Catholic Online Forum

How do the Orthodox Churches view infallibility?
Is it tied into the authority of the Petrine office or does it rest with individual Patriarchs or the collective body of Patriarchs? Do they rely on definitive pronouncements from the Pope or from a group of Orthodox clergy?

_________________
marc

I believe the Orthodox position is that the Church cannot err when she speaks with one voice on matters of central dogma/doctrine. Thus, the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils are regarded as infallible. Other teachings, which have been defined by local councils or synods, or have simply been received as true over generations by all Churches, are also considered infallible.

Infallibility is not attached in any special way to any particular patriarch, synod or jurisdiction.

Thanks.

Is the Pope regarded as a "first among equals"?
If the Pope makes a pronouncement which is infallible, do the Orthodox Churches give it their assent?
What about non-infallible but still binding moral teachings of the Roman Church?

Sorry about all of the questions without much else.

_________________
marc

Christ is in our midst!

Hi, Max.



No, not now. Prior to the schism of, roughly, 1054, the papacy was regarded in that way; however, the Orthodox point of view is that that role was lost when the Roman Church cut itself off from Communion with the other Patriarchs.



The Orthodox never looked at infallibility as attaching to the especially to the office of the Pope or any other patriarch. We the Church herself to be infallible on matters of central dogma, but we do not recognize the right of any one patriarch--including any pope--to be have his pronouncements accepted as the inerrant voice of the whole Church, simply on the basis of his office.



What about them? The Orthodox Churches are not under the jurisdiction of Rome.

I hope I have helped clear up your questions.

You might be interested in checking out the ealier discussion on "Roman Primacy."

Godspeed,

-Marvin (Ambrose)

Dear Marvin

You say No, not now. Prior to the schism of, roughly, 1054, the papacy was regarded in that way; however, the Orthodox point of view is that that role was lost when the Roman Church cut itself off from Communion with the other Patriarchs

According to the Catholic Church it was the Orthodox Churches that cut themselves off from Communion with the Pope who was regarded as the head. By definition the head (Pope) cannot leave any of his members since the members are supposed to follow their head (Pope). But a member could leave the Pope if they so choose.

You say The Orthodox never looked at infallibility as attaching to the especially to the office of the Pope or any other patriarch. We the Church herself to be infallible on matters of central dogma, but we do not recognize the right of any one patriarch--including any pope--to be have his pronouncements accepted as the inerrant voice of the whole Church, simply on the basis of his office.

The Catholic Church disagrees and it bases its belief on historical proofs.

Among these proofs are here presented some of the many attestations to the Primacy of the Chair of Peter according to the Fathers of the Church:

"The Son committed to Peter the office of spreading the knowledge of His Father and Himself over the whole world. He who increased the Church in all the earth, and proclaimed it to be stronger than the heavens, gave to a mortal man all power in Heaven when He handed him the Keys" (S. Johannes Chrysostomus, Hom. Liv., in Matt. v., 2).

"Why has He shed His blood? To buy the sheep which He handed over to Peter and his successors" (S. Joannes Chrysostomus, De Sacerdotio, lib. ii).

"If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?', I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world" ["Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.", 1. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani",1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].

"Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things? Because he was pre eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college" (St John Chrysostom, Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. 1).

"In this same sense He says: " The promise is carried out when Christ the Lord after His Resurrection, having thrice asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the rest, lays on him the injunction: "Feed my lambs—feed my sheep." That is He confides to him, without exception, all those who were to belong to His fold. "The Lord does not hesitate. He interrogates, not to learn but to teach. When He was about to ascend into Heaven He left us, as it were, vice-gerent of His love....and so because Peter alone of all others professes his love he is preferred to all—that being the most perfect he should govern the more perfect" (S. Ambrosius, Exposit. in Evang. secundum Lucam, lib. x., nn. 175-176).

"To Peter the Lord spoke: to one, therefore, that He might establish unity upon one" (S. Pacianus ad Sempronium, Ep. iii., n. 11).

"Without any prelude He mentions St. Peter's name and that of his father (Blessed art thou Simon, son of John) and He does not wish Him to be called any more Simon; claiming him for Himself according to His divine authority He aptly names him Peter, from petra the rock, since
upon him He was about to found His Church" (S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, In Evang. Joan, lib. ii., in cap. i., v. 42)

Referring to the Church in Rome : "With this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, it is necessary that every Church should be in concord" (St. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, lib. iii., cap. 3, n. 2);

"The following is a short and easy proof of the faith. The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say to thee thou art Peter'; on him alone He buildeth His Church; and although after His Resurrection He gives a similar power to all the Apostles and says: 'As the Father hath sent me,' &c., still in order to make the necessary unity clear, by His own authority He laid down the source of that unity as beginning from one" (St. Cyprian, De Unit. Eccl., n. 4).

"I acknowledge everyone who is united with the See of Peter" ( St. Jerome Ep. xvi., ad Damasum, n. 2)

"The primacyof the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church" (St. Augustine,Ep. xliii., n. 7)

"You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held" (St. Augustine, Sermo cxx., n. 13).

Referring to the see of Rome "the Apostolic See has received and hath government, authority, and power of binding and loosing from the Incarnate Word Himself; and, according to all holy synods, sacred canons and decrees, in all things and through all things, in respect of all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world, since the Word in Heaven who rules the Heavenly powers binds and loosens there" (Maximus the Abbot,Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem).

"To be in communion with Cornelius is to be in communion with the Catholic Church" (St. Cyprian: Ep. Iv., n. 1). Cornelius was Pope of Rome.

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter. In this Peter, the head of all the Apostles (hence his name Cephas), has sat; in which chair alone unity was to be preserved for all, lest any of the other apostles should claim anything as exclusively his own. So much so, that he who would place another chair against that one chair, would be a schismatic and a sinner" (Optatus of Milevis, De Schism. Donat., lib. ii).

"Against which ages (of hell) we read that Peter received the saving keys, that is to say, our prince, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not conquer them.' Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—you who fight against the chair of Peter?" (Optatus of Milevis, Lib. ii., n. 4-5).


In Christ
Mary

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” St. Augustine in’ Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental’

Marc,

From the way you pose your questions, I get the impression you confuse the Orthodox Churches with Eastern Catholics. Am I wrong?

Robert

_________________
Ma mission [est] de faire aimer le bon Dieu comme je l'aime. (Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus) My mission is to have God loved as I love Him.

Friends:
The following quotation was missing the author St. John Chrysostom.

"If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?', I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world" [St. John Chrysostom "Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.", 1. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani",1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].

Sorry about this mistake.

In Christ
Mary

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” St. Augustine in’ Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental’

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the whole militant and heavenly Holy Catholic Church I pray that God speeds up the process of reconciliation among the unfortunately divided Holy Christedom.

Dear Mary D., as an Orthodox I can see where the position of Eastern Church (not Uniate) is still for me apsolutely right. On the other side I can see where the position of the Western Church is still apsolutely undestandable. However, if these positons do remain the same then, you will agree, the reunification will NOT happen.

I agree that in 1000 years of UNITED History (if I can use that term) we can find COUPLE citations in which an EASTERN Pathriarches and/or Fathers uses "positive" terms in order to describe ceasaropapism (using this without any negative meaning). However, I do hope you will agree that as a whole the posture of the East is that The Bishop of Rome, the first among EQUALS, may God bless him, is the head of ROMAN Episcopate, and that in cases of unsolved issues other Episcopes of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church can call on the Pope or other Metropolitan Patriarches to help and/or solve the issue.

I wish on the end to point on one day in Jerusalem when the Holy Apostles sat down to decide what to do with new converts and issues regarding Gentile conversion. St. Peter at that time had a great chance to act as the hundreds of Popes had acted over the period of last 1000 years, and say, something along the lines:" ME ME ME ME". However this did not happen, THE UNITY of desicion, the UNITY of faith and the UNITY of proclamation was shown as it will be shown in the first 1000 years of Holy Christedom. Something has changed. This is the reason for the state of affairs today.

May God bless us all and shove us the road to Unity, sooner rather than later.

_________________
Orthodoxia i thanatos.

Our Most Blessed and Pure Theotokos and all the Saints pray to God for us, and firstly me, a sinner.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

....and in ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH....

Amen!


Obviously we disagree, and with much to support our position, but comments like this will not get us any closer to unity. That is for sure.

_________________
----- Art Z

I am very sorry if you see this comment as, let say, not goodhearted, it was not my intention to insult the host, and if I did, I do most sincerely apologise.

I just wanted to point on the fact that Holy Church was "with two lungs" for over 1000 years, and to that end something must've changed in order for "tensions to go high".

What I was trying to show (obviously was not very good at it) is that if the cesaropapism (non militant term) was "original" state of affair than either Church would never "divide" or would "divide" ages before it did. (On the point of division, personally I hold that Church is indivisible but for the sake of "reunification" and "two lungs" idea-which I love so much I will use it here).

The point to note on:"and with much to support our position" is that those supporting arguments do not mean much for non-Roman Catholics just as, apparently, Eastern arguments do not mean a whole lot for Roman Catholics.

So, here lies our dillema... Is that, so dreamt about, reunification plausable?

Well, somebody said on this forum that there should be another Oecumenical Council... Amin.

We should get the Episcopes of "all the world" and lock 'em into the room until they get the solution... after all, they might be proud and not ready for negotiation, but hey, even people who are proud and not ready for negotiation need to eat... and when they get the solution, we spark the fire on the BBQ... or something along those lines... I love democracy.

On a more serious note, I think we should all start listening Our Lord and Saviour of the world Jesus Christ (to Him Glory now and ever unto the ages of ages), because, I can not beleive that HE wants us to be separated.

In hoc signo vinces +

_________________
Orthodoxia i thanatos.

Our Most Blessed and Pure Theotokos and all the Saints pray to God for us, and firstly me, a sinner.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

....and in ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH....

Pedrag,

Please sign your posts. That way we know who to respond to. You name looks familiar. Where you a part of the old forum? If so, welcome back, if not, welcome to the forum.



Gread idea, I love it!



Perhaps the problem wasn't that something changed, but that something didn't change - human nature. Time, distance and not speaking the same language can draw people farther apart over time. From what I understand about the split, all of these contributed to it. As well as the personalities of some of the participants. Perhaps it would have been better had the Pope and the Patriarch met somewhere together rather than sending representatives. As it was, it could take months for messages to go back and fourth between Rome and Constantinople.



Plausible, yes. Possible, not the way things are now. Having been on both sides of the isle, I have a slightly different prospective of things. There is a lot of talk about our doctrinal difference. But IMO, that’s not the main problem. I think we first have to get through centuries of misunderstanding and mistrust on both sides. And then reunification will be possible.



Effie

_________________
“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” –G.K Chesterton

I think a new Ecumenical Council would be great, if it meant that these things could be ironed out. My only misgiving is that some might hold disdain for our Pope's physical and mental condition and hold the Council at an impasse. I really don't know how long we will have our beloved Pope...perhaps it would be best to wait for our next Pope to come...although it would be hard to find another man with so much love for our Eastern brothers and sisters and such a desire for reunion!

It is said that it takes a long time to implement Councils. I forget whether it has historically been decades or century, but the Second Vatican Council was relatively recent, and I suggest that we haven't fully figured that one out yet. Perhaps the Church of Rome needs some more time to get its house in order before another Council can take place. I don't mean that the Church has problems, but that some people in the Church have misinterpreted that Council and need to be brought in line.

I think that if all the Churches hold tight to their own orthodoxy, what is truly important and true, we should find ourselves in agreement. We just have to desire to be like Christ.

Thanks for your posts, Pedrag

_________________
Peter Edwards
------<><-------

Bo offense Mary, but you are derailing the thread by making this an apologetic thread now.

The thread is about how Orthodox view infallibility.

_________________
----- Art Z

Moderator's Notice

Mary,

I started a new thread on your subject, as it did not pertain directly to this conversation.


Bill H
COL Staff

1) Without the participation of the Patriarch of the West, do the Orthodox feel that they can still pronounce an INFALLIBLE statement?

2) Someone proposed the example of Acts 15 as a model for infallibility - that is, conciliar infallibility. I want to ask, was St. Peter's statement infallible only after conciliar agreement, or was it infallible because he was relaying a teaching that was from God?

Perhaps it is not so much that the Patriarch of Rome does or does not have infallibility by himself, but simply HOW he exercises those decisions. It is exactly like John CHrysostom's view of the situation that I presented under the thread "Model for the Papacy." Chrysostom states that Peter had authority by himself, and that he could have done by himself what all the Apostles did together. HOWEVER, Peter, for the sake of peace and unity, did not exercise that authority monarchially, but rather always in union with his fellow Apostles.

In Christ,
Glenn

I am a bit confused about the doctrine of infallibility all together. Didn't this doctrine come about relatively recently? (By relatively, I'm speaking of course in the terms of the entire history of the Christian faith, dating back to Christ, the whole reason we got to where we are now.)

Did infallibility begin only when the doctrine was made, seeing as it was only pronounced and put into effect (i guess) when the doctrine was made?

Also, haven't there been popes who have taught heresies ex cathedra? I wish I could name them and what they taught, I'll try and get that info, I know my info is very much full of holes, but I have heard this. Future popes have had to denounce the teachings of former ones, and I wonder, how can that happen if the popes are infallible?

If I have my stories skewed then please, correct me.

Kim

Kim,

To my knowledge, no Pope has ever taught a heresy ex cathedra. There are Popes who have personally held heterodox views, but none I know of had ever taught such views as teachings to be held by the universal Church. The closest I can think of was Pope Honorius, who was subsequently condemned for his heretical views by an ecumenical Council. However, his error was not that he taught it publicly; rather, he was condemned for being negligent in his office by not pro-actively condemning the monothelite heresy when it was brought to his attention.

Popes have contradicted each other over matters of discipline, but that has nothing to do with infallibility. This is where non-Catholic apologists shamefully falter - they confuse matters pertaining to faith and morals (things regarding salvation) with those matters that do not.

In Christ,
Glenn

Glenn,

About Pope Honorius, if he was condemned for believeing a heresy, and by other popes for being heretical in this regard, I don't quite understand the logic, then, of supporting the argument that Honorius' situation doesn't involve infallibility. If Pope John Paul II stated that he believed something personally that was in contradiction to Catholic teaching, what would we do? Isn't that a little strange? If Honorius was condemned by his successors, but is still infallible, that makes one think how stringent the "rules" of "what is infallibility" are.

Maybe my logic is different or immature, but, to me, the whole mess doesnt follow logically.

I'm not sure if it was your implication, but, I am a Catholic. Roman Catholic, born and raised. I just have questions based on what I'm learning about the history of the church.

Thanks for your post, however. Of course, I'm still confused, but I could very well be confused forever.

-Kim

_________________
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Hi Kim,

What may help is to understand that the term "heresy" was thrown around pretty loosely in the early church, unlike the narrow definition that it has today. For example, simony, the practice of buying a church position, was considered a heresy in the early days, because heresy was considered an error in either faith or morals. Today, we use the term heresy only in conjunction with stubborn errors of faith.

It should be noted that Honorius neither taught nor affirmed any heresies, but rather remained silent concerning a specific one. By todays standards, silence cannot be construed as heresy. However, his error was one of morals, remaining silent when correction should have been administered. This is the "heresy" that some subsequent popes refer to. Silence on an issue even ex cathedra cannot be considered infallible. Only a public declaration ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals is considered to be infallible. The pope is not immune to personal sin. He sins like the rest of us.

_________________
Mark Zona

Salvation comes from the Jews. John 4:22

Actually, Kim, what you need is an understanding of "what is" and "what isn't" an infallible declaration.

Just because a bishop becomes a Pope does not mean he becomes impeccable (incapable of sin). What it means is that he has the guidance of the Holy Spirit when he proclaims a teaching in the name of the Church. Thus, whatever the Pope declared as truth is, in fact, Truth. He can make this proclamation ex cathedra, or he can do it in conjunction with all of the other bishops.


If a pope decides he himself wants to believe in a non-trinitarian God, that would not be a violation of infallibility, UNLESS he were to declare his this heretical beliefs as a dogma (teaching) of the Church.

So, if Pope believes it himself, no violation. If Pope declares the heresy to be Truth (ex cathedra or in conjunction with all bishops) then it is a violation of infallibility. The latter case has not happened, and cannot happen, per Jesus.

_________________
----- Art Z

You can not imagine my frustration!!!

I had a post all ready and pretty and such, and when i clicked submit I was horrified to see "Invalid Session" and to see that my entire post was *poof* gone.

well, I went over this post with an Orthodox friend of mine, and since I'm too tired to rewrite everything, I'll just post what he had to say based on the following quotes:

"If a pope decides he himself wants to believe in a non-trinitarian God, that would not be a violation of infallibility, UNLESS he were to declare his this heretical beliefs as a dogma (teaching) of the Church."

If the Pope believes in a non-trinitarian God, it may not be a violation of infallibility, provided that he does not officially teach his heretical belief as a dogma of the Church. But if he believes that, and makes that belief of his public, even if he doesn't bind the Church to believing that, he is a heretic. Saint Robert Bellarmine teaches that if a Pope believes in heresy, he ceases to become the Pope. But who can judge the Pope to determine if he believes heresy? There is, in Roman Catholicism, no authority above a Pope. The Cardinals could not just vote for a new Pope, because there is one already existing who hasn't been deposed or removed from office because *no one can do that*. An ecumenical council of the entire Church cannot be summoned to judge the Pope and depose him for his heresy because 1) an ecumenical council, according to the RCC, is summoned, presided over, and approved by a Pope, and such a Pope is not likely to cooperate with his own judgement, and 2) the teaching of the council of Constance (?) that the ecumenical council is above a Pope was rejected by the RCC.

So we have a contradiction: Saint Robert says that a Pope who is a heretic ceases by that fact to be the Pope, but in order to be a heretic, the Church must officially proclaim you as such, and in order to do that, you must be judged as one by a superior authority, but the way the system is now, there is no one superior to a Pope except the Holy Trinity. So infallibility may not technically come into play here, but there is a more subtle question. Can the Pope ever really become a heretic, even if he doesn't force his teaching on the Church? Saint Robert takes it as a given and provides for what should happen if he does become one, but the way the system is, there's no way to practically carry that out. The actual definition may not preclude him becoming a heretic, but certainly the substance of the dogma would seem to argue in favour of the Pope being prevented from becoming a heretic, because even that would be too dangerous.


"It should be noted that Honorius neither taught nor affirmed any heresies, but rather remained silent concerning a specific one. By todays standards, silence cannot be construed as heresy. However, his error was one of morals, remaining silent when correction should have been administered. This is the "heresy" that some subsequent popes refer to. Silence on an issue even ex cathedra cannot be considered infallible. Only a public declaration ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals is considered to be infallible. The pope is not immune to personal sin. He sins like the rest of us."

According to canons that existed in the undivided Church (and to my knowledge, these have never been rejected by the RCC, although, because the Pope is considered the highest "legal" authority, what he says goes, ancient canons notwithstanding), you could completely reject the heretical beliefs of a bishop, but if you still maintained full communion with him, you too were a heretic, not because you positively believed what he taught, but because you were indifferent to it.

Saint Basil the Great, while yet a deacon, broke communion with his own bishop because of his heretical beliefs; today we remember Saint Basil, but most of us forget who his bishop was. For a subordinate (like Basil in that position) to reject his superior (the bishop) as a heretic, is a bold move, and some would say irresponsible. But that is how seriously the principle implied in this canon was taken by the Church. You could preserve the true faith. You could reject the heretical beliefs of a bishop. But if you preserved communion with that bishop, in spite of his heretical beliefs, even if you didn't espouse them, you also were a heretic. It is not a stretch of the imagination, therefore, to think that Honorius' "silence" concerning Monothelitism was more than enough to deem him a heretic in matters of faith at that time.

Furthermore, the concept of proclamations ex cathedra is not something that was known back then, from all I've read. In the undivided Church, there was no disconnect between "what I believe" and "what I officially teach in my official position" that I know of. If you believed something, you taught it. If it was wrong, you were a heretic. It is very simple. It seems to me that the current RC position (if what I'm gathering from this is indeed the current RC position) that a Pope can personally believe heresy, but not be a heretic unless he officially teaches it as a binding teaching for the whole Church, is somewhat erroneous.

Bishops in the undivided Church were caught for heresy simply for believing heresy, even if they didn't expect anyone else to believe it, even if they taught it as one option among several, etc. Whether they recanted or not was up to the individual, but the Church did get them.

At any rate, it was Sergius of Constantinople who came up with the first idea for the heresy (which I think was one of several attempts at reconciling the Monophysites and bringing them back into the Church), which he ran by Honorius. It was Honorius who took that teaching, written in a letter, and taught something different in a reply letter to Sergius, and Sergius ran with it. What Honorius taught in that letter was Monothelitism, a heresy.

I would like to see documentation from those councils that condemned Honorius in order to determine whether it was for his silence, or for his heretical teaching, that he was condemned. In either event, it is not correct to apply "today's standards" to a seventh century issue.


The above was him, he also made the statements that whether or not "ex cathedra" was how he made his belief known, he was condemned by subsequent popes for at least a hundred years, and still far before infallibility was ever defined, and even condemned and judged by an ecumenical council. Didn't think anyone could judge or condemn a pope, but an ecumenical council did...

I had other things to say, but they were in my other post, which is now non-existent, and that's so very frustrating...sigh...so I'm just exhausted now, and I'm gonna take a rest.

Kim

_________________
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

So I guess your friend agrees that it would not be a violation of infallibility, which is what I was saying, too.

He later goes on to talk about heresy for the individual, but that does not affect infallibility.


Well, I am not sure if that is correct or not, but let me just say that what matters is what the Church teaches, not what St. Bellarmine teaches.


Let us be reminded that the Orthodox do not belive in an evolving understanding of doctrine, whereas Catholics do. Hence, however "heresy" was defined back then, may no longer be exactly the case today (although it would not be radically different, I presume).


Remember, the Church does NOT define everything immediately, only when it needs to. So just because infallibility is defined at a certain date does not mean it did not exist previously.

_________________
----- Art Z

Agreed. But the meaning of heretic was used differently back then, and I don't see how silence can be construed as something that falls under infalliblity either then or today, since infallibilty is in reference to public proclamations, not silence.



My search for documentation with regard to any heresies proclaimed by Honorius turned up an absolute zero. I won't waste time looking for something that I do not believe exists, since I already wasted that time. As for documentation for Honorius' silence, that I did find but it took a long time. If you enjoy internet searches, type in Honorius and Heresy.
If you do not, please don't make me go through all that again. But if you insist, I will.

I am going to admit something here, and I am going to get clobbered by someone for this: The doctrine of papal infallibilty does not mean very much to me. Its rules for application are so rigourous and has so many loopholes, and is applied so rarely, that to me is seems almost unimportant. I think in matters of real confusion it comes in handy, like the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary, but how many doctrines of the Catholic Church are really determined solely on infallible public ex cathedra proclamations by the Pope? I really wonder why people get so wrought up over it. Some people seem to want it to mean that the Pope can never make a mistake. Thats not what it means, but people seem to want it to mean so on both sides of the issue. One of the conditions from what I read somewhere is that the infallible statement must be declared to be infallible in order for it to be infallible, (in addition to it being a matter of faith and morals, from Peter's Chair, proclaimed to the world). I mean these rules imply almost a ceremony. Hard to put your foot in your mouth when everything must be so carefully orchestrated.

Don't get me wrong, I give my assent to the doctrine of papal infallibity. I see where it comes from and it makes sense to me. I just think the rules are a little too rigorous and leaves people like me confused sometimes as to its purpose. I only see it useful when the faithful are visibly perplexed on whether something is required belief or not.

_________________
Mark Zona

Salvation comes from the Jews. John 4:22

For information on the heresy of Honorious see this Catholic Encyclopaedia article

Pope Liberius is another character who often comes up in these discussions.

_________________
George R

Pardon my french, but at this point, I dont give a poo anymore about the issue...being a part of a forum is too exhausting!

i just want to say that i read somewhere that if a person doubts aspects of the catholic church, in regards to faith and morals, and stuffs ecumenical, that that person is considered a heretic by the church.

would it be proper to say then that i am a heretic for having questions and posing arguments?

i hope not

as an aside, i think im gonna break from this forum, school is too exhausting without having to think theologically

thanks guys for all your posts and insights

Kim

_________________
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Back on the whole infallifiblity thing....if the Orthodox Church is infallible in its teachings, and so is the Catholic Church, why is there contradiction on the papacy? (This is a Protestant argument I have heard before.) Has the Orthodox Church ever infallibly taught that the Pope of the Catholic Church was only in a position of honor and not special authority?

Just wondering how to respond to this question. Thanks!

_________________
A faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time. Titus 1:2

Eric

The Church is infallible. IMHO, that is, the whole Universal Church (in line with Apostolic Succession... so basically Catholic and Orthodox...) when it speaks in unity. Infallible declarations are only pertaining to doctrine or morals - and at that, the essential underlying reasons for moral choices rather than the decisions themselves, such as the sanctity of life.

I've often wondered to what extent Catholic and Orthodox actually disagree on these things...

_________________
Jules Xx


What will become of sinners?

Catholics believe that the Pope is ifalliable only when he speaks from his thrown. He is the only authority in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church has many heads so to speak. When deciding matters, or when the canons were written, they came together as one. They were all guided by the Holy Spirit in all their decisions. The Orthodox Church in no way believes the Catholic Church is infalliable, because they have split and changed the first 7 ecumenical (sp) councils. This is why there will be no merge any time soon. The only way is if the Catholic Church changes back to the views of the Original Church (Orthodoxy), and we join as one. But in my opinion that will not happen, most likely the opposite will. That is why the Holy Father of Mt. Athos is building monasteries all over the USA, and other parts of the world. Because that will be the only places to practice true Orthodoxy, because he says even the Orthodox Churches will not be true Orthodox anymore.

That cannot be true because there are cases where one Church goes against the other Church in a certain Teaching such as the Primacy of Peter. The Catholics say that Peter has the Primacy (Infallible) over all others and the Orthodox say no to that. One of these two opinions is wrong and one is right. Whoever has this one example right is the one guided by God- and they cannot be both guided equally by God since God cannot contradict Himself.

BTW, without a Primacy, you cannot really have unity or universality and that is why the Orthodox are divided into national churches each with its own patriarch.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas