Byzantine Catholics, Orthodoxy, and the Pope
Posted by Karl (October 13, 2006 at 10:40 am)
It is a familiar story to anyone who runs in Eastern Catholic circles: one of the best and brightest members of the parish “‘doxes”, converts to Orthodoxy. It’s happened with Rod Dreher, the writer of “Crunchy Cons.” You can read his account of himself here.
In Rod’s case, it has a great deal to do with his courageous journalism about the clergy sex scandal, and the threats and mistreatment he received at the hands of evil Catholic clergy and bishops. Of course, as he says, none of this in itself makes the claims of Rome dubious, but when taken together with the state of current Catholic life, it brings to mind the possibility that Rome’s claims are dubious. If the spiritual, liturgical, and catechetical life at many Catholic parishes actually leads people away from Christ, then perhaps something is wrong. Add to that the general ambivalence or ignorance about the office of Peter, and something is clearly wrong!
Why be Catholic, after all? Why not move to another apostolic Church with a better sense of everyday Christian life? For Byzantine Catholics, this is an important question, for it goes to the very heart of our reason for existing. I think there are two very important tasks we need to undertake in order to be an evangelical Church: 1) Affirm and defend papal claims, and 2) fully embrace our Orthodox spiritual heritage. To do less is to die.
Why defend papal claims? Because they are true. (If you don’t believe they are true, it is only a short while before you follow Rod.) I sometimes wish I didn’t believe them, but I do. The Holy Spirit must act in his Church, and there must be a way to know where the Holy Spirit is leading. Conciliarism is not a solution, since if the Pope’s protection from error is a stumbling block, so is the protection from error of 300 council fathers. Furthermore, there just isn’t any way to know which councils to believe that doesn’t already presume you know the answer to the question. Follow Chalcedon and not the Robber Council: why? Because the Robber Council was wrong! How do you know that? Because. . . . and there the argument stumbles. Either God safeguards his Church or he does not, and the most likely locus for that safeguarding is in the office of Peter, both scripturally and historically.
This is what the Church believes, even the Byzantine Catholic Church. If we don’t believe it, we shouldn’t take communion in our churches, and if we do believe it, we need to give a good account of it. The halfhearted “we believe in the papacy, but. . .” which is common among Byzantine Catholics is not a workable spiritual state.
The second thing we must do, if we believe in papal primacy, is make that doctrine believable by the witness we give in our lives. I once had a woman say to me, “Greek Catholic? How can you be Greek and Catholic? One is either one, or the other!” We must show her that it is possible, that it can be done, and that it can be done well. Our churches must be shining lights, filled with the Holy Spirit, warm, faithful, hopeful, and showing forth Christ to the world. We must do this not only because it is good for us, but because it takes away an excuse for dismissing us. “Eastern Catholics? They’re a mess. If they really want to be Eastern, they should return to Orthodoxy!” No. We must assert, believe, and show that one can be an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome.
If we aren’t willing to do both of these things, we might as well fold up our tent.
Thanks for the pep talk, I needed it.
Your link to Rod’s story doesn’t work; it only takes one to the Beliefnet home page. I could get to Rod’s blog from there, but I already spent an hour the other day paging through posts trying to find where he actually says he converted to Orthodoxy.
(I knew he had because I attended Holy Cross [Antiochian Orthodox] in Linthicum Maryland Sunday before last -after attending mass first at St. Mary’s Annapolis which is where I was recieved into the church in 1972-and someone there told me he had been there and had become Orthodox.)
I couldn’t find it. So I hope you fix your link. I did read it earlier when he said he was considering it.
Thanks again,
Susan Peterson
Comment posted October 13th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
On second try, it took me there. I see that when I was looking, it wasn’t there yet. I left my comment. Some Catholics there commented with an awfully uncharitable spirit.
Susan Peterson
Comment posted October 13th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
This link is again taking one to the Belief-net home page and there doesn’t seem to be any way of getting to Rod’s post referenced above. Even going to Crunchy Con home takes one to the Oct 10 comment. I suppose as people in the religious blogosphere hear about this they are rushing to read it and crashing the site.
I do look forward to reading other people’s comments here when the post becomes available again.
I really like what is published on BEMA-I wish it were updated more often.
Is this a group blog? Could I communicate with the blogowners about what you do and don’t want on your site, and possibly contribute at times? I put my real email address in the blank above.
Thanks,
Susan Peterson
Comment posted October 14th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Dear Susan,
Perhaps Rod is having second thoughts about the propriety of putting all of his spiritual laundry out for display.
Yes, the BEMA blog is a group blog, and I wish it was updated more often as well. I will pass along your comment to the other members of the group.
Right now I don’t know how to get the email address out of the comments, but I’ll find out and send you a note.
By the way, I think posting more than three comments in a row is against blog rules! :)
Comment posted October 15th, 2006 at 2:19 am
Sorry about the 3 posts. I think you can see how it happened. I do see your smiley….
eulogosATstnyDOTrrDOTcom
Susan Peterson
Comment posted October 15th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
As a convert to the Catholic Faith, I have perhaps a small understanding of what Rod is feeling regarding the state of the Novus Ordo religion, especially in America. It is profoundly hard to accept that God has promised to protect the Church from teaching doctrinal and moral error but has not given us any guarantee that the offices of the Church will be manned by holy men living lives of exempelary sanctity.
Unlike some of the uncharitable commentators who responded to Rod’s blog, I cannot judge the motives of his heart for making the change. What I can do is bring my sorrows to the Lord (which may be nowhere near the level of sorrows Rod experienced in dealing with this pool of evil and filth) and ask Him to help me keep a level head about me.
One thing that I do remember when I think of how it might perhaps be better in Orthodoxy is the VOW I made as a convert to the Catholic Faith on Holy Saturday of 2001. It was a vow of fidelity to the Holy Father and the teachings of the ordinary magisterium. I tend to think that God takes vows seriously, even if we as human beings do not. This alone gives me pause, for I would not wish to face our Lord on the Judgment Day and answer His question as to why I did not honor that which I vowed to do. (I’m sure I will have more than enough to embarass me then without adding that!).
This leads to the next question….what then do we do with this awful “new liturgical language” which the bishops are forcing upon us? What is the proper response to the Nicene Creed which has been changed to include more friendly “inclusive language?”
What is next — altar girls like the Romans have? How do we in the Eastern Church stop this madness before our bishops lead us down a road which we do not wish to travel?
We live in dire times, and the hardest part of it all is the silence of God as these things are allowed to happen.
It is hard to understand His quietness.
Brother Ed
Comment posted October 15th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Ed,
First, the “Norvus Ordo religion” as you call it is CATHOLICISM. Please don’t make some sort of slight which appears to be an attack on the Catholic faith.
Second, don’t follow the example of the “Old Believers.” Translations change, and developments occur in Liturgy. It might not be your personal choice, but remember — you are not the one who leads the Church, nor are you the one given Apostolic Succession.
Keeping your vows includes respectful treatment of the leaders of the Church. Perhaps you would do well to remember “For us men and our salvation” once WAS inclusive language. Indeed, in Greek the word “men” is inclusive of men and women. It used to be the case in English. However, linguistic changes has made this inclusive nature of the term “men” questionable, and so it is possible to re-translate to make this question no longer there. Perhaps it is not a question for you. That’s great. For me, using Greek would not be problematic either. However, as a tradition which encourages the vernacular, and adapting to meet the changing needs of the vernacular, I fully support our Bishops in their attempt to do so.
Comment posted October 17th, 2006 at 5:34 am
Dear Henry and Ed,
I hesitate to wade into this, because I’ve seen how comment boxes turn into blazing infernos whenever the liturgy (and especially ‘inclusive’ language) is discussed. Or the Novus Ordo. There is a lively discussion of the new liturgy to be promulgated by the Ruthenian bishops over at byzcath.org.
Nevertheless, I do think it is possible to be critical of the current state of liturgical life in most Roman parishes without being critical of Catholicism. The missal of Pope Paul VI, while certainly legitimate, isn’t coterminous with the Catholic faith.
On ‘inclusive’ language: I think “for us men” still is conclusive, as does my wife, and almost everyone I’ve ever met. Perhaps I run in strange circles. Let’s assume that it isn’t inclusive anymore, and that people are leaving church understanding the creed to have said that Christ came down only for males; the proper translation is something like “for us humans”, not “for us.”
Perhaps we could bring the conversation about liturgy back to the two things I emphasized in the original post, the need to defend primacy and the need to live our Orthodox spirituality in its fullness?
Comment posted October 17th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Karl,
A couple things. One, several people have been banned quickly and behind the scenes on byzcath– so they will not be able to respond there.
Second, by showing respect for the Roman Liturgy (we are not talking about abuses, which can happen no matter the Rite one follows), we are showing our respect for Papal Primacy. Why? Because this is the liturgy of the Pope. To disregard and act like it is a separate religion is to insult the Pope.
Third, respect for our Bishops is also a respect for our Orthodox tradition. Remember unity with the Bishop is the key to our eucharistic theology. When people try to distance themselves from the bishop and think of themselves as the one who judges the bishop (hence, the director of the bishop), in their pride they forget themselves and think themselves to be the bishop and the bishop the flock.
Now, to my own take on “for us men” I personally find it can be seen inclusively as well — but if we agree to that, then what is wrong with inclusive language? It becomes one kind of inclusive language versus another. Yet, as has been pointed out, “for us men” is losing its sense of inclusivity in our culture — not with everyone, but for enough that consideration can be given without insulting our bishops for considering other ways of addressing the inclusive work of Christ. Indeed, the criticism of inclusive language (and the way people call it such) shows that the same people who criticize “for us” hold some belief that “for us men” is no longer inclusive.
There is much more going on here, and it again is the problems the Russian Orthodox faced when they updated their liturgy and the Old Believers left the Orthodox Church because of it. Some people idolize a historical-linguistic form and think any deviation or change, indicates heresy.
Comment posted October 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I am glad to find an Eastern Catholic blog, and one that upholds the Primacy of Peter at that! It seems fashionable for some EC to want to distance themselves from the primacy, even though our bishops were involved with both Vatican I and II, which together upheld this truth, without sacrificing or denying collegiality. As to inclusive language in the liturgy, I have read the revised liturgy & don’t understand what all the commotion is about. It seems that we would be better served directing our energies to spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Eric,
Have you seen this picture?
Tip-toeing to Mary
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/talkin_with_mar.html#comments
Mike
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Hi Bob,
I don’t want the seldom-updated-BEMA blog to turn into a liturgy fight. All I can do is refer you to Father Serge Keleher’s book. Go here for ordering info.
Thanks for your gracious compliments.
Comment posted October 27th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Mr Henry Karlson is wrong. By virtue of baptism, by being a child of God, one’s duty is to defend the truth, for in doing so one is defending the two milenniae of petrine adherence to the traditional mass, over the upstart novus ordo, which, let’s face it, its days are numbered. And that applies to the innovations of an inclusive language that the Vatican has been trying to avoid ever since the ICEL did its initial damage. It is orthodox to defend the immutable counsels of God. It is catholic to defend the papacy, not when it makes an arbitrary decision that flies in the face of its heritage, but rather when the long line of saints reveals adherence to a liturgy that is dignified and God-honoring.
Comment posted November 6th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Henry Karlson made a valid point. It is the Bishops who are the ordained teachers of the Church, and even though we have a role in defending the faith we would soon lose the faith altogether if we turned on our Bishops substituting our own private judgement for their teaching. That is the path that the Protestant Reformers took in 1517 and the following centuries and it hasn’t solved their theological issues. We’d be making a serious mistake and we’d be promoting error if we also followed in their foot steps by placing private judgement aobve the teaching authority of the Church.
Kind regards,
Philip
Comment posted November 7th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Unfortunately, it is absurd to argue that the changes
done under Bugnini to the Holy Mass of the ages somehow constitute a gage to our petrine fidelity! ‘Private Judgement’ is here being used as a canard… What, one pope (Paul VI) outweighs over two hundred other popes that have defended the historic mass, and the present holy father Benedict XVI has indicated the inadequacy of the Bugnini response to the Council documents, and so therefore he is intending to reform the reform. Yours is the private judgement, who jettison holy tradition to fit your prejudices, and then use it as a cover for specious obedience.
Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 1:01 am
For those posters in the Chicagoland Area I just wanted to let you know the following…
Last Chance to See Fr. John Corapi!
Father John Corapi
In Arlington Heights, IL
March 9 & 10, 2007
Tickets $45.00
Titiana Will Be Performing The “Passion”
For More Information or To Register
Please Contact Rob Adams (847) 259-4975
If You Missed Father Corapi When He Came To
Sacred Heart/Montini Catholic High School in March ’06,
Now Is Your Chance.
He Will Not Be Doing Any
Speaking Engagements After 2007. Tickets Sell Out Fast.
Mike
Comment posted November 12th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Karl, I really appreciate this post of yours. And the tremendous work that your parish has been doing locally. I truly believe that acknowledgement and recognition of Eastern Catholicism amongst Latin Rites in the Chicagoland area has grown tremendously as a result of your parish’s efforts.
I personally have to separate the global question from the specific one with Rod. I pray that this is a journey of healing for Rod. As I told him, as much as I disagree with what he has chosen to do, I do see in his commentary at least the return of a recognition of Christ as Person and a desire for Him, versus what I think has been present for all too long: a reduction of Christianity to something else — politics, liturgical battles, etc. — that ripped all the life off out of his experience. I’m sad that he felt it necessary to leave for Orthodoxy, but I do see a glimmer of hope that life might be returning to Rod’s experience and that it will lead him home in the end.
As an aside, I think I will be coming to the Divine Liturgy again at your parish on Dec 10th with some other members of the community of Communion and Liberation lay movement here in Chicago.
Comment posted November 13th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Has Anyone Seen This Video?
She’s Got A Way About Her (Blessed Mother)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otLlHv2JHTc&mode=related&search
Mike
Comment posted November 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 am
Sacred Heart/Lombard’s New Parishoner Steve Smith Will Be on EWTN’s “The Journey Home” Monday Night (Nov 27)!
http://www.ewtn.com/journeyhome/index.asp
Mike
Comment posted November 26th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
If you’d like to see a truly horrible post finding humor in the sacking of Constantinople, check out the relevant entry for Nov. 28th on this blog:
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/
While I believe it was posted in ignorance, this same ignorance of some Western Catholics is another enduring and painful reminder of why relations with the Orthodox are hard to heal.
Comment posted November 28th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Sorry—-the entry in the Curt Jester blog is under November 27th, not the 28th.
Comment posted November 28th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Beautiful moving nativity screen saver (free)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=121708
Mike
Comment posted November 30th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
I have a small comment to make on Henry’s comments. When I joined the Church, I was grateful that I found an assembly that could trace its litu
Comment posted December 16th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
liturgical rubics back to the very beginnings of the Church. You seem to forget that the Reformation introducted the worship of the mind over that of the Spirit, which in turn made an idol out of the Bible and put the Liturgy and our union with Christ in the Liturgy in the back of the bus, so to speak.
Now you want to defend a liturgical form that has been responsible for madness in the Church and state that it is Catholic????
Give me a physical break!!!
The Fathers of the Church would run howling out of any Church where they saw a Novus Ordo ceremony. There is nothing recognizably Catholic about it anymore except the wording, and that is getting hacked to bits, little by little. The architecture is changed in the Church, the Liturgy looks much more Protestant than Catholic, and yet I am supposed to welcome such changes (abuses) into my beloved EC parish without a whimper???
Get real!!!
Brother Ed
Comment posted December 16th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Practically speaking, the Catholic papal monarchy and Orthodox model both have their pluses and minuses. Since papal infallibility only covers ex cathedra statements, one cannot put as much weight on the doctrine as some polemicists would like to, especially in terms of providing an unshakeable epistemological foundation or resolving ecclesiastical disputes. The Pope is still subject to the Holy Tradition of the Church; the office may be vacant or incapacitated for significant periods of time and non “ex cathedra” statements may err and are subject to the judgment of the Church. This leaves plenty of room for bickering and confusion. A series of liberal Popes can do alot of damage to the Church without issuing any ex cathedra statements. Medieval Conciliarism in the West was motivated by the abuse of papal power and the inability to contain it or keep it in check. In short, these things work both ways. What if Rome is vacant or held captive for a significant period of time? What if a future Pope is a heretic or there are rival claimants to the papal office? What if the Pope issues a series of sweeping liturgical reforms that threaten the well-being of the Church?
I see lots of people adding to and taking away from the acutal view of the Catholic Church on the Papacy for polemical purposes (whether arguing for it or against it.) Of course, merely having a Bishop (like the Pope) with special perogatives which aid in the settling cases such as these would help and not contradict my ecclesiology one bit; however, this falls far short of what Eternal Pastor and Satis Cognitum call for… I’m not scared nor do I flinch at the thought of a restored Papacy. I would love to have a Restored Orthodox Papacy; it would be quite useful and wonderful for the Church, but we both know it’s not that simple.
Comment posted February 6th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
1) Affirm and defend papal claims, and 2) fully embrace our Orthodox spiritual heritage.
[snip]
The Holy Spirit must act in his Church, and there must be a way to know where the Holy Spirit is leading. Conciliarism is not a solution, since if the Pope’s protection from error is a stumbling block, so is the protection from error of 300 council fathers. Furthermore, there just isn’t any way to know which councils to believe that doesn’t already presume you know the answer to the question. Follow Chalcedon and not the Robber Council: why? Because the Robber Council was wrong! How do you know that? Because. . . .
Dear Friends,
If this discussion is typical of the current state of Byzantine Catholic theology, I am more disappointed than I expected to be. Key to “Orthodox spiritual heritage” is the reality of the All-Holy Spirit in the entire Body of Christ/Body of the (o/Orthodox) Church…not just in the First Among Equals, or even Council Fathers. This experience takes place across space and time, so it’s ‘messier’ than placing all one’s f/Faith in one’s primate of the day. If the Holy Spirit isn’t in the entire Body but only its ‘head,’ then only that ‘head’ can be sanctified - “What is not assumed is not healed.” The fact is that the o/Orthodox Body DOES “already know the answer to the question,” and if you don’t remember that this doesn’t mean ‘democracy’ but rather the timely prevailing of Truth and the non-prevailing of the Gates of Hades against that Church, then what exactly is your “Orthodox spiritual heritage”? What purifies, illumines, and glorifies you, if not the Holy Spirit in you? If you’re not part of a Body that “already knows the answer,” and are placing your f/Faith in a ‘head’ who remains separate from, and teaching differently from, a Church even he affirms teaches the Truth - ie, the Orthodox Church - what is your f/Faith about? Will the Bishop of Rome purify, illumine, and glorify you? Will your communion with ‘different teaching’ save you?
I won’t stick around, because I know how that can be perceived. I’m honestly and sincerely not trying to make trouble, just posing questions for you to consider about just how o/Orthodox Byzantine Catholics claim to be, and are, and we Orthodox are.
I wish you a profitable Great Fast.
Comment posted March 4th, 2007 at 3:26 am
about just how o/Orthodox Byzantine Catholics claim to be, and are, and we Orthodox are.
Sorry, I should have added “only by the Graciousness of God and through no goodness of our own…especially mine.”
Comment posted March 4th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Christ is Risen!
I am Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) and interested in all things Eastern Christian, and lately in the phenomenon (from my perspective) of Eastern Catholicism, about which I know little outside of polemic from my side and (possibly) polemic from yours.
I’d like to know more about how Eastern Catholics understand themselves/each other, and contrast this with understandings I find in my own tradition. Any recommendations or words of wisdom? Books?
I find it ironic how the fundamentally psychological and sociological questions of identity, of who we are are universal, even among antagonistic groups. For example, so much fretting about an Eastern Catholic “doxing.” I know many Orthodox who would feel the exact same way about one of us going to Catholicism–perhaps more upset if they went to Eastern Catholicism than to the Latin Rite.
Incidentally, I attend a Catholic college, and because of my wife and our low-incomes, I work as a sacristan for a Latin-Rite Novus Ordo priest who is a teacher of mine. I find the music pleasant; but the liturgy as a whole doesn’t put the love or the fear of God into me. Why criticize the Old Believers too harshly? Yes, there was A LOT of over-reaction on both sides. But a certain rite or form can become a part of us in good and bad ways. It can hold the key to our hearts, and unlock what is good hidden within. The insensitive denial of this fact by any religious authority can also unleash the ebast dwelling within us–as it has in the Old Believer schism and, more recently, among the Latin Rite’s traditionalist (SSPX and the like) wing.
Moreover, my teacher, a huge supporter of Vatican II–which did some good things from my perspective but which I find problematic in other ways–has some ideas that can only bother me as an Eastern Christian, to say nothing of being an Orthodox Christian. His seemingly lax attitude toward fasting doesn’t bode well for my sense that Rome and the East can have much to do with each other. Another example: his expression of dismay when one of our fellow students returned from Rome after attending Paschal services at the Vatican and finding out that the service was 3 hours long (too long, he said, the Pope could’ve shortened it…). We Orthodox I guess tend to see such attitudes as an increasingly lax and diluted attitude toward our Eastern tradition, which we share with you Eastern Catholics at least on the level of praxis, if not always the same in theology and ecclesiology.
Regarding Petrine Claims: The thought of Soloviev and Dante is tempting to a monarchist like myself. Tempting, but I’m not sure if it is wise, realistic, or traditional. We all tend to be limited by our identities. When identity is communicated to another, that person’s boundaries are set for them. You cannot imagine a Christianity without a construction of authority in terms of the Papal Primacy; likewise I cannot wrap my head around a non-Conciliar process of authority. One thing I suspect in my heart of hearts–I speak only now as a human being living in a postmodern age, not as an Orthodox Christian–we cannot truly know about the infallibility of our processes of constructing authority. I am not denying that there is authority and truth: I am merely pointing out what I see as a cloud of unknowing surrounding our limited being. I wish I could articulate this better. Suffice to say: whether Papal Primacy or Conciliarity is best can be known only to God; our egos are too invested in our personal faith-communities to make any non-biased judgment. I will always suspect Roman Catholicism of, if not of wanting to Latinize our tradition, of wanting to dominate us. I mean no offense, but I speak from the heart because our division saddens me: is the Roman Catholic Church truly Catholic–Universal–when none of these infallible Popes, to my knowledge, has ever been in the Eastern-Rite? How represented is the East?
We Orthodox are just discovering the jewels of the West, particularly the pre-schism West, but also the sometimes ambiguous post-schismatic (1054) West, at least on a personal level. East and West need each other. Thank God for you Eastern Catholics: you are needed by the Western Rites. We too have small enclaves of the West among us which we need. But I worry that at the end of the day East and West do not really understand or respect each other. I worry that you are not taken seriously by your Latin-Rite Holy Fathers, and that therefore your Church is losing sight of the concept of catholicity.
What do you think? Enlighten me, since I readilly admit I have no answers. All I seem to be able to do is ask questions.
I ask your forgiveness if anything I have said is a cause for offense to you, your tradition, or your own sense of identity. It is not my intent to be snide, which maybe I am unconsciously. I do, at the end of the day, respect Western Christianity. I also respect our Eastern brethren in communion with Rome. I even respect your deep devotion to the Pope, and to your belief in his special authority. But we see the world from different vantage points. Help me to understand yours.
Vo Istinu Voskrese!
Comment posted April 15th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
>The Holy Spirit must act in his Church, and there must be a way to know where the Holy Spirit is leading. Conciliarism is not a solution, since if the Pope’s protection from error is a stumbling block, so is the protection from error of 300 council fathers.
I don’t get the logic here. It seems to me that “300 council fathers” are much less likely to err than one pope, *unless* you believe the pope by himself has a special charism that prevents him from erring, which is precisely the question to be answered. I find it much easier to believe that the body of bishops together has such a charism than that one bishop, even the bishop of Rome, does so. See Acts 15. Joe
Comment posted December 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 am
*unless* you believe the pope by himself has a special charism that prevents him from erring, which is precisely the question to be answered
Joe,
FYI, they do. It was codified at their First Vatican Council in the 1800s as the doctrine commonly known as Papal Infallibility, that God has guaranteed that “ex cathedra statements” of the Pope of Rome “on faith and morals” will not err. That Papacy managed to defeat the last uprising of what it has called “the heresy of conciliarism” in his Patriarchate in the early-to-mid-1400s, around the same time as the short-lived Florentine Union with (Mediterranean) Orthodoxy, and not long before the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation … so you see how well it worked!
Actually proof that a version of this claim goes back at least some way into the first millennium comes from Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople (9th century), who labeled it Semi-Appollinarianism. REAL Appollinarianism was the Early Church heresy that philosophized that the Divine Logos replaced the human reason of Jesus of Nazareth. St. Photios was half being sarcastic I think, suggesting Rome believed the Divine Logos, or perhaps the Holy Spirit - I forget which - replaced the Pope’s potentially faulty human reason. And it occurs to me just now that may have been a double insult, since although o/Orthodoxy is “rational” as we (and Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Rite) say in the Liturgy, it’s not about “human reason” of ANY kind sitting around coming up with doctrines and philosophizing, as Photios, perhaps Christianity’s greatest theologian regarding the All-Holy Spirit of God, well knew!
In any case, Orthodox don’t even believe ANY “council fathers” are ipso facto infallible, either. A Council’s o/Orthodoxy is proved by its reception by the whole Orthodox Church, the whole Body of which we believe is filled with the Spirit of God as the Body of Christ on Earth, just as His Incarnate Body on Earth was so filled (and still is, in Heaven) … though I am the worst of sinners. Sometimes for a while it has come down to the loyalty to and vision of the Truth, of just a very few, like St. Athanasius the Great or St. Maximos the Confessor. This approach sometimes takes time, but as even Rome believes, it worked in the first millennium … and has continued to keep the OC faithful to the Truth … if not to Rome’s “obedience.” Why should the second or third millennia be any different from the first, one must ask Rome?
Comment posted December 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm