Some Question Regarding Eastern Catholics

[dairygirl4u2c]

1. do eastern catholics believe in papal infallibility of the bishop of rome?

 

2. must they believe it?

 

3. with the west's permission, can a western catholic convert to eastern, and believe and do as they do?

 

4. there are some examples i know of where eastern catholics believe differently than is taught by the pope, and i'm next to certain this is with the pope's permission (they beleive differently than conciliary teaching that was ratified by the pope, and ive heard here the pope is okay with it). what are some other examples, and why or why not is papal infallibility included in that list?

 

ive read around google and other discussion boards, and it looks like there's not a lot of consensus on this stuff. 

[Selah]

I was wondering the same thing. I think Melkites reject many things in the West, but Maronites do not (they've gone more Latin over the years.)

 

 

*waits patiently for Todd*

[Aloysius]

yeah the Melkite Patriarch, of all the Eastern Catholic heads, is farthest away from Roman doctrines I think, being bold enough to actually state that he only accepts the first 7 Ecumenical Councils.

 

technically according to the official agreements of unity that brought these Churches into union with Rome, the Eastern Churches affirm all of those things, though, like papal infallibility and 21 Ecumenical Councils, et cetera; some might hold that the doctrines are valid but the wording is inapplicable in an Eastern context, and therefore affirm them while altogether ignoring them... practically, Rome is quite happy to allow much more leeway, as the Eastern Churches are meant to be a model for how unity could work with the Eastern Orthodox, and I think many accept the Ratzinger principle that the East should not be required to do any more for unity than would've been required in the First Millenium.  to me, this is a fine principle... the Christian Faith was already perfect when the Apostles passed it on, Ecumenical Councils should be nothing more than rudders steering that faith through time, and any interpretation of those rudders that steers things so far that someone who was a full Christian in one age would not fit into the Church in another is a bad interpretation that cannot be acceptable.  so this has developed into a bit of ambiguity, the different patriarchs of the Eastern Churches would have differing opinions, and of course different individuals within those churches have differing opinions.

 

as regards switching churches, you need permission from your Roman bishop and the Eastern bishop that have jurisdiction where you live... you basically just have to express to them that you are theologically in line with that church and you may be able to get permission... Apo has done that, so one would have to ask him about the process.

 

personally, I've learned to be quite comfortable with this slight ambiguity... I'm comfortable with a Roman Church that promotes 21 Ecumenical Councils as matters of dogma while still being united to Churches that only accept the first 7, so long as they do not condemn the teachings in the other 14 as unacceptable for a Christian to hold. 

[linate]

how can they think the pope is infallible, but not accept more than just the first seven councils? they must have a different idea of infallibility of the pope. i read that some believe he is only infallible when he speaks in unison with the bishops, or something. more like the first seven councils. i could also see someone arguing they aren't bound if they weren't included in a particular decision.

but if it's like the melkites, why even bother saying the pope is infallible, it sounds more like the church is infallible to them. so how can they be said to believe in papal infallibility? there's nothing special about the pope particularly then if everyone has to agree?

 

i read somewhere some people who split hairs about what was said at vatican I when the papal infalliblity was defined formally. it was something to the affect of the council wasn't saying what was thought... it's thought they said "the pope is infallible regardless of the consent of the church as a whole" when really they mean "orthodox truth is the truth regardless of the consent of the church" i don't remember the exact quotes and context in question.

this is DQ, changed my screen name

[Selah]

how can they think the pope is infallible, but not accept more than just the first seven councils? they must have a different idea of infallibility of the pope. i read that some believe he is only infallible when he speaks in unison with the bishops, or something. more like the first seven councils. i could also see someone arguing they aren't bound if they weren't included in a particular decision.

but if it's like the melkites, why even bother saying the pope is infallible, it sounds more like the church is infallible to them. so how can they be said to believe in papal infallibility? there's nothing special about the pope particularly then if everyone has to agree?

 

i read somewhere some people who split hairs about what was said at vatican I when the papal infalliblity was defined formally. it was something to the affect of the council wasn't saying what was thought... it's thought they said "the pope is infallible regardless of the consent of the church as a whole" when really they mean "orthodox truth is the truth regardless of the consent of the church" i don't remember the exact quotes and context in question.

this is DQ, changed my screen name

 

Melkites, to the best of my knowledge, do not accept Papal infallibility. They accept all of Rome's teachings, before the Schism of 1054. The Pope to them, as with the Orthodox Church, is the First Among Equals, but not the universal pontiff. 

[Aloysius]

technically the Melkite Church did once accept all 21 councils and papal infallibility, however in more recent developments in the era after the Second Vatican Council there have been statements from the Melkite Patriarch and, I think (Apo can clarify) some kind of particular synod of their church, where they have stated they only accept the first seven... papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I and Vatican II, so therefore they are saying they do not accept that. Rome has not come against them on this issue, so by Rome's silence we can infer that at this point, Rome is okay with Eastern Catholics who only accept the first seven Councils. of course there are Eastern Catholics who accept all 21 Councils also, so we mustn't generalize, I think the future of the Eastern Catholic Churches with Rome is currently in flux on that point, Rome seems happy to keep Eastern Catholics in communion who have distanced themselves from some of the earlier bases for their unity with Rome.

I think you will eventually see an attempt from Rome to reconcile in a way in which they continue to promote Papal infallibility, but accept Eastern Churches who do not accept it as long as those Eastern Churches hold that the doctrines Rome considers infallible to be acceptable theologemun (theological opinions) for Roman Catholics. That already seems to be the implicit policy from Rome in relation to Eastern Catholics, extending such a model to the Eastern Orthodox would be the hope, I think; but of course, the pendulum could swing back with the Eastern Catholic Churches instead re-affirming the Roman position... right now the Melkites have swung the pendulum the furthest I know without any statements against them from Rome, though.

basically, what this means is that if you're Roman Catholic, you should affirm all the infallible doctrines of the 21 Councils and of the Pope, nothing has changed and Rome is not at all going to go back on those doctrines for you. if you're Eastern Catholic, your position is currently up for debate within your Church, and a few different theological positions vis a vis the question of the Roman Pope are open to you, you should accept the guidance of your bishops and Patriarch of your sui juris church. the one thing that should absolutely distinguish you from the Eastern Orthodox is that you should by no means believe that anything held to be infallible doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church is a heresy that cannot be held as a Christian, you must accept that such things are, at the very least, acceptable theologemun for Christians to believe (even if you disagree with them).

if you're Roman Catholic and would like to become Eastern Catholic, you should consider carefully the full theological and liturgical traditions of your Church and of the Eastern Church that you would like to join, as you should by no means go into an Eastern Church and try to latinize your experience there. If you want to maintain a latin theological outlook, you are welcome still to attend and appreciate the Eastern Catholic liturgies, but only switch over if your holistic theological worldview has shifted to the Eastern perspective.

NB: A Roman Catholic can of course hold that Eastern Catholics ought to affirm the 21 Councils and Papal Infallibility, there is nothing wrong with that.