www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What do we have to believe about papal infallibility?

It's been about 5 years since I read both books so I can't remember specifics. I do remember thinking that Meyendorff's book went into more detail about what the Fathers wrote on the subject.

I'm not saying that there are no good books on this subject from an RC perspective. What I wrote was that I was not convinced by Jesus, Peter and the Keys.

Hello,

Do you think that the True Faith can be a product of intellectual rigor?

I don't think so.

Mr. Ray's book is quite rigurous, now that you mention it. Perhaps Mr. Ray lacks the credentials other authors have, but let me point out a few things:

The book itself has the rigor of a University-grade study. It presents a thesis and documental research supporting that thesis. Is it unbiased? I don't think so, nothing you read will be.

The author was once a Protestant Christian who, like you, did not believe in the Primacy of Peter as understood by the Catholic Church. After a specific portion of his spiritual journey, he has come to accept the teachings of the Church in this regard. Are you honestly not interested in what this guy has to say?

Yes, he is no friend of the Orthodox rejection of the Primacy of the Pope, but neither am I, so I hardly see this as a defect, and fail to see why does one have to consider the Orthodox position when the issue at hand is the Catholic position. And the book does include a fair share of Eastern sources.

I do recommend the book, but again, I don't think the True Faith will come from reading this book. The True Faith is a gift from God, and as such, it will come when He wants.

Shalom,
Memo.

I'm not certain what you mean by that. As a Catholic, he'd certainly be a friend to the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. He would, as would any Catholic, disagree with the Orthodox stance on the Papacy and its role in the Church.

That's an important distinction and one which tends to go both ways.

By that same reasoning you cannot trust books by Orthodox writers on the papacy either since they would likewise write from a perspective opposed to the Catholic teaching on the papacy. That puts you in quite a pickle on any and every issue, from any and every source.

I respect many Orthodox writers, but compare the venerable Fr. John Meyendorff's study of Petrine Primacy ("The Primacy of Peter", SVS Press) to Stephen Ray's book and I guarantee you that you will clearly see that Ray's book is by far the stronger and gives a much more convincing argument from the Fathers of the Church.

Take for example this quote of St. Maximus the Confessor, a great Eastern Christian: "If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

There are some other great patristic quotes here:

http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

While I will agree there are some people who just immediately make assumptions based more upon prejudice than anything else, not everyone who arrives at the conclusion that the Orthodox position is not correct fall into this category; assumptions or mere bias are one thing, conclusions from Church history, scripture and tradition are another.

Let me challenge you here. If you are truly interested in intellectual rigourousness, you will pick up Stephen Ray's book and give it a good read -- and you will find there the substantive quotes you desire. I remember struggling with this issue once, and at the time I must confess that I was looking to be convinced and drawn into the Orthodox position so I read both the Meyendorff book as well as the Ray book and despite the fact I had strong leanings toward the Orthodox position at that time, I realized that history, scripture and the witness of the Fathers simply did not support the conclusions that the Orthodox Church (and Meyendorff's book) make.

I acknowledge that this is not intellectually defensible but I won't read Ray's book for two reasons. First, I don't like his forum for personal reasons that I won't go into. I also have a hard time believing that he would be fair to the eastern Churches given the positions held by some of the regular posters there. For example, someone there posted that allowing infants to receive communion was not reverent.

Second, I am critical of his position on Israel.

So I won't give him any of my money.

Like I wrote above, I agree that this is intellectually dishonest on my part.

I would just like to point out that it does not follow that a Latin Catholic apologist would automatically be a friend to Eastern churches in communion with Rome.

Most of them ignore us as much as possible and never speak about us. Some are very unfamiliar.

Secondly, I am not sure that all Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics agree with each other on the Papacy's role in the church, one can take that idea only so far.

Michael

Michael, my brother,

Amen (all around) !

Many years,

Neil

Regarding the first point, I would agree that such people exist, but I would argue insofar as they hold such a position they are not in line with the thinking of the Church and are not being fully Catholic in that way. Hence why I would make an admittedly (and purposefully) exaggerated statement that anyone who is Catholic could not help but be a friend of the Eastern Churches. To say you could be otherwise, for me, would be like saying you can be a Catholic and not be a 'friend' to the Mass/Divine Liturgy. A Catholic who isn't a friend of the Eastern Catholic churches is simply in the wrong, even if he isn't in heresy.

As for Stephen Ray in particular, I have read much of his work, communicated with him, and watched his programming and I have never heard him say anything derogatory about the Eastern Churches. I'd be happy to email him to ask him for a statement on the matter if you'd like.

This same thing then applies to my second point. While such individuals certainly exist, they likewise are in the wrong. Catholic doctrine is universal and goes beyond East and West. That the Pope has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church" (cf. Catechism, para. 882) is something that all Catholics must assent to. Now, *how* the Pope goes about exercising that authority in relation to the other churches and patriarchs is certainly something that can be discussed (as the Holy Father has recently shown by making an invitation for such a discussion) and there can be room for differing opinions, provided those opinions do not deny the unique authority and jurisdiction of the Pope.

Whether we are traditionalist Latin rite Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, "conservative" Catholics, or whomever, we have to make sure we don't take a "Cafeteria Catholic" approach to matters of faith and morals. There are many areas where we may have our own traditions and theological opinions -- as for example whether the Theotokos died and was assumed, or whether she didn't die; since there has been no formal definition other than the fact she was assumed, we have lee-way to go either way on it unless the Magisterium speaks otherwise.

It's also important that we recognize the difference between discipline vs. doctrine (or small-t tradition and big-t, Apostolic Tradition), and this is sometimes where some Latin-rite Catholics get into trouble, confusing the two or making them synonymous. This is what leads to ridiculous and uncharitable accusations that we hear about on here -- ie. where some suspect a Byzantine's orthodoxy because of married clergy, or because of the reception of communion at the time of Chrismation. Clearly such individuals are in the wrong, for they aren't making the appropriate distinctions to understand what every Catholic must assent to and where there is legitimate variety, difference of theological position, traditions, and so forth.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Shawn,

I certainly hate to belabor this point but I would like to comment on the issue of Universal Jurisdiction. We are not of one mind on this issue. Although some Eastern Catholics will disagree with me here I will describe a not uncommon sentiment, which I happen to share.

First let me clarify: that the Pope of Rome may have defacto jurisdiction over Eastern Catholic churches at this very present moment will not be denied by any Eastern Catholic, it is a reality we understand. We acknowledge that the Pope currently dominates our churches. Nevertheless we prefer to share Communion with Rome in the hope that a model of church union will be crafted that will respect all of the Apostolic churches in the future.

However many Eastern Catholic Churches had primarily entered into Communion with Rome as Orthodox churches (or Oriental Orthodox) well before the General Council of 1870. The results of that Council changed the ecclesiology of the church to a degree unforeseen by any of the original signatories of the various Unions that brought us together with Rome. I speculate that the those unions would not have been successful if this change had been anticipated.

Therefore I would not be surprised if some Eastern Catholics of the time did not welcome news of those Dogmatic pronouncements when they were first published. I know that some faithful do not accept them today yet still drop their envelopes into the basket every Sunday because they love their church. Many faithful just ignore the issue, neither assenting to it or denying it, for them it is actually irrelevant.

The doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction presumes that all authority in the church ultimately derives from the bishop of Rome and is delegated to the other bishops, priests and doorkeeepers by him. This is not, and never has been part of the ecclesiology of the Eastern churches, which is and always was Patriarchal. It was not an element of the first millenium church ecclesiology and will not work as a model for future union.

We are in Communion with Rome because we have chosen to be, any future unions between the Catholic Commmunon and Orthodox churches will be dependant upon the good will of all parties to regard themselves as truly equal churches.

We look forward to the day when we will be returned to our own Patriarchs, and some of us (myself especially) don't appreciate being leaned on by anyone to accept Universal Jurisdiction, the great stumbling block to Christian Unity.

Michael

Michael:

I hope you will not mind if an amateur at this asks a few questions. You said you would like to see a return of the Eastern Catholic churches to their own patriarchs. But which patriarchs? Just the old Pentarchy? If so, then what do we do with the Orthodox patriarchs created since the fall of Constantinople (e.g., Moscow)? And if not just the Pentarchy, which of the patriarchs? All of the nationalistic ones (Bulgarian, Romanian, etc.)? This seems to make valid the heresy of nationalism (phyletism) that even some Orthodox recognize. Who determines which of the patriarchs are valid?

The idea of returning to the Pentarchy that I have seen in Orthodox writings on the Internet, along with the idea that we should return to the Church of the First Millenium that I have seen in other writings, seems to be unrealistically romantic, given the reality of multiple Orthodox patriarchs and a lack of a consistent theory to justify national churches and their patriarchs.

Plainsman

Glory to Jesus ChrisT!

Hello Plainsman,

Between your post and mine we seem to be drifting out of the orbit of the original thread a wee bit, but I will address your comments.
You are quite right, phyletism is a heresy. That's not what I am advocating. The Patriarchs in those individual countries are the primates of their local churches. That does not constitute phyletism.

One bishop-one city is the ideal, in the old countries that is not an unrealistic model, a reunion would clean up some things. The overlapping jurisdictions in North America are a scandal in boththe Byzantine Orthodox and Catholic churches and that will need to be addressed. (That situation is not normative for world Orthodoxy.)

It is not our place to rearrange the chessboard and argue that this or that hierach is not entitled to a title such as Patriarch, the Eastern churches themselves can do that. It is also for them to determine the future structure of their own churches.

The local synods govern themselves, it was as local synods that the Orthodox churches now in communion with Rome made the decision to commune with Rome. Clearly they can decide their future for themselves.

It is for this reason that Catholic Sui Iuris churches are often arranged along national lines. The Catholic structure mirrors the Orthodox one and they entered Communion in that way.

A Russian Orthodox believer who may chose to become Catholic does not become a Roman Catholic, Canon Law ascibes that person to the Russian Catholic church even if he/she converts through a Roman parish. Should there ever be some (theoretical to us at this point) eucharistic union between us the Russian Catholic church would dissolve into it's mother, the Russian Orthodox church. If that church is headed by a Patriarch in that day, or even if not, the form of governance is still Patriarchal.

A Romanian Orthodox who decides to become a Catholic becomes a Romanian Catholic in the same manner. When the theoretical future union occurs, the Romanian Catholic church melts into it's mother the Romanian Orthodox church.

At the time the Romanians in Transylvania united with the Catholic Communion I don't believe the Romanian Orthodox church had declared itself autonomous and it's Metropolitan did not have a title of Patriarch, but it does now.

The Ruthenian church derives mainly but not exclusively from the southern Ukrainian Carpathian region and eastern Slovakia. This church has never had a local Metropolitan elevated to a local Patriarch. I would presume that in this case a reunion with the local Orthodox would make them part of the Patriachate of Constantinople, unless the local church is autonomous at the time of reunion.

The Melkites and the Antiochian Orthodox are literally the same church split in half. It is the Catholic party that retains the traditional Melkite name because the Patriarch of Antioch and his synod signed a union with Rome, and some of the bishops refused to go along with it, they withdrew and established a new Patriarch for themselves. Those two could become one church again.

North America is a confused situation, both among Orthodox and Catholics there are overlapping jurisdictions within common Traditions and phyletism seems to have played some part in both the Catholic and Orthodox situations.

If the Orthodox can establish for themselves a united Byzantine Orthodox church in North America (something I believe will happen within 20 years), we Catholics should be able to likewise establish a united Byzantine Catholic church in North America. If the theoretical union ever takes place, those churches (Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox) should be able to unite into one ecclesiastical body.

Quote

The idea of returning to the Pentarchy that I have seen in Orthodox writings on the Internet, along with the idea that we should return to the Church of the First Millenium that I have seen in other writings, seems to be unrealistically romantic, given the reality of multiple Orthodox patriarchs and a lack of a consistent theory to justify national churches and their patriarchs.

Plainsman

The Patriarchal form of church governance is not only traditional, but simply practical.

But I agree that rebuilding the Original Pentarchy doesn't seem possible however ideal it sounds: there are already Five Patriarchs of Antioch, and three of them are Catholic! The original Antiochian church would now have at least two liturgical traditions today (with additional minor variations) and three if the Latin rite believers in the region were to be put into the local united Patriarchate.

I don't personally see the multiplication of Patriarchates as helpful or necessary but that has already occurred for the most part. I can't see any reason to try to persuede these primates to renounce the title of Patriarch. It could not have any impact on their present authority, their churches would still be autonomous. Please remember that the Patriarchs do not have an Ultramontanist type of iron fist with which to "run" their churches. They have a more collegial mode of operations, the iron fists are at the diocesan level, mostly, and they meet in synods to govern their churches.

The Roman Catholic church has a monarchical order of authority. It is in that sense that I oppose the Patriarchal model to it. The Pope is currently a surrogate for our own Patriarchs.

I hope that this helps you see my point.

In Christ Always,
Michael

Dear Michael:

I am usually averse to the use of legalistic terms to describe the extant communion between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches.

However, I think it is incorrect to say that the Pope's universal jurisdiction, as the Supreme Pontiff, in the Catholic Communion is merely de facto.

It is both de facto et de jure.

The 2 Codes of Canons are the law on the matter. Unless abrogated, amended, or otherwise repealed, the inter-ralationships between and among the Churches sui juris are governed by these Codes.

Amado

Thank you Amado,

Of course you are right!

And despite everything I have said above I don't really expect that to change in my lifetime.

Dear Michael:

De nada!

I wish to reassure you that I fully comprehend the predicament the Eastern Catholic Churches are currently in: a Patriarchal system subsumed under the Papal system of Church governance.

If this could be a consolation on your part, the national Latin Churches, at more than a billion, have "willingly" toed the line of the Papacy.

Imagine if the 5 largest Catholic Churches in the West: Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, the U.S., and Italy were to declare themselves "independent" from Rome? That's almost half of the world's Catholics.

Or, let's just say the national Churches in the Americas did? That's more than half of Catholicism combined.

This is where the adage: "united we stand . . ." becomes appropriate, don't you think?

If we should be a "force" to be reckoned with, Catholicism (or Christianiy for that matter) has to be global, organizationally and jurisdictionally, to have a pitting chance of influencing global order.

A realistic view of the Papacy, with all its accoutrements, to me reveals a "strength" not found in the limited "powers" of a Patriarchal system despite the remonstrations of the East.

And how do we "resurrect" the 4 ancient Patriarchal Sees of the East, especially now that they are engulfed by the crescent sea?

Amado