www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Three Ex Cathedra Definitions

If one thinks about it, the general 'classical' interpretation is that the Ecumenical Council of Bishops represents the ultimate authority in guiding (not 'ruling') the Universal Church.

I believe that the effort on papal infallibility at Vatican I was understood not to be a supplanting of the authority of a Council, but rather an attempt to give the Pope the ability to respond quickly to some situation in which a matter of morals needed to be defined immediately -- such as when Hitler declared his state 'church' as Christian.

Today, what with modern means of electronic communication, this doesn't seem quite necessary any more. Through an e-mail blast to the bishops of the Church, a consensus could be obtained in 24 hours, rather than in the 24 weeks required to get them all to Rome for a confab.

I have never quite understood the desire among some folks to set up "ultimate authorities" within the Church to which they can give their wholehearted subordination and demand that others do the same. For me, our traditional Christian understanding of "ubi episcopus ibi ecclesia" works just fine and it seems to negate the need to set up multiple hierarchies of authority culminating in the Holy See.

Blessings!

Remie,
You say you "think" the Church no longer holds the teaching "Extra Eclessia Non Salus" since the 60's. That is quite far from the truth.
While it is indeed true that the Church has condemned perverted variations of this doctrine
of "Extra Eclessia Non Salus" especially those put forward by the Finiites of Boston, the Catholic expression of this doctrine stands and will always stand, because it is Truth and is Eternal. This can be seen in the recent declarations of the Document, "Dominie Jesu".

Outside of the Church there is no salvation because Christ's grace and sacraments are mediated through the Church. It is not ours to know who is and who is not "IN" the Church. Therefore we should not say absolutely who is and is not saved. Only God knows. But if they are saved then it is through the Church.

Stephanos I
Unworthy Monk and Arch sinner.

Dear Friends,

Clearly, the Catholic Church has always accepted "doctrinal development" as an underlying principle of theology.

Vatican II also affirmed that the Eastern Churches have their own Particular theological traditions and expressions as well.

My question is: Is Vatican I the final word on papal infallibility and jurisdiction?

There are traditional Catholics that would like to think so.

But to say yes to that question is to fly in the face of the jagged twists and turns of doctrinal development in the West throughout history.

There was a time, for example, when it was perfectly legitimate for Latin Catholics to believe that the Mother of God had contracted the Augustinian "stain of Original Sin" on her soul at her conception in the womb of St. Anne. St Thomas Aquinas was among those who believed this.

This situation obtained until the papal doctrine on the Immaculate Conception was defined in the 19th century when NO Catholic of the Latin West could believe that any longer.

When St Thomas More was canonized a saint in 1935, he was hailed as the "Martyr for the Papacy."

In actual fact, we know that More held a very collegial view of the Papacy, as we can see from his trial records.

His views on the Papacy were quite limiting with respect to papal jurisdiction, so much so, in fact, that the Protestant Archbishop Thomas Cranmer felt More's views approximated his own - and this is why Cranmer tried to help More out of prison etc.

We know of Catholic saints, like Catherine of Siena, who even rebuked a Pope or two in her day . . .

To make a long story short, the collegial aspects of the Petrine Ministry are things that contemporary Latin theology is seeking for that role.

The Eastern Churches theology of primacy and of the Pope, prior to 1054 AD, is just what those Doctors ordered!

Alex

There is more room to further define, explain, and clarify the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This, as Alex pointed out, is totally consistent with the idea of doctrinal development.

But, until that time is reached, every Catholic is obliged to believe in Papal Infallibility as it has been explained to the present. The First Vatican Council didn't say that this is necessary only for Latin Catholics, but for all Catholics.

ChristTeen287

Oh to be young again when all was black and white

Amen!

Dear ChristTeen,

As with all doctrine, I think we Easterners also look at papal infallibility within the context of our own perspectives - and that shouldn't conflict with what you've said about the doctrine.

We emphasize the collegial, service and symbol-of-unity aspects of the Petrine Office.

And so we see "infallibity" as an expression of the wider infallibility of the Church that it has through its being guided by the Spirit.

The Church is infallible. And when its chief hierarchs pronounce on doctrine, they are doing so against the backdrop of what the Church has always believed about this or that.

The Latin West has tended to emphasize the solitary infallibility of the Pope to the detriment of the collegial context in which it should always be situated - and exercised.

Vatican I was, in many respects, an extreme reaction to the contemporary currents affecting the authority of the Church as a whole.

Vatican I itself cannot and should not be seen outside what has happened since - and what has gone on before, especially before 1054.

Alex

Brian and Don,

Yes, it's great to be young, but I'm not looking at this from a black/white perspective, at least I'm trying not to.

I totally support the Eastern theological expressions when it comes to the Petrine ministry, and it is true that the West has sometimes emphasized the solitary nature of the Papacy to the point of a large exclusion of conciliar natures of the Church heirarchy.

However, would it not be fair to say that the East has conversely sometimes emphasized the conciliar nature of the Papacy to the point of a large exclusion of the solitary nature of the Papacy?

I think that both East and West can and should meet somewhere in the middle of both of these extremes, and that this mutual understanding will be incalculably beneficial for the Church, as well as with ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.

However, there seems a willingness to disregard Vatican I as an infallible council which defined an infallible Truth about the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra. I think this is a little unhealthy, at least from a Catholic perspective. Deeper theological understanding of this dogma and a specifically Eastern point of view is great and, as I said before, I think would be blessing for both East and West, but one must always remember that, from whatever angle it's viewed, if you're Catholic, Papal Infallibility holds true.

ChristTeen287

Well, at least in my path, I have found that Orthodoxy does preserve a healthier view of authority in the CHurch, emphasizing the prime authority of the Church in Council and the authority of the Bishop and a Communion of Churches.

True, just like when the Church was young and things where black and white. Infact we have a Church built on the idealistic Saints that saw in black and white.

Brian,

I'm not sure what you mean by "healthier", do you mind elaborating?

ChristTeen287

"But, until that time is reached, every Catholic is obliged to believe in Papal Infallibility as it has been explained to the present. The First Vatican Council didn't say that this is necessary only for Latin Catholics, but for all Catholics."

"However, there seems a willingness to disregard Vatican I as an infallible council which defined an infallible Truth about the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra. I think this is a little unhealthy, at least from a Catholic perspective." "...one must always remember that, from whatever angle it's viewed, if you're Catholic, Papal Infallibility holds true." -ChristTeen287

Dear ChristTeen287,

I used to be even more dogmatic than you on this and like issues. But I'm not anymore. One reason is that I realized that Christians (even Catholics) are not mental slaves who must abandon their reason and intellect in order to obey the teachings of religious dictators. We are free in conscience to believe in accord with our understanding of God's truth. Infact we are obligated to believe what we understand as God's truth.

First of all, as many point out in this forum, there are Councils which at one time were thought to be Ecumenical which later were determined by the Church not to be Ecumenical. There have also been Ecumenical Councils which were not immediately recognized as such, but only later on. I have read that Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to consider the doctrine of Papal Infallibillity to be an embarrasment for the Latin Church especially in its Ecumenical relations.

Not only this, there are a lot of indicators that Vatican I was an example of Papal intimidation and coersion, rather than anything Ecumenical. Many, many Catholic bishops opposed this decree, even publicly. Many, when they realized they were up against a Council not open to debate, simply left Rome rather than take part in its decree. In fact the Catholic Patriarch of Antioch only signed his name to the document due to immense pressure from the Pope and even then he still added the words "without predjudice to the rights of the Eastern Patriarchs." The Patriarch was later humiliated by Pope Pius IX for doing this.

Hence, there are many things about this council which makes it suspect in my mind. No one firing shots over my head stating, "all Catholics must believe this" is going to change this either. Rather, I will continue to study the issues involved and try to remain open to God's truth. We all have a right to freedom for intellectual investigation and a right not to be intimidated into blindly submitting to things that are questionable to us.

On a positive note, I have seen some interesting ways this doctrine might be reformulated to be made acceptable to all the East. I believe, with God's help, this can be done.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Healthier as in not the Medieval Papal model of Church governance which is not in the tradition of the Christian East. The Pope as Monarch instead of First among Equals in Communion with the CHurches of the Christian East. A good source for this would be the Reply of the Eastern Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

Odo's post about the earliest Christians seeing things is black and white doesn't quite correspond to the reality.

St. Paul himself had to intervene between the Judaizers, who wanted new adult converts circumcised (OUCH!!), and the more "ekonomia" oriented who said baptism was more than enough.

When in doubt, always go for whatever is going to best help the individual. The fallacy is that the "CHURCH!!!" is a reality that commands. In reality, the Church is not a reality in itself, but rather the collective faith and wisdom of its members -- something that is changeable and eternally developing depending upon the communion of saints who are the ecclesia.

Black and white? Not even close. More loving of God and neighbor or less loving of God and neighbor, that is the question.

Blessings!

I used to try and play the "some things are for Latins, others for Byzantines" game. It doesn't work and it is inconsistent with what the Papacy teaches in both its "ordinary" and "extraordinary" magisterium. We Eastern Catholics can pretend all we want that Vatican I will be "reformulated" or whatever, but our bishops don't believe that and I'd wager neither do most our priests or faithful.

The only other option is just to be honest. ChristTeen is right: a doctrine cannot be "true" for some and "not true" for others, or "seen in a different light" to such an extent that it actually is different. Such a belief is NOT Orthodox. The First Vatican Council did not take us into consideration, it was WRONG and against Holy Tradition of the East and West, and it is thus untrue and thus no one is obliged to believe it, Latin or Eastern. And to say we're bad Catholics is silly because those meeting for Vatican I had no authority from God to do what they did. Catholics rejecting the false teachings of the Vatican Council, whether still with Rome or not (such as the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht) are the ones maintaining the apostolic faith.

In Christ,

anastasios