P
- Status
S
shdajeth
Guest
I would not expect to be unless I was in real danger of immediate death .
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
It’s the ‘h’ and the ‘k’ sounds that make it sound it so fun. If you don’t believe me, test it with other words, like hectic, heckle, háček, and heretic and tell me if they are also fun to say.
D
dcointin
Guest
I’m afraid I just don’t see this quote as a confirmation of papal infallibility, regardless of how it’s understood. I see it rather as an affirmation of the integrity of the Roman Church, and attempts to interpret it otherwise as reading in a latter dogma to an earlier text.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
I know that in magisterial documents of the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages, the prerogatives of the papacy are always put in terms of the prerogatives of the Church of Rome, not merely that of the Pope per se. This would align with the teaching of Vatican 1 of what “papal infallibility” actually is - the infallibility of the Church utilized in a unique way by one who represents the Church, not himself.
Blessings,
Marduk
I would wonder what rationale you are using to separate the entitiy of the “Roman Church” from its bishop. Your rationale does not seem to align with St. Ignatius’ Traditional ecclesiology. Can you please explain your position more clearly?
I know that in magisterial documents of the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages, the prerogatives of the papacy are always put in terms of the prerogatives of the Church of Rome, not merely that of the Pope per se. This would align with the teaching of Vatican 1 of what “papal infallibility” actually is - the infallibility of the Church utilized in a unique way by one who represents the Church, not himself.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dcointin
Guest
I would like to see the underlying Latin word that is translated variously as “error” or “perfidy”, as they have very different connotations. The former might be used to support infallibility, but the not necessarily the latter.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
Blessings,
Marduk
Fair enough, though I personally think the context speaks for itself. When I was in the U.S., I had relatively easy access to the Patrologia Latina and Graeca - not so here in the Philippines. Where’s brother Vico when you need him,
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
The Latin word “errore” is ued in Pastor Aerternus (1870 A.D.) from Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff. Also “custodirent et fideliter”:
To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage, referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failings. The Roman Pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples:
“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Lk 22, 32].
*
Huic pastorali muneri ut satisfacerent, praedecessores nostri indefessam semper operam dederunt, ut salutaris Christi doctrina apud omnes terrae populos propagaretur, parique cura vigilarunt, ut, ubi recepta esset, sincera et pura conservaretur. Quocirca totius orbis antistites nunc singuli, nunc in synodis congregati, longam ecclesiarum consuetudinern et antiquae regulae formam sequentes, ea praesertim pericula, quae in negotiis fidei emergebant, ad hanc sedem apostolicam retulerunt, ut ibi potissimum resarcirentur damna fidei, ubi fides non potest sentire defectum. Romani autem pontifices, prout temporum et rerum conditio suadebat, nunc convocatis oecumenicis conciliis aut explorata ecclesiae per orbem dispersae sententia, nunc per synodos particulares, nunc aliis quae divina suppeditabat providentia, adhibitis auxiliis, ea tenenda definiverunt, quae sacris scripturis et apostolicis traditionibus consentanea, Deo adiutore, cognoverant. Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. Quorum quidem apostolicam doctrinam omnes venerabiles patres amplexi et sancti doctores orthodoxi venerati atque secuti sunt; plenissime scientes, hanc sancti Petri sedem ab omni semper errore illibatam permanere, secundum domini Salvatoris nostri divinam pollicitationem discipulorum suorum principi factam:* Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua: et in aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos [Lucas 22:32].
To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage, referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failings. The Roman Pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples:
“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Lk 22, 32].
*
Huic pastorali muneri ut satisfacerent, praedecessores nostri indefessam semper operam dederunt, ut salutaris Christi doctrina apud omnes terrae populos propagaretur, parique cura vigilarunt, ut, ubi recepta esset, sincera et pura conservaretur. Quocirca totius orbis antistites nunc singuli, nunc in synodis congregati, longam ecclesiarum consuetudinern et antiquae regulae formam sequentes, ea praesertim pericula, quae in negotiis fidei emergebant, ad hanc sedem apostolicam retulerunt, ut ibi potissimum resarcirentur damna fidei, ubi fides non potest sentire defectum. Romani autem pontifices, prout temporum et rerum conditio suadebat, nunc convocatis oecumenicis conciliis aut explorata ecclesiae per orbem dispersae sententia, nunc per synodos particulares, nunc aliis quae divina suppeditabat providentia, adhibitis auxiliis, ea tenenda definiverunt, quae sacris scripturis et apostolicis traditionibus consentanea, Deo adiutore, cognoverant. Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. Quorum quidem apostolicam doctrinam omnes venerabiles patres amplexi et sancti doctores orthodoxi venerati atque secuti sunt; plenissime scientes, hanc sancti Petri sedem ab omni semper errore illibatam permanere, secundum domini Salvatoris nostri divinam pollicitationem discipulorum suorum principi factam:* Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua: et in aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos [Lucas 22:32].
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Vico
D
dcointin
Guest
I
“1: the quality or state of being faithless or disloyal : treachery
2: an act or an instance of disloyalty”
I would say that based on this definition that St. Cyprian was arguing that Felicissimus and Fortunatus could not succeed in convincing Rome to accept them as Catholic clergy because Rome was known for its faithfulness. I don’t see this argument as supporting the dogma that the Bishop of Rome may proclaim matters of faith and morals infallibly when he speaks on behalf of the Church in the official exercise of his office. Again, I feel this is reading into the text a much later argument.
I’m not sure that I would agree that “perfidy” is analogous to “errors”. I realize I’m exegeting a word based on an English translation, which is always dangerous, but Merriam-Webster defines it as:
“1: the quality or state of being faithless or disloyal : treachery
2: an act or an instance of disloyalty”
I would say that based on this definition that St. Cyprian was arguing that Felicissimus and Fortunatus could not succeed in convincing Rome to accept them as Catholic clergy because Rome was known for its faithfulness. I don’t see this argument as supporting the dogma that the Bishop of Rome may proclaim matters of faith and morals infallibly when he speaks on behalf of the Church in the official exercise of his office. Again, I feel this is reading into the text a much later argument.
M
mardukm
Guest
The next logical question would be: Disloyalty to what or whom? I propose this is the question we need to focus on.
If we ask “disloyalty to what?” the only possible answer is doctrine. Which would imply infallibility.
If we ask “disloyalty to whom?” the only possible answer is Christ. One can be disloyal to Christ in three possible ways: (1) Sin; (2) apostasy; (3) heresy.
It can’t be sin, unless one thinks that St. Cyprian is arguing the Church of Rome is sinless.
It can’t be apostasy (a total falling away from the Faith), because St. Cyprian is contrasting the Church of Rome with those he believed to be heretics/schismatics, which by definition are not apostates.
The only option left is heresy, which would again imply infallibility.
So St. Cyprian is at least implying that the Church of Rome is infallible since this disloyalty in doctrine (or heresy), according to St. Cyprian, has no access to the Church of Rome.
At this point, the matter devolves to my original question involving St. Ignatius’ Traditional ecclesiology - how do you separate the bishop from his Church?
Again as a reminder, the Catholic Church has Traditionally, as reflected in the teaching Vatican 1, expressed the papal prerogatives as the prerogatives of the Church of Rome or the See itself, not particularly of the Pope per se.
If the Church or See of Rome possesses a charism which does not permit heresy (or faithfulessness to doctrine) to have access to her, how can its bishop - who cannot be separated ontologically from her - not be possessed of that same charism if and when he is speaking in his capacity as the primatial representative of that Church?
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dcointin
Guest
First, let’s look at the persons of Feliccimus and Fortunatus to understand why they were opposed by Cyprian:
“Felicissimus, deacon of Carthage, whom Novatus associated with himself in the management of a district called Mons (Cyp. Ep. 41). He was the chief agent (signifer seditionis, Ep. 59) of the anti-Cyprianic party, which combined the five presbyters originally opposed to Cyprian’s election with the later-formed party for the easy readmission of the lapsed (Epp. 43, 45). Cyprian (Ep. 52) definitely states that Felicissimus had been, when the persecution arose, on the point of being tried before the presbytery on charges of homicidal cruelty to his father and wife. Like other African and Spanish deacons (Neander, vol. i. p. 324, ed. Bohn), he acquired influence through his administration of church property and was able to threaten with excommunication any who accepted relief or office from Cyprian’s commissioners. The latter excommunicated him (Ep. 42) with Cyprian’s consent. The mild resolution of the council of 252, making easy the readmission of the lapsed on earnest repentance [CYPRIANUS], destroyed his locus standi. The party then coalesced with that of PRIVATUS, who consecrated Fortunatus anti-bishop; and Felicissimus sailed for Rome to conciliate or intimidate Cornelius into recognizing him (Ep. 59). Failing here, the party melted quietly away.”
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_Christian_Biography_and_Literature_to_the_End_of_the_Sixth_Century/Felicissimus,_deacon_of_Carthage
So we see that there were three issues: one that Felicissimus was guilty of grevious sin, two that Fortunatus was consecrated as bishop illicitly, and three that they both favored the easy readmission of the lapsed. None of these are dogmatic issues, but rather disciplinary and canonical ones. Cyprian’s reference to them as heretics is not a technical use of the word to refer to those who deny Church dogma, but a general one similar to schismatic, which he uses interchangeably. The faithfulness he refers to then is to the unity and discipline of the Church, and the context therefore cannot support the dogma of papal infallibility.
“Felicissimus, deacon of Carthage, whom Novatus associated with himself in the management of a district called Mons (Cyp. Ep. 41). He was the chief agent (signifer seditionis, Ep. 59) of the anti-Cyprianic party, which combined the five presbyters originally opposed to Cyprian’s election with the later-formed party for the easy readmission of the lapsed (Epp. 43, 45). Cyprian (Ep. 52) definitely states that Felicissimus had been, when the persecution arose, on the point of being tried before the presbytery on charges of homicidal cruelty to his father and wife. Like other African and Spanish deacons (Neander, vol. i. p. 324, ed. Bohn), he acquired influence through his administration of church property and was able to threaten with excommunication any who accepted relief or office from Cyprian’s commissioners. The latter excommunicated him (Ep. 42) with Cyprian’s consent. The mild resolution of the council of 252, making easy the readmission of the lapsed on earnest repentance [CYPRIANUS], destroyed his locus standi. The party then coalesced with that of PRIVATUS, who consecrated Fortunatus anti-bishop; and Felicissimus sailed for Rome to conciliate or intimidate Cornelius into recognizing him (Ep. 59). Failing here, the party melted quietly away.”
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_Christian_Biography_and_Literature_to_the_End_of_the_Sixth_Century/Felicissimus,_deacon_of_Carthage
So we see that there were three issues: one that Felicissimus was guilty of grevious sin, two that Fortunatus was consecrated as bishop illicitly, and three that they both favored the easy readmission of the lapsed. None of these are dogmatic issues, but rather disciplinary and canonical ones. Cyprian’s reference to them as heretics is not a technical use of the word to refer to those who deny Church dogma, but a general one similar to schismatic, which he uses interchangeably. The faithfulness he refers to then is to the unity and discipline of the Church, and the context therefore cannot support the dogma of papal infallibility.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with the assumption that, at least in the eyes of St. Cyprian, the party of Felicissimus/Fortunatus were mere schismatics. Read paragraph 13 of Letter 54 (the paragraph immediately before the one wherein you find the text under discussion). There you will find Cyprian’s rationale for branding the opinions of Felicissimus/Fortunatus as heresy, not merely schismatical. He states that they preached that the lapsi did not need to confess their sins and repent; that their teaching caused the Grace of baptism to be lost and the Sacrament of repentance to be for naught.
We have the benefit in hindsight to see that the schism of Felicissimus and Fortunatus was not actually doctrinal. But in the heat of that short-lived controversy, that was not the case in the eyes of St. Cyprian. And what we need to do is pay attention to St. Cyprian’s own pov in analyzing what he meant by “perfidy/faithflessness/error.”
Blessings,
Marduk
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with the assumption that, at least in the eyes of St. Cyprian, the party of Felicissimus/Fortunatus were mere schismatics. Read paragraph 13 of Letter 54 (the paragraph immediately before the one wherein you find the text under discussion). There you will find Cyprian’s rationale for branding the opinions of Felicissimus/Fortunatus as heresy, not merely schismatical. He states that they preached that the lapsi did not need to confess their sins and repent; that their teaching caused the Grace of baptism to be lost and the Sacrament of repentance to be for naught.
We have the benefit in hindsight to see that the schism of Felicissimus and Fortunatus was not actually doctrinal. But in the heat of that short-lived controversy, that was not the case in the eyes of St. Cyprian. And what we need to do is pay attention to St. Cyprian’s own pov in analyzing what he meant by “perfidy/faithflessness/error.”
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dcointin
Guest
If this is the case, i.e. that Cyprian believed that the Church of Rome was incapable of error, then it’s hard to understand why he would oppose it in a matter of faith such as the Donatist controversy which was also related to baptism. That says to me that either he did not view it as a matter of faith, in which case his statement here does not imply papal infallibility, or he did, in which case he did not believe that the Church of Rome was incapable of error.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
So St. Cyprian was being consistent (i.e., Rome was naturally involved in matters of doctrine, but did not brook interference on what he regarded as merely local issues), but he was wrong that the issue of rebaptism was a merely disciplinary matter to be left to the decision of the local bishop.
Blessings,
Marduk
I think you are referring to the Novatians, not the Donatists. The Novatians were the immediate cause of the rebaptism controversy (that’s what you are talking about, right?). I explained this earlier to Cavaradossi. It is rather strange, but St. Cyprian actually thought the issue was not a matter of universal dogma, but a matter of local praxis/discipline to be left up to the decision of the local bishop. So he was being consistent, though later Ecumenical Councils sided with the decision of Pope St. Stephen and accepted the Baptism AND Orders of the Novatians (also known as Cathari), as well as other schismatics and heretics. As explained earlier, only the baptisms of the pneumatomachi, modalists, and those who did not baptize in the proper Trinitarian formula were rejected by the Ecumenical Councils. As the Ecumenical Councils made such distinctions, it was indeed a doctrinal matter, not merely disciplinary.
So St. Cyprian was being consistent (i.e., Rome was naturally involved in matters of doctrine, but did not brook interference on what he regarded as merely local issues), but he was wrong that the issue of rebaptism was a merely disciplinary matter to be left to the decision of the local bishop.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dcointin
Guest
So if I understand you correctly:
Cyprian was opposed to the Novatians for rebaptizing lapsed Christians, but considered the matter one of discipline under the purview of the local bishop, not of faith and morals.
Cyprian also opposed Felicissimus and Fortunatus, who were Novatians, and in his letter against them taught that they could not be received in Rome because Rome could not err in matters of faith and morals.
So Cyprian believed it was not a dogmatic issue, and also that it was a dogmatic issue if we’re to accept your understanding of the quotation we’ve been discussing?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
The error of Felicissimus and Fortunatus was the exact opposite of the Novatian error.
Felicissimus and Fortunatus were too LAX in their readmittance of the lapsi back into the Church.
Novatus (in Greek)/Novatian (in Latin) did not permit the lapsi to be received back into the Church at all.
St. Cyprian believed Felicissimus and Fortunatus were heretics, but believed the Novatians were schismatics. While heresy is a dogmatic matter that involves the entire Church, he felt that the issue with the Novatians could and should be left up to the discretion of individual bishops.
Blessings,
Marduk
You have misunderstood something. Felicissimus and Fortunatus were NOT Novatians. He does mention the Novatians in his Epistle 54, but it was a separate issue from the matter of Felicissimus and Fortunatus.
The error of Felicissimus and Fortunatus was the exact opposite of the Novatian error.
Felicissimus and Fortunatus were too LAX in their readmittance of the lapsi back into the Church.
Novatus (in Greek)/Novatian (in Latin) did not permit the lapsi to be received back into the Church at all.
St. Cyprian believed Felicissimus and Fortunatus were heretics, but believed the Novatians were schismatics. While heresy is a dogmatic matter that involves the entire Church, he felt that the issue with the Novatians could and should be left up to the discretion of individual bishops.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dcointin
Guest
Thank you for the correction concerning Novatianism, I do most of my posting at work and often have to rely on memory or what I can find quickly through an internet search. I believe my point still stands however. You argued that Cyprian opposed easy readmittance of the lapsed as a heresy, but simultaneously opposed no readmittance of the lapsed as disciplinary. This doesn’t make sense to me because it concerns the same issue. So if he did view it as an issue of faith and morals, then his opposition to Pope Stephen was a denial of papal inallibility, and if he did not, then his words in question do not concern it.
- Status