further narrowing of the authority of the Church to the head bishop if the body of bishops cannot solve the matter must also require infallibility. Remember, we are talking about the Faith of the Church universal.
Logic also dictates that if the body of bishops appeals to the head bishop to settle a matter of faith or morals for the Church universal, they are themselves recognizing that they are appealing to an authority that can actually settle the matter. That certainly implies infallibility.
I am not sure you actually believe what you are saying. I used to be in your camp, and I know for a fact that Orthodox do not believe that infallibility can be a PERSONAL charism of any bishop. You believe that bishops exercise infallibility in an Ecumenical Council. If you affirm that, then why don’t you affirm that the bishops are PERSONALLY infallible? But you know you won’t and you can’t. Well, believe it or not, Catholics believe the same thing. We do not believe that it is the PERSON of the Pope who is infallible, but rather his office. That does not create a two-headed monster, any more than your own belief makes two headed monsters out of all the bishops who exercise infallibility in an Ecumenical Council. I used to think the same way as you, brother Josh. But then I realized that many of my arguments against the papacy were really inconsistent. It’s hard to recognize and eventually pull out a log in the eye.
Well, my response is not what you assume it will be. It is rather more simple than that - namely, changing the form of the Liturgy is not a matter that involves the exercise of infallibility. Changing the form of the liturgy (if all the essential elements remain) is no more a doctrinal matter than a local bishop deciding to put pews in his Church. That’s really a terrible example.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the** full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,** and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Pastor Aeternus
- Status