Papal Infallibility/Supremacy and Eastern Orthodoxy

[nsper7]

I am sure this topic has been broached many times, but it seems like there are some here and around who are very hopeful for a Catholic-Orthodox reunification, but in looking at the issues of Papal Infallibility/Papal Supremacy, I just don’t see how such a reunification can occur. I hate to be a downer, but my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox flat out reject Papal Infallibility and have a different interpretation of any concept of Papal Supremacy than the Catholic Church does (my understanding is that the EO would accept giving the Bishop of Rome primacy of honor, but not supremacy or infallibility).

Since the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is itself dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council and, by Catholic doctrine, can never be recanted since it is de fide and the Orthodox are not going to accept such a view, then how can their be reunification?

 

[Nine_Two]

While we don’t accept Papal Infallibility or Papal Supremacy, I’ve heard quite a number of Catholics, including Bishops and Popes, put it in terms that I believe are quite agreeable, or very close to agreeable.

The problem is hardline Catholics who believe accept those things according to the Post Vat1/Pre Vat2 thinking of the Catholic Church.

 

[nsper7]

While we don’t accept Papal Infallibility or Papal Supremacy, I’ve heard quite a number of Catholics, including Bishops and Popes, put it in terms that I believe are quite agreeable, or very close to agreeable.

Could you elaborate on this please?

The problem is hardline Catholics who believe accept those things according to the Post Vat1/Pre Vat2 thinking of the Catholic Church.

Could you also elaborate on this as well?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother nsper,

Please don’t bother brother NineTwo with such a burdensome question

That’s my job - I mean to answer the question, not to bother brother NineTwo with burdensome questions.

In past posts, I have given numerous quotes from the Fathers of Vatican1, Vatican 2, from Popes, from Canon law that give a proper understanding of the dogmas of papal infallibility and papal primacy. There are extreme views within the Catholic Church on these dogmas, which I, and many others here in the ECF strongly oppose.

I seriously don’t have time right now to look for them and give you links.

For now, to get a theoretical basis for what I’m talking about, do an advanced search on the terms “High Petrine” with the user name “Mardukm” going back one year. Make sure to click on the “posts” option at the bottom of the left hand column.

There are two recent documents produced by the official Committee on Theological Dialogue between the CC and EOC which reflects a High Petrine ecclesiology. I hope someone knows what I’m talking about and can give you the links (one of them is known as the Ravenna document), but I’ll let you know right now that the promising developments include a joint admission that:

1. The primacy of the bishop of Rome as practiced in the early Church implies more than mere honor, but actual authority.
2. The necessity of the approval of the Bishop of Rome for the validity of an Ecumencal Council
3. Primacy must always be taken in the context of collegiality or synodality.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Could you elaborate on this please?

If the Catholics accepted that the Pope only had Supremacy over the West (being Europe, North America would be a different question which is much more complex because no church has traditional juristiction) and that otherwise the relations between the Churches would be the same as it was during the first millennium - equals, this particular question would be solved. The Orthodox would be happy to let the Pope run his Church as he likes and want the same agreement from Rome (save for actual heresy). The position of the Pope isn’t far from this, although it isn’t exactly that, I don’t think.

Could you also elaborate on this as well?

I’ve run into a few Catholics on these forums who want the Orthodox to be good Latin Catholics with a funny Mass, which was formerly how Eastern Catholics were treated and is something we Orthodox will never accept.

 

[diggerdomer]

I am sure this topic has been broached many times, but it seems like there are some here and around who are very hopeful for a Catholic-Orthodox reunification, but in looking at the issues of Papal Infallibility/Papal Supremacy, I just don’t see how such a reunification can occur. I hate to be a downer, but my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox flat out reject Papal Infallibility and have a different interpretation of any concept of Papal Supremacy than the Catholic Church does (my understanding is that the EO would accept giving the Bishop of Rome primacy of honor, but not supremacy or infallibility).

Since the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is itself dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council and, by Catholic doctrine, can never be recanted since it is de fide and the Orthodox are not going to accept such a view, then how can their be reunification?

If people would take John Paul II’s encyclical “Ut Unum Sint” to heart I think reconciliation would happen relatively easily.

 

[Mickey]

Since the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is itself dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council and, by Catholic doctrine, can never be recanted since it is de fide and the Orthodox are not going to accept such a view, then how can their be reunification?

That is the meat of the issue. I do not see reunion.

 

[jam070406]

That is the meat of the issue. I do not see reunion.

This is also the issue that boggles me.

 

[dcointin]

Mardukm:

I’ve read several of your threads about the papacy, and find them much more acceptable as an Orthodox Christian than I do the ‘absolutist’ view. It seems to me that many Catholics view the papacy as a dictatorship, and have completely lost the historic role of the college of bishops in the government of the church. I would like to call attention to the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which treat the papacy only in the episcopal college and the greater Church, as in this example:

"Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”

Peter shared the same office of apostles as the other apostles, and did not wield absolute authority over them. He was the foremost, the spokesman, and the head, but not the tyrant.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Mardukm:

I’ve read several of your threads about the papacy, and find them much more acceptable as an Orthodox Christian than I do the ‘absolutist’ view. It seems to me that many Catholics view the papacy as a dictatorship, and have completely lost the historic role of the college of bishops in the government of the church. I would like to call attention to the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which treat the papacy only in the episcopal college and the greater Church, as in this example:

"Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”

Peter shared the same office of apostles as the other apostles, and did not wield absolute authority over them. He was the foremost, the spokesman, and the head, but not the tyrant.

I agree. However, I feel that in Orthodoxy, the protos has been reduced to a mere titular head, and not one in actuality.

 

[Monica4316]

Mardukm:

I’ve read several of your threads about the papacy, and find them much more acceptable as an Orthodox Christian than I do the ‘absolutist’ view. It seems to me that many Catholics view the papacy as a dictatorship, and have completely lost the historic role of the college of bishops in the government of the church. I would like to call attention to the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which treat the papacy only in the episcopal college and the greater Church, as in this example:

"Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”

Peter shared the same office of apostles as the other apostles, and did not wield absolute authority over them. He was the foremost, the spokesman, and the head, but not the tyrant.

I think many Catholics view the Papacy in this way as well. It’s not a ‘dictatorship’, it’s primarily there for unity and to uphold the infallibility of the Church.

The Pope doesn’t have the “absolute authority” you’re speaking of, because he always works together with the other bishops, and he can’t simply define dogmas because he wants to, they must be in accordance with Tradition. That’s how Pope Benedict described his role: a servant of Tradition.

 

[dcointin]

I agree. However, I feel that in Orthodoxy, the protos has been reduced to a mere titular head, and not one in actuality.

I agree that’s too often the case. In the time of the Byzantine Empire, the Patriarch of Constantinople acted as ‘first bishop’ for the Eastern Orthodox, but since its fall they’ve been left without any real leadership. That’s one significant reason we’re unable to create Orthodox unity in North America - one church is autocephalus, another is autonomous, another is neither, and the mother churches in Syria, etc. refuse to take action that would weaken their position. I understand the need for a ‘visible head of unity’ for practical administration, but I refuse to see the answer as the absolute dictatorship of any single bishop. Why can’t we have a balance between the two extremes?

 

[nsper7]

Even as a Catholic, I have to admit that the Pope could be a dictator if he so chose. Lately, say in the Post-Renaissance/Post-Trent Era, we have had Pope who were of sound mind, good morals and humble hearts, but my understanding is that if you had a Pope elected who turned out to be lacking in sanity, morals or humility, they could wreck havoc and there would be no Canonical way to stop them.

EDIT: And if you don’t God would allow something like this, just read up on Alexander VI.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I agree that’s too often the case. In the time of the Byzantine Empire, the Patriarch of Constantinople acted as ‘first bishop’ for the Eastern Orthodox, but since its fall they’ve been left without any real leadership. That’s one significant reason we’re unable to create Orthodox unity in North America - one church is autocephalus, another is autonomous, another is neither, and the mother churches in Syria, etc. refuse to take action that would weaken their position. I understand the need for a ‘visible head of unity’ for practical administration, but I refuse to see the answer as the absolute dictatorship of any single bishop. Why can’t we have a balance between the two extremes?

I agree. The dictatorship of one bishop is wrong. No bishop is the universal bishop - as His Holiness Pope St. Gregory explained to an upstart Patriarch from the East. All bishops have the dignity and honor of preserving the church in the absence of Christ and the Apostles. Western Ultramontanism is not the answer, however. We agree on that point.

 

[mardukm]

Even as a Catholic, I have to admit that the Pope could be a dictator if he so chose. Lately, say in the Post-Renaissance/Post-Trent Era, we have had Pope who were of sound mind, good morals and humble hearts, but my understanding is that if you had a Pope elected who turned out to be lacking in sanity, morals or humility, they could wreck havoc and there would be no Canonical way to stop them.

EDIT: And if you don’t God would allow something like this, just read up on Alexander VI.

It’s funny that you bring up the issue of Alexander VI. As I’ve stated so many times before, one really needs to read up on the “behind-the-scenes” events at Vatican 1 in order to get a true appreciation and understanding of the Vatican 1 Decrees.

I said it’s funny that you bring up Alexander VI because, ironically, the Fathers of V1 made their Decrees with the intention of opposing just that kind of papal excess that has occurred in the past. Probably the great majority of people think V1 was all about the Majoriy Party vs. the Minority Party. Not a lot of people know that within the Majority Party itself, there was a battle going on between the Absolutist Petrine advocates and the High Petrine advocates. The High Petrine advocates won out in the end, but it was only a partial victory, because even though the High Petrine Advocates in the Majority and Minority Parties were able to insert certain mitigating statements to thte Decrees as a whole, the dogmas themselves (as reflected in the Canons) were easily liable to be misinterpreted in an Absolutist Petrine sense. In fact, if one debates advocates of the Absolutist Petrine view, you will find they will almost always refer only to the Canons of V1, and seemingly purposefully neglect the Apostolic Constitution of the Decrees.

Basically, what I’m saying is if you were afraid that the papacy might devolve to the way Pope Alexander VI ran it, don’t look to V1 for any justification of that fear.

Regardless of all that, Alexander VI got away with everything he did, not because nobody could do anything about it, but because nobody really wanted to, His actions don’t impact in any way the principle of papal primacy. The fact is, even though he was a notorious simoniac, Pope Alexander was otherwise fair and just to the people.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

… if you had a Pope elected who turned out to be lacking in sanity, morals or humility, they could wreck havoc and there would be no Canonical way to stop them.

EDIT: And if you don’t God would allow something like this, just read up on Alexander VI.

… or Urban VI.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

… or Urban VI.

Thank you for bringing that up. Pope Urban VI was infamous for his excessive direct intrusion into secular affairs. One of intentions of the dogma of papal infallibility was actually to curb such papal excesses. The Absolutist Petrine party at V1 thought that even the Pope’s decisions in secular affairs were to be regarded as divinely stamped. The Dogma on Papal infallibility ensured and assures that such religious assent is required only in decisions of the Pope on matters of Faith and morals.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Thank you for bringing that up. Pope Urban VI was infamous for his excessive direct intrusion into secular affairs.

Oh.

I wasn’t thinking of that at all.

I was thinking that he was mentally unbalanced.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is the meat of the issue. I do not see reunion.

It can be better interpreted or clarified. As Vatican II did. Plenty of room for reconciliation.

 

[sidbrown]

It can be better interpreted or clarified. As Vatican II did. Plenty of room for reconciliation.

Yes, there is plenty of room for reconciliation between EO and RC, but if neither side will budge from their position, then you are not going to have it.
Let’s see. Its only been one thousand years so far with all this time for reconciliation and promotion of reunion between EO and RC. But it hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps we will be a tiny bit closer one thousand years from now, but if another Balkan war between Croatia and Serbia breaks out, then you can probably forget about reunion for another two thousand years or so.
The way I see it, neither side really wants reunion. They have had one thousand years already to show us differently, but they have kept on their separate paths, with each side refusing to yield anything essential to the other.