www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Moscow Patriarchate says no way for UGC Patriarchate

Me too! I tend to think of the body of doctrine as the body of a person: over the years it grows and matures, but its essence is still the same, and the 70 year old body was once the newborn baby and is still composed of the same fingers, toes, etc. that the baby was. Probably flawed but works for me!

I can see that point if you view dogma/doctrine as never maturing/developing, but didn't Christ want the Church to do more than to simply hand down the Faith in the terms that it was handed? I mean, After the Seventh Ecumenical Council (or in your case Third) Catholicism/Orthodoxy had "dug deeper" into the depths of dogma than at the Council at Jerusalem, but of course it was still Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Sorry, I can tell I'm not explaining my opinion accurately - the words just aren't coming to mind.

I agree with you. I couldn't imagine a Catholicism or any self-respecting religious organization not requiring a unity of belief.

I side with the orthodox on this one, too. No offense to the poster, but I don't think this is at all an orthodox Catholic understanding.

Forgive me ignorance, but I thought that Oriental Orthodoxy was out of communion with Eastern Orthodoxy, of which Russian Orthodoxy is a part. Aren't the OO and the EO as out of communion with each other (a poor phrase, obviously) as EO and Catholicism, or Catholicism and OO? Or does this vary from each OO Church (Armenian, Ethiopian, Egyptian, Indian, etc.)?

Mor, to sum it up, I agree with you on how the Petrine Ministry has been formulated to the present; if it was declared infallible then, by Catholicism's standards, that's what it is. Obviously there is room for reformulation but until that officially occurs this is how we must view the Ministry.

Soli Deo Gloria,
ChristTeen287

Dear Mor,

I encourage you to look at how the Papacy has changed in 2000 years.

I can hold these beliefs because the role of the Papacy is an ever changing one.

How has the role of the Papacy changed since the primitive Church? Wasn't the Pope "First Among Equals" at this time.

How has the Papacy changed since the medival period? Didn't the Pope assume State duties at this time. Didn't the Franks create the Papal State for the Pope at this time. Is it even right for a Patriarch of the West to be head of his own State? Another point to consider in diologue. But we see the changing nature.

We now come to Vatican 1. The Pope is declared infalliable. But Vatican 1 happened precisely as a reaction to the success of the Protestant Reformation and Rationlist "religions" such as Deism and Universalism. Atheism was also popular.

Vatican II the office of Pontiff becomes a working model for her members and Particular Churches .

We are now in the year 2002. I am saying the role of the Papacy will have to change if they do wan't unity with the Orthodox. Do you think the Orthodox Churches would accept the role of the Papacy as it is now defined ? .

What would the role of the Papacy really look like if unity did happen? I am sure it would not look like the one we have now.

I see a diifferent role for the Papacy in a united Church. This is what I am looking at.

Steven

When I thought what I said I thought, I was thinking within a larger framework than simply my communion: I was thinking more in terms of the Churches of the East. We may be divided by this council or that Patriarch or whatever, but there is still a tie that binds us in a way that I don't think has a parallel.

Oriental Orthodoxy is out of communion with Eastern Orthodoxy, both of which are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. But I would think that our ties with the Byzantine Orthodox at this point are closer overall than our ties with Rome, although relations with Rome on a Church-by-Church basis are pretty good.

How has the role of the Papacy changed since the primitive Church? Wasn't the Pope "First Among Equals" at this time.

Yes, but this role wasn't dogmatised as an infallible teaching of the Church.

How has the Papacy changed since the medival period? Didn't the Pope assume State duties at this time. Didn't the Franks create the Papal State for the Pope at this time. Is it even right for a Patriarch of the West to be head of his own State? Another point to consider in diologue. But we see the changing nature.

But this wasn't dogmatised as an infallible teaching of the Church, nor does it really matter to any real discussion of the role of the papacy in the Church...at least I've never heard the "diplomatic" character of the modern papacy brought up as a stumbling block to reunion.

We now come to Vatican 1. The Pope is declared infalliable. But Vatican 1 happened precisely as a reaction to the success of the Protestant Reformation and Rationlist "religions" such as Deism and Universalism. Atheism was also popular.

Vatican II the office of Pontiff becomes a working model for her members and Particular Churches .

Vatican II's emphasis on a certain aspect of the Petrine ministry was never dogmatised.

Vatican I, however reactionary to the success of the Protestant Reformation (which started hundreds of years prior to 1870, which makes one wonder why papal infallibility, if it really is a part of the faith, was not defined at Trent, since the role of the Pope in the Church is one of many things the Protestants rejected) and Rationalist philosophies, as well as the loss of influence of the Papacy in the secular sphere (I think Alex brought this up in one of his posts), DID define papal infallibility as infallible dogma for the entire Catholic Church. This is something that none of the other examples you brought up can say.

We are now in the year 2002. I am saying the role of the Papacy will have to change if they do wan't unity with the Orthodox. Do you think the Orthodox Churches would accept the role of the Papacy as it is now defined ? .

Of course the role of the Papacy will have to change if unity with the Orthodox is desired. The problem is not the role of the Papacy in the primitive Church, or the medieval Church (if the Papacy wants its own state, why not?), or even the role which Vatican II brings to light, but the dogmatisation of certain claims for the entire Catholic Church by the First Vatican Council.

There are some Catholics who would say that Vatican I was not an ecumenical council in the sense that the first seven were, but then what do we have, if not a Pope infallibly declaring himself infallible, together with the other bishops of the Catholic Church who agreed with him (and I think there were those who disagreed)? Does that not seem silly?

Whatever the status of Vatican I, it does seem that Rome has painted herself into a corner. Vatican I "infallibly" proclaimed one thing to be held by all Catholics. The Papacy can change to be more acceptable to the Orthodox, but will Vatican I and its definitions be cast aside? To do so would undermine the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, because it would cast doubt upon the Church's infallibility (or even raise the question of whether the RCC was *outside* of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church since the Schism). But to keep Vatican I and its definitions regarding the Papacy would never work with the Orthodox. What is the use of the Catholic Church inviting the Orthodox to help redefine the Papacy in such a situation? Many criticise the Orthodox for not coming forward and taking advantage of this opportunity, but even if they all did so enthusiastically, would anything ever come out of something like that in such a situation as there is now? Rome, I don't think, would ever dump Vatican I for the reasons I mentioned earlier. But the Orthodox probably wouldn't accept anything less. Does it mean that the Orthodox are stubborn? Perhaps, but it wasn't the Orthodox who added these things.

Finally, I suppose that there are some who might read what I write and think that I bear ill will toward the Catholic Church. That is not true in the least. But it cannot help but to be honest about these issues, as many of you are. I'm enjoying this discussion, and hope it can continue the way it is.

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

The infallible part is what you've correctly put your finger on re: Vatican I.

Can it be quashed? It cannot, just as Catholics believe it is a development of ecclesiology that existed prior to its proclamation.

For me, that is the rub!

If papal infallibility is not somehow related to what Catholics/Christians ALWAYS believed about the episcopate/papacy/Church, then how can it be a doctrine?

This goes back to what Ghazarian raised re: opposition to Tradition and the Gospel - in fact, if it can be shown that there is no relation between Vatican I and Tradition, then Ghazarian is surely correct.

I look at doctrinal development in terms of a continuum. There are better and worse expressions of doctrine and ecclesiology in different time periods - but only from our current, contemporary perspectives. The people dealing with the doctrines at the time could have seen them as the only way to go then.

The same can be seen with the Christological controversies in which the Oriental Orthodox Churches were involved.

Even IF your Orthodox family of Churches can be satisfied that Chalcedon was not heretical, they would still regard it as unnecessary, perhaps questionable in its formulations that changed those of St Cyril of Alexandria, the touchstone of Orthodoxy, not an Ecumenical Council etc.

But if what Chalcedon proclaimed would be still regarded as heretical by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, then unity between these two Orthodox families would be impossible, now and in future.

Vatican I declared infallibly . . . what?

That the Pope has a Primacy of Jurisdiction for one thing, after all is said and done.

Is there precedent for that in history? Absolutely. But not perhaps as the Fathers of Vatican I saw it. The Eastern and other Churches looked to Rome as the court of final appeal - Roma locuta, causa finita. Rome also got involved in matters in the East when things got out of hand and the Patriarchs there couldn't do very much - the iconoclast heresy and the treatment of St John Chrysostom, as examples. Not a lot of examples, but they are there.

John Meyendorff even praised the West's theology of redemption as saving the Church from dominance by Arianism - that took two-thirds of the Church into heresy. Rome stood firmly Orthodox throughout all those main controversies that raged in the East where theoogical schools and controversial theologians flourished - one counted that the East had more than 200 heresies rocking it in the early centuries!

The Patriarch of Constantinople, for all the contemporary Orthodox rhetoric about his "first among equals hands off others'" status, did, not too long ago, excommunicate his brother Patriarch (Jerusalem was it?) for an infraction of the canons. What His All Holiness did was what any Pope would do with a bishop or patriarch in communion with him under similar situations.

I actually have much less of a problem with papal infallibility.

The terminology might stink, I know, but the idea is quite Traditional - Church is guided by the Spirit of Jesus Who will lead it into all truth etc.

The Pope doesn't make up doctrine, he must reflect tradition etc. That doesn't mean the Spirit won't inspire the Church to new insights that members didn't see or know before. And it doesn't mean pronouncements won't be impacted by new inspiration in future.

The Orthodox are truly very traditional - but even the most conservative among them know that an Ecumenical Council is long overdo to settle a number of matters that are affecting the Church's ability to effectively witness in the world today.

The issue of Primacy is an important one and I believe future talks with the Orthodox will help RCism come to new perspectives on Primacy and infallibility within a conciliar context that will be agreeable to all.

Alex

Umm Alex, Pope Liberius signed the false Arian creed so I am afraid this is error to say that Rome stood firmly Orthodox throughout all the main controversies. During the Arian heresey it was St. Athanasius that stood Orthodox, not the Pope of Rome.

Dear Nik,

Ummm, Nik . . .

Pope Liberius is "Pope Saint Liberius" in the Orthodox Church, if you will refer to your Calendar.

What he signed was not Arian, and it was done under pressure - it was not his will.

It was the Church of Rome who has refused to place Liberius in its calendar of saints for so doing, not Orthodoxy.

You must be referring to Pope Honorius I - the only Pope declared a heretic - but this happened in St Maximos the Confessor's time, and ALL other Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches signed the heretical document affirming Monothelism, including the four "Orthodox" Patriarchs of the East - and the Assyrian Patriarch of Celeucia-Ctesiphon.

Better brush up on that church history, Orthodox Christian-to-be!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thanks for your latest post. I haven't much time, but I just wanted to address a couple of things.

If papal infallibility is not somehow related to what Catholics/Christians ALWAYS believed about the episcopate/papacy/Church, then how can it be a doctrine?

The whole notion of "papal" infallibility is restricted to the Pope and his office by its very name. To mix this up with the episcopate and the Church is to muddy the waters, in my opinion. More on this in a bit.

Vatican I declared infallibly . . . what?

That the Pope has a Primacy of Jurisdiction for one thing, after all is said and done.

Is there precedent for that in history? Absolutely. But not perhaps as the Fathers of Vatican I saw it.

But the definition of Primacy of Jurisdiction was based on the way the Fathers of Vatican I saw it. So the argument that there is precedent is useless. If there is "not perhaps" precedent for Primacy of Jurisdiction as the Fathers of Vatican I saw it, how useful is it to appeal to history to support the dogma?

The terminology might stink, I know, but the idea is quite Traditional - Church is guided by the Spirit of Jesus Who will lead it into all truth etc.

The Pope doesn't make up doctrine, he must reflect tradition etc. That doesn't mean the Spirit won't inspire the Church to new insights that members didn't see or know before. And it doesn't mean pronouncements won't be impacted by new inspiration in future.

The idea is very traditional, but also not very traditional.

The Church's infallibility is something I have no problem with. To say that the Pope, with the Bishops, exercises the Church's infallibility would not be a problem for me either, since it admits the participation of all (presumably in an ecumenical council).

But to say that the Pope on his own can exercise infallibility (as Vatican I defines), and then to compare this to the infallibility of the Church, blurs the matter. Is the Pope, then, synonymous with the Church, and the Church with the Pope? Is the Pope above the Church? What is the importance of the Bishops in this scheme, other than that they would derive their authority from "Peter"? Even the documents of Vatican II, as "progressive" as they are, still seem to say in some places things that could lead one to think that the Bishop has no real importance of his own apart from the Pope.

The Orthodox are truly very traditional - but even the most conservative among them know that an Ecumenical Council is long overdo to settle a number of matters that are affecting the Church's ability to effectively witness in the world today.

But what could be more traditional than an Ecumenical Council?

The issue of Primacy is an important one and I believe future talks with the Orthodox will help RCism come to new perspectives on Primacy and infallibility within a conciliar context that will be agreeable to all.

I hope you're right, but I honestly have a hard time figuring out how that might work out in the end with all that we have at this point on both sides. But I'm happy it's the Holy Spirit's headache, and not mine.

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

You are not just a pretty face, Big Guy!

Yes, there is nothing more traditional than an Ecumenical Council - but try calling one today.

If you could, you would be greater than all Patriarchs et al. in Orthodoxy!

The thing is I think you are trying to see Vatican I in isolation from the entire body of Catholic Church teaching, praxis etc. And you can't do that.

Vatican I itself is not something that is unaffected by what happened before it, and after it, until this day. That is the Catholic sense of "doctrinal development." Perhaps Orthodoxy doesn't have that same sense - that's O.K. But Catholicism does and it is only fair to call Catholic doctrine on its own terms, not those of other perspectives.

The style of the Papacy of the middle ages is the same thing - it has changed and adapted. Doctrines declared infallible by Vatican I, you say? To be sure, but again that doesn't mean things can't be done to impact it and even change it, as Cardinal Newman wrote.

The Pope can certainly proclaim doctrine by himself without reference to the episcopate.

And the reason this was mentioned at Vatican I was due to the times in which the Church lived, as we've discussed before.

But the Pope could certainly not come up with a new doctrine that was seen by the Catholic Church as being inconsistent with Tradition or an heretical development of doctrine.

Catholic canon law says that should that happen, the Pope would find himself no longer Pope.

This view of the Papacy is connected deeply to the notion of Apostolic foundation (of the Church of Rome) by the Chief Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul. Again, the West only has ONE Apostolic See, that of Rome, whereas the East has several, even small villages' churches could point to there being an Apostle who consecrated their first bishop!

So the bishops of the Latin West get their Orders etc. from the Apostles but only through the one Guy who can claim direct descent from them, the Bishop of Rome. I submit that this has more to do with the formulations of Vatican I and with papal supremacy as understood in previous times than any other issue.

The Eucharistic ecclesiology of the East, based on multiple centres of Apostolic foundation and missionary work, is different and the Patriarchs "out East" tend naturally to point not to one of their number, but to their collective grouping in a Council as the final arbiter.

The East "couldn't help" viewing things the way it does - and neither can the West.

Alex

Dear Alex,

I hope I'm more than just a pretty face, because the face you're talking about isn't all that pretty.

The style of the Papacy of the middle ages is the same thing - it has changed and adapted. Doctrines declared infallible by Vatican I, you say? To be sure, but again that doesn't mean things can't be done to impact it and even change it, as Cardinal Newman wrote.

But Alex, are we talking merely of style or of doctrine? Vatican I says these things are doctrine, and not merely style. Or, in other words, style has been dogmatised.

Furthermore, can an infallible teaching ever really change? If so, then how infallible was it from the beginning?

I don't pretend to have all the answers; this is genuinely confusing.

The Pope can certainly proclaim doctrine by himself without reference to the episcopate.

And the reason this was mentioned at Vatican I was due to the times in which the Church lived, as we've discussed before.

What conditions are these? Did the Fathers of Vatican I believe that there was a very real chance that the Episcopate would be killed off, and so the Pope needed these "extraordinary" abilities to sustain the Church in emergency? Then I say they did not have faith in Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church, but instead sought to put their hope in the Pope (pardon the rhyme). Lack of communication? Ease of communication was only on the increase, if I'm not mistaken. The need to decisively knock down heresy in a situation with no time to summon an Ecumenical Council to decisively knock it down? When did the undivided Church, before 1054 or 451, ever witness that in the face of Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.?

But the Pope could certainly not come up with a new doctrine that was seen by the Catholic Church as being inconsistent with Tradition or an heretical development of doctrine.

Catholic canon law says that should that happen, the Pope would find himself no longer Pope.

Of course, the Pope could not dogmatically define a fourth person of the Trinity without ceasing to be Pope. But with regard to other, more subtle developments of doctrine? Let's say X was defined by a Pope as one of these subtle developments of doctrine...let's even say that he was trying to introduce heresy into the Church through this subtle formula and disguise it in his official infallibility...and let's say that the Bishops of the world are against him; pit the Catholic bishops of the world against a Pope that their belief says is protected against making error in these matters, and then what? Who's going to judge the Roman Pontiff in such a situation?

Yes, it is a hypothetical situation which probably won't happen, but the doctrine is open to such situations, and if the Latin theologians of yestercentury could argue about the number of angels on the head of a pin, I think I'm in good company.

This view of the Papacy is connected deeply to the notion of Apostolic foundation (of the Church of Rome) by the Chief Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul. Again, the West only has ONE Apostolic See, that of Rome, whereas the East has several, even small villages' churches could point to there being an Apostle who consecrated their first bishop!

Then it was up to the West to recognise that in a Church comprised (theoretically at least) of East and West there were in total more than just one Apostolic See. But that fact doesn't seem to matter, if that See is not Petrine, and even if that See is Petrine, if it is not Roman.

So the bishops of the Latin West get their Orders etc. from the Apostles but only through the one Guy who can claim direct descent from them, the Bishop of Rome. I submit that this has more to do with the formulations of Vatican I and with papal supremacy as understood in previous times than any other issue.

I don't get this. It is precisely these formulations and views that have been defined as dogma.

This pretty face is still pretty confused...

Dear Qathuliqa,

That's because you don't hang out with the kind of Latins I do, Big Guy!

Well, then let's say that the context in which the Pope can define something "ex cathedra" is so limited that it is, by and large, reduced to that of canonizing saints today.

Can the Pope's defined infallibility be curbed? Absolutely, and both by style and doctrine.

Thanks for reminding me - a Redemptorist priest I know worked on this very topic and his thesis was that the papacy can be "doctrinally redefined" so as to limit its "ex cathedra" capacity to affirming the pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils.

O.K., now I think I hear you saying "But Alex, that doesn't answer my original question about the doctrinal affirmations of Vatican Council I - saying what you think should be and what is are two different things."

And you are right . . .

So I'd point out two things.

One is that there is a whole ecumenical debate on the "ecumenical" status of Vatican I as an "Ecumenical Council" since the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches weren't present at it. (I understand your Church wasn't present at a lot of these - your bishops couldn't get connecting flights or what? ).

And this is the point raised by our esteemed Administrator and Mentor(not about the connecting flights ).

I am borrowing his idea and I say that out front -I don't want anyone comparing me with Gerard S.
(Amado, I can FEEL your pulse quickening right about now! ).

Vatican I, for all its pronouncing to the world, does indeed fall into a category of "local Roman Council." As do the other 14 after the first Seven - yes, yes, Qathuliqa, 18 for you!

And, secondly, what it said is being recognized, more and more, by RC theologs and episcopuses as having left "unfinished business" lying around with respect to the Petrine Ministry.

If what Vatican I had said was all that can ever now be said about papal authority, why did J2P2 ask the Orthodox to help him redefine papal authority?

Basically, Jan Pavel Drugi was telling that happy mitred crowd of yours (we here on byzcath.org DO acknowledge the Oriental Orthodox AS ORTHODOX - not every Forum will do that, you know . . .), "O.K., Guys, so you tell me what I'm supposed to have by way of power in terms of what I can or cannot do."

Very far-reaching, don't you think? I think he's a cool fellow!

The Pope himself, Vatican I notwithstanding, doesn't see the matter of the papacy as a closed book.

And neither do we.

And neither should you.

But have a good weekend anyway.

(I hope you are not as confused about what to do on a date - I'm sure not ).

Alex

He later recanted, yes, but it was Arians that forced him to sign it, but you said Rome was free of Arianism, so I just wanted to show otherwise. I just got done reading a book about Ss. Athanasius, Anthony, Pope Liberius and the Arian Heresey from the Roman POV by another Catholic Doctor of History, so I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in with such a subject fresh on the mind.

Dear Nik,

I never said Rome was free of Arianism!

What I said was that Rome refused to admit Liberius into the calendar of Saints for signing a compromise document - it was not a document affirming Arianism, but an unacceptable compromise.

The Orthodox Church forgave him, as he acted under pressure, and he is "St Liberius" in our Churches.

According to Meyendorff, it was Rome's theology of salvation that was key to defeating Arianism.

Arianism was an Eastern heresy, coming from Alexandria. The East later even allowed the continued veneration of Arian saints, such as St Nicetas the Goth, Sabbas the Goth, Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt and others.

When Nestorius was deposed for heresy, he was deposed as none other than Patriarch of Constantinople. Over two hundred heresies plagued the East and it was Rome that tended to remain firmly Orthodox and helped guide the Church to Orthodoxy.

Until, of course, 1054 when something happened

Keep your two cents

Alex

Can I keep your 2 cents too?

Oh wait this is Canadian pennies, so nevermind, they're worthless! :p

Well everytime there is a heresey, what do we do? We have a council. So since the West had twice as many "Ecumenical Councils" after 1054 as the united Church had before, are you saying* that 1054 the West became synonymous for heresies???

Oh wait you didn't want my 2 cents.. sorry about that! :p

* I am not saying this, and pretty sure Alex isn't either � just asking to clarify. I'm probably just doing more of what Alex is complaining about me doing to Anastasios. And biting him with some of his own style of humor.

Well since heresy after heresy was coming from the East, I guess Rome felt she had to try and catch up!

ChristTeen287