Question about Orthodox Understanding of Councils

[ArmyMatt]

Well, if definitive papal proclamations (or conciliar declarations, for that matter) are infallible, then they cannot be corrected. That is, after all, what infallible means - true and, therefore, beyond correction for error.
Correct me, please, if I seem to be missing your point. My point is that, although there are no "formal" criteria for what a Pope must do before making an infallible statement (as though one could say "He has not consulted at least 51% of the Bishops, therefore this does not fit the criterion of an infallible statement), as a practical necessity, he must make use of all the sources that a council might need to determine a theological matter. He can't just decide to define a dogma, and suddenly have an inspired definition.



The Catholic model of things has for a long time (without reference to the historical facts) made more sense to me than the Orthodox model, as far as I understand it, but my knowledge of the history is still rather weak and I definitely need to study more....

well, if his infallible statements are from the Holy Spirit, then he according to the council, does not need to consult anyone. it does not matter if 100% of the church opposes what he says.

and from my understanding, it is when he sits upon the throne of St Peter and speaks ex cathedra concerning doctrine and morals.

 

[MilesVitae]

well, if his infallible statements are from the Holy Spirit, then he according to the council, does not need to consult anyone.

Well, saying his statements are from the Holy Spirit is rather different from saying that they are protected by the Holy Spirit. All that Catholic teaching implies is that the Holy Spirit will not allow a falsehood to be definitively taught to the universal Church, whether by universal ordinary teaching, a council, or an ex cathedra statement by the Pope. It does not imply that any definitive statement made is directly from the Holy Spirit, as though the Pope has a line to God that he can call to figure out what to say.

But more to your actual point - actually, those who explained the meaning of the definition of papal infallibility when it was proposed to the Vatican I council specifically said that the definition does not mean to imply that the Pope need not consult his brother bishops, scripture, etc.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by asking whether he *needs* to do so or not. If we are talking simply about the requirements to "ensure" that an ex cathedra definition will be infallible, then you are correct, he does not need to consult others. In theory, I think, it's possible for a Pope to make an ex cathedra proclamation even if he has not consulted, done the research, etc. If the proclamation he would make in such a case would be true, then the Holy Spirit would have no need (as far as infallibility is concerned) to prevent it from being proclaimed.
On the other hand, if we are talking about what the Pope needs to do as a matter of practical and moral necessity, then, yes, he may need to consult with others if he wishes to come to a conclusion about what is true. If he doesn't, he may happen to get right, of course - or, of course, if he were to come to a false conclusion, the Holy Spirit (in whatever way He works) would prevent this from ever being proclaimed.

it does not matter if 100% of the church opposes what he says.

I'm not sure this is really correct. I may be wrong, but I don't think universal defection from the truth is possible in Catholic thought - nothing about Catholic teaching on papal infallibility implies that it is. In other words, it would never be possible for the Pope to define something which 100% of the Church opposed, since such a thing would be false.
Again, the Church's teaching simply means that the Holy Spirit will never allow the definitive teaching of His Church to be in error.

and from my understanding, it is when he sits upon the throne of St Peter and speaks ex cathedra concerning doctrine and morals.

His proclamations are protected from error when, exercising his office of universal teacher, he teaches to the whole Church definitively on a matter of faith or morals.

Sorry, I am not trying to argue for the Catholic position (which I am not even sure I accept anymore) - only explaining it. I did intend to discuss the councils, and wish to get back to that as well.

 

[MilesVitae]

If he proclaims a definite dogma, it will be true, because the Holy Spirit preserves the public, definitive teaching of the Church from error.

I don't see the functional difference there.

Well, let me use a comparison. Would you say that whatever is universally taught and accepted in the Church is true (i.e., cannot be false, i.e., such teachings/beliefs are infallible)? Doesn't the Holy Spirit preserve the beliefs and teachings of His Church from error?
How does this work? There is still struggle within the Church to discern the truth, and God will never interfere with the free will of those within His Church - and yet, at the same time, through whatever means he uses, he is able to prevent the Church from ever defecting from the truth.
It is similar with the Pope (or, for that matter, councils) in Catholic thought. Infallibility in either case means that definitive teachings on faith and morals proclaimed by either will never defect from the truth. This doesn't mean that the bishops or the Pope need not struggle and work at times to discern what the truth is - only that, by the mysterious works of God, in the end whatever is laid down as the public, definitive teaching of the Church will never fall into error.

 

[MilesVitae]

Councils help settle things sometimes, and sometimes they don't, I think, but I'm pretty sure that "settling things" is the purpose behind having them. Reckon that's about it.

Okay - but settle in a very different sense, it seems, from the way they do so in the theoretical Catholic model. It seems that for a council to settle some theological controversy, the very truth of the council itself (which is to say, the very solution proposed by the council) must first be settled by the whole Church. Do you understand why I find this confusing? Do councils merely propose opinions to the Church for approval, or do they authoritatively issue declarations? Perhaps I am still thinking too much within a very different paradigm (the Catholic one) to understand this well....

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not sure this is really correct. I may be wrong, but I don't think universal defection from the truth is possible in Catholic thought - nothing about Catholic teaching on papal infallibility implies that it is. In other words, it would never be possible for the Pope to define something which 100% of the Church opposed, since such a thing would be false.
Again, the Church's teaching simply means that the Holy Spirit will never allow the definitive teaching of His Church to be in error.

if that was the case, then it would not say he is above any council. it would say inconjunction with or something along those lines. saying those statements are above a council means that he does not need to consent to anyone. I think this is not the modern teaching because folks realize that it makes no sense when looked at historically, but that is what the council says.

But more to your actual point - actually, those who explained the meaning of the definition of papal infallibility when it was proposed to the Vatican I council specifically said that the definition does not mean to imply that the Pope need not consult his brother bishops, scripture, etc.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by asking whether he *needs* to do so or not. If we are talking simply about the requirements to "ensure" that an ex cathedra definition will be infallible, then you are correct, he does not need to consult others. In theory, I think, it's possible for a Pope to make an ex cathedra proclamation even if he has not consulted, done the research, etc. If the proclamation he would make in such a case would be true, then the Holy Spirit would have no need (as far as infallibility is concerned) to prevent it from being proclaimed.
On the other hand, if we are talking about what the Pope needs to do as a matter of practical and moral necessity, then, yes, he may need to consult with others if he wishes to come to a conclusion about what is true. If he doesn't, he may happen to get right, of course - or, of course, if he were to come to a false conclusion, the Holy Spirit (in whatever way He works) would prevent this from ever being proclaimed.

and that is the issue. if the understanding from the beginning is that the Pope's infallible proclaimations are the Holy Spirit speaking through him, then the Church would always have had that understanding. they would not have made councils at all because they would know to listen to the Pope. it seems a way of getting around the fact that Papal infallibility just was not around.

and I know you are, no worries man

 

[buzuxi]

Okay -Church for approval, or do they authoritatively issue declarations? Perhaps I am still thinking too much within a very different paradigm (the Catholic one) to understand this well....

They issue declarations. That's why many councils approved anathemas against individuals. Its also seen in the 7th Ecumenical council in its decree:


The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic 551Church. We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols.

 

[MilesVitae]

if that was the case, then it would not say he is above any council. it would say inconjunction with or something along those lines. saying those statements are above a council means that he does not need to consent to anyone. I think this is not the modern teaching because folks realize that it makes no sense when looked at historically, but that is what the council says.

Well, I'll have to find the relevant statement (about the Pope being above every council) to get a better sense of what they say and mean. You think it is in Vatican I where they defined papal infallibility?
As for whether it is in accordance with the historical practice...well, you may be perfectly right!

and that is the issue. if the understanding from the beginning is that the Pope's infallible proclaimations are the Holy Spirit speaking through him, then the Church would always have had that understanding. they would not have made councils at all because they would know to listen to the Pope. it seems a way of getting around the fact that Papal infallibility just was not around.

Well, as I indicated before, I am little skeptical of speaking of the Pope's ex cathedra statements as "the Holy Spirit speaking through him."
As for the rest of your point, I have thought about this myself and had similar thoughts. It can be asked what need there is for any council, in light of papal infallibility. At the same time, though, I suppose one could argue that, since the Pope has no special charism of inspiration, a council of many bishops may in many cases be much more useful for hashing out the theological issues involved in some controversy, expressing the needs of the universal Church, etc. The universal teaching authority of the Pope may be one organ by which the Church can teach doctrine, but that doesn't mean it is always the best.

 

[MilesVitae]

They issue declarations. That's why many councils approved anathemas against individuals. Its also seen in the 7th Ecumenical council in its decree:


The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church. We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols.

In theory, though, after issuing such declarations a council could be repudiated by the Church - so, I'm having difficulty understanding how authoritative are these declarations before they have been accepted by the Church at large. If a council has taken place, and such declarations have been made, what, then, is the obligation of the faithful in regards to them before they have been universally received?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, I'll have to find the relevant statement (about the Pope being above every council) to get a better sense of what they say and mean. You think it is in Vatican I where they defined papal infallibility?
As for whether it is in accordance with the historical practice...well, you may be perfectly right!



Well, as I indicated before, I am little skeptical of speaking of the Pope's ex cathedra statements as "the Holy Spirit speaking through him."
As for the rest of your point, I have thought about this myself and had similar thoughts. It can be asked what need there is for any council, in light of papal infallibility. At the same time, though, I suppose one could argue that, since the Pope has no special charism of inspiration, a council of many bishops may in many cases be much more useful for hashing out the theological issues involved in some controversy, expressing the needs of the universal Church, etc. The universal teaching authority of the Pope may be one organ by which the Church can teach doctrine, but that doesn't mean it is always the best.

yeah it's Vatican I, and although the council does not use words like special charism (at least not that I have seen), it does make it sound like the Pope does have special gifts unique to him alone.

 

[ArmyMatt]

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

• that is, when,
• in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
• in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
• he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

he possesses,

• by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

found it, from Vatican one. emphasis mine

 

[MilesVitae]

yeah it's Vatican I, and although the council does not use words like special charism (at least not that I have seen), it does make it sound like the Pope does have special gifts unique to him alone.

Well, yes, he has unique gifts at least in that no other individual bishop has a guarantee of infallibility, since no other individual bishop possesses an office of headship of the universal Church. Although, the quotation you offer does mention "the divine assistance promised him." Hmmm

Therefore

, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

found it, from Vatican one. emphasis mine

I was wondering if that's what you were referring to.

In other words, nothing need or can be done after an ex cathedra statement has been made to guarantee it's truth or to correct it (after all, "correcting" it would be an error). This doesn't mean that, before making such a statement, the Pope doesn't need to consult others to determine the truth, or that it is possible for the rest of the Church to be at odds with his statement (although, of course, some in the Church may be at odds...but such was the case with councils too).

 

[MilesVitae]

I mentioned earlier the explanation given at Vatican I of the proposed definition of papal infallibility. The following is from the Official Relatio on Infallibility, which was presented to the council by a Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser (who was charged, along with some others, with giving an explanation and defense of the proposed definition). While this isn't itself a dogmatic document, it was, again, the explanation to the council of what the proposed dogma actually means. This can be found in the book The Gift of Infallibility, by James T. O'Connor. Emphasis is mine.

Indeed we do not separate the Pope, defining, from the cooperation and consent of the Church, at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the Church. This is clear from the purpose for which this prerogative has been divinely granted.
The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church. The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith, i.e., dissensions and heresies which the bishops of the individual churches or even gathered together in provincial council are unable to repress so that they are forced to appeal to the Apostolic See regarding the case, or when the bishops themselves are infected by the sad stain of error. And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, et cetera.[...]
Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition that is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him.
Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head and since the Church Universal is not able to fail. For, it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths, which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.

I may have overstated my case on some points, but this is the source from which I am drawing much of my understanding of what the Catholic teaching actually means.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Lumen Gentium 25 always gave me GREAT PAUSE when I was Catholic, and it really seems to contradict the holistic nature of the papal "infallibility" that is in concert with the bishops and whole church universal.

This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect...Lumen Gentium 25

 

[MilesVitae]

Lumen Gentium 25 always gave me GREAT PAUSE when I was Catholic, and it really seems to contradict the holistic nature of the papal "infallibility" that is in concert with the bishops and whole church universal.

This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect...Lumen Gentium 25

Oh, indeed - I have longed shared your discomfort with this notion, and I can certainly see how it may conflict with the some of the more "conciliar" notions of papal authority.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, yes, he has unique gifts at least in that no other individual bishop has a guarantee of infallibility, since no other individual bishop possesses an office of headship of the universal Church. Although, the quotation you offer does mention "the divine assistance promised him." Hmmm



I was wondering if that's what you were referring to.

In other words, nothing need or can be done after an ex cathedra statement has been made to guarantee it's truth or to correct it (after all, "correcting" it would be an error). This doesn't mean that, before making such a statement, the Pope doesn't need to consult others to determine the truth, or that it is possible for the rest of the Church to be at odds with his statement (although, of course, some in the Church may be at odds...but such was the case with councils too).

if he needs to get the Church's counsel first, then it should probably say that the council is irreformable, not the Pope. and, while I understand that what you showed is how a lot of folks view things now, is that how Rome of the latter 19th century understood things?

and, if that were the case, how do you get a guy like Honorius, who was anathemazied for heresy?

 

[MilesVitae]

if he needs to get the Church's counsel first, then it should probably say that the council is irreformable, not the Pope.

Not so. Counsel sought by the Pope from others does not amount to a formal council - there are no council declarations to speak of as irreformable. And, after all, this section of VI is speaking specifically of ex cathedra statements by the Pope and their status.

and, while I understand that what you showed is how a lot of folks view things now, is that how Rome of the latter 19th century understood things?

I think so, as I attempted to show with the excerpt from the "Official Relatio." In fact, this interpretation of Catholic teaching which I have been presenting is drawn primarily from that document, not from Vatican II, for instance, or other more modern documents.

and, if that were the case, how do you get a guy like Honorius, who was anathemazied for heresy?

Was Honorius the one who sent a letter to the Emperor (or a Bishop? Or someone....) giving a heretical opinion (concerning Christ, if my memory isn't too shoddy)? Not that I'm terribly familiar with that case, but the counter-argument I've usually heard is that the letter did not amount to an ex cathedra teaching - I'd have to look into it more to have a very informed opinion, but from what I remember of having read about it, the Catholic counter-argument seemed sound.

 

[buzuxi]

In theory, though, after issuing such declarations a council could be repudiated by the Church - so, I'm having difficulty understanding how authoritative are these declarations before they have been accepted by the Church at large. If a council has taken place, and such declarations have been made, what, then, is the obligation of the faithful in regards to them before they have been universally received?

This council also dealt with a previous "ecumenical council" which was rendered a robber synod. A couple decades earlier the iconoclasts held their council anathemizing the icons including St John of Damascus.

How did the iconodule council of 787 AD become the ecumenical council we know today and not the iconoclast council held earlier? The emperor died in 843 AD and his wife the Emperess Theodora overturned the ban on icons. When the word went out the citizens of Constantinople took their icons out of hiding and all made their procession towards the Church of Hagia Sophia to celebrate. This procession is reenacted in many parishes where clergy and laity process around the church each holding an icon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Thus iconoclasm lasted alittle over a century. It began by an emperor was ended by an emperess and the people confirmed it.

 

[buzuxi]

Was Honorius the one who sent a letter to the Emperor (or a Bishop? Or someone....) giving a heretical opinion (concerning Christ, if my memory isn't too shoddy)? Not that I'm terribly familiar with that case, but the counter-argument I've usually heard is that the letter did not amount to an ex cathedra teaching - I'd have to look into it more to have a very informed opinion, but from what I remember of having read about it, the Catholic counter-argument seemed sound.

It's irrelevant how the modern day papacy views Honorius conduct. It was the council itself that declared it to be an official statement which indeed promoted monotheletism. This is why he was anathematized. The papal epistle was used by the monotheletes as evidence for the correctness of their opinion.

But Honorius wasnt the only one. Pope Vigilius made an "ex cathedra" statement at the 5 th ecumenical council. The pope "declared" and "decreed" that the three chapters were Orthodox writings and that no one could condemn them. Well both the three writings and the pope were condemned. When Pope Vigilius changed his mind soon after, the bishops of Aquilea broke relations with Rome for capitulating. Aquilea was the last place for the 5th council to be accepted. Not that it mattered.i

 

[truthseeker32]

This is helpful to the discussion:

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/papalinfallibility.pdf?noredir=1

The article uses Exsurge Domine to demonstrate some of the issues with the Catholic claim of infallibility.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not so. Counsel sought by the Pope from others does not amount to a formal council - there are no council declarations to speak of as irreformable. And, after all, this section of VI is speaking specifically of ex cathedra statements by the Pope and their status

if he makes an ex cathedra statement, with the knowledge that it is the Holy Spirit speaking through him, and the whole Church knows this as well, it makes no sense to seek any counsel anywhere. just let the Spirit speak.

Was Honorius the one who sent a letter to the Emperor (or a Bishop? Or someone....) giving a heretical opinion (concerning Christ, if my memory isn't too shoddy)? Not that I'm terribly familiar with that case, but the counter-argument I've usually heard is that the letter did not amount to an ex cathedra teaching - I'd have to look into it more to have a very informed opinion, but from what I remember of having read about it, the Catholic counter-argument seemed sound.

they say it was an opinion, but you don't become anathematized for heresy for saying a wrong opinion. latter ecumenical councils say it was a heresy, and the Liber Diurnus, which is like a papal oath of office that Popes took when they became Pope, names Honorius as a heretic.