Question: Aren't infallible teachings infallible for all Catholics?

[Bezant]

Someone else asked this question, and I’m perplexed by it.

Essentially the Eastern and Western understanding of ‘original sin’ sounds the same to me, and our belief in the Pope and his infallibility makes any semantic differences neglible. No?

From Eastern Catholic Churches – Deacon Edward Faulk, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 2007 pg 72-73:

Deacon Edward Faulk has faculties to perform his diaconal service in both the Melkite (Eastern) and the Latin (Roman) Catholic Churches .

“For the Eastern Catholic, original sin is seen not in terms of stain and guilt, but the condition of the world into which we are born……“Since the Eastern understanding of original sin is different from that of the West, the basic premise of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense to the Orthodox East, since we are all born without original sin…”

Question: Aren’t infallible teachings infallible for all Catholics?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, its infallible for all Catholics. The issue here is understanding the core of the doctrine. The basic doctrine behind every teaching is universal, although the explanation may become very specific to a Church or Rite. You will find that in countless threads on this forum, Original Sin, Conception of the Theotokos, etc., where the common beliefs are reconcilled. Its not that Eastern Catholics will not accept teaching like the Immaculate Conception, its just that its not accepted in the same form it is taught in the Roman Church. But also its not totally rejected, we all believe in the same thing that from conception, Mary was special and have been blessed by God more than any human.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Aren’t infallible teachings infallible for all Catholics?

They are, except when they’re not.

 

[Vico]

…
Question: Aren’t infallible teachings infallible for all Catholics?

Catechism of the Catholic Church
**891 **“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.
419 DV 10 # 2.
420 LG 25 # 2.
421 Cf. LG 25.
LG = Lumen Gentium (1964)
DV = Dei Verbum (1965)
*DS = *Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (1965)

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

 

[Hesychios]

…

“For the Eastern Catholic, original sin is seen not in terms of stain and guilt, but the condition of the world into which we are born……“Since the Eastern understanding of original sin is different from that of the West, the basic premise of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense to the Orthodox East, since we are all born without original sin…”

Question: Aren’t infallible teachings infallible for all Catholics?

Bless his heart, he’s trying the best he can …

The trouble is that it is actually hard to describe the Orthodox position on Original Sin using a western point of reference, which the good deacon is attempting to do for his readers. Yet for all that, he is correct about the IC with regard to Orthodox, it does not make much sense.

But Eastern Catholics are not really Orthodox, so it doesn’t really matter.

 

[dvdjs]

Question: Aren’t infallible teachings infallible for all Catholics?

Infallible teachings are true, otherwise they could not be infallible. And truth is not relative. So infallible teachings infallible for all.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Bless his heart, he’s trying the best he can …

The trouble is that it is actually hard to describe the Orthodox position on Original Sin using a western point of reference, which the good deacon is attempting to do for his readers. Yet for all that, he is correct about the IC with regard to Orthodox, it does not make much sense.

But Eastern Catholics are not really Orthodox, so it doesn’t really matter.

Hey, I RESEMBLE that remark, Hesychios.

And I PERSONALLY Feel since Orthodox are NOT Catholics (Eastern or otherwise) and the Question was addressed mainly at other ECs and WCs, YOUR opinion on this really does not matter, does it?

(That was a Joke, BTW, Hesychios. Don’t hurt me. I actually love you, Man. You are one of my Favorite Posters.)

 

[JohnVIII]

Catechism of the Catholic Church
**891 **"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren…

The part I like is the “teacher of all the faithful”. So in the case where the Pope is speaking only to Roman Catholics then he is not speaking to ALL the faithful. Roman Catholics are a sub-set of all the faithful. So if he is not speaking to the faithful in the East as well as the West then he speaks only as the bishop of Rome and not as St Peter and therefore there’s no promise of infallibility.

So if someone where to say that such-n-such is infallible only to Roman Catholics, but not to Eastern Catholics, what there are really doing is using the term “infallible” incorrectly. Perhaps a better word to use would be unreformable.

 

[mardukm]

The part I like is the “teacher of all the faithful”. So in the case where the Pope is speaking only to Roman Catholics then he is not speaking to ALL the faithful. Roman Catholics are a sub-set of all the faithful. So if he is not speaking to the faithful in the East as well as the West then he speaks only as the bishop of Rome and not as St Peter and therefore there’s no promise of infallibility.

So if someone where to say that such-n-such is infallible only to Roman Catholics, but not to Eastern Catholics, what there are really doing is using the term “infallible” incorrectly. Perhaps a better word to use would be unreformable.

Good comment.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear Bezant,

I don’t deign to speak for the Deacon, but I suspect that what he intended by what he wrote is this:

“For the Eastern Catholic, original sin is seen not in terms of stain and guilt, but the condition of the world into which we are born……“Since the Eastern understanding of original sin is different from that of the West, the basic premise of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense to the Orthodox East, since we are all born without original sin according to the Western understanding…”

In other words, Eastern Catholics accept the dogma of the IC, but not according to the Latin terminology expressed by the dogma.

I would add that a proper understanding of “stain” and “guilt” as it relates to “Original Sin” according to the Latin magisterial teaching would probably help resolve a lot of the issues, as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[5Loaves]

In other words, Eastern Catholics accept the dogma of the IC, but not according to the Latin terminology expressed by the dogma.

I would add that a proper understanding of “stain” and “guilt” as it relates to “Original Sin” according to the Latin magisterial teaching would probably help resolve a lot of the issues, as well.

As we so often said in my time: “Right on!”.

 

[Hesychios]

…the Question was addressed mainly at other ECs and WCs,

True enough.

YOUR opinion on this really does not matter, does it?

But it’s not just my opinion.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Dear Bezant,

I don’t deign to speak for the Deacon, but I suspect that what he intended by what he wrote is this:

In other words, Eastern Catholics accept the dogma of the IC, but not according to the Latin terminology expressed by the dogma.

I would add that a proper understanding of “stain” and “guilt” as it relates to “Original Sin” according to the Latin magisterial teaching would probably help resolve a lot of the issues, as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

Right.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

True enough.

But it’s not just my opinion.

OK.

 

[Cecilianus]

In answer to the OP, yes.

But whenever the teachings of the Orthodox Faith seem to conflict with those of the Roman Catholic Church, we in the East would like to try to explain them in such a way as to show that they are two different ways of saying the same thing.

And when they are truly irreconciliable, we as Catholics submit to the teaching of the Church (in the person of the Pope) in that regard. Which we always justify with the Greek Fathers, my favorites being St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore Studites, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Methodius.

To be truly Orthodox is to be in communion with Rome. Eastern Catholics are bound by Catholic teaching no less than Western ones, and we can only fully share in the Orthodoxy of the Fathers by doing so.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

In answer to the OP, yes.

But whenever the teachings of the Orthodox Faith seem to conflict with those of the Roman Catholic Church, we in the East would like to try to explain them in such a way as to show that they are two different ways of saying the same thing.

And when they are truly irreconciliable, we as Catholics submit to the teaching of the Church (in the person of the Pope) in that regard. Which we always justify with the Greek Fathers, my favorites being St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore Studites, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Methodius.

To be truly Orthodox is to be in communion with Rome. Eastern Catholics are bound by Catholic teaching no less than Western ones, and we can only fully share in the Orthodoxy of the Fathers by doing so.

Good explanation, Cecilianis.

Unfortunately, I know some “Othodox in Communion with Rome” who only agree with the “In Communion With Rome” Part. In the sense of “Orthodox in everything else.”

Wish there was more uniformity on the issue in certain quarters. But thanks again for the explanation.

 

[Cecilianus]

Wish there was more uniformity on the issue in certain quarters. But thanks again for the explanation.

Perhaps it’s my ultramontane remnants from my Roman days left over seeping through (but I’m in good company - that of Tertullian, St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Maximos the Confessor!), but that’s why it would really help with maybe a Papal encyclical clarifying the permitted range of acceptable opinion on issues where the East and West have traditionally had different formulisms. I like the security of having the Church define doctrine so I’m not left in the chaos of conflicting opinions - it goes with being just a humble Christian (humble referring to my intelligence, not to my ego) rather than a theologian.

 

[Vico]

…it would really help with maybe a Papal encyclical clarifying the permitted range of acceptable opinion on issues where the East and West have traditionally had different formulisms. …

There is no assumption that everyone would be able capable of understanding all dogmas of faith.

Anything that does not oppose the dogmas of faith is acceptable. For the dogmas of faith, we have the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and the 7 early counsels and the latter 14 of the Catholic Church, including all ex cathedra definitions.

I have a list of 251 dogmas of faith, but have not verified them all, and there is no Vatican summary that I know of, although the Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith can answer dubiums on them.

As we saw at the Union of Brest, the approach is one of acceptance, for things outside the tradition of a ritual Church, for example, article 5, Union of Brest (1595/1696): “We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.”

 

[Cecilianus]

There is no assumption that everyone would be able capable of understanding all dogmas of faith.

Anything that does not oppose the dogmas of faith is acceptable. For the dogmas of faith, we have the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and the 7 early counsels and the latter 14 of the Catholic Church, including all ex cathedra definitions.

I have a list of 251 dogmas of faith, but have not verified them all, and there is no Vatican summary that I know of, although the Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith can answer dubiums on them.

As we saw at the Union of Brest, the approach is one of acceptance, for things outside the tradition of a ritual Church, for example, article 5, Union of Brest (1595/1696): “We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.”

Right.

But, eventually, while still holding to this attitude of entrusting ourselves to the Church, theologians are still going to want to hammer out the discrepancies - and most of us here are theologians at heart, as any glance through any thread will show!

 

[JohnVIII]

…some “Othodox in Communion with Rome” who only agree with the “In Communion With Rome” Part. In the sense of “Orthodox in everything else.”…

If I could figure out a way to do it I would only be in communion with the Pope without being in communion with Rome!