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

Hi Michael,

(Just for the record, my intent is not to attack you, but to challenge you.)

Yet it is a doctrine which Catholics must assent to, or become cafeteria Catholics.

I'd dispute a couple of your points:

1) the primacy of the pope - it isn't a stumbling block to unity, it is rather a gift which is and can be the source of unity. That it has become a stumbling block for some is a fact, but that isn't a problem with the role of the Papacy, but rather a stumbling block of human creation. Some protestants might (and do) call the honour we pay the Theotokos a stumbling block to unity, but that doesn't mean the problem is with the veneration itself and we need to be rid of it, but a problem in helping them to understand what that veneration means and see that it is in line with the Christian Faith.

2) I'd disagree with your understanding of the Early Church, the Fathers and the Papacy. While we can talk about that understanding becoming more solidified and defined (as we can with any doctrine, including that of the Trinity), we never understand Catholic doctrine as having simply been invented or not there at least in seed from the beginning. To say that has grave reprecussions, and also, I would argue, doesn't match up with what we can see in Church History as well as the Fathers.

Again, I think the proper perspective on this issue is not one of dissenting from the doctrine (we cannot do that and be faithful to Christ and His Church), but rather of how that authority is to be exercised in a way that will be collegial.
Again, this is what the Holy Father has invited.

My friend, Adam DeVille, I know to be working on a thesis on this very issue. Any thoughts Adam?

Greetings Shawn,

I am sorry but you misunderstand me. I have no problem with the Primacy of the Pope.

The problem is with Universal Jurisdiction, which is often confused by Latin Catholics as the same thing. It is not. Let us be clear about this, Vatican I asserts that ALL authority in the church, that of every bishop and patriarch, derives directly from Rome and is exercised with the consent of the Pope as "delegated" to the hierarch. This never was true in the East or West in the first millenium.

Primacy does not equal Universal Jurisdiction.

I understand the theory and accept that it is useful in explaining the long process of the Holy Spirit at Work in the church, teaching us. Unfortunately Development of Doctrine can be used to make a lot of claims. It is a big skirt to hide behind.
Terms like Cafeteria Catholic don't apply when one church is squashing the valid ecclessial tradition of another. That is an inappropriate term to use in this arena, being a distinctly Latin phenomenon.

You might rather be able to accuse me of being a cafeteria Orthodox, because in spite of everything I choose to be in communion with Rome. When the opportunity presented itself I chose not to Chrismate into Orthodoxy.

The Pope cannot collegially share authority he does not have by right, it is an insult to all of the Apostolic churches. If he desires a working model to exercise his office, he will have to jettison those claims.

So I am not your cafeteria Catholic, I am conservatively loyal to the Orthodox faith (except for one thing, I am willing to break the bread with you) and if that isn't good enough between us, we might just forget about any future dialogue between Orthodox and Rome. No one East of the Adriatic is interested in joining the Catholic Commmunion under those terms. They might become interested in sharing communion with Roman Catholics if they can be convinced that the church is not determined to impose these "doctrines" upon them or change the way they run their own churches.

But the fact of the matter is, most Orthodox believe that what you are claiming as a developed doctrine is just plain heresy. That is why we Catholics are not welcome before the Holy Mysteries.

Eastern Catholics are more open, willing to allow you to believe what you do and still come to the table. Some of us indeed will believe it too, that's how it is with us.

This conversation is not really going to get us any futher. I entered into it only to explain my position, which I have now done.

In Christ,
Michael

Amado, my brother,

Ahh, that damnable Jesuit logic

How indeed? The Assyrians solved the problem, albeit not intentionally, and not without some rancor, some bloodshed, and a schism in doing so.

After the termination of the British mandate in Iraq in the early 1930s, there were several clashes between Iraqis and the Assyrians, which resulted in the Assyrian Patriarch (Mar Simon XXIII) being stripped of citizenship and expelled. Mar Simon went into exile in the US and ruled the Church from San Francisco for many years.

In the mid-60s, three issues arose that threatened unity within the Ancient Church: the Patriarch's decision to adopt the Gregorian calendar; his continued inability to reside in the Church's homeland; and the then half-millenium old practice that the Patriarchate was hereditary, generally passing from uncle to nephew within a single family. A spate of episcopal ordinations ensued and the dissident faction elected its own patriarch in the late 60s. This situation continued for about 5 years, until Mar Simon resigned in 1973 to marry; two years later, while discussions were underway to convince him to resume his throne - regardless of his marital situation - he was assassinated. (I don't recollect whether anyone was ever brought to justice for that.)

His successor, the current patriarch, Mar Dinkus IV, was elected from the resident Iranian hierarchy, without recourse to the familial dynastic tradition. On election, he chose to relocate to the US although, as memory serves me, the Synod didn't finally and officially confirm its patriarchal seat to be US-based until about a decade ago (20 years after the fact). His Holiness resides in Morton's Grove, IL.

The schism, unfortunately, continues to exist - the other Church being styled the Catholicosate of the East - although I believe there has been some dialogue in recent years.

Now, assassination and schism wouldn't be my blueprint for solving the problem that you raise , and relocation of the patriarchal sees, with titular titles tied to the ancient sites, would be dramatic and controversial , without any question. I certainly won't be the first to recommend it (not that I expect to be asked my opinion either :p ). I suspect though that the possibility might someday be a reality.

Right now, if you look at statistics for those Eastern Catholic Churches which have their presiding hierarch resident in the Middle East, you see that significant numbers of their faithful are in the diaspora - which for them includes the Americas, Europe, and Australia. I don't think the dispersion westward is as marked among their Sister (counterpart) Orthodox Churches, but I don't have a ready data source at hand.

The following are rounded numbers from Annuario Pontificio 2004 - so they represent 2003 data. (I didn't bother listing the Copts or the Ethiopians & Eritreans, as their faithful are almost entirely resident in their native countries.) Barely more than 10% of the Syriac/Syrian faithful are outside of the Middle East but, for the others, it is 25% and upwards.

Church........diaspora......total

Armenians......315,000.....369,000
Syriacs...........13,000.....123,000
Maronites....1,455,000...3,107,000
Chaldeans......105,000.....383,000
Melkites.........565,000...1,341,000

Many years,

Neil