www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Question about Eastern Catholic beliefs

I have heard that some EC's say they aren't required to believe in things like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility. But to be under Rome, dont they have to accept Her teachings? Thanks!

We get asked these questions on the average of about once a month. Click on search and put in your terms and see what you come up with from previous discussions. If you can't find anything that answers your questions, by all means come back here and ask again.

I understand why the pope changed it to the Immacualte Conception to bring his church back together. But it had always been celebrated as the Conception of St. Anne. It was not a new doctrine of the Church, but one as ancient as the conusels.

The Church takes what is agreed upon by one another, not necessarily that we are all in total agreement in everything. The Sacraments are the same. Our Eucharist is the same just under another form, we have risen bread you have a flat wafer, ours has yeast yours is without. The deposit of faith for us is the Ressurection, yours is the Cruscifixion, hence the levened bread. Yet they are both true Eucharist.

There are many here that can explain much better than I, but that is one way to show why we do accept everything with the Roman Rite.

WE ARE THE SAME YET DIFFERENT, WE ARE AS CATHOLIC AS THE ROMAN RITE.

Pani Rose

I'd recommend this FAQ by one of our moderators Anthony Dragani:

Eastern Catholic FAQ [east2west.org]

Especially the sections under Doctrine and Ecumenism.

Thanks for all your replies!

So the Eastern Catholics do in fact recognize Papal Infallibility? I didnt find Anthony to be too clear on that when he addressed it on the link. Thank you!

Do we recognize Papal Infallibility?

I would argue that BC's do, within the very strict limits defined by VI. I would only add that BC's (and Orthodox) have less of an issue with infallibility than with issues around the application of universal jurisdiction. One can believe a doctrine without accepting every application of that doctrine, which is generally a matter of prudential judgement.

Just because one has the power to intervene, does not mean that one always should.

When it comes to BC's there is no question of one church rejecting the teachings of another. We embrace wholeheartedly the Catholic faith. It is usually more of an issue with RC's accepting our particular emphasis or perspective. This is one of the reasons why Pope John Paul II has asked RC's to familiarize themselves with the Christian East (Orthodox and Catholic).

Good for you for taking this call seriously!

Peace and a blessed Pascha (Easter)!

Gordo

I think another difference in Eastern Catholicism - Orthodoxy as well - is that we may not always see things the way western theologians viewed them - St. Augustine, for example. The Greek Fathers often arrived at the same truths, but from different perspectives. Eastern Catholics don't deny Western Catholic doctrine, but may have different perspectives and applications of that doctrine. For one thing, we are not as legalistic as the Roman Catholics. Our canon laws often bind with love, not the pain of sin. The West, because of its scholastic background, wants to define everything to the Nth degree. We view many things as mysteries and don't have any desire to define them. I don't know if I have helped any, or just muddled things even more for you.

y
y have an issue with infallibility as it sees this as a distortion of authority within the Church . Giving an authority to one HIerarch instead of to the Church in Council

So basically, the EC's dont see such things as universal jurisdiction and Infallibility as heretical, but rather prefer not to apply theology to the papacy the same way the West has? In other words, the EC's dont think the RC's are heretics because of Papal infallibility and univeral jurisdiction?

I think that to understand papal infallibility you have to do two things. 1.) Read documents from Vatican I. 2.) Read Vatican II. The first thing Vatican II did was close Vatican I, which never officially ended because of the political situation and other problems in Italy. The Vatican I positions were expanded and explained by Vatican II. Where problems occur, it is often because extremists read only Vatican I and take its decrees out of context. I think you have to read the documents from both councils to get an accurate picture as to what the Church teaches.

Brian,

Infallability is a charism given to the whole Church as it speaks with "one voice", to use the language of St. Irenaeus. According to Catholic theology, the Pope as the temporal head of the Catholic communion has the right (and at times the duty) to speak the mind of the Church to the faithful, protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in faith and morals. This is a very specific participation in the messianic and prophetic charism of the Church, and used (thankfully) rather infrequently. This authority does not preclude the moral obligation on the part of the Pope to speak from within the Great Tradition, respecting the views of East and West. In the past, some popes have failed in this regard, and their declarations have demonstrated a clear bias towards western approaches. This can happen in council as well, as evidenced by the Council of Florence, which, despite its work as a reunion council, drew principally from Western theological categories. (Pope Paul VI made reference to this difficulty.)

The jurisdiction or primacy issue is quite another matter and far more problematic, in my view. Universal jurisdiction does not, as some might purport to say (Bishop Hilarion being one of them recently...) render all bishops impotent in light of papal power. Bishop Hilarion even asserts that according to Catholic teaching, the authority of the bishops is derived from the authority of the Bishop of Rome. This is absurd and completely false. All one has to do is read Lumen Gentium in Vatican II to recognize that the pope and the coucil do not see the power of the bishops to govern, teach and sanctify as originating in the papacy. Rather, these powers reside in his consecration as bishop and successor to the apostles. THese powers, however, exist within a certain framework of Catholic communion, with the pope as its temporal head.

Also, to link it back to the issue of the pope as teacher, the full manifestation of the teaching authority of the Church is and always has been the pope in communion with his brother bishops in council. The pope can exercise this power as the head of the communion, but does so very rarely and even then never without consultation, which is his moral (not legal) obligation.

This brings me to the rather indelicate point (for my Orthodox brothers and sisters here) of the role of the Council in the teaching Church. If in fact the council is the normative and authoritative organ by which the Holy Spirit universally guides and teaches the faithful, why has there been no council for over 1000 years within the Orthodox communion? The West learned much of its magisterial model from the Christian East, and yet no universal magisterium exists within Orthodoxy, apart from the individual opinions of local hierarchs, theologians or synods. How does Orthodoxy speak with "one voice"?

Many Years!

Gordo

PS: Here is Bishop Hilarion's article, which, IMHO, is a faithful explanation of the points of view of many Orthodox hierarchs and theologians.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HilarionPrimacy.shtml

Thanks for your reply!

Im curious though, because I found that there are some EC priests that reject Papal Infallibility because they say it didnt exist in the first millenium. Go here: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...nu=1&groupnum=0

Mr. Dragini also says that some RC's dont even accept Papal Infallibility. So for the EC's who reject it, why dont they become Orthodox? Or do they, even though they may reject infallibility, still see Catholicism as the True Church?

Thanks for your insight! Im not trying to be offensive with this post, just trying to understand Eastern way of thinking.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Drewmeister,

I don't think it is possible for any of us to peer into another and know why, or why not, a person thinks or acts as they do.

It would be really hard to even quantify such a statement. Priests do not accept Papal Infallibility? How would any of us know?!

I think that it is a reasonable assumption that there would be such people, but if there are, I wouldn't know much more about their motivations than you do, I suppose. Although you seem to be a wise and sensible individual with insight and good honest questions.

If you know anything about the Coming Home Network (and other such organizations) you know that at any one time there may be over one hundred Protestant pastors inquiring about Catholicism, with the implication that there may be more thinking about it but not acting as of now. Yet these individuals officially serve churches that do not teach Catholic doctrines! Why don't they make the jump? God only knows!

We cannot speak for each other, but I can tell you this: I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is moving the church, and changing the church for the better. Although neither Pope or Council has told me so!

+T+
Michael, that sinner

A thought-provoking article in Touchstone magazine by Fr Addison Hart, a Roman Catholic priest on these issues:

Fr Addison Hart on Primacy and Conciliarity [touchstonemag.com]

drewmeister2 wrote:

There are two different questions we should consider:

1. What do Eastern Catholics believe? (For example, do some/most/all ECs believe in papal infallibility?)

2. What are ECs required to believe by virtue of their being in communion with Rome?

Concerning the first question, I can't really say precisely. But regarding the second question, a very straight-forward answer can be found in the following quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

�Rome must not require more of a primacy doctrine from the East than was formulated and experienced in the first millenium. In Phanar, on 25 July 1976, when Patriarch Athenegoras addressed the visiting pope as Peter�s successor, the first in honour among us, and the presider over charity, this great church leader was expressing the essential content of the declarations of the primacy of the first millennium. And Rome cannot ask for more.� (J. Ratzinger, �Die okumenishe Situation ‑ Orthodoxic, Katholizismus und Reformation�, 1982)