Are they infallible?

[anthony022071]

Popes can become heretics:

These quotes clearly allow Popes to err in matters of faith, and thus show that praise and appeals to the unfailing faith of Rome and her bishop in the ancient Church cannot be interpreted in an absolute sense.

It should be noted that those quotes are personal opinions,not expressions of Church doctrine. The bishops who convened at Vatican 1 went over the historical record of popes who were accused of heresy,and other doubtful cases,before they decided in favor of the papal infallibility doctrine.

Also,there is more than one kind of heresy. For example,Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic not for teaching a false doctrine,but for tolerating a false doctrine.

catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html
< His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, stating that Honorius’ purpose was to simply “deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh.” (5) This was later confirmed by the Abbot John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius: “We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely.” (6) St. Maximus “the Hammer”, Doctor of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in toto. He wrote that heretics “lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause.” (7)

Morover, all of the subsequent Pontiffs (Pope Servinus (640), Pope John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653)) up to and including Pope Agattho tacitly defended Honorius’ orthodox doctrinal position and condemned Monothelitism. In fact, “in his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agattho (678-681) asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and ALL of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, ‘have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the Monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma.’”(8) >

< Fourthly, the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were dispersed widely throughout the East and West, and followed the same basic protocol as the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople and anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but, as my thesis has maintained, Pope Honorius’ name is curiously missing from the anathemas. The council even went on to assert that from the very beginnings of Monothelitism, no Roman Pontiff had departed from keeping the Catholic Faith. >

 

[ForeverAdam]

It should be noted that those quotes are personal opinions,not expressions of Church doctrine. The bishops who convened at Vatican 1 went over the historical record of popes into consideration before they decided in favor of the papal infallibility doctrine.

It should further be noted that these quotes reveal the historical understanding of Roman Pontiffs, themselves, in regard to their ability to err. This historical understanding is very important and cannot be dismissed because it isn’t “Church doctrine.” In fact, since these quotes co-exist with other quotes, which acclaim the spotless faith of Rome, they serve to give these latter quotes a correct interpretation. Given that Popes, canonists and theologians had long testified to a strong tradition of papal fallibility, all the while embracing the praise of Rome found in much patristic florilegium, shows that these quotes of praise don’t mean that the Pope cannot err on faith and morals. In fact, they reveal that these quotes were not understood, throughout even the Middle Ages, as giving the Roman Pontiff an erring faith. Seeing this, it is less likely that a period of a less developed Papacy (e.g. the first millennium) would hold to a more exalted vision of the papal office than would a period of great development (e.g. the Middle Ages). Statements from the very men who built the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy contradict your argument that patristic praise of Rome and her Bishop testifies to an unerring Papacy. And they cannot refer to ex cathedra infallibility as neither those who uttered these quotes nor the men who received them ever made dogmatic declarations or showed an awareness that the Pope could do so.

Also,there is more than one kind of heresy. For example,Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic not for teaching a false doctrine,but for tolerating a false doctrine.

The quotes I provided clearly allow for the possibility of Popes “withering away into heresy” and teaching falsehood. Besides, I didn’t mention Pope Honorius, the Monophysite heretic.

God bless,

Adam

 

[grandfather]

A couple of points,

Relating to the original cause of the schism, I believe that it was an issue of pride both in Rome and New Rome (Constantinople).
…
I contend that if either side had chosen to listen to the concerns expressed by the other, rather than pridefully isolating the other, this thousand year schism could have been avoided.
…
Never the less, I contend that if either side had chosen to listen to the concerns expressed by the other, rather than pridefully isolating the other, this thousand year schism could have been avoided.
…
I think we are not so far apart that the Holy Spirit cannot bring us back into the unity that our Lord prayed for in Gethsemane if we would excersise some humility and charity and listen to His call.

Christian division, schism is a sin. Christ commands us to be one. We have divided ourselves, are divided, and there is no other conclusion than to say this is disobedience to God’s commandment to us. Popes or ecumenical councils may be infallible, but they are not even close to being without sin. All sin is rooted in pride, so your theory has to be correct.

Succeeding generations, for a thousand yeras now, as with the disobedience of Adam and Eve, suffer through inheriting the effects of sin. Division is destructive. We are a house divided and will surely fall. Look at the beating the Church has taken from secular anti-religious forces.

There is no excuse for disobedience to God and those who persist in maintaining schism are no different than those who started it. It is indefensible.

 

[anthony022071]

It should further be noted that these quotes reveal the historical understanding of Roman Pontiffs, themselves, in regard to their ability to err. This historical understanding is very important and cannot be dismissed because it isn’t “Church doctrine.” In fact, since these quotes co-exist with other quotes, which acclaim the spotless faith of Rome, they serve to give these latter quotes a correct interpretation.

The correct interpretation is in the defined doctrine itself. It’s very specific,and it was written up after an examination of the the historical record. Where in history have the doubts about papal infallibility,as it is defined by Vatican 1,been shown to be justified? Where are the heretical ex cathedra statements? A small error leads in the end to a great error. If the filioque was heretical,one would think that by now the popes and the Catholic Church would have been teaching a different person of Christ,a different Trinity,a different morality,than the pre-schism Church did. But that hasn’t happened. The Catholic Church still teaches that Christ was fully God and fully man,that the Father,Son and Holy Spirit are one God,and that believers must follow the commandments,repent and do penance,forgive,show mercy on the poor and weak and suffering. The Church still evangelizes all nations. The Church still has the fullness of faith.

Given that Popes, canonists and theologians had long testified to a strong tradition of papal fallibility, all the while embracing the praise of Rome found in much patristic florilegium, shows that these quotes of praise don’t mean that the Pope cannot err on faith and morals. In fact, they reveal that these quotes were not understood, throughout even the Middle Ages, as giving the Roman Pontiff an erring faith.

Seeing this, it is less likely that a period of a less developed Papacy (e.g. the first millennium) would hold to a more exalted vision of the papal office than would a period of great development (e.g. the Middle Ages).

The popes wielded more authority in the first millenium than they do in modern times. When Clement sent off his Letter to the Corinthians along with a few representatives,to the schismatic church of Corinth,they were obedient and grateful for his intervention. What modern pope was as monarchial and autocratic as Pope Leo was?

Statements from the very men who built the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy contradict your argument that patristic praise of Rome and her Bishop testifies to an unerring Papacy.

And they cannot refer to ex cathedra infallibility as neither those who uttered these quotes nor the men who received them ever made dogmatic declarations or showed an awareness that the Pope could do so.

It isn’t just praise - the Church Fathers attributed permanent orthodoxy to the church of Rome and her bishop. I know they don’t refer to ex cathedra infallibility. The Eastern Church Fathers sometimes spoke about the pope as if he were Peter himself. Can Peter teach a false doctrine?

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 638):
“Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his [the pope’s] letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church.”
(Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

St. Maximus the Confessor (ca. AD 580-662), a celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople:
“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.”
(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica [A.D. 650], in PG 91:144)

 

[Hesychios]

… the Church Fathers attributed permanent orthodoxy to the church of Rome and her bishop. I know they don’t refer to ex cathedra infallibility. The Eastern Church Fathers sometimes spoke about the pope as if he were Peter himself. Can Peter teach a false doctrine?

The early church Fathers are useful for a lot of things, but they were not prophets.

There are many examples of the fathers appearing to be in complete contradiction even to themselves, and more than enough examples of heretical notions among them.

You or I could say “the United States is the greatest country on earth!” and really mean it because we believe it, but is it true really? By what standards?

I can tell my wife that she is the most beautiful woman I have ever seen, and mean it! But in the big scheme of things what does that mean really? More than enough people have said they would love each other forever, and we know what happens. The Fathers were not above a little hyperbole, they could wax poetic, their words are not scripture.

None of these men could predict the future, the age of revelation ended with the last Apostle. The circumstances of those days and times were different.

If the body of bishops wanted to establish the episcopate at Rome (or of any other city) as the supreme authority over all the church and every Council they had more than enough chances to do that (one thousand years!), but they never even entertained the notion. What individual churchmen might think is not what the church as a whole did say in Council or out.

We know today that the bishops of Rome are not what they were over a thousand years ago, which explains why the Greeks don’t praise them anymore.

Michael

 

[ForeverAdam]

Where in history have the doubts about papal infallibility,as it is defined by Vatican 1,been shown to be justified? Where are the heretical ex cathedra statements?

Obviously, if there are no ex cathedra statements in the first millennium it will be impossible to find any true or false examples of such.

The Church still evangelizes all nations. The Church still has the fullness of faith.

Thanks for the confessional testimony. However, this is a red herring, nonetheless.

The popes wielded more authority in the first millenium than they do in modern times. When Clement sent off his Letter to the Corinthians along with a few representatives,to the schismatic church of Corinth,they were obedient and grateful for his intervention. What modern pope was as monarchial and autocratic as Pope Leo was?

I’m not referring to the modern times, but the medieval era. During the Middle Ages, very monarchial Popes stated as a given that Popes can fall into heresy and lose the Papacy. More modern Popes, along with the theologians and canonists, which they approved, followed this tradition. Clearly, Catholicism has a long tradition of papal fallibility, which was nurtured by the post-Schism Popes, themselves. This shows that your exegesis of patristic quotations fails to be reflected in the historical consciousness of your Church. As long as you maintain your patristic exegesis stating that Popes can never err, you are in opposition to the leaders of your own Church, which state otherwise. And ironically, you exceed, and present the very odd situation of ancient saints exceeding, the official limits of the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility, which only extends to dogmatic definitions.

It isn’t just praise - the Church Fathers attributed permanent orthodoxy to the church of Rome and her bishop. I know they don’t refer to ex cathedra infallibility. The Eastern Church Fathers sometimes spoke about the pope as if he were Peter himself. Can Peter teach a false doctrine?

A Western hymn by St. a Western hymn by St. Secundinus in honor of St. Patrick, the Enlightener of the Irish, contains the words,

Christ’s holy precepts he keeps in all things,
His works shine bright among men,
And they follow his holy and wondrous example,
And thus magnify God the Father in the heavens.
Constant in the fear of God and steadfast in his faith,
Upon whom the Church is built as on Peter;
And his Apostleship has he received from God
The gates of Hell will not prevail against him.
The Lord has chosen him to teach the barbarian tribes,
To fish with the nets of his teaching,
And to draw from the world unto grace the believers,
Men who would follow the Lord to His heavenly seat.

Since neither of us will argue that St. Patrick automatically carried St. Peter’s apostolic infallibility, we must interpret these words of St. Secundinus as being an example of high praise to a bishop who maintained his confession pure and thus was a worthy imitator/successor of the faith of Peter. There is no reason why we shouldn’t interpret comparisons of the Pope to Peter in the same fashion. In fact, we have all the more reason to interpret the papal praises in this way given that Popes don’t attribute automatic infallibility to the Pope, but rather state that he may err and allowed a tradition of papal fallibility to be nurtured in the Western Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[anthony022071]

The early church Fathers are useful for a lot of things, but they were not prophets.

There are many examples of the fathers appearing to be in complete contradiction even to themselves, and more than enough examples of heretical notions among them.

They don’t need to be prophets. Christ made the prophecy. The Fathers believed that Christ made Peter the immovable Rock of the Church and the earthly shepherd of the Church,and that the bishops of Rome were the successors to Peter’s authority,and that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church or the Chair of Peter.

Opatatus (c. 367 A.D.):
“In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] — of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner… Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
(Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2)

The Fathers were not above a little hyperbole, they could wax poetic, their words are not scripture.

In both the Catholic and Orthodox churches,tradition can carry the weight of scripture itself. But the Orthodox have abandoned the tradition of acknowledging the bishop of Rome as their Head,as the pre-schism Eastern Fathers did. They were hyperbolic in addressing the popes and in speaking of the popes because they recognized the popes as their Head.

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (c. AD 649), writing to Pope Theodore:
“O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed.”
(Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. Anno 649; Mansi, 10:914 and Allnatt, p. 66)

Why doesn’t the Orthodox clergy acknowledge what their Eastern Catholic predecessors ackowledged about Peter and the bishop of Rome?

If the body of bishops wanted to establish the episcopate at Rome (or of any other city) as the supreme authority over all the church and every Council they had more than enough chances to do that (one thousand years!), but they never even entertained the notion.

They didn’t need to establish what had already established by Christ.

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. A.D. 715):
“The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren.”
(John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

What individual churchmen might think is not what the church as a whole did say in Council or out.

Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD):
“Philip… the legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known from all ages, that the most holy and most blessed Peter… received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord… and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors.’”

Council of Chalcedon,Session 2:
"After the reading of the foregoing epistle the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461].

Chalcdeon to Pope Leo,Epistle 98:1-2:
“The great and holy and universal Synod…in the metropolis of Chalcedon…to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo…being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all…and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness, …”

Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681) to Pope St. Agatho:
“Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter [of Agatho’s] was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up.”

We know today that the bishops of Rome are not what they were over a thousand years ago, which explains why the Greeks don’t praise them anymore.

And what were the bishops of Rome a thousand years ago? Do you suppose that they were more collegial-minded,more modest in exercizing their authority?

 

[Mickey]

The Fathers believed that Christ made Peter the immovable Rock of the Church

Actually, most believed that St Peter’s confession was rock.

 

[anthony022071]

Actually, most believed that St Peter’s confession was rock.

I doubt that. Even those who did also said that Peter himself was the Rock. The literal interpretation comes first,and the secondary interpretation can’t be divorced from it.

 

[Mickey]

I doubt that.

Of course you do.

 

[anthony022071]

Obviously, if there are no ex cathedra statements in the first millennium it will be impossible to find any true or false examples of such.

But there were. There was Pope Callistus’ judgement on the admission of adulterers to communion after penance. There was Pope Stephen’s judgement on the re-baptism of heretics. Cyprian of Cathage,who had been vehement about the necessity of papal primacy,opposed Stephen’s judgement. But he could only get one other major bishop,Firmillian,on his side. All of the other churches agreed with Stephen’s judgement that there is needed only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Cyprian must have been reconciled with Stephen shortly before his death,since he is a Catholic saint. There is Pope Leo’s Tome,which Leo promogulated in the East as offical Church doctrine even before it was ratified by the Council of Chalcedon.

I e-mailed Mark Bonocore about pre-schism papal doctrines,and he wrote back:

< A great one would be Pope Innocent’s universal condemnation of Pelagianism. He writes (addressing and ratifying the African councils that condemned Pelagius):

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops and especially by a true and just and Catholic council, preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient Tradition, and by being mindful of Ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigor of our religion, no less in consulting us than before passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place desire to follow the Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of his name is derived. Following in his steps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good. So also, you have, by your sacerdotal office, preserved the customs of the fathers, and have not spurned that which they decreed by a Divine, and not a human, sentence, that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of his See; that by authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that, from it, all other churches (like water flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head), should receive what they ought to enjoin, whom they ought to wash, and whom that water, worthy of pure bodies, should avoid as defiled with uncleansable filth. I congratulate you, therefore, dearest brethren, that you have directed letters to us by our brother and fellow-bishop Julius, and that, while caring for the churches which you rule, you also show your solicitude for the well-being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the churches of the world at once.” —Pope Innocent to the African bishops, Ep. 181.

Now, it should be noted that Innocent’s immediate successor, Pope Zosimus, re-opened and re-examined the case against Pelagius because many Greek bishops (Zosimus was himself a Greek) thought that Innocent was too hasty in condemning Pelagius, and this move by Pope Zosimus outraged St. Augustine and his fellow Africans, who insisted that Innocent’s ruling had ended the matter once and for all. But, Pope Zosimus eventually re-affirmed Pope Innocent’s ruling, and so Augustine and his fellow Africans were vindicated. >

 

[THurifer2]

Do you pray for the dead whose souls are in hell or in heaven?

Why do you pray for the dead?

There is no such thing as a dead soul. God created souls eternal. Prayer for souls is always beneficial because prayer is always beneficial.

 

[w_stewart]

There is no such thing as a dead soul. God created souls eternal. Prayer for souls is always beneficial because prayer is always beneficial.

I never meant dead soul. I meant dead body whose soul may be in hell or in heaven.

Orthodox do not believe in purgatory. If that is so, why would they pray for the souls of the dead? And in praying, whose souls are they praying? Those souls in hell or in heaven?