www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Help with infallibility issue

I am a Roman Catholic, i.e. not Eastern, and have recently found myself in a bit of a crisis, and am hopeful that the posters here may be able to help me to resolve this in some way. I post it here for two reasons. First is that I have never found another forum which has the level of integrity, decency and respect that the posters here show for one another. Secondly, I believe that the Eastern perspective here will be very helpful in this situation. On a slightly lower level is the feeling that if I posted this on a Roman forum the knee jerk respons that I am a heretic might make it difficult to consider the situation fully.

My difficulty is with the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Now, I want to say that am not a dissenter, in some general way, and have never had any trouble with teachings of Mother Church as I have understood them in the past. In addition I have no dispute with the doubts concerning the Church or her infallibility itself. I consider myself a good Catholic,a nd most would say that I am a bit of a traditional guy. However, in a recent conversation with my wife on this topic I suddenly realised that I could not reconcile some things and it has troubled me since.

Now, as I understand it, the Church claims to never define new doctrine, but only to clarify the understanding and define officially that which has always been believed. So, for instance, as I understand it, the definition of Mary as Theotokos by a council was in response to Nestorianism, but had been the continuous faith of the Church even before then. However, since there had never arisen any doubt about this it had never been discussed in a council before. This has always made perfect sense to me.

But, with this in mind, how am I to understand my own church's definition of Papal infallibility? As a Roman Catholic I feel bound by this, and in the past never thought of questioning it. However, it seems that historically there is no support for this particular definition, but rather great cause of doubt. At the time of Vatican I I am aware of no real attacks in the public sense on the role of Peter, and so cannot see what supposedly provoked this clarification. Further, there had been repeated schisms and separations in the past millenium which would have seemed opportune times to remind the faitful of it if it had been the historic faith of the Church. When the East and West separated for instance. If this had been in the faith then, I find myself asking, why was it never mentioned? Seems germaine to me, and if it were around it was pretty sloppy to leave it off the table. What about the Reformation? Where was this declaration then? It seems to me that it would be like defining that Mary was the Mother of God at Trent, but then claiming that it was also believed at the time of Nestorius. Who would believe that? If that were so the obvious retort would be "Why didn't they say something back then?" Right now, I find myself saying that about the Papal infallibility doctrine.

I am hopeful that the different perspective on things Roman held here, along with the generally impressive level of intelligence and learning here in these things, will help me to come to grips with my trouble in some way. I understand that this may not appear to be a post revolving around things Eastern, and for that I apologise, but in the end it is the Eastern position here which causes me to ask my question at this particular forum. Does anyone here have any advice or understanding of where I am which can help me resolve this one way or the other? If so, I very much appreciate the help.

God bless,

Patrick

Hi Patricivs, and welcome.


Makes sense to me as well.


I think you need to review your history. Vatican I came at a time when temporal powers in what used to be the Catholic West were generally failing to recognize the Pope's leadership, when modern science and technology casted doubt on everything ever taught by the Church, and that implied virtually everything, and if the Church taught error in astrophysics, how reliable were the Church teachings in medicine, literature, faith, politics, economics, morals, etc?

In that regard, Vatican I makes perfect sense for a Church needing to discover and define her teaching scope and authority.

Also, you might want to check:

Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church

by Stephen K. Ray.

Mr. Ray is an Ex-Protestant converted to Catholicism and he makes a rather convincing agrument in favor of Papal authority, especially in the first centuries of the Church both in the East and the West.

Part of his argument is precisely the lack of formal discussion of the issue, even when there are a few instances of clear excersise of Papal authority pretty much in the lines of the Vatican I definitions. Aplying the same logic you applied to the title of Theotokos, this lack of debate over Papal authority might imply that there were no relevant oposition to the office of the Pope at least until much later down the road.

I often find testimonies from converts very enlightening, because they see the Church and her teachings from a perspective that us craddle-folk usually do not have.


I think the answer is Church politics. Since the separation from the East has never been viewed beyond a schism (i.e. the Catholic Church has never accused the Eastern Orthodox Churches of heresy), and since the doctrine was not really defined until much later than the schism was consumated, escalating the discussion to a dogmatic level would only have made things worse.


Nowhere. It was defined much later. One thing is that this was the faith of the Church since the Apostles and another thing entirely is that the doctrine was well defined.

There were many heresies against the Trinity before Arius, but the Symbol of Nicea could not be used against them because it did not exist at the time. Still, we believe that the doctrine of the Trinity, although without formal definition, was in the Deposit of the Faith from day one.


Because nobody explicitly denied the authority of the Pope. Even the sad events of 1054 were not a split between Churches, but rather a clumsy brawl between clergymen with very little understanding of each other.

The bull of excommunication from Cardinal Humbertus to Patriarch Michael Cerularius is one of the most stupid documents I've ever read. If Patriarch Cerularius was caught in a lighter mood, he might have responding with laughter to the silly Roman, instead of answering with a not much brighter excommunication from his own.

I guess the real question here is not how do the other members of this forum understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

I think the real question what does this doctrine mean to you. Do you see it as a gift from God or as a megalomaniac claim? Is it something that assures you of your faith or something that gets in the way of "progress"?

But Pat, these are questions nobody else can answer for you.

Best wishes.

Shalom,
Memo.

"But, with this in mind, how am I to understand my own church's definition of Papal infallibility? As a Roman Catholic I feel bound by this, and in the past never thought of questioning it. However, it seems that historically there is no support for this particular definition, but rather great cause of doubt. At the time of Vatican I I am aware of no real attacks in the public sense on the role of Peter, and so cannot see what supposedly provoked this clarification." -patricivs

Dear Patricivs,

Wow, that's a big statement. I can sympathize with what you are feeling. But I have to say there are good reasons (even historically) for believing in what the Catholic Church teaches. Steve Ray's book, which Memo mentioned, is an excellent start to understanding this if you want to.

The only thing I would add is that your own Church insists that a man must follow his conscience. Yet it adds that a person has an obligation to form that conscience with the truth. I sense from what you have wrote that this is what you are desirous of doing. So, continue on your search for truth and understanding and know that far from your Church condemning you for doing this, rather it encourages, nay demands that you must do this.

Read, study, pray and TRUST that the Holy Spirit will guide you if you allow Him.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

I find it curious that infallibility is defined in a negative sense-a particular teaching has no possibility of error- as opposed to being defined postively-a particular teaching is true. Is this a question of semantics or is there a specific reason for infallibility to be defined negatively?

Memo mentions the socio-political situation during which Vatican I was held. Some would say that with the loss of the Papal States, the pope was trying to hold on to some vestige of temporal authority. Don't forget that the pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, was also the pope who defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which didn't go over to well with the East. In confirming Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus, Pius IX confirms his own earlier controversial (from an Eastern perspective) definition as infallible.

John

[ 09-11-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]

Dear Patricivs,

I believe it is everybody's duty to learn what he believes. I really admire the works of Catholic converts because they have a more deeper understanding with the teachings of the Church. I, for one, happened to doubt about the Catholic faith but by reading the writings of the Church Fathers and early Church history, it confirmed me to the Faith. It also gave me a high regards to our fellow Byzantine Catholics (Is there any Byzantines willing to plant an eparchy in the Philippines so that I can change rite?). I believe the schism between the East and the West is not due to dogma but rather due to Church politics. The dogma of Papal Infallibility is a gift or charism of the Church given by the Holy Spirit thru Peter. It is a testimony that the Church will not err in regarding teachings about dogmas and morality ONLY. (I'll expound on my next post) The dogma of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were proclaimed as infallible doctrines. I don't know if the Orthodox Church accepts the dogma of the Assumption or Dormition though this doctrine came from the East and is evident through the writings of St. Germanus of Constantinople. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not accepted in the Orthodox Church not in so much they do not love Mary, the Theotokos, but I believe because of their hostility to Rome. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception but rather it was the Franciscan Jon Duns Scotus who explained it that gave way to the definition of the doctrine. I'll explain this on my next post. Butin the mean time, try to study the writings of the Church Fathers. They can help you in understanding the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
ruel/tocarm

I agree with this. However, despite the fact something was part of the deposit of faith it could be extraordinarily ill-understood and ill-defined at the beginning. An excellent example is the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Another is understanding how Jesus was God and man at the same time. It was surprising to me to learn just how badly understood or defined (even by non-heretics) these were in the 1st century.

As an Orthodox christian I am not as comfortable with "development of doctrine" as the West is. However, I am forced to admit that history records the above to be true. Later councils didn't just confirm formulas about the Holy Spirit and Jesus' natures that were believed by ALL. They did a lot of shaping of some VERY crude and rudimentary forms. I DO hold the truth was there from the beginning but sometimes the final doctrine is much more refined than we see it in the early church.

Blessings.

Eric

PS: Although I think the above is a good explanation, I at the moment do not happen to believe in Papal Infallibility. But then I'm Orthodox.

Dear Friends,

Ultimately, Catholics hold that papal infallibility has more to do with the Church than with the person of the Petrine Minister.

We know that the Spirit guards the Church against error and protects it from attacks on its faith and unity.

Indefectibility or infallibility is something that is also shared by all the bishops and even by the people.

There have been cases when laity have revolted against their bishops in defence of orthodoxy. Later, church authorities have exonerated them and condemned the bishops.

The office of the pope can be restructured in future and reformed, to be sure, to better define the conditions under which any pronouncement can be deemed to be an affirmation of the faith of the entire Church.

One seminarian I've come across is writing a paper on his view that papal infallibility should only be seen in the context of the pope ratifying the decisions of a future ecumenical council, however one defines that.

When Pius XII pronounced the doctrine of the Assumption, he actually sent out a questionnaire to the world's Catholic bishops and only then did he proceed when the overwhelming majority answered in the affirmative.

In effect, he was acting like the president of a Council, even though one was not convoked with the actual physical presence of the bishops.

Alex

Ultimately, Catholics hold that papal infallibility has more to do with the Church than with the person of the Petrine Minister.

Dear Alex,

But the Orthodox don't grant personal infallibility to one bishop, as the Catholic Church does, and yet they have kept without error, even while separated from Rome. In essence, the Church was and is infallible. Why does this ecclesial infallibility require a personal infallibility vested in the office of the Pope, if the whole Church has it? It seems to equate the Church and the Pope.

But this disagrees with Vatican I which says that if the Pope teaches something as binding on all to be believed then they must believe it. It doesn't say anything about a council or opinion poll being necessary prerequisites. Or do I have this wrong? Or are folks here reading into Vatican I what they want to see?

What exactly DO Eastern Catholics officially believe about these issues?

What does Vatican I say?

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PI.HTM

In other words, in the highly extraordinary circumstance that the Pope would address the Church in this manner, we believe that we can be certain, owing to the love of Christ for His church, that he is not getting it wrong. And he cannot be overturned by the next Pope etc. That's it, really.

Confidence in this idea, completey rules out any fear that that might otherwise be associated with the prospect that the "Pope teaches something ... [and we] must believe it."

Why is this teaching authority vested in the Pope? The idea is that owing to his primacy, he is and has been the go-to person in such extraordinary situations:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PI.HTM

djs

Eric,
You are quite right. "Pastor Aeternus" does proclaim that the Roman Pontiff has infallibility even outside of a General Council of the Church, that it is a "charism" peculiar to him. To me, it really distorts the structure of the Church that instead of a Communion of Churches as in Orthodoxy, it solidifies a monarchical structure which is rather alien to the tradition of the Eastern Church.

Dear Friends:

My previous post on this matter may help clarify, and hopefully simplify, our understanding of the Catholic doctrine of "Papal Infallibility":

To Whomever Asked How The Orthodox Have Kept Clear of Heresy,

Well, there bishops have a special charism for teaching the correct Faith, because of their valid priesthood. Also, if they don't believe in the development of doctrine, or are very reluctant to define it in such terms, it would be difficult for the Orthodox to fall into error when they are aiming at keeping what was held in the 1st century church. Additionally, their beliefs are in the liturgies. Same with the SSPX, who are also schismatics, but aren't in heresy. That's the way I see it.

ChristTeen287

Don't lump the Orthodox in with the SSPXers please!!!!

I have heard it said among Orthodox OCA members that they believe that the Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that what we have here is Holy Tradition at work within the Church through God's Grace as made known through the Holy Spirit itself. And given the seperation of east and west, I can see how people could come to disagree over this issue if they stopped viewing Holy Tradition in the same light. Having said that, I believe that, theoretically at least, there still should be no room for disagreement over papal infallibility if one believes that in faith and morals the pope speaks with the Grace of God.

It would be interesting to see/hear an example of how this dogma has been put into practice by the Holy See, and the reactions of the Faithful as well as those in the East. My guess is that people would dispute whether the dogma was really applied to the example as well, meaning just because the dogma was announced, it doesn't necessarily follow that a subsequent doctrine resulted that wasn't already believed by the Faithful. Lots of things can be rules changes that are not irrevocable as opposed to statements of Holy Tradition- celibacy, for example. (I am not trying to start another thread by my last comment. BTW.)