www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papal Infallibility

It is not a "defense", just a matter of getting the facts straight. Your idea of what it is "like saying", presupposes that its incorporation "altered" rather than amplified or supplemented a teaching, and likewise presupposes that the practices is objectively wrong. Too bad.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Yes, I consider the Filioque to be objectively wrong. Its insertion reflects an ignorance of what the original text was actually confessing.

And, yes, I understand -- and accept -- that it could be construed to be fully orthodox. But, ultimately, it says "and the Son" not "et per Filium."

In Christ,
Theophilos

ISTM to me, then, that you have the possibility of choosing a conciliatory perspective or another one. And that you have chosen the other. That's what I meant as too bad.

Dear Alex,

I read the posting in which you said:

"It is as if Catholics who support women priests are acting as if they've never heard of Tradition before, much less accept its authority."

"Such Catholics seem to think they can change almost anything in the Church as long as they work hard to try and convince the Pope that such change is warranted so that he can use his "infallible wand" to effect that change."

"It is wrong for those Catholics to think that way."

"But it is also wrong for Rome to have underscored papal authority to the extent that Catholics get the impression that the Pope has this arbitrary power over and above Tradition."

"Instead, Rome should be pointing to the sources of Tradition and historic ecclesial praxis that have always taught the doctrines that it wishes to underscore with modernizing Catholics."

'Ultimately, if I were a modernist in the Church, I would simply look at what the pope said and say, "O.K., he's an old fogie with not much time left in the Chair, we'll have to work on his successor!" '

"And it's not a question of getting a pope "who'll do as we say."

"It's a question of the authority of Tradition of Scripture, the Seven Ecumenical Councils et al."

"And if Rome, I might add, were really serious about this, then it would also obey the voice of Tradition, return to the Creed without the Filioque and a number of other things that it is still intransigent over - giving the Orthodox East the enduring impression that Rome considers the Papacy to be above Tradition in the final analysis."


Dear Alex,

The cup of Tradition is, of course, always full. The Truth held in the Tradition of the Churches is always complete. The Truth about what is real that is taught by the Church is Tradition; Tradition is the Truth about what is real that is taught by the Church. If I understand correctly, there is one Truth/Tradition.

But the task for each new generation of believers is to make that Truth/Tradition its own in the context of its world. So, it seems to me that the challenge for each generation is to ask, "Is the cup of our understanding of Truth/Tradition half full or half empty?" In other words, is this what Truth/Tradition really says?

If that is true, I have some comments and a question or two. Please bear with me.

First, let me say that I am not questioning what the Church has to say about who should be ordained. That example is simply the one which caused me to question about a larger issue.

In the context of talking about ordination of wormen, I understood you to say that it is wrong for Catholics to carefully examine Truth/Tradition to understand what it means in the light of the world in which they live. I am trying to understand why you say that it is wrong for Catholics to think that way. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Further, I am trying to understand why it is wrong for Catholics to act on the basis of the conclusions arising from examination of Truth/Tradition. Why is it wrong for Catholics to try to ensure that their practices accurately relect what they understand Truth/Tradition to be?

It seems to me that that is what has been done by some Catholics on a number of issues. Clarifying the role of the papacy is one. Clarifying who can be called to priesthood is another.

Other Catholics are upset by their efforts. These
Catholics then interpret what the proponents of change do as some dastardly cabal. They charge that those who propose change, like ordination of women, do so out of a desire to destroy the content of Truth/Tradition.

The proponents of change claim that their behavior is a living out of their baptismal responsibility to examine their Faith and its Truth/Tradition. They claim that they work for the good of the Church.

They claim that the charges made against them are groundless. They charge their critics with creating needless division among believers.

There is a historical process here. The discussion about ordination of women provides a clear example.

Some Catholics have examined the Church's Truth/Tradition about whom God can choose to be ordained for priestly ministry in the Church and have proposed changes in practice. The specific proposal was ordination of women.

It arose from an attempt to know the Truth/Tradition that there are those called by God to ministerial service in the Church. In practice, believing males are ordained by the Apostolic Churches. In Eastern terms, only they can be Axios. Most Apostolic Churches have accepted that as an expression of Truth/Tradition.

During the past 20 - 40 years, some in the Church have explored that Truth/ Tradition in the light of different views of what makes man to man and woman to be woman. That is and was controversial and certainly non traditional.

These proponents of women's ordination claimed to have explored that Truth/Tradition in the light of Scripture. They pointed to the teaching that in Christ there is neither male nor female, etc. They came to question whether the parctice of ordaining only males is a is practice mandated by Tradition or a long-standing traditional practice.

As I noted, this is one issue being discussed in the Church today. There are others. Your comments appear to be applicable to Catholics and their right to engage in the process of examining any given Truth/Tradition.

Apparently the understanding of what is proper practice about ordaining women in Truth/Tradition had not been challenged. The Truth/Tradition had not been discussed and thus made clearer. Apparently no one asked.

It seems to me that one can disagree with proponents of change in practice about how that practice is located on the continuum from truth/tradition to Truth/Tradition. On what basis can anyone make the assertion that Catholics, who do raise the question and suggest change before the teaching is clarified, do not accept the authority of Truth/Tradition.

Why should Catholics not think this way?

Why should they not show that they value the authority of Truth/Tradition by seeking to know more about it and how it applies to practices in the Church in their own time. If the practices seem to run counter to Truth/Tradition, is it not their responsibility to work hard to bring about the changes that will bring the practices into line with Truth/Tradition.

That, it seems to me, is not an act of unfaithfulness. Isn't it a matter of faith seeking understanding? It is certainly a part of our tradition.

Of course, the proponents of change, are not necessarily right. In turn, they are reminded by the Pope of what the Truth/Tradition of the Church is. Hopefully they will accept the Truth/Tradition that the bishops and the Pope, acting in His service role to the Church, make clear is Truth/Tradition.

The process of discernment ends with the clear teaching. (The pope appears to have made his meaning clear on the issue of ordination of women by, among other things, excommunicating some women who sought ordination on a riverboat, if I remember correctly.)

But the historic process leading to their act of questioning or seeking change is not wrong is it?

Didn't the Orthodox faithful do the same at the time of St. Mark of Ephesus in the face of a Counciliar teaching?

Not one Catholic that I know wants to try to make what is Truth/Tradition into what is Un-Truth/Non-Tradition. I do not know any Catholic who believes that the Pope's charism of infallibility is about doing that. We certainly don't believe that he has a magic wand that enables him to do so.

But, of course, you're Catholic and you know that.

So, rather than see those seeking understanding and right practice as a problem, I wonder if they aren't a blessing to the Church. These Christians take Truth/Tradition seriously enough to raise the question. Truth/Tradition will be made clearer through the answers. The Church's teachers are given the opportunity to address the concerns of humans in the world in which they live in terms they understand in the process.

As Catholics we believe that the Spirit will protect the Truth/Tradition that God has shared with us. He has gifted the Church with the charism of infallibility to preserve the Truth. The teaching authority of the Pope and bishops is part of the practice that reflects the Truth/Tradition of the Churches. The People of God who, though not ordained, are baptised into Christ the teacher, have a role in protecting Truth/Tradition, too.

Perhaps those who propose changes in our practices to ensure that they accurately express Truth/Tradition are part of the process. Isn't it possible that the Spirit is using them to do so?

Isn't it also possible that their existence is a sign to the Orthodox that the teaching of our Church sets the Papacy in the context of Tradition?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve


PS I can't imagine the words the Pope is an old fogey leaving the lips of any Catholic I've ever heard. I do know some who do advocate change, as you know.

If they thought that he could change Truth/Tradition, they certainly wouldn't want to get on his bad side and have him wave his infallible wand in their direction.

The Roman usage of the Nicene Creed does not say "et per Filium", but it does say "Filioque" and not "et Filio."

So? Arianism, Gnosticism, etc. should have never arisen; the questions they mean to answer and their belief systems were flawed, but that doesn't mean the early Church was at fault because they arose. Same thing with those who want to see female priests. It's nobody's fault but their own that this all arose.

Once again, I think it's similar to the Arian and Gnostic controversies. Tradition had to be set straight by an ecumenical council; with female priests, Tradition was set straight by the Holy Father.

Logos Teen

Dear Andrew,

You posted in a post to Alex:

"Faithful adherence to Tradition requires a constant and often uncomfortable tension inside of the Church whereby each successive generation assumes and makes its own the faith of their fathers."

"Expecting that faith to remain safe, secure, and unadulterated in some sacred and ancient repository (the Vatican) is not the gospel message."


Dear Andrew,

I hope that neither you nor Alex will object if I add to the discussion.

It appears that we agree on much!

Each generation must work to believe and to understand what it believes. The security and wholeness of faith is not something up for grabs. There is no deposit of Faith in the Vatican. You are right. The Vatican is a nation state.

Yet, we seem, also, to disagree. So I'd like to ask you to allow you to let me tell you what I understand and ask you if you can tell me if what I say here is what you understand too or, if not, where we differ.

It seems that you are implying that it is a given that the Pope who governs the Vatican City-State does not have a real definitive service role which somehow includes the charism of infallibility.

As you know, the Catholic Church teaches that he does. That role is set within the context of the whole Church seen as the Community of Believers.

It is my understanding that it is the Church that holds the Faith and is the guarantor of the wholeness of its teaching. It is the Pope, the Patriarchs, the Bishops, and the clergy, religious and indeed the whole People of God, each in their specific way, making up the whole church who have been entrusted with the charge to go and teach. Infallibility is a charism, most of all, of the whole Church and each part of the Church has a real role to play in the charism of Infallibility.

It seems safe to say that Catholics believe that it is the role of the Pope to strengthen the faith of his brothers. It is in that role that infallibility is understood among us.

The Pope in His exercise of the Charism of Infallibility is carefully circumscribed in Catholic doctrine so that he cannot used it apart from the other parts of the Church. Yet, His infallibility does not arise from any other source in the Church. The Church does not grant this to the Pope. Christ did and the Spirit does. In this sense though, there is a surety provided to the Church by the chief resident of the Vatican.

The Pope has been charged to provide this service to the Church because of his role among the Churches. It cannot be not exercised apart from the rest of the Church.

If I understand it correctly, the college of bishops and the rest of the Church stand ready to work to ensure that the Pope does not teach error. This is one of their roles and it does not arise from the gratuitous gift of the Pope. Each component of the Church is empowered for this work by Baptism, and Confirmation and in a special way for some by Holy Orders. They are a gift from God.

If what I've read on the Forum is correct, and I think that it is from my reading, if a Pope were to try to teach error under the guise of infallibility, he would cease to be Pope. Indeed, there are some members of the Catholic Church who have separated from the Church because, they believe, that has happened.

There are more than one claimant to the Papacy as we discuss here. Many find this fact to be a source of humor. Yet the existence of these vagante popes or sede vacante groups highlight the understanding that the Pope cannot teach error using the charism of Infallibility without losing his role is understood in Catholicism as well as in Orthodoxy. It is part of Catholic thought on the Papacy, as Alex and others have pointed out so skillfully in in numeous posts in other threads.

The gift of the charism of infallibility, including Papal infallibility, which ensures that what we know is what God has said is a gift to us. In some form, we believe, it antedated the great break between East and West. Likewise, we believe that the Papal ministry of infallibility exists today. In some way it will exist after the reunion of the Churches. How is up to God and the Churches to work out.

It seems to me that the discussions on the Petrine Ministry which took place between Catholic and Orthodox theologians in the Vatican are an example of how the Church attempts to make sure that our pratice reflects the Truth/Tradition entrusted to the Church. In fact, I think that our discussions here are part of the process of discernment about what the Truth/Tradition about what the Petrine Ministry was and is and what it will be in our future.

The Guarantor of Infallibility in the Church is, after all, the Spirit. He moves freely where He will and uses whomever He chooses. It is said that He blesses the poor in spirit and the week of the earth. Maybe He is at work among us here helping us to learn what He wants us to know and teach as His Church.

Thanks for hearing me out.


Steve

Now, if you will in your kindness, on what do we agree and on what do we not agree? The invitation is open to all! I am trying to understand.

Thanks

I agree here Alex.

I think this is a failing of the local church and it's bishop. It is the local Bishop's job to educate the faithful.

Here I disagree with you. You wish the Roman Church to de-emphasize papel "Decrees" yet you put the job of educating the faithful on his doorstep. I disagree, as I said above, it is the job of the local church to educate the faithful.

But this is exactly what the one document (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) that was brought up says (see paragraph 4);

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.



David

Dear djs,

Just a couple of points revisited . . .

Roman popes themselves opposed the Filioque, such as Pope John VIII who referred to it as "heretical" in his dealings with Photius.

But the point you raise is that Rome never wished to impose it on other Churches . . .What?!

The union Councils of Lyons and Florence especially INSISTED that the East acquiesce to the Filioque.

We know from the writings of the early Greek Uniats that they were "intoxicated" with their new found doctrine of the Filioque.

If it is as you say, please let us know where Rome has said this in the past. It would be wonderful if this were so!

Ultimately, it is simply a question of leaving out the Filioque in a Creed intended to express the universal Faith of the CHurch.

St Mark of Ephesus himself came to Florence as a pro-unionist but only if Rome agreed to remove the Filioque - he considered it a heresy, but believed God would heal it and didn't require the Latins to abjure it etc.

The Immaculate Conception doctrines was definitely denied by Catholics in the past - and that only came about because of the West's domination by Augustinian thought, especially on the subject of Original Sin (whether or not Augustine promoted what passed as "Augustinian" is a separate issue).

The fact is that the Church universal from the earliest centuries observed the Feast of the Conception of St Anne.

That can ONLY mean that the Mother of God, who is celebrated on that day, was conceived in holiness.

Alex

Dear Steve,

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be examining Tradition etc.

I'm simply raising the point that there are aspects to Tradition that are simply not open to debate as they are "nailed down" tightly.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils and the teachings of the Church aren't about picking and choosing doctrines.

They are about confessing what the Church of Christ believes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I'm suggesting that in the Latin Church the emphasis on Papal infallibility has lead, in some circles, to the view that a Pope can pronounce on anything and change anything by virtue of his power.

Catholics who want women priests etc. in contravention of the Canons of the Church seem to feel the Pope can cancel these.

Rome has had a history of overturning canons as well. Popes have unilaterally changed canons established by Ecumenical Councils - canons that can only be altered by another Council.

Does the Pope have a universal teaching authority? Of course!

But the pope is not all that there is to such authority. He is only the servant and defender of Tradition.

And, frankly, the pope's statement on women priests makes it sound as if the pope himself has decided right now that women are not to be priests.

And that is clearly nonsense - it further promotes the impression that all doctrine hinges on the Pope etc.

The struggle between papacy and conciliarity is an old one.

Before unity between East and West is achieved, the two must be brought together in a harmony that existed in the early Church.

That is my only point. It doesn't apply to everything the popes do - only to an historic papal attitude that needs to be changed.

Alex

"That can ONLY mean that the Mother of God, who is celebrated on that day, was conceived in holiness."

But was she born with the original sin that is commom to all of us and part of the fallen humanity that cries out for restoration, redemption and transformation through the Godman/Theanthropos who she bore?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear David,

I'm saying that the Pope must constantly remind the faithful that we are all, including him, under obedience to the Tradition of the Church in the first instance.

Catholics can sometimes seem to think that the Pope is the originator of all newly defined (as opposed to "new") doctrines.

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

I don't understand. Are you saying that "Filioque" is somehow different from "Et Filio?"

The former is the proper grammatical Latin for "and from the Son."

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Yes, She was!

But "Original Sin" in Orthodoxy and the Cappadocian Fathers does not relate to the inheritance of the personal sin of Adam, as you know better than I.

John the Baptist, whose Conception we also liturgically celebrate, was another person who was sanctified by the Spirit from the womb of his mother.

These two were prepared for their exalted role in the Incarnation of God the Word, OLGS Jesus Christ.

The liturgical prayers also indicate the Mother of God felt no pain in giving birth to Christ - although she of course felt great pain at the sight of Him on the Cross.

The effects of Original Sin were greatly mitigated in Her and John the Baptist as a result of the gift of the sanctification of the Holy Spirit of them both.

Alex

"The effects of Original Sin were greatly mitigated in Her and John the Baptist as a result of the gift of the sanctification of the Holy Spirit of them both."

Exactly Alex - well said. Mitigated is a good word and expresses the nature of the operation of the Holy Spirit very well indeed.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Coming from you, that truly IS a compliment!

Thank you!

Alex