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

Dear Alex,

You commented: "[Rome] had no warrant to unilaterally bring in the Filioque in a creed"

I replied:
"But it didn't. It actually acquiesced to a practice that had developed in the rest of the West, and has not suggested the adoption of this practice outside the West, nor has it suggested that this form is original, universal creed."

I agree that "suggested its adoption", is too broad. My point is that incorporation of the filioque in "the Creed" has not be a requirement for restoration of unity. Certainly not at Brest - notwithstanding the intoxicated behavior of certain Greek Catholics! If I am wrong about this please show me the texts that indicate otherwise.

Now as far as "acquiescence" goes, I think that that was and still is an issue. As Fr. Thomas has pointed out, simply removing is insufficient if there is the lingereing idea that a heresy is being subscribed to. Thus it has been and, AFAIK, continues to be important to "acquiesce" to the idea that its meaning as it has been used in the West is not heretical.

In addition, I am a little more solicitous than you about its removal in the West. First, I am reluctant to make suggestions to other particular churches about how their tradtions should be altered. In Spain, for probably as long as there has been a Creed in the liturgy, it has been recited with the Filioque. After over 1.5 millenia, I am reluctant, especially as a member of another particuilar church, to tell them: do this! And I think if someone from Spain would tell us how to do our traditions, we would not respond positively. (Come to think of it, I think I seen this happen!)

Moreover, any idea that the Rome should take unilateral, universal, non-conciliar action on this matter gets things a little backwards, don't you think!

So I have a laissez-faire attitude on this issue, and think that it is one that provides an oppotunity for charity to each other, and humilty about our efforts to comprehend the immanent nature of the incomprehensible.


But the Immaculate Conception, is denied by many within Eastern Orthodoxy presently, notwithstanding the tradition from the earliest centuries. And clearly this has nothing to do with Augustianian thought.

Alex,
I would have to say that, ultimately, we agree. :p

I think it would be easier to come to this realization if we were talking in person.... Sometimes things get a bit out of hand on the 'net.

That being said, I would remove your emphasis on the Holy Father and say it this way, the local Bishop must constantly remind the faithful that we are all, including him, under obedience to the Tradition of the Church in the first instance.


David

Well said David! This is very important since, from an Orthodox perspective, the fullness of the Church subsists in him and the faithful of his flock.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Isn't David wonderful?

He is coming along rather nicely . . .

And he's so Eastern too!

Alex

Dear djs,

Well, you are raising very fascinating perspectives here!

Certainly, Orthodox theologians in ecumenical meetings with RC's do indeed take the Filioque seriously as a point of discussion and, as far as I know, no one has dismissed it.

No one is even suggesting that the Western Churches discard their "Filioque theology" - it is something that can be shown to be perfectly Orthodox but more discussion and study are needed before this can be held universally.

But the removal of the Filioque to reflect the original Creed - I think that is something that all Churches, including Protestant, can and should subscribe to.

Since it is a universal Creed, it has nothing to do with the tampering of local traditions anywhere.

It is a universal statement of belief that is held normatively by all the Churches.

The Orthodox deny the RC definition of the Immaculate Conception insofar as it reflects Augustinian theology on Original Sin i.e. that the Mother of God was preserved "free from the stain of Original Sin."

The IC was designed to prevent anyone from saying the Mother of God the Word Incarnate was ever under the sway of evil in having "contracted the sin of Adam."

In Orthodoxy, Original Sin has to do with the effects of the sin of Adam that we inherit - we don't inherit his sin, a sin committed by someone else other than ourselves.

And the sanctification of the Mother of God mitigated those effects in her.

The West, beginning with England, observed the feast of the "Conception of St Anne" - the Anglican Church still does too.

That already is a proclamation of the sanctification of the Mother of God, that she is a Saint from the moment of her Conception.

Alex

Dear Alex,

I am glad you find my perspectives fascinating.

Your comments on the IC are interesting. If you haven't read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
, please do; you will like it especially as it puts the controversy within the Anglo-Saxon/Franko-Norman sphere:

As to the issue of Orthodox disputations:
My point is that it's easy to find in contemporary Orthodoxy the idea that the All-Holiness of the Theotokos does not reach back conception, but rather originates at: birth; or her presentation in the temple; or the annunciation; or pentecost.

Dear Steve,

You have circumscribed the infallibility of the Pope of Rome to the point whereby we could call any bishop of the Catholic Church "infallible" by your definition. Aren't you, in effect, saying that he's infallible unless he is wrong?

Isn't this what we have always said of our bishops and our ecumenical councils?

"They are correct unless they are not correct." Isn't this how we have (and correctly so) declared a previous council void and in error or deposed a pope or bishop?

I really do mean to reemphasize that preservation of the faith unadulterated may require us to witness to it and die for it. Maximos the Confessor, that tough old bird, showed us the way.

I'm being curt today because of a lack of time, not because I don't want to answer you in a more comprehensive manner. Please accept my apology.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear djs,

Yes, thank you!

The Franko-Norman theologs invading Britain brought with them perspectives that were truly foreign to British Christians until that time.

England adopted the Feast of the Conception of St Anne from the East via its Archbishop of Canterbury, St Theodore of Tarsus, himself a Greek.

For years afterwards, the Augustinian-minded theologians understood this feast as an "Immaculate Conception" in waiting. It was, therefore, "only" the Conception of St Anne, an event in the life of Mary's mother, and not yet the "Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God," awaiting formal definition.

This allowed certain Roman theologians, Aquinas included, to reject categorically the IC, but yet celebrate this feast in good conscience.

It is only recently that some Orthodox commentators have tended to be critical of the IC - and this only in terms of its Augustinian context.

In fact, Orthodoxy's view is a dynamic one and Orthodoxy celebrates the sanctification of the Mother of God at a number of points in her life, beginning with her Conception, then at her Annunciation, Pentecost etc.

Just because she is All-Holy, doesn't mean she cannot receive more of the Holy Spirit!

Her holiness is truly awe-inspiring and it will take an eternity to contemplate it!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thanks for your response.

I think that you're right about the problem with some Catholic's understanding of Papal infallibility. The statement came from a Council, Vatican I, that was not able to complete the teaching due to a revolution. So a skewed version was popularized in the education of many Catholics.

The Second Vatican Council worked to develop the teaching. The result is that in some circles there is the misunderstanding that you point out.

I understand your other point, too. As you say, "There are aspects to Tradition that are simply not open to debate as they are 'nailed down' tightly." The point that I'm suggesting is that sometimes what those "nailed down" aspects are is not clear.

At the point where what was taught to be "nailed down" seems not to be as "nailed down" as taught, Catholics should begin to ask appropriate questions and take their findings to the Church. They have a right and the responsibility to do so, as I see it. There are Catholics who want to clarify the infallibility of the Pope because of what they've learned. Supporters of Ordination of women say that this is what they are about also.

I am not sure that it is as easy, as some would make it, to know what is "nailed down". Are all canons of all councils infallibly asserting religious dogma that expresses Tradition? Do all of the words of the Fathers? How much of our accepted "Tradition" simply accepted tradition?
Isn't this what the separations among the Churches is about?

As you point out, The struggle between papacy and conciliarity is an old one. I am not sure that before unity between East and West is achieved that there will be a harmony that is supposted to have existed in the early Church. It seems to me that there is a dynamic tension that existed. The history of the Church is full of honest disagreement and misunderstanding. Why would our present or our future be without the tension and constant reworking?

The role of the Papacy and the role of the college of Bishops are both central to the Church. So is the role of the rest of the faithful whose acceptance of their teaching is essential so that we know that what we claim is Tradition is indeed Tradition.

It seems to me that the questioning will continue and increase as we learn more about Scripture and theology and sociology among other things. The tension, too, will increase as those who claim to glimpse a clearer understanding of Tradition try to share it with those who understand it to be irreformably "nailed down".

In this situation, I don't see the questioners as picking and choosing doctrines. Even when we disagree with them, it helps, I think, for us to see each other as fellow believers working to build the beauty of God's house.

We're all trying to be faithful to Tradition.

Thanks again.

Steve

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand busy schedules. A curt answer is better than none!

I am not sure what I said that led to your conclusion. There is a clear definition of the role of the Pope and the bishops and the laity in exercising the charism of infallibility in the Church. There is also a real distinction between these roles.

Isn't it interesting that we same to be saying the same thing?

The difference is that it is not when the Pope says something wrong that he is no longer Pope. It is when he, in his role as the affirmer of the faith of his brothers and sisters, attempts to teach that untruth is Truth. If he tried to teach that Jesus is not God, for example, he would be in error. He ceases to be the affirmer of their faith.

I know that you are busy. Thanks again for your comments.

Thanks,

Steve

Dear Steve,

I have to ask the same as Andrew did:
I just don't see how this makes sense. Well, no, that's not true; it makes perfect sense, which is why it doesn't. Everyone is infallible unless they are wrong. Papal Infallibility would seem to have no use whatsoever if the Pope were only infallible sometimes. Therefore, I don't see how the Pope could ever even theoretically be incorrect while instructing the whole Church, confirming his brethren, etc (basically making an ex cathedra statement).

If he were incorrect while making an ex cathedra statement, the whole argument for Papal Infallibility would be dismantled, because of the simple fact that it had been proven to be wrong.

So, are you saying that it's possible for the Pope to make an ex cathedra statement and be wrong? If so, I don't understand this. If I am simply misunderstanding you (which I am apt to do sometimes), then I apologize.

Thanks,
Logos Teen

Dear Steve,

Ultimately, my point is what our friend and now my mentor DavidB said above.

The role of the bishop, including the bishop of Rome, is to point to Tradition as the source and authority of doctrine. He is its guardian and interpreter, to be sure. But his primary task is to point to it in the first instance.

I don't know which aspects of Tradition are open to question - I'll leave that to you and the Church

Rome's response to those who promote modernist perspectives is not to get into a pissing (again the letter "P" ) match with them regarding "Because I say so."

Rather it should be "Because the continuing Tradition of the Church says so."

That is not to say that His Holiness doesn't refer to Tradition .

Ultimately, I think a lot of modernist nonsense in the Church can be more effectively gotten rid of by avoiding political struggles with Rome and putting the onus on the modernists to show how Tradition supports or doesn't support their vision of the Church.

Thank you too!

Alex

I like it, Logos Teen. You should consider seminary someday.

The whole discussion goes back to the difference between "parathiki" and "paradosis."

The apostles put down the parathiki, which is the foundation. We could ALMOST go to the point of saying that "parathiki" and "Tradition" are, practically speaking, synonyms.

Paradosis is what the bishops were "handed down" by the apostles. Their role, with our input and insight, is simply making sure that it (Tradition/parathiki) gets PROPERLY handed down to the next generation. Sometimes this involves issuing a new definition of the Tradition in order to save the flock from being misled: (Arianism, iconoclasm, assisted suicide, genetic engineering, and other theological and sociological challenges to the faith).

Figure the devil's dream is that one generation will drop it (the Tradition) and the next will be aimless and lost.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Teen Logo,

Well, I think that Steve has made a profound contribution here that is worth pondering.

"The pope is infallible unless he's wrong."

The fact is that a pope can indeed make a heretical statement - at which point he would no longer be pope, no Catholic would owe him allegiance and he would have to be dethroned.

St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine actually laid down some possibilities for this in his time.

What popes have said has been contradicted with what their successors did. Pope Pius XII said it was wrong for Catholics to want to change the liturgy etc.

And irrespective of whether Pope Honorius was a formal heretic or not, the fact is that he was condemned as such by his successors until the 12th century.

And Pope Liberius was the first pope not to be entered into the calendar of the Saints of Rome for an impropriety that was not altogether his fault (he is a full saint in the East and is venerated locally in the West).

In short, by leaving open the possibility that a pope could pronounce heresy - thereby signing his own end as pope - the Roman Church sets Tradition and the Papacy above the individual occupying the See of Rome itself.

Alex

Dear Alex

Just to clarify, Catholic doctrine doesn't hold that we incur a sin commited by someone else. We suffert the STAIN of Orginal Sin, which is not the same as the sin itself, which is wholly Adam's.

-Brendan