www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Running something up the flagpole re infallibility

This is just a thought, and I won't be offended if you think it is stupid.

Ecumenical problems have, it seems to me, the character of problems in differential equations. One starts with constraints and boundary conditions, and must come up with a solution that violates none of them. With two Churches that claim meaningfully to be The Church, I think we have the following boundary conditions:

1. The Catholic Church is not heretical.
2. The Orthodox Church is not heretical.
3. Papal infallibility is a true doctrine (otherwise 1 is false).
4. The infallibility of the Church as a whole is a true doctrine (otherwise #2 is false).

So, here is my solution. Infallibility _must_ be understood as a characteristic of the whole Church, deriving directly from Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. In the first thousand years, this infallibility inhered in doctrinal pronouncements of the ecumenical councils--not in the canons, since one can see that later canons chance or supercede earlier canons. On this, I think we could all agree.

Now, there is a problem with conciliarism: how does one know a council is ecumenical? Various schemes or characteristics are proposed, but they all (on the Orthodox side) end up with "We don't know how we know, but _these 7_ are." One could say that they are those the Church receives, but that presupposes one knows where the True Church is; what about Chalcedon, for example? What if the non-Chalcedonians are really the Church?

From the Catholic side, one can say that ecumenical councils are those councils recognized by the pope of Rome. This is, I think, the solution to the problem. The Church teaches infallibly when the bishops and Rome speak together. But since 1054 (and really since 787) the ecumene has been wounded, so that genuine ecumenical councils have not occurred.

Does the charism of infallibility leave the Church because of the mutual estrangement of east and west? I don't think so. God's promises do not end. As a result, the East has no ecumenical councils, and the west has councils which say many true things, but which lack the presence of the other four patriarchates, and are therefore irregular.

The Church has been sundered, and that although infallibility continued to inhere in the Church, it did so in an irregular or defective fashion, devolving to an exaggerated papacy and a diminished episcopate in the West, and in the East through a theological conservatism which clung to those things decided when the Church was whole.

The decree would recognize these facts, and then would affirm papal infallibility as a gift to the whole Church, _to be exercised only with the whole Church_. Past exercises of this charism (which are, fortunately, few) would not be termed false, but irregular, as a result of the separation of the Churches. Future exercises would only come in unity with the bishops.

Well, that's it. Have at it. Don't worry about offending me--I'm not even sure I agree with me.

Pseudo-Athanasius:

Weren't the only two times this gift was exercised times when the Pope consulted the episcopate before pronouncing infallibly? And if memory serves, weren't the two times affirmations of what the Latin Church believed the ancient Faith to be?

On the other hand, as unwieldy as ecumenical councils can be, hasn't this been some sort of method of confirming doctrines that have been challenged by the secular culture at the time?

What should be the method of answering challenges to doctrine between councils--challenges strong enough to cause confusion among the believers?

Now that there is no imperial secular authority to call an ecumenical council who should do that? Must we wait for a consensus of every ruling bishop in the world? Is that practical?

Since the councils recognized by the Orthodox Church were called at the instigation of the Byzantine Emperor, would the Orthodox Church be willing to accept a call from the bishop of Rome to have a new council? I'm thinking of the raw wound that we've had between us for a millenium.

Just some further thoughts. Good post.

In Christ,

BOB

Karl,

Echo....

A very good post.

Gordo

Remember, in the Orthodox tradition, a Church Council is only denoted Ecumenical by a subsequent Council. In the EOC, only the Ecumenical patriarch has the right to call a putative Ecumenical Council.

These two sentences are both problematic:

1. "a Church Council is only denoted Ecumenical by a subsequent Council."
In that event, why does the Church, both East and West, affirm that the Seventh Council is Ecumenical?

2. "only the Ecumenical patriarch has the right to call a putative Ecumenical Council."
What is this putative exclusive right based on? Which of the Seven Councils was convoked on that basis?

Fr. Serge

The Orthodox will not accept #3. Since there is no patristic witness to Papal infallibility. Before people start pulling quotes to say "See!!! It was accepted." Just stop and think. Of the (original) 5 patriarchial sees only the one which holds this papal infallibility, sees it as such...otherwise the other 4 would have agreed and it would not be an issue...But it is THE issue which prevents unity between East and West.

Chris

So Chris, if we are able to produce quotes from the patristic era that demonstrate that doctrinal agreement with the Church of Rome (and its bishop) was considered a critical standard of Orthodox belief among the main three or four other sees (the pentarchy being only in existence as such up until Chalcedon), you would concede that there might be at least some evidence for papal infallibilty as opposed to your assertion that there is no patristic witness to the charism of infallibility associated with Rome?

Just curious...

Also, to Karl's point, how is a council to be defined as ecumenical, especially in the absence of imperial authority? Do all 5 sees of the Pentarchy have to be in agreement? If so, that would exclude Chalcedon and every council beyond that since Alexandria clearly took a contrarian view and did not participate in any other council subsequent to it.

Gordo

The church of Rome was extremely important to Orthodox belief since that was the patriarch that represented the entire western church...it had nothing to do with papal infallibility (although that's the spin that has been put on it)

My question for you is when Rome left the Church...Constantinople, assumed the first amongst equals status that Rome left behind, if there was this "patristic witness" to papal infallability why was that not assumed by the patriarch of Constatntinople as well...I can answer that: Simply because it didn't exist...


That's a question that has been going around for a long time...Wish I had the answer to that...I know many Russian Orthodox have been quick to say that is why Moscow is the 3rd Rome and with an Orthodox ruler he could call such a council...however, at least as I see it, he still couldn't call one since the western church is not represented...


Chris

Karl,

This is a very reasonable argument you've made. If I were still Catholic, I would likely concur without reservation. Of course, the problem is that the Orthodox do not accept #3.

Also, you suggest that the post-schism councils of the west should not be considered ecumenical, but should be considered synods that taught many true things. That those councils teach many true things is probably true. That those councils teach only true things is quite debatable.

Also, if papal infallibility, understood as the pope speaking for the Church and with the whole Church, is true, then it could be argued that the pope has never once spoken infallibly (at least since the schism). After all, how could the pope speak for the whole Church when the pope is not in communion with the whole Church?

Joe

I doubt that the evidence can be simply reduced to spin...



There are alot of assumptions in your statment.

1. Rome left the Church (When?)
2. Constantinople assumed the "first among equals status" (When? How? On what basis or authority? Imperial? Conciliar?)
3. Simply because it did not exist....again, a leap to conclusions. If we assume the Catholic argument for the moment, just because some did not want to accept it does not mean it did not exist.

I guess I do not see things as neatly packaged and categorized as all of that - on either side of the argument.


Chris,

The answer eludes many...including great theologians. I still have not found a personally satisfactory response to the issue of Chalcedon, the Pentarchy and the See of Alexandria. The Pentarchy no longer exists after Chalcedon. So if the argument is that the whole of Orthodoxy expressed in the Pentarchy must agree to a council for it to be received as Orthodox, there has not been a council since Ephesus since Alexandria rejected Chalcedon.

If the answer is not found there, nor is it found in Imperial authority (I believe the Iconoclast Controversy - a heresy colored in purple if ever there was one - made THAT fact abundantly clear), where do we go to determine if a council is ecumenical OR where do we go if a council needs to be called?

If this critical question cannot be answered on either side, I'm afraid that we are faced with a conciliar Church that is incapable of calling councils - which cannot be acceptable to either Orthodox or Catholics of East and West especially given the great conciliar history of the first 1000 years of the Church's existence. For myself, I can only raise my hands and say that it must somehow rest with the Bishop of Rome. I'm not saying that my answer is complete or perfect, but, with all due respect to Moscow (and Constantinople), I do not see any alternative.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo...

I respect you for your strong beliefs. But I won't waste my time or anyone else's for that matter. Other than to say, I think the church as it stands speaks for itself. If the East saw papal infallibility it would not be an issue and when Rome cut itself off from the rest of the church the East would have seen the need to retain someone with that authority...they didn't...

I do believe you can probably find a few western saints who may have advocated for this, in some form prior to the schism...but I think the real difference comes down to...

In the east there were 4 patriarchiates so the east needed to be conciliar...in the west there was only 1 so the need for conciliar actions was not held in the same high esteem...I think Patriarch Bart of Constantinople said it best...although, he shocked the world by speaking the truth with love, when he stated that the two churches (Catholic and Orthodox) have become ontologically different...

Chris

Thanks, Chris, I did not hope to convince you, only to articulate the issues as I see it. You seem to take a very one-sided view on this issue - Rome has left the Church. Obviously, I do not agree, nor would I say the inverse is true - Orthodoxy has left the Church. Nor would I say - despite my great respect for Patriarch Bartholemew - that the two Churches are ontologically different, if I grasp his use of that term properly.

In ICXC,

Gordo

A further thought:

I sometimes question how and why Orthodoxy and Catholicism have developed ecclesiological systems which naturally exclude the necessity of each other. It is almost as if it should be taken a priori that we should be separated from each other. I honestly think we should feel the pain of our separation. I think we have become too accustomed to being apart.

I also find it problematic when we reduce the issue of unity and reunion to Catholic dogmas. I often hear "Well the crux of the issue is papal infallibility." or "It is the filioque." Is that really the case - truly? I think that to say so skirts some of the issues within Orthodoxy and Catholicism that also need to be addressed, like the ones mentioned above.

God bless,

Gordo

This troubles me too. Christ is core to all we do, and if not, we're off course.

I have to confess that the whole thing doesn't bother me that much anymore, though it used to bother me immensely. I believe that the Patriachal offices are all of post-apostolic origin and are, in principle, dispensible. The only offices of apostolic origin are bishop, priest, and deacon. Where there is a local Church celebrating the Eucharist in communion with an apostolic Bishop, there is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Church history is messy and there is no way to synthesize everything unless one adopts certain claims as first principles. I don't think that anything can be adopted without a good bit of circular reasoning. So, I don't think that we can know for sure how it is that a council becomes Ecumenical. But, I no longer need certitude on these matters. In fact, I've given up certitude of just about everything. I believe, by faith, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and established His apostolic community to hand down His teachings and sacraments. I believe that community is preserved in holy Orthodoxy and in a "defective" way in the Roman Church and those in communion with her. As far as I am concerned, as long as everyone is trying to follow Christ, is worshiping and receiving the sacraments in apostolic Church, and is trying to be a good human being, then all is well. I see no need for any kind of formal ecclestiastical reunion. If it happens, then thank God. If it doesn't happen, then I still thank God that the Churches do exist and that people do find Christ in them. And as for Jesus' prayer, "that they may be one," I say that the Church is one in every local Church celebrating the Eucharist even if the individual Churches are not one in the visible, political, ecclesiological sense.

Joe