Originally posted by lucifershammer
(vistesd) It was not so understood by the other patriarchates (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria&hellip😉 prior to the Great Schism of 1054 ... The other patriarchs viewed the patriarch of Rome as “first among equals.”
Not so simple. Of course, the term 'papal infallibility' was not used until the second millennium. However, the Pope ...[text shortened]... h the sacking of Constantinople:
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/yukoszarycz/ecc/MOD5.HTML
I wonder if we’re going to get into a “Rome says—Orthodoxy says” kind of situation here. That’s not a bad thing. I’m going to spend some research time before responding to you fully (or else agreeing). Just a couple notes in the meantime:
First, here are the quotes from the letter from Chalcedon to Leo that are the most affirming of the Pope’s place—
And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have steadfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good…
For if "where two or three are gathered together in His name," He has said that "there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were, chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you…
They announce their decision that Constantinople should take precedence next to Rome, and ask Leo's consent to it. And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told…
[NOTE: There follows here their decision to ratify the prevailing custom of the See of Constantinople’s of ordaining metropolitans (basically, archbishops) in its jurisdiction; I gather from your post this later became a matter of dispute.]
We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second: for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk…
Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting…
Now, although there is a tenor of, for lack of a better term at the moment, “formal obsequiousness” in these excerpts, there is no indication that the Pope has the authority to dismiss the conclusions of the Council by fiat. Of course, Rome clearly had representation at the Council, so his approval was likely already communicated, or at least anticipated. This was not a Council called by the Pope to do the work assigned by the Pope.
This is precisely what Papal Infallibility is all about - the decree of the successor of Peter on matters of faith should be sufficient to end all debate.
This seems to be decidedly
not the basis upon which the Council proceeded, as the following, from the article you cited, indicates:
So it was determined, that the letter of Leo should be lawfully examined by the council, and a definition of faith be written by the synod itself…
[i]After the question as to examining the letter of Leo was put in this form, it will be worth while to weigh the sentences and, as they are called, the votes of the Fathers, in order to understand from the beginning why they approved of the letter; why they afterwards defended it with so much zeal; why, finally, it was ratified after so exact an examination of the council. Anatolius first gives his sentence. "The letter of the most holy and religious-Archbishop Leo agrees with the creed of our 318 Fathers at Nice, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled at Constantinople, and confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings at Ephesus under the most blessed Cyril, who is among the saints, by the Ecumenical and holy Council, when it condemned Nestorius. I therefore agree to it, and willingly subscribe to it." These are the words of one plainly deliberating, not blindly subscribing out of obedience. The rest say to the same effect: "It agrees, and I subscribe." Many plainly and expressly, "It agrees, and I therefore subscribe." Some add, "It agrees, and I subscribe, as it is correct." Others, "I am sure that it agrees." Others, "As it is concordant, and has the same aim, we embrace it, and subscribe." Others, "This is the faith we have long held: this we hold: in this we were baptized: in this we baptize." Others, and a great part, "As I see, as I feel, as I have proved, as I find that it agrees, I subscribe." Others, "As I am persuaded, instructed, informed, that all agrees, I subscribe." [/i][My bold]
[/i]In other words, the Council may “follow no other authority than Leo himself,” but only if and because they determine that Leo is right.
This is where my admonition to Scribs about not distinguishing roles comes in. The dispute leading up to the Great Schism† had more to do with the canonical jurisdiction of the Pope than his doctrinal authority. Did the Pope have the canonical authority to appoint and depose bishops who were not of his patriarchate? The filioque issue, again, deals with whether the Pope had the canonical right to insert it into the Creed - not whether the filioque itself is heresy.
The
filioque goes to both canonical jurisdiction and doctrine. Orthodoxy has, based on my reading, never declared the
filioque to be heresy. They do deem it to be bad theology (which is a whole other argument).* But, since this is a doctrinal issue—and if the Patriarch of Rome possesses the charism of infallibility in matters of doctrine—how could they refuse to follow the Pope in this matter of doctrine if they accepted that infallibility?
What I find really interesting is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have not had an Ecumenical Council since the first seven. Why not? I think the answer has to do with the issue of the participation of the Bishop of Rome.
Their answer, based on my reading, has been much simpler: (1) The need has not arisen, since there have been no major disputes over doctrine in the Orthodox Churches (this may also have something to do with the fact that Orthodoxy has, because of its less than enviable socio-political situation—as opposed to, say Rome—has kept their plate full with other issues; in the last couple of decades, there has been a kind of “coming out” for Orthodoxy, and doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues are now being debated); and (2) It may well be necessary to convene such a Council in the future. [Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware indicated in a recent interview that the question of women in the priesthood might be one of the catalysts that lead to a Council.]
Yes, there were numerous “causes” of the Great Schism that were brewing over time. Doctrinal historian Jaroslav Pelikan** believes that a growing inability to communicate clearly—since many in the West were no longer fluent in Greek, and few in the East were really fluent in Latin—was one underlying cause, albeit not the major one. Nevertheless, the twin issues of Papal authority and the
filioque were the deciding factors. Since the
filioque goes to
both jurisdictional
and doctrinal authority, that seems to be a good focal point for this thread, i.e. infallibility.
Two quick notes, then I’m going to spend some research time:
First, Orthodoxy since the Schism has not and does not grant the Pope infallibility.
Second, Orthodoxy—again, particularly in the matter of the filioque[/i]—views Rome as the doctrinal “innovator” that broke from the apostolic tradition.
* John D. Zizioulas in
Being as Communion sets out this argument.
** Jaroslav Pelikan,
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2,
The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600 – 1700), University of Chicago Press, 1974. (I believe that Pelikan’s opus is still considered to be
the pre-eminent scholarly work in this area.)