Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[Ghosty]

Just want to point out that Leo the Great is a Saint East and West and most definitely claimed Papal Supremacy. Other Sainted Popes did as well, but Leo was quite outspoken about it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

Just want to point out that Leo the Great is a Saint East and West and most definitely claimed Papal Supremacy. Other Sainted Popes did as well, but Leo was quite outspoken about it.

Peace and God bless!

Could you give me some sources to read on this? Thanks!

 

[steve_b]

As someone who loves Orthodoxy and who is an eastern Catholic and also who spent most of their lives in the Roman rite, I have no real need or reason to spend much time on the posts you bring to the table here. They are unduly contentious and very often woefully under informed.

I am required to be polite to you. I am NOT required to cater to the kind of aggressive ignorance of the current state of affairs between Orthodoxy and the Vatican that is evidenced in many of the things that you say.

I’ve clearly disturbed your peace. Please accept my apology and to anyone else whose peace I’ve disturbed. It’s not my intention to be uncharitable to anyone. I certainly don’t intend to be contentious or advance the contentiousness that exists in this area.

 

[Ghosty]

Could you give me some sources to read on this? Thanks!

When I get home I sure will. Using my phone makes it difficult to post links

Peace and God bless!

 

[Elijahmaria]

I’ve clearly disturbed your peace. Please accept my apology and to anyone else whose peace I’ve disturbed. It’s not my intention to be uncharitable to anyone. I certainly don’t intend to be contentious or advance the contentiousness that exists in this area.

That’s gracious of you. There’s very little outside of disturbances in my family that really do damage to my equilibrium. But I am happy to agree to disagree with you and not harbor any ill will!!

M.

 

[jmj1984]

I have been watching this thread since I returned to these forums. I have done some reflection and study on my own and these are some observations, based upon the extant records:

1. The Pope of Rome first claimed to be supreme head of the Christian Church several centuries after the institution of the Church.
2. During the proceedings of Vatican I, the Roman Pontiff was declared infallible.

For point 1; it is worth pointing out that the epistle of St Clement dated to the first Century AD states 'Because of the sudden calamaties that have followed one another in turn and because of the adverse circumstances which have befallen us, we think, brethren, that we have returned too late to those matters which are being inquired among you, and to the impious and detestable sedition…which a few rash and presumptous men have aroused to such degree of insolence that your honorable and illustrious name…is very much reviled…in order to remind you of your duty we write…You, therefore who have laid the foundations of this insurrection, be subject in obedience to the priests and receive correction unto repetance…But if some will not submit to them, let them learn what He (Christ) has spoken through us, that they will involve themselves in great sin and danger, we, however, shall be innocent of this transgression…Indeed you will give joy and gladness to us, if having become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will cut out the unlawful application of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made in this epistle concerning peace and union’ DS 54

This epistle is generally interpreted as demonstrating a particular and unique authority on the behalf of the Roman Pontiff.

The claim by the Pope it should be noted was upheld by the Council of Serdica in Canon 3b/5 and in the epistle in which the council sent its acts to Rome where it stated 'For this will seem to be best and most fitting indeed, if the priests from each and every province refer to the head, that is, to the chair of Peter the apostle’ DS57e

For point 2, it is of course true that the infallibility was declared and settled once and for all at Vatican I, but the doctrine had existed in some form or another from the earliest days of the Church.

 

[CDB1718]

(These two are simply interesting and do not necessarily say anything about the truth of one or the other.)

1. A century after the Greek Church rejected, via the overwhelming majority of those lay and clergy who were not present at the proceedings, Florence, the West experienced the Protestant Reformation. Because of its emphasis on negative theology through apophatic thought and its model of communions of churches which follow cultural lines, the east was more susceptible to national pressures and atheism, which were driving components of its history for centuries following the schism.
2. The East, unless one takes the perspective of certain voices within it (i.e., that Rome and the Oriental Orthodox before her broke away), never experienced a “Protestant Reformation” after the East-West schism.** Instead, it experienced the overtaking of nation-states and then of atheism, from which it is still oppressed and in places only now re-emerging.**
3. Western Christianity has since broken into several thousands of competing groups while Eastern Christianity has lost many of its faithful to secular atheism.

The takeaway message being that we need the strengths of both within the church to protect against our human weaknesses. Otherwise, we’re overcome from the inside and the outside.

 

[ZDHayden]

The takeaway message being that we need the strengths of both within the church to protect against our weaknesses. Otherwise, we’re overcome from the inside and the outside.

Most certainly! Both sides lost something precious during the schism. There was no winner. Whichever one is led to has its unique issues.

I do not doubt that the East has suffered greatly from Atheism, just as the West has suffered from continued fracturing.

The succumbing to national forces also happened to the West during a few centuries, if I do recall, so it is not entirely an Eastern problem. I do see your point, however. However, I would argue that the cultural variety of perspectives in the East helps as much as it hurts.

Thank you.

 

[ZDHayden]

Perhaps, jmj1984, you could explain to me how the passage from St. Clement is interpreted as you have stated? Perhaps it is just my being distracted with Finals, and thus not reading as well as I should, but I do not seem to find anything related to a ‘particular and unique authority on the behalf of the Roman Pontiff’ within the selection.

One should also note that I have heard the interpretation among some Eastern Christians that every valid bishop shares in St. Peter’s chair. Doubtless, the quote you provided is very striking for Western Christians unfamiliar with the above interpretation, but to those who hold such an interpretation would fully agree with the quote without coming to the same conclusion! I am not saying that is necessarily my view, but it is a view in existence.

Yes, the idea of Papal infallibility was one of the divisive issues around and after the 10th or 11th century, when such claims began to become more numerous.

Regarding commonly-held saint-popes, one must be careful of distinguishing a claim to supremacy and a claim to primacy. One must also be aware of exaggerations which are likely to occur in any historical document (I recall some of the stories about Alexander the Great, for example, as I say this).

 

[Mickey]

I do not doubt that the East has suffered greatly from Atheism,

There is no doubt. But this godless atheism has also created many New Martyrs who have enriched the Holy Orthodox Church with their faith, sacrifice, and steadfastness.

Many continue to enrich the Church with their holy relics.

 

[ZDHayden]

There is no doubt. But this godless atheism has also created many New Martyrs who have enriched the Holy Orthodox Church with their faith, sacrifice, and steadfastness.

Many continue to enrich the Church with their holy relics.

Very true as well. I recall reading of many inspiring stories of holy and pious Russians who were martyred for their faith during the Communist rule.

 

[Mickey]

Very true as well. I recall reading of many inspiring stories of holy and pious Russians who were martyred for their faith during the Communist rule.

Indeed! Awe inspiring!

 

[Anthony_V]

There is no doubt. But this godless atheism has also created many New Martyrs who have enriched the Holy Orthodox Church with their faith, sacrifice, and steadfastness.

Many continue to enrich the Church with their holy relics.

I digress… but do you ever engage in arguments against atheists? You’re quite a knowledgeable person to begin with, so I couldn’t help but to inquire

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Frank J,

Actually, Fran, I thiought it was you guys who left…;-o

Thanks for the insight.

By the way, if the Orthodox do not have infallibiliyt … why do you think that is?

god bless

Now that is a really inspiring offer you have just made. Maybe if you copied and pasted this as an example of what one group to offer and another - it may actually just do the tick.

If the RC church wants to rejoin the Eastern Church the papal infallibility has to go there is no choice here. That is the nail on the head. Sorry if I had to let the air out of your balloons here. It’s just not going to fly. The Orthodox Church will never accept you’re position.

You can talk until you are blue in the face but nobody outside your church believes you.

 

[CDB1718]

There is no doubt. But this godless atheism has also created many New Martyrs who have enriched the Holy Orthodox Church with their faith, sacrifice, and steadfastness.

Many continue to enrich the Church with their holy relics.

So it is a travesty which shows the brokenness of the west and its need for the east that a significant number of people continue to accept the Christian faith but pick and choose which morals they want to go with it through Protestantism (a heresy whose fruits are apparent in its own perpetual fracturing), but it is a sadness which shows the east’s holiness and fullness for a significant number of their faithful to reject God and become atheists?

 

[Mickey]

do you ever engage in arguments against atheists?

Not often…not because of lack of desire…but because of lack of opportunity. There are not many atheists on this forum—or any Christian forums in my experience. I have noticed that when I debate with atheists, they are rather angry and enjoy mocking the faith…but that is only my experience. Some of them are very intellectual and argue from a scientific standpoint…demanding physical proof or formulaic logic. They are tough nuts to crack because our faith is often mystical and from the heart. Try explaining to an atheist the precepts behind the nous, theosis, and uncreated energy.

Sometimes, although not atheists, I run into a Catholic or Orthodox Christian who is non practicing. They tell me that they do not need a Church or a priest or the sacraments. They tell me that their faith is between them and God…they confess their sins directly to God (ironically many arguments that some protestants make). In almost every instance they justify their stance my saying, “But I am a good person”.

One time I asked an Elderly Ukrainian Orthodox priest how I might respond to someone who says that they do not need the Church because they are a “good person”. He told me to respond by saying, “Who told you this?”

It works every time. You should see the dumbfounded looks I get?

Those who dare to respond usually say something like, “I say that I am”.

It’s probably not the most theological question…but it really makes them think.

Sorry for the derailment.

 

[Mickey]

So it is a travesty which shows the brokenness of the west and its need for the east that a significant number of people continue to accept the Christian faith but pick and choose which morals they want to go with it through Protestantism (a heresy whose fruits are apparent in its own perpetual fracturing), but it is a sadness which shows the east’s holiness and fullness for a significant number of their faithful to reject God and become atheists?

I’m sorry…but I have no idea what you said here.

 

[CDB1718]

I’m sorry…but I have no idea what you said here.

Protestantism arises in the west = proof that the west is broken
Atheism in the east = opportunity for holiness and showcase of graces

I love the east. There’s a lot that’s happened to it and through it. A lot of ugliness, some of which it perpetuated. This isn’t about who is holier. Next we’ll be counting who has more declared saints to prove papal infallibility right or wrong.

Most certainly! Both sides lost something precious during the schism. There was no winner. Whichever one is led to has its unique issues.

I do not doubt that the East has suffered greatly from Atheism, just as the West has suffered from continued fracturing.

The succumbing to national forces also happened to the West during a few centuries, if I do recall, so it is not entirely an Eastern problem. I do see your point, however. However, I would argue that the cultural variety of perspectives in the East helps as much as it hurts.

Thank you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Certainly, as you know, the Council of Florence was an attempt at reconciliation between East and West. A small number of bishops from the Greek-speaking Church attended the meetings and eventually these bishops agreed to accept the propositions of Rome (namely, the Filioque and the Papal claims). And so, on paper, East and West was reunified. Almost as soon as these bishops returned home with the news, the overwhelming majority (I do not wish to say a consensus, as that is rarely ever the case, but it seems to have been more than enough to veto a Presidential decision in the United States) of Christian people of their lands, both lay and clergy, demanded the Council be revoked due to the above concessions. The bishops in question, however, did not seem to take much convincing to do so. As such, there is some speculation that there was a bit of coercion at the Council or that the Bishops were weak-minded or that the concessions were made to speed along discussion, or perhaps all three or none.

Regarding the stagnation in development: that occurred primarily after the Turkish conquest of Constantinople than after the Great Schism, although, excluding the heretics based in the East, Eastern Christianity seems to always have had a more conservative tendency than their Western contemporaries. (This is seen especially in the fact that the primary Orthodox Divine Liturgy is 1000 years older or so than the Tridentine Mass.) There does seem to be quite a bit of spiritual growth and development in Russia after the Turkish conquest, however, though this was eventually stemmed and eventually stopped after the Bolshevik Revolution. Whereas the developments in the West are primarily theological (and the devotions such as the Rosary take from those developments), the East is not devoid of development. Eastern development tends to be spiritual and devotional, rather than theological.

The whole history of the matter is far muddier than either the average devout Catholic or the average devout Orthodox are generally willing to admit.

I hope this helps!

Fantastic! Thanks!

 

[Mickey]

Protestantism arises in the west = proof that the west is broken
Atheism in the east = opportunity for holiness and showcase of graces

I love the east. There’s a lot that’s happened to it and through it. A lot of ugliness, some of which it perpetuated. This isn’t about who is holier. Next we’ll be counting who has more declared saints to prove papal infallibility right or wrong.

Well…I love the East too. And I am usually here debating against various aspects of the Latin Church. But…I do not think that protestanism is proof that the West is broken. And as far as opportunity for holiness and showcase of graces…there have been many martyrs East and West throughout Church history. And today, many Christians are still being martyred…especially in Islamic countries…the Chaldeans in Iraq…the Copts in Egypt…etc.

Peace and prayers to you and yours.