Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[Trebor135]

Yeah, there are a lot of examples of those who were in error opposing decrees of Rome on a theological matter. Like the example with the Arians who opposed the Council of Sardica, EO apologetics (I’ve noticed) tend to lean on Fathers who were in error as evidence for their position. Not at all convincing, IMO.

The bolded part of this paragraph is an interesting statement. I’d like to ask for some examples demonstrating this claim.

 

[Trebor135]

For each example one can give, a similar counter-example may also be given. This is why quotes alone avail nobody.

I’d also like to ask what some of those counter-examples would be.

 

[Cavaradossi]

In any case, at least one blogging Eastern Orthodox intellectual has critiqued the view propounded by Aleksey Khomiakov according to which acceptance by the people of God makes a gathering of bishops into an ecumenical council. An interesting discussion on this question sprung up in the comments section of this blog post over at the Called to Communion site.

For the record, I would agree that Khomiakov’s idea has major flaws. This idea that everybody has to accept a council for it to be recognized as true is nonsense, since that requirement would discount all seven of the councils called ecumenical by the Orthodox, from Nicaea to Nicaea. I absolutely reject that theory, as do many Orthodox thinkers. I think Fr. Andrew hit the nail on the head with his comment about the post-Enlightenment need for epistemological certainty. That is exactly how I view both the reception theory and Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility: both are attempts to calm the anxiety caused by an epistemological uncertainty over whether what is believed to be true is actually true. But I find both theories to be unnecessary if not unsatisfactory, because they cannot fully account for what appears to be a gradual revelation of truth throughout time within the Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’d also like to ask what some of those counter-examples would be.

For Irenaeus, one can give the example of the Easter Controversy, where Eusebius records (Church History 5.23-24) that he was (true to his name) instrumental in restoring the peace after Victor, Archbishop of Rome, broke the peace of the universal Church by attempting to cut the Asian bishops off from the common union. Surely if Irenaeus felt free to disagree with Victor, then the often provided prooftext from his Against Heresies (that all Churches should agree [convenire ad] with Rome) cannot be understood to mean that one must always submit to Rome or that Rome is inerrant when solemnly declaring something. now it could be argued that the Easter Controversy was just over a matter of discipline and not over a matter of faith or morals, but this seems to me to verge on special pleading. For if it were over a matter of discipline, what would be the need for Victor to cut off the bishops of Asia? Furthermore, If that distinction is to be admitted, it must be shown that Irenaeus knew of that distinction, used it regularly in his works, and implicitly had that distinction in mind when he wrote that all Churches should agree with Rome.

Now also regarding the Eastern Controversy, there is the response of Polycrates to Victor’s demand that they change their date of Easter (this can be found in Eusebius’ Church History Book V, chapter 24). He responds, among other things that:6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.

1. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words [that is, the words of Victor]. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’ Acts 5:29

newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htmHis quickness to cast aside the judgment of the bishop of Rome seems to indicate that he either recognized no primacy, or that if he did, he did not recognize the primacy as being one which possesses divine authority, but only the authority of man.

With Cyprian, there is the obvious flaw that he later broke his relations with Rome, after Stephen attempted to overstep his bounds. Actions speak louder than words, I suppose, and while it might be argued that Cyprian was being duplicitous, I think it is more likely that he did not mean his words indicating a Roman primacy in the way that Catholic apologists try to interpret them. On the topic of the controversy with Pope Stephen, there are also Firmilian’s harsh words, accusing Stephen of ‘vainly pretending the authority of the apostles’ (Cyprian, Epistle 74)

Another who is commonly quoted in favor of a Petrine primacy is St. John Chrysostom. But St. John Chrysostom also writes that:In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me" (that is, Flavian of Antioch) "our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself."clearly denying that Peter belongs properly to any place, but stating that Peter is where the faith of Peter is. This homily, incidentally appears not to be available in English, but you can find it here in Greek. See lines 717-723.

Another case is St. Jerome who rather embarrassingly throws the idea of a Petrine primacy under the bus (stating that its only purpose was to prevent schism, and that Peter was chosen instead of John that John might be protected from the envy of others) in order to extol the virtues of virginity in his polemics against JovinianusBut you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John 14:27 “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you,” and, “He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all,” would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: “The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;” Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert, Isaiah 40:3 “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.” But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says, John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God,” and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother John 19:26-27 was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple.

newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I should probably point out that I really dislike getting into quote battles simply because they are counter-productive. A good and balanced analysis should be able to explain the texts used by both sides, rather than basing itself solely upon some texts without the capacity to explain most texts.

 

[Trebor135]

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head.

Thanks for those citations and the accompanying analysis. In your opinion, what are the quotes from the Early Church that are most worthy of the name “show-stopper” for the doctrine of papal universal jurisdiction?

I should probably point out that I really dislike getting into quote battles simply because they are counter-productive. A good and balanced analysis should be able to explain the texts used by both sides, rather than basing itself solely upon some texts without the capacity to explain most texts.

That’s the best approach, indeed the only good one.

The Orthodox side has a right to join in the proof-texting fiesta sometimes, though. Interested readers get to see obscure quotes that don’t come up otherwise.

 

[pneuma07]

For Irenaeus, one can give the example of the Easter Controversy, where Eusebius records (Church History 5.23-24) that he was (true to his name) instrumental in restoring the peace after Victor, Archbishop of Rome, broke the peace of the universal Church by attempting to cut the Asian bishops off from the common union. Surely if Irenaeus felt free to disagree with Victor, then the often provided prooftext from his Against Heresies (that all Churches should agree [convenire ad] with Rome) cannot be understood to mean that one must always submit to Rome or that Rome is inerrant when solemnly declaring something. now it could be argued that the Easter Controversy was just over a matter of discipline and not over a matter of faith or morals, but this seems to me to verge on special pleading. For if it were over a matter of discipline, what would be the need for Victor to cut off the bishops of Asia? Furthermore, If that distinction is to be admitted, it must be shown that Irenaeus knew of that distinction, used it regularly in his works, and implicitly had that distinction in mind when he wrote that all Churches should agree with Rome.

Hi Cavaradossi !

Let me propose another short analysis of the counter-examples.

What we see in Eusebius is that Iranaeus, was dissuading the pope from excommunicating communities in Asia Minor, while in agreement with him on the content of the quarrel.

11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom

Now, the matter was the possible excommunication, and the prudential judgment about disciplining or not those above with that. We probably agree that an excommunication is a matter of ecclesial law. As such, nothing to do with faith, and infallibility.

Now also regarding the Eastern Controversy, there is the response of Polycrates to Victor’s demand that they change their date of Easter (this can be found in Eusebius’ Church History Book V, chapter 24). He responds, among other things that:6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.

1. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words [that is, the words of Victor]. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’ Acts 5:29

newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htmHis quickness to cast aside the judgment of the bishop of Rome seems to indicate that he either recognized no primacy, or that if he did, he did not recognize the primacy as being one which possesses divine authority, but only the authority of man.

Polycarp is another case, clearly. The matter was the date of Easter itself. Read please from the paragraphs which follow the citation you offered:

17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.
18. Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches.

How could have they communed together, and Anicetus even conceded the administration of Eucharist, if they had even by far maintained that they did not share the same faith ? Then the different liturgical calendar was not a matter of faith.

tbc

 

[pneuma07]

With Cyprian, there is the obvious flaw that he later broke his relations with Rome, after Stephen attempted to overstep his bounds. Actions speak louder than words, I suppose, and while it might be argued that Cyprian was being duplicitous, I think it is more likely that he did not mean his words indicating a Roman primacy in the way that Catholic apologists try to interpret them. On the topic of the controversy with Pope Stephen, there are also Firmilian’s harsh words, accusing Stephen of ‘vainly pretending the authority of the apostles’ (Cyprian, Epistle 74)

.

These are the Saint Augustine’s words on Saint Cyprian and the above matter

He had therefore imperfect insight into the hidden mystery of the sacrament. But if he had known the mysteries of all sacraments, without having charity, it would have been nothing. But as he, with imperfect insight into the mystery, was careful to preserve charity with all courage and humility and faith, he deserved to come to the crown of martyrdom; so that, if any cloud had crept over the clearness of his intellect from his infirmity as man, it might be dispelled by the glorious brightness of his blood. …Whilst then, that holy man entertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining in catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.
De Baptismo Book I, ch. 18

His temperament had not allowed him to practice in his late time what he had taught about unity and Peter, and so contradicted himself. He seems to have experienced for a while what we nowadays would call a cognitive dissonance. Latin Africa however went somehow back to the Roman practice on baptism after his martyrdom, (although some seeds for Donatism had been planted by the period of his disobedience) showing that his earlier teachings, and the keeping of ecclesial unity, had found more audience.

Another who is commonly quoted in favor of a Petrine primacy is St. John Chrysostom. But St. John Chrysostom also writes that:In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me" (that is, Flavian of Antioch) "our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself."clearly denying that Peter belongs properly to any place, but stating that Peter is where the faith of Peter is. This homily, incidentally appears not to be available in English, but you can find it here in Greek. See lines 717-723.

I cannot get how Saint John Chrysostom would be clearly denying that Peter belongs properly to any place, while stating precisely:
*this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. *
How could that be such a great prerogative for Antioch, if Peter is in his opinion just linked the same way to each and every place where his faith is preserved ?

OTOH you rightly say this Doctor is quoted in favour of Petrine primacy, since that is… precisely IMHO what you did here:
it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles ( τῶν ἀποστόλων πρῶτον in the Greek you kindly offered ) as her pastor.

Another case is St. Jerome who rather embarrassingly throws the idea of a Petrine primacy under the bus (stating that its only purpose was to prevent schism, and that Peter was chosen instead of John that John might be protected from the envy of others) in order to extol the virtues of virginity in his polemics against JovinianusBut you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John 14:27 “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you,” and, “He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all,” would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: “The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;” Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert, Isaiah 40:3 “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.” But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says, John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God,” and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother John 19:26-27 was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple.

newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head

Where is it that Jerome in this passage “embarrassingly throws the idea of a Petrine primacy under the bus” ? It is not just that I feel no embarrassment, it is that I cannot see that bus at all. We read:

one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism…
Then Peter is the head of the college, according this passage. Isnt he ?

Preventing schism would be quite an appropriate goal in itself for Petrine ministry. . On top of that, Jerome nowhere states here IMHO it is the “only” one.

Finally, whatever the reason(s) Jerome, or we, can speculate about the choice of Peter instead of John, or anybody else, I guess the Lord’s reason is good enogh for us, as surely was for this Doctor.
And extolling John and his extraordinary merits has nothing to do IMHO with denying, or even diminishing, Petrine primacy. Has it ?

But now the most important question …
how come a Cavaradossi, as you are, doesn’t quote Puccini too among his favourite composers ?

PS Your contributions on CAF are greatly appreciated by this poster. :tiphat:

In Christ
P7

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi Cavaradossi !

Hello, pneuma07!

Let me propose another short analysis of the counter-examples.

What we see in Eusebius is that Iranaeus, was dissuading the pope from excommunicating communities in Asia Minor, while in agreement with him on the content of the quarrel.

Irenaeus was acting as a middle man of sorts. Being from Asia Minor, he would have likely known that the Asian bishops believed that they received their tradition concerning Easter from the apostle John. At the same time, he saw it fitting to celebrate Easter with his flock in Gaul on the Lord’s day.

11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom

Now, the matter was the possible excommunication, and the prudential judgment about disciplining or not those above with that. We probably agree that an excommunication is a matter of ecclesial law. As such, nothing to do with faith, and infallibility.

Again, this is a nice modern concept. I’m not so sure that the early church fathers were so keenly aware of this distinction. The idea of ecclesial law is indeed somewhat anachronistic for this timeframe, since each bishop at that time had his varying customs and being excommunicated by a bishop meant being unable to commune in the church of that bishop, but did not mean a universal excommunication.

Polycarp is another case, clearly. The matter was the date of Easter itself. Read please from the paragraphs which follow the citation you offered:

17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.
18. Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches.

How could have they communed together, and Anicetus even conceded the administration of Eucharist, if they had even by far maintained that they did not share the same faith ? Then the different liturgical calendar was not a matter of faith.

tbc

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be confusing Polycarp of Smyrna for Polycrates of Ephesus. Polycarp had reposed in the Lord over three decades before the controversy between Victor and Polycrates. Irenaeus was using the example of Polycarp and Anicetus to demonstrate to Victor his great error in trying to excommunicate Polycrates over the matter of the celebration of Easter. I was taking about Polycrates, not Polycarp.

 

[pneuma07]

Hello, pneuma07!

Irenaeus was acting as a middle man of sorts. Being from Asia Minor, he would have likely known that the Asian bishops believed that they received their tradition concerning Easter from the apostle John. At the same time, he saw it fitting to celebrate Easter with his flock in Gaul on the Lord’s day.

.

Dear Cavaradossi,

           that is a plausible background  IMHO.

Again, this is a nice modern concept. I’m not so sure that the early church fathers were so keenly aware of this distinction. The idea of ecclesial law is indeed somewhat anachronistic for this timeframe, since each bishop at that time had his varying customs and being excommunicated by a bishop meant being unable to commune in the church of that bishop, but did not mean a universal excommunication.

That time changes so many frameworks and mindsets, I wholeheartedly concur.

That a sort of distinction between doctrinal pronouncements and a specific ecclesial measure ( whatever we may call them ) was simply alien to the perception of ancient Church leaders (and that therefore Irenaeus could possibly consider forfeited the position of Rome as lighthouse of apostolic orthodoxy just because Victor was pondering a measure he would not consider wise or correct), is more or less beyond my imagination. What about yours ?

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be confusing Polycarp of Smyrna for Polycrates of Ephesus. Polycarp had reposed in the Lord over three decades before the controversy between Victor and Polycrates. Irenaeus was using the example of Polycarp and Anicetus to demonstrate to Victor his great error in trying to excommunicate Polycrates over the matter of the celebration of Easter. I was taking about Polycrates, not Polycarp

You are correct of course ! We have a sort of parallel
Victor vs Polycrates and Anicetus vs Polycarp.
Now, Anicetus and Polycarp,

(neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.)

show us IMHO exactly that an unsettled different view on a part of liturgical calendar ,
is not ( was not perceived in the II century as, to be more precise ) a matter of differences of faith. Are we together on this point ?

In Christ

 

[Cavaradossi]

These are the Saint Augustine’s words on Saint Cyprian and the above matter

He had therefore imperfect insight into the hidden mystery of the sacrament. But if he had known the mysteries of all sacraments, without having charity, it would have been nothing. But as he, with imperfect insight into the mystery, was careful to preserve charity with all courage and humility and faith, he deserved to come to the crown of martyrdom; so that, if any cloud had crept over the clearness of his intellect from his infirmity as man, it might be dispelled by the glorious brightness of his blood. …Whilst then, that holy man entertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining in catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom.
De Baptismo Book I, ch. 18

His temperament had not allowed him to practice in his late time what he had taught about unity and Peter, and so contradicted himself. He seems to have experienced for a while what we nowadays would call a cognitive dissonance. Latin Africa however went somehow back to the Roman practice on baptism after his martyrdom, (although some seeds for Donatism had been planted by the period of his disobedience) showing that his earlier teachings, and the keeping of ecclesial unity, had found more audience.

My point is that Cyprian’s bitter dispute with Stephen is a counter example to his own writings on Rome as a source of unity (or perhaps an interpretative clue).

I cannot get how Saint John Chrysostom would be clearly denying that Peter belongs properly to any place, while stating precisely:
*this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. *
How could that be such a great prerogative for Antioch, if Peter is in his opinion just linked the same way to each and every place where his faith is preserved ?

Because Peter was the teacher of the world, and so where his faith and teaching can be found, there Peter can be found in the bishop of that city. Antioch differs from the rest by being the first taught by Peter, and Rome has Peter’s body, but all bishops have Peter so long as they hold to his faith.

OTOH you rightly say this Doctor is quoted in favour of Petrine primacy, since that is… precisely IMHO what you did here:
*it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles *( τῶν ἀποστόλων πρῶτον in the Greek you kindly offered ) as her pastor.

Yes, and I don’t think the Orthodox would disagree with his teachings on Peter in their totality. His conception of primacy can be a little weak at times.

Where is it that Jerome in this passage “embarrassingly throws the idea of a Petrine primacy under the bus” ? It is not just that I feel no embarrassment, it is that I cannot see that bus at all. We read:

one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism…
Then Peter is the head of the college, according this passage. Isnt he ?

Preventing schism would be quite an appropriate goal in itself for Petrine ministry. . On top of that, Jerome nowhere states here IMHO it is the “only” one.

Finally, whatever the reason(s) Jerome, or we, can speculate about the choice of Peter instead of John, or anybody else, I guess the Lord’s reason is good enogh for us, as surely was for this Doctor.
And extolling John and his extraordinary merits has nothing to do IMHO with denying, or even diminishing, Petrine primacy. Has it ?

Perhaps the adverb embarrassingly is the wrong one. Conveniently might be more fitting. Essentially, he is rebutting a possible argument from his opponent, Jovinianus, that Peter is superior to John because Peter is the rock and Peter has the Keys. He conveniently tosses this notion aside, asserting that all of the apostles had the keys and that the primacy was erected only to keep order (and somewhat absurdly, to protect John from jealousy) but not because of any special virtue in Peter. I don’t really agree with Jerome on all of these points (I agree that all of the apostles received the keys, but that’s about it), as he is exceedingly and unnecessarily harsh towards Peter, but I find it interesting that he is willing to write such things for the sake of polemics.

But now the most important question …
how come a Cavaradossi, as you are, doesn’t quote Puccini too among his favourite composers ?

My friends and I (most of us are singers) have a love-hate relationship with Puccini. We find that the music is great, but all of the female characters he writes for are exceedingly crazy, lol. Mimi basically sits around doe-eyed for all of Bohème pitying herself while waiting to die of consumption (also, she’s a little quick in getting to ‘know’ Rodolfo). Tosca causes her own undoing because she is so jealous. Turandot is a cold and heartless woman who miraculously falls in love with Calaf who wins her hand in marriage, after she orders just a few scenes earlier for Liù to be tortured that she might discover Calaf’s name so that she can win his challenge and kill him. Liù gives her life up to protect Calaf, even though Calaf does not reciprocate her feelings for him and was the one who endangered her life by challenging Turandot to discover his name. I guess Minnie from La Fanciulla del West isn’t crazy, but she’s more of an exception. But Mario Cavaradossi’s bad choice of girlfriend aside, I love the music for that role, and he is a character that I get upset to see die every time.

PS Your contributions on CAF are greatly appreciated by this poster. :tiphat:

I am not worthy, but thank you.

 

[pneuma07]

My point is that Cyprian’s bitter dispute with Stephen is a counter example to his own writings on Rome as a source of unity (or perhaps an interpretative clue).
.

I understand your point. As a matter of fact Cyprian looked to contradict himself.
I wouldn’t assume that by breaking a rule I accepted I am giving my interpretation of it. Otherwise my interpretation of the Commandments would be my sins, which I’d consider as a fruit of my weakness. . At a general level, IMHO we often resist de facto authorities we acknowledge de jure

Because Peter was the teacher of the world, and so where his faith and teaching can be found, there Peter can be found in the bishop of that city. Antioch differs from the rest by being the first taught by Peter, and Rome has Peter’s body, but all bishops have Peter so long as they hold to his faith.

Indeed. So we, and Saint John Chrysostom, see a taxis in the episcopal connections with Peter.

Yes, and I don’t think the Orthodox would disagree with his teachings on Peter in their totality. His conception of primacy can be a little weak at times.

So we have agreed that Chrysostom teaches petrine primacy in the proposed passage. I guess the nature of this primacy in Chrysostom, could be the object of another thread, at least.

Perhaps the adverb embarrassingly is the wrong one. Conveniently might be more fitting. Essentially, he is rebutting a possible argument from his opponent, Jovinianus, that Peter is superior to John because Peter is the rock and Peter has the Keys. He conveniently tosses this notion aside, asserting that all of the apostles had the keys and that the primacy was erected only to keep order (and somewhat absurdly, to protect John from jealousy) but not because of any special virtue in Peter. I don’t really agree with Jerome on all of these points (I agree that all of the apostles received the keys, but that’s about it), as he is exceedingly and unnecessarily harsh towards Peter, but I find it interesting that he is willing to write such things for the sake of polemics.

OK, Jerome confirms therefore in the proposed passage that Peter was given the primacy by the Lord.

My friends and I (most of us are singers) have a love-hate relationship with Puccini. We find that the music is great, but all of the female characters he writes for are exceedingly crazy, lol. Mimi basically sits around doe-eyed for all of Bohème pitying herself while waiting to die of consumption (also, she’s a little quick in getting to ‘know’ Rodolfo). Tosca causes her own undoing because she is so jealous. Turandot is a cold and heartless woman who miraculously falls in love with Calaf who wins her hand in marriage, after she orders just a few scenes earlier for Liù to be tortured that she might discover Calaf’s name so that she can win his challenge and kill him. Liù gives her life up to protect Calaf, even though Calaf does not reciprocate her feelings for him and was the one who endangered her life by challenging Turandot to discover his name. I guess Minnie from La Fanciulla del West isn’t crazy, but she’s more of an exception. But Mario Cavaradossi’s bad choice of girlfriend aside, I love the music for that role, and he is a character that I get upset to see die every time.

Fascinating.

I am not worthy, but thank you

You’re welcome

In Christ
P7

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

My friends and I (most of us are singers) have a love-hate relationship with Puccini. We find that the music is great, but all of the female characters he writes for are exceedingly crazy, lol. Mimi basically sits around doe-eyed for all of Bohème pitying herself while waiting to die of consumption (also, she’s a little quick in getting to ‘know’ Rodolfo). Tosca causes her own undoing because she is so jealous. Turandot is a cold and heartless woman who miraculously falls in love with Calaf who wins her hand in marriage, after she orders just a few scenes earlier for Liù to be tortured that she might discover Calaf’s name so that she can win his challenge and kill him. Liù gives her life up to protect Calaf, even though Calaf does not reciprocate her feelings for him and was the one who endangered her life by challenging Turandot to discover his name. I guess Minnie from La Fanciulla del West isn’t crazy, but she’s more of an exception. But Mario Cavaradossi’s bad choice of girlfriend aside, I love the music for that role, and he is a character that I get upset to see die every time.

Cavadarossi, you can sing pretty good. ‘E lucevan le stelle’ is one of my favorite arias, but your ‘Te Deum’ was just weird, sad you got executed though

Puccini as a whole I like. La bohème with ‘O soave fanciulla’ is just breathtaking and I always get the goosebumps of a good rendition of ‘O mio babbino caro’. ‘Un bel di vedremo’ is not bad either, but I’m afraid* ‘Nessun dorma’* is just too mainstream for me.

Your contributions on CAF are greatly appreciated by this poster. :tiphat:

I second this. I would appreciate you even more when you sing E lucevan le stelle for me

 

[Shiranui117]

So we have agreed that Chrysostom teaches petrine primacy in the proposed passage. I guess the nature of this primacy in Chrysostom, could be the object of another thread, at least.

Uhh, I thought this was a topic about the claims of Papal infallibility, and not Petrine primacy, which everyone agrees with in the first place? ._.

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

PS Your contributions on CAF are greatly appreciated by this poster. :tiphat:

Cavaradossi, I’mma third that.

 

[pneuma07]

Uhh, I thought this was a topic about the claims of Papal infallibility, and not Petrine primacy, which everyone agrees with in the first place? ._.

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

Hi Shiranui117.

Thanks for reminding. I mean both the topic of the present thread and the consensus ( within Apostolic Christianity, I presume ) on Petrine primacy.

I was under the impression that out of the five conter-examples offered by Cavarodossi, the last two, concerning St. John Chrysostom and St. Jerome respectively, were presented as dealing with Petrine primacy ( and papal primacy in the first case ).

BTW Is there a similar consensus here that the Church is bestowed with infallibility ?

Cavaradossi, I’mma third that.

It looks like it might turn out I am the founding member of a Cavaradossi fan club.

In Christ
P7

 

[Trebor135]

Thanks for reminding. I mean both the topic of the present thread and the consensus ( within Apostolic Christianity, I presume ) on Petrine primacy.

I was under the impression that out of the five conter-examples offered by Cavarodossi, the last two, concerning St. John Chrysostom and St. Jerome respectively, were presented as dealing with Petrine primacy ( and papal primacy in the first case ).

BTW Is there a similar consensus here that the Church is bestowed with infallibility ?

I began this thread wishing to discuss both conciliar and papal infallibility. So, I’d like to suggest that we stick to those two issues, examining when necessary any citations from the Early Church which can be used for and against those doctrines.

It looks like it might turn out I am the founding member of a Cavaradossi fan club.

I’m signing up

 

[pneuma07]

I began this thread wishing to discuss both conciliar and papal infallibility. So, I’d like to suggest that we stick to those two issues, examining when necessary any citations from the Early Church which can be used for and against those doctrines.

I’m signing up

Dear Trebor,

Amen and Amen.

In Christ
P7

 

[Shiranui117]

Thanks for reminding. I mean both the topic of the present thread and the consensus ( within Apostolic Christianity, I presume ) on Petrine primacy.

I was under the impression that out of the five conter-examples offered by Cavarodossi, the last two, concerning St. John Chrysostom and St. Jerome respectively, were presented as dealing with Petrine primacy ( and papal primacy in the first case ).

I should let him speak for himself, but I think Cavaradossi was getting at how Petrine primacy does not equate to Papal supremacy/universal authority/universal jurisdiction.

BTW Is there a similar consensus here that the Church is bestowed with infallibility ?

Uhh, I believe so. I think the only dispute is how that infallibility is manifested; i.e. if the Church as a whole/in a Council utilizes it, or if the Pope has some special role/ability to use the infallibility of the Church via the “office of the Papacy.” I think that’s always what the dispute’s been over, with the Orthodox holding the former position alone, and Catholics holding to both the former and the latter. Someone correct me if I’m wrong?

It looks like it might turn out I am the founding member of a Cavaradossi fan club.

ROFL

 

[LionHeart777]

I should let him speak for himself, but I think Cavaradossi was getting at how Petrine primacy does not equate to Papal supremacy/universal authority/universal jurisdiction.

Uhh, I believe so. I think the only dispute is how that infallibility is manifested; i.e. if the Church as a whole/in a Council utilizes it, or if the Pope has some special role/ability to use the infallibility of the Church via the “office of the Papacy.” I think that’s always what the dispute’s been over, with the Orthodox holding the former position alone, and Catholics holding to both the former and the latter. Someone correct me if I’m wrong?

ROFL

(emphasis mine)

I had thought that too until some of the comments in this thread lead me to believe otherwise.

Consider the following Q & A about infallibility on the website of the OCA:

Question

I was wondering if you could please help me with a question.

Orthodox obviously do not believe in the infallibility of the Bishop (Pope) of Rome. However, is it true that Orthodox believe that infallibility resides in the first seven ecumenical councils? That is, that these councils made infallible pronoucements on matters of faith and doctrine?

Answer

Orthodoxy does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, nor of any other individual.

Orthodoxy upholds the reality that the Church, gathered together in Council under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is guided in making correct decisions and in enunciating truth.

Source: oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/infallibility

It doesn’t seem like a “yes” or a “no” to the answer, but rather seems somewhere in between which seems to be on par with what has been said earlier in this thread (if I have understood correctly.)

Perhaps someone will clarify or I’ll try and track down a more detailed explanation (or we could take a closer look a page or 2 back.)

 

[Shiranui117]

(emphasis mine)

I had thought that too until some of the comments in this thread lead me to believe otherwise.

Consider the following Q & A about infallibility on the website of the OCA:

Source: oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/infallibility

It doesn’t seem like a “yes” or a “no” to the answer, but rather seems somewhere in between which seems to be on par with what has been said earlier in this thread (if I have understood correctly.)

Perhaps someone will clarify or I’ll try and track down a more detailed explanation (or we could take a closer look a page or 2 back.)

That’s actually an interesting point I forgot about. I’ve had some Orthodox tell me in the past that “infallibility” isn’t really in the Orthodox vocabulary, and there’s no checklist that can be filled out that gets one an ecumenical council.

The moral of the story seems to be, that at least in some parts of Orthodoxy, it is not necessary to have such a thing as “infallibility” to ensure that the Orthodox faith is defended and declared by a council, or even by an individual. If one or many proclaim the Truth, then notions of “infallibility” become secondary and inconsequential. Christ promised that His Church is His Body and Bride, and that it would be kept safe from the gates of Hell, and Paul stated with confidence that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth. As long as we hold to the Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles, we’ll be alright in the end.

That’s what this uneducated inquirer guesses, anyway.