Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[mardukm]

just bumping this thread cause I will reply to it in a few days.

 

[steve_b]

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.

As a suggestion, because you posted alot of text in the opening, it would be much easier to take what you have questions on or flat out reject on this topic.

 

[Trebor135]

As a suggestion, because you posted alot of text in the opening, it would be much easier to take what you have questions on or flat out reject on this topic.

I presented so much material at the beginning of the thread because the aim was to balance thoroughness and concision. (I didn’t cite the entirety of the three blog posts being quoted because I did not have to include some of their content to convey my issues with Catholic teaching.)

But let’s see if we can summarize my position in one paragraph:

No Early Church Fathers whatsoever can be cited expressing their belief in anything which resembles the modern-day Catholic doctrines of conciliar and papal infallibility. The passages from the first several centuries of the Christian faith that are put forward in Catholic apologetics to show a strong basis in Sacred Tradition for these teachings unceasingly fall far short of the mark. Suggesting those quotations as patristic-era evidence for conciliar and papal infallibility requires that they be taken out of context and their meaning be misinterpreted. If the early Church did not believe that (1) the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils were in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit, and (2) the bishops of Rome could make ex cathedra proclamations on matters of faith and morals which were likewise in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit, the present-day Church has no reason to accept such notions and in fact ought to reject them as unwarranted innovations. No proof-texts from Sacred Scripture will suffice to demonstrate conciliar and papal infallibility as apostolic teachings either, for Catholicism does not adhere to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

Hope this helps.

 

[steve_b]

I presented so much material at the beginning of the thread because the aim was to balance thoroughness and concision. (I didn’t cite the entirety of the three blog posts being quoted because I did not have to include some of their content to convey my issues with Catholic teaching.)

But let’s see if we can summarize my position in one paragraph:

No Early Church Fathers whatsoever can be cited expressing their belief in anything which resembles the modern-day Catholic doctrines of conciliar and papal infallibility.

Were the apostles infallible when teaching the fairh? What promises went to Peter in particular? What was to get passed on to successors…anything…nothing?
T:

The passages from the first several centuries of the Christian faith that are put forward in Catholic apologetics to show a strong basis in Sacred Tradition for these teachings unceasingly *fall far short of the mark. *

To be fair, that’s a personal opinion that you have to prove from those very same texts provided.
T:

Suggesting those quotations as patristic-era evidence for conciliar and papal infallibility requires that they be taken out of context and their meaning be misinterpreted. If the early Church did not believe that (1) *the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils were in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit, and (2) the bishops of Rome could make ex cathedra proclamations on matters of faith and morals which were likewise in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit, the present-day Church has no reason to accept such notions and in fact ought to reject them as unwarranted innovations. *

On matters of faith and morals

Going back to the point above, do you think infallibility is something new to the Church? That the Church was never infallible including the apostles, but only declared itself infallible in recent years?
T:

No proof-texts from Sacred Scripture will suffice to demonstrate conciliar and papal infallibility as apostolic teachings either, for Catholicism does not adhere to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

Hope this helps.

The Church has always gone by the following

1. 
   *]Scripture
   *]Tradition
   *]Magesterial teaching
   
   Using those 3 sources of authority, the evidence for the positions the Church takes is quite volumenous beginning with the 1st century.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi Trebor:wave:

I’ll give my :twocents: (or maybe a buck or two) on some of your points here:

The passages from the first several centuries of the Christian faith that are put forward in Catholic apologetics to show a strong basis in Sacred Tradition for these teachings unceasingly fall far short of the mark.

Only if “the mark” you are trying to hit is explicit evidence.

Suggesting those quotations as patristic-era evidence for conciliar and papal infallibility requires that they be taken out of context and their meaning be misinterpreted.

I believe this to be a non sequitur

If the early Church did not believe that (1) the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils were in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit, and…

Why do you assume the early Church didn’t? I would hope “the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils were in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit”, otherwise we might all be in trouble. Maybe the Arians were right (disclaimer to any who may read this: I’m just trying to make a point, I obviously don’t believe so) How could the Council Fathers be certain that they came to the right conclusion? There would be room for error if there is no infallibility, no?

… the bishops of Rome could make ex cathedra proclamations on matters of faith and morals which were likewise in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit, the present-day Church has no reason to accept such notions and in fact ought to reject them as unwarranted innovations.

You apparently do not allow for legitimate development of doctrines (doesn’t equal “unwarranted innovations”), something I believe the early Church did. If I am not mistaken, this may have been the case with the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, therefore looking back at the Fathers and expecting them to be discussing “ex cathedra proclamations” (which I believe is Vatican I language).) To me this seems like an anachronistic way of looking at things.

No proof-texts from Sacred Scripture will suffice to demonstrate conciliar and papal infallibility as apostolic teachings either, for Catholicism does not adhere to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

While Catholics deny “Sola Scriptura”, that does not mean that we can not use Scripture to support a Doctrine. We rely on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. If something isn’t explicitly taught by the Fathers (say as in the case of Papal Infallibility), the Church is certainly not hamstrung, so to speak. Even if something is not touched upon by the Fathers at all, the Church still has recourse to Scripture and the Magisterium (say in the case of stem cell research for example–or in vitro fertilization.) I’m kind of paraphrasing (maybe loosely, hopefully not erroneously) Dr. Robert Sungenis in the debate with Dr. James White on the Assumption of Mary; if Scripture and/or Tradition aren’t explicit about something, we have the Magisterium:

In its Constitution on Catholic faith the Council solemnly declared that ‘with divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God, Scripture or tradition (in verbo Dei, scripto vel tradito) and are proposed by the Church, either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.’

Source: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3355 (emphasis mine)

 

[LionHeart777]

Were the apostles infallible when teaching the fairh? What promises went to Peter in particular? What was to get passed on to successors…anything…nothing?

To be fair, that’s a personal opinion that you have to prove from those very same texts provided.

On matters of faith and morals

Going back to the point above, do you think infallibility is something new to the Church? That the Church was never infallible including the apostles, but only declared itself infallible in recent years?

The Church has always gone by the following

1. 
   *]Scripture
   *]Tradition
   *]Magesterial teaching
   
   Using those 3 sources of authority, the evidence for the positions the Church takes is quite volumenous beginning with the 1st century.

1. 
   You beat me!

 

[Trebor135]

Were the apostles infallible when teaching the fairh?

The apostles were a class unto themselves. I’m not going to extrapolate from their situation onto ours.

What promises went to Peter in particular? What was to get passed on to successors…anything…nothing?

The faith taught by the apostles and the authority from ordination to teach, preach, and administer the sacraments were supposed to be passed on. Neither Sacred Scripture nor Sacred Tradition speak of a charism of infallibility being passed down from one generation of bishops to the next, let alone from each pope to the next.

The argument from Matthew 16:17-19, to which I expect you’re alluding here, doesn’t work for a few reasons:

• The other apostles were given the power of the keys two chapters later, in Matthew 18:15-18.
• The Early Church Fathers not of one minddefinitely on the identity of the rock: St. Peter, his faith, Christ, some combination of them, or another option.
• Their understanding of the power of the keys was differentcompletely from the present-day Catholic interpretation.

This being the primary Catholic proof-text from Scripture, and since it fails spectacularly, we can safely move on.

To be fair, that’s a personal opinion that you have to prove from those very same texts provided.

Sure. Probably the best way for me to do so is for Catholics here to bring forward the patristic-era citations that, in their view, most strongly support conciliar and papal infallibility. If you so wish, I could provide some example quotes which are frequently misused, though.

On matters of faith and morals

What do you mean here?

Going back to the point above, do you think infallibility is something new to the Church? That the Church was never infallible including the apostles, but only declared itself infallible in recent years?

Again, let’s leave aside the status of the apostles. What really counts here is that the notions of conciliar and papal infallibility arrive on the scene very late in Christian history–the ninth and twelfth-fifteenth centuries, respectively. The Catholic Church has thus adopted as dogma some teachings absent from the Church of the first millennium.

The Church has always gone by the following

1. 
   *]Scripture
   *]Tradition
   *]Magesterial teaching

1. 
   Using those 3 sources of authority, the evidence for the positions the Church takes is quite volumenous beginning with the 1st century.
   
   Christians who venerate the faith, hope, and love of their ancestors and accept both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as equally binding can’t simply disregard how the Early Church Fathers understood certain biblical passages just so they can win a debate with a favourable outcome for their innovations. When Protestants explain away the import of John 20:19-23–arguing the passage to demonstrate that all Christians may hear one another’s confessions and in this way absolve sins (“Let the sacramental priesthood be forgotten!”)–Catholics are fully justified in protesting that the early Christians never interpreted that passage in the same way. If a new doctrine is not being proposed, a new explanation for a passage of Scripture is not really necessary.

 

[LionHeart777]

Trebor,

You said:

• The other apostles were given the power of the keys two chapters later, in Matthew 18:15-18.

This came up in another thread

My answer was:

“Although the other Apostles are given the power to “bind” and “loose” later (Mt. 18:18), that there is a difference between Mt. 16:18-19 and Mt. 18:18 is noted (at least) by Origen and I would argue St. Cyprian too.”

you can see my post to click on the links

Also,

do you deny that Magisterial teaching was authoritative in the early Church?

---

 

[Trebor135]

Hi Trebor:wave:

Hi LionHeart

I’ll give my :twocents: (or maybe a buck or two) on some of your points here:

All right. Let’s get this party started.

Only if “the mark” you are trying to hit is explicit evidence.

Why shouldn’t we be aiming to meet the mark of “explicit evidence”? After all, “implicit evidence”, as you might call it, is unfalsifiable. The disinterested observer must make a huge leap of faith to accept that the early Church believed in conciliar and papal infallibility if his Catholic interlocutor supplies no clear patristic-era support for the teachings. We might as well become Mormon by this logic: just because the Early Church Fathers didn’t expressly hold to Joseph Smith’s distinctive doctrines, this inconvenient fact doesn’t mean that these doctors, saints, martyrs, and confessors weren’t really LDS! (Using an absurd example to make a point here.)

I believe this to be a non sequitur

No, I can give example quotes to illustrate my statement.

Why do you assume the early Church didn’t?

The Catholic side is making the positive claim, “The early Christians believed in conciliar and papal infallibility.” On what basis is the Orthodox side obliged to assume its position wrong from the start?

I would hope “the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils were in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit”, otherwise we might all be in trouble. Maybe the Arians were right (disclaimer to any who may read this: I’m just trying to make a point, I obviously don’t believe so) How could the Council Fathers be certain that they came to the right conclusion? There would be room for error if there is no infallibility, no?

Why is infallibility required to teach the truth? Faithful Catholic clerics explain to inquirers and parishioners alike the trinity/the deity of Christ, the afterlife, and the immoral nature of contraception, at least from time to time. They do so without any difficulty, in spite of not operating under a charism of infallibility. Must we be concerned as a result that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and secularists may actually be correct in these areas?

You apparently do not allow for legitimate development of doctrines (doesn’t equal “unwarranted innovations”), something I believe the early Church did. If I am not mistaken, this may have been the case with the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, therefore looking back at the Fathers and expecting them to be discussing “ex cathedra proclamations” (which I believe is Vatican I language).) To me this seems like an anachronistic way of looking at things.

But, in fact, the Catholic side is being anachronistic: it reads back into history what you admit isn’t actually there. How would you distinguish between “legitimate development of doctrines” and “‘unwarranted innovations’”?

Let’s propose a real-world scenario. The Orthodox Church tomorrow dogmatically proclaims foot-washing to be a sacrament of the Church and St. Joseph to be the holy, pure, and immaculate Adoptive Father of God. It argues that the body of Christ has at last made explicit what was always implicit in the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church. How would you respond?

While Catholics deny “Sola Scriptura”, that does not mean that we can not use Scripture to support a Doctrine. We rely on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. If something isn’t explicitly taught by the Fathers (say as in the case of Papal Infallibility), the Church is certainly not hamstrung, so to speak. Even if something is not touched upon by the Fathers at all, the Church still has recourse to Scripture and the Magisterium (say in the case of stem cell research for example–or in vitro fertilization.) I’m kind of paraphrasing (maybe loosely, hopefully not erroneously) Dr. Robert Sungenis in the debate with Dr. James White on the Assumption of Mary; if Scripture and/or Tradition aren’t explicit about something, we have the Magisterium:

Source: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3355 (emphasis mine)

But papal infallibility is completely different from stem-cell research. If it’s truly an apostolic doctrine, so vital for the welfare of the Church as to require dogmatization at a Catholic ecumenical council, clear testimony must be available from the early days of the Christian faith. A charism of infallibility passed down from one pope to the next is nearly, if not equally, as important as the roles played by the deacon, priest, and bishop in the life of the Church. Yet, of these two, only the latter is discussed by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi LionHeart

All right. Let’s get this party started.

Why shouldn’t we be aiming to meet the mark of “explicit evidence”? After all, “implicit evidence”, as you might call it, is unfalsifiable. The disinterested observer must make a huge leap of faith to accept that the early Church believed in conciliar and papal infallibility if his Catholic interlocutor supplies no clear patristic-era support for the teachings. We might as well become Mormon by this logic: just because the Early Church Fathers didn’t expressly hold to Joseph Smith’s distinctive doctrines, this inconvenient fact doesn’t mean that these doctors, saints, martyrs, and confessors weren’t really LDS! (Using an absurd example to make a point here.)

No, I can give example quotes to illustrate my statement.

The Catholic side is making the positive claim, “The early Christians believed in conciliar and papal infallibility.” On what basis is the Orthodox side obliged to assume its position wrong from the start?

Why is infallibility required to teach the truth? Faithful Catholic clerics explain to inquirers and parishioners alike the trinity/the deity of Christ, the afterlife, and the immoral nature of contraception, at least from time to time. They do so without any difficulty, in spite of not operating under a charism of infallibility. Must we be concerned as a result that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and secularists may actually be correct in these areas?

But, in fact, the Catholic side is being anachronistic: it reads back into history what you admit isn’t actually there. How would you distinguish between “legitimate development of doctrines” and “‘unwarranted innovations’”?

Let’s propose a real-world scenario. The Orthodox Church tomorrow dogmatically proclaims foot-washing to be a sacrament of the Church and St. Joseph to be the holy, pure, and immaculate Adoptive Father of God. It argues that the body of Christ has at last made explicit what was always implicit in the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church. How would you respond?

But papal infallibility is completely different from stem-cell research. If it’s truly an apostolic doctrine, so vital for the welfare of the Church as to require dogmatization at a Catholic ecumenical council, clear testimony must be available from the early days of the Christian faith. A charism of infallibility passed down from one pope to the next is nearly, if not equally, as important as the roles played by the deacon, priest, and bishop in the life of the Church. Yet, of these two, only the latter is discussed by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Re: implicit evidence and Papal Infallibility

To borrow a line (it might not be exact) from Dr. Sungenis in the debate on the Bodily Assumption of Mary; such is the nature of life. We might not have explicit evidence for everything. I would argue that we have explicit evidence for the Papacy and for the Infallibility of the Church. But we as Catholics believe that the Church sorts these things out. I think you may be laboring under the notion (and I could be wrong) that the writings of the Early Church Fathers = Sacred Tradition, and this is not so for Catholics if I’m not mistaken (is it so for the Orthodox?) Perhaps this article would be a good read for you and I both (I have skimmed it.)

Regarding the Mormons and company, you and I both know that they have no claim to Apostolic Succession (hence the Mormon’s erroneous theory of the “Great Apostasy”) Papal Infallibility and (I believe Conciliar Infallibility) are drawn from the Deposit of Faith, as is the Infallibility of the Church. The Mormon’s and company have no Deposit of Faith from the Apostles’. It is up to the Church to draw upon the D.O.P and setter matter of faith and morals (including Doctrines and Dogmas), not you or I. Perhaps the disinterested observer might to better to focus on other areas which are explicit as far as Patristic testimony goes when trying to figure out if the Catholic Church is who She says She is (like the Papacy and universal jurisdiction as one example.)

As far as conciliar infallibility and the evidence being only implicit, I’m not sure. I will check up on this sometime but I believe the evidence is more explicit for that.

You said: “No, I can give example quotes to illustrate my statement.”

Well if you are talking about quotes from the ECF’s we will most likely disagree on those; which is going to beg the question of who sorts that out?

When talking about faithful clerics teaching, I’m not sure what time period you have in mind, if they are Orthodox Christians, where do they look to for that teaching?

Also, I couple of questions I was wondering…

I thought I had read somewhere where the Eastern Orthodox Christians look back on the Councils and recognize that they were Infallible. Is this so?

Also, what is the EO teaching on the Infallibility of the Church? Do they believe the Church to be infallible?

I guess I’m thinking of the bottom line is: no infallibility = room for error , by the very nature of infallibility and what it means.

You said: “If it’s truly an apostolic doctrine, so vital for the welfare of the Church as to require dogmatization at a Catholic ecumenical council, clear testimony must be available from the early days of the Christian faith.”

(emphasis mine)

I think this begs a couple of questions too.

1. Says who?
2. Who defines what “clear testimony” is?

Regards,

–Nick

edit:

Another question if I may:

Do you believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven?

 

[steve_b]

The apostles were a class unto themselves. I’m not going to extrapolate from their situation onto ours.

But you are extrapolating
T:

The faith taught by the apostles and the authority from ordination to teach, preach, and administer the sacraments were supposed to be passed on. Neither Sacred Scripture nor Sacred Tradition speak of a charism of infallibility being passed down* from one generation of bishops to the next, let alone from each pope to the next.*

My question again, were the apostles fallible or infallible in teaching the faith? The words fallible and infallible like the Trinity, don’t appear in scripture. Does that mean the Trinity is fallible or infallible teaching?
T:

The argument from Matthew 16:17-19, to which I expect you’re alluding here, doesn’t work for a few reasons:

• The other apostles were given the power of the keys two chapters later, in Matthew 18:15-18.

Keys + bind and loose were mentioned in Mt 16 for Peter
bind and loose was mentioned for the other apostles in Mt 18. Keys were not mentioned.

The “keys” is an office of the prime minister. [Is 22:22…] they are given to one person,
T:

• The Early Church Fathers [were definitely (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1579529&postcount=3) not of one mind on the identity of the rock: St. Peter, his faith, Christ, some combination of them, or another option.

Peter + his faith = Peter. Peter’s faith is not seperate from Peter. They are a package deal
Christ the Rock renames Simon the Rock in Mt 16. And that dialogue in Mt 16 is Jesus talking directly to Peter. What Jesus gives there is going straight to Peter.
T:

• Their understanding of the power of the keys was [completely (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm) different from the present-day Catholic interpretation.

The vast majority agree that it is Peter who received the keys. And when we see how history plays out, we see the Catholic position is true.
T:

This being the primary Catholic proof-text from Scripture, and since it fails spectacularly, we can safely move on.

sheesh!
T:

Sure. Probably the best way for me to do so is for Catholics here to bring forward the patristic-era citations that, in their view, most strongly support conciliar and papal infallibility.

1. • The EO point to 7 councils and have no pope.
   • The OO have a pope but aren’t considered Catholic or EO.
   • The CC points to 22 councils and the chair of Peter.
   There’s only one of these that is maintaining the faith as Jesus established
   T:
   

   What do you mean here?

   infallibility is not on any subject. It’s limited to specific circumstances, and the subject of faith and morals.
   T:
   

   Again, let’s leave aside the status of the apostles.

   Why?
   T:
   

   What really counts here is that the notions of conciliar and papal infallibility arrive on the scene very late in Christian history–the ninth and twelfth-fifteenth centuries, respectively. The Catholic Church has thus adopted as dogma some teachings absent from the Church of the first millennium.

   Let’s cut to the chase. iow, the 1st 7 councils listed as ecumenical, are not infallible but fallible? Please list all the errors made in those councils pertaining to faith and morals.
   T:
   

   Christians who venerate the faith, hope, and love of their ancestors and accept both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as equally binding can’t simply disregard how the Early Church Fathers understood certain biblical passages just so they can win a debate with a favourable outcome for their innovations.

   Could you narrow this down.
   T:
   

   When Protestants explain away the import of John 20:19-23–arguing the passage to demonstrate that all Christians may hear one another’s confessions and in this way absolve sins (“Let the sacramental priesthood be forgotten!”)–Catholics are fully justified in protesting that the early Christians never interpreted that passage in the same way.

   Scripture also contradicts that protestant notion.
   
   1 Jn 5: makes a distinction between mortal and non mortal sin, and that praying for forgiveness of mortal sin, either by the individual or someone else praying, is not recommended.
   
   Jas 5: the context is call in the priests of the Church 1st. Then confess one’s sins to one another, i.e. confess to a priest.
   T:
   

   If a new doctrine is not being proposed, a new explanation for a passage of Scripture is not really necessary.

   Re: terms we’re using
   
   Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. Infallible means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error. Both are an active process.
   
   We would no doubt agree that a human being is normally fallible. But is that always 100% of the time?
   
   From Karl Keating of C.A.
   
   "A pope may act infallibly in carefully prescribed circumstances, but he is not inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he “contains” no error, but every pope does. A pope’s store of knowledge, at least on matters of religion, is likely far better than yours or mine, but no pope has had a mind so capacious and exacting that he knew every religious fact with perfection.
   
   When Vatican I (1869–70) taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit."
   
   Definition of infallibility, so we can talk specifically not in generalities
   1. 
      *
      • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
      • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      • that is, when,
        1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
        4. he possesses,
        5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
        6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
        7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
        papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

 

[pneuma07]

I presented so much material at the beginning of the thread because the aim was to balance thoroughness and concision. (I didn’t cite the entirety of the three blog posts being quoted because I did not have to include some of their content to convey my issues with Catholic teaching.)

But let’s see if we can summarize my position in one paragraph:

No Early Church Fathers whatsoever can be cited expressing their belief in anything which resembles the modern-day Catholic doctrines of conciliar and papal infallibility. The passages from the first several centuries of the Christian faith that are put forward in Catholic apologetics to show a strong basis in Sacred Tradition for these teachings unceasingly fall far short of the mark. Suggesting those quotations as patristic-era evidence for conciliar and papal infallibility requires that they be taken out of context and their meaning be misinterpreted. If the early Church did not believe that (1) the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils were in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit, and (2) the bishops of Rome could make ex cathedra proclamations on matters of faith and morals which were likewise in and of themselves protected from error by the Holy Spirit, the present-day Church has no reason to accept such notions and in fact ought to reject them as unwarranted innovations. No proof-texts from Sacred Scripture will suffice to demonstrate conciliar and papal infallibility as apostolic teachings either, for Catholicism does not adhere to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

Hope this helps.

Dear Trebor,

a ) IMHO we could discern first of all whether we agree that the Church is indefectible.

Then whether her indefectibility is expressed through infallibility.

Then which the organs of her infallibility are, if any. .

b ) is in your view a debate on conciliar infallibility a catholic-orthodox or rather an intra-orthodox one ?

c) Concerning the underlined sentences, you may want to share your impressions on these passages
1)
*
I receive and revere as the four Gospels so also the four Councils …since on them, as on a four square stone rises the structure of the holy faith*

**Gregory the Great ** Book I Ep. 25
The word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical synod at Nicea, abides for ever.

Or also , about those who assume they can reject Nicea

They were not afraid of God who said**Remove not the eternal boundaries which your fathers placed.

Athanasius, Ad Afros Epystula Synodica, letter to African bishops.

I hope something can help.

In Christ

P7

 

[LionHeart777]

Re: implicit evidence and Papal Infallibility

To borrow a line (it might not be exact) from Dr. Sungenis in the debate on the Bodily Assumption of Mary; such is the nature of life. We might not have explicit evidence for everything. I would argue that we have explicit evidence for the Papacy and for the Infallibility of the Church. But we as Catholics believe that the Church sorts these things out. I think you may be laboring under the notion (and I could be wrong) that the writings of the Early Church Fathers = Sacred Tradition, and this is not so for Catholics if I’m not mistaken (is it so for the Orthodox?) Perhaps this article would be a good read for you and I both (I have skimmed it.)

Regarding the Mormons and company, you and I both know that they have no claim to Apostolic Succession (hence the Mormon’s erroneous theory of the “Great Apostasy”) Papal Infallibility and (I believe Conciliar Infallibility) are drawn from the Deposit of Faith, as is the Infallibility of the Church. The Mormon’s and company have no Deposit of Faith from the Apostles’. It is up to the Church to draw upon the D.O.P and setter matter of faith and morals (including Doctrines and Dogmas), not you or I. Perhaps the disinterested observer might to better to focus on other areas which are explicit as far as Patristic testimony goes when trying to figure out if the Catholic Church is who She says She is (like the Papacy and universal jurisdiction as one example.)

As far as conciliar infallibility and the evidence being only implicit, I’m not sure. I will check up on this sometime but I believe the evidence is more explicit for that.

You said: “No, I can give example quotes to illustrate my statement.”

Well if you are talking about quotes from the ECF’s we will most likely disagree on those; which is going to beg the question of who sorts that out?

When talking about faithful clerics teaching, I’m not sure what time period you have in mind, if they are Orthodox Christians, where do they look to for that teaching?

Also, I couple of questions I was wondering…

I thought I had read somewhere where the Eastern Orthodox Christians look back on the Councils and recognize that they were Infallible. Is this so?

Also, what is the EO teaching on the Infallibility of the Church? Do they believe the Church to be infallible?

I guess I’m thinking of the bottom line is: no infallibility = room for error , by the very nature of infallibility and what it means.

You said: “If it’s truly an apostolic doctrine, so vital for the welfare of the Church as to require dogmatization at a Catholic ecumenical council, clear testimony must be available from the early days of the Christian faith.”

(emphasis mine)

I think this begs a couple of questions too.

1. Says who?
2. Who defines what “clear testimony” is?

Regards,

–Nick

edit:

Another question if I may:

Do you believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven?

that should be D.O.F. for Deposit of Faith.

 

[Shiranui117]

Peter + his faith = Peter. Peter’s faith is not seperate from Peter. They are a package deal

So wait, if I have Peter’s faith, I am now Peter?

1. 
   *]The EO point to 7 councils and have no pope.
   *]The OO have a pope but aren’t considered Catholic or EO.
   *]The CC points to 22 councils and the chair of Peter.

1. 
   There’s only one of these that is maintaining the faith as Jesus established
   
   Yep.
   

   Let’s cut to the chase. iow, the 1st 7 councils listed as ecumenical, are not infallible but fallible? Please list all the errors made in those councils pertaining to faith and morals.

   So if it’s fallible, it HAS to make errors?
   
   I’m going to make a list of premises here. Let’s see if you agree with them.
   
   1: A given person teaches the true faith correctly.
   2: The definition of “infallible” is to be without error.
   3: The given person has taught the true faith without error.
   4: Therefore, the person was infallible in their teaching, since they were without error.
   
   My point is, if a council is “without error,” we can therefore call it “infallible.” But was it infallible because it was done without error, or was it without error because it had the inherent trait of being infallible? I would say the first one is more accurate. Would you?

 

[steve_b]

So wait, if I have Peter’s faith, I am now Peter?

No

1. • Neither you or I are Peter.
   • Is my faith different from me? No.
   S:
   

   Yep.

   Yep, and it’s the Catholic Church
   S:
   

   So if it’s fallible, it HAS to make errors?

   Fallible means, capable of errors.
   S:
   

   I’m going to make a list of premises here. Let’s see if you agree with them.
   
   1: A given person teaches the true faith correctly.
   2: The definition of “infallible” is to be without error.
   3: The given person has taught the true faith without error.
   4: Therefore, the person was infallible in their teaching, since they were without error.
   
   My point is, if a council is “without error,” we can therefore call it “infallible.” But

   1. • *was it infallible because it was done without error, *
      • or was it without error because it had the inherent trait of being infallible?
      I would say the first one is more accurate. Would you?

   1. 
      I mentioned this previously.
      
      Here’s the official definition of papal infallibility per Vat I.,This is so we can talk specifically not in generalities. Notice the conditions. If those conditions aren’t met, then a teaching or doctrine is not infallible.
      1. 
         *
         • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
         • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
         • that is, when,
           1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
           2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
           3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
           4. he possesses,
           5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
           6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
           7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
           papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
           
           So at this point changing horses, I ask,
           
           if one thinks a council is infallible, what does it take for a council to be infallible? If a council can’t be infallible, then it can’t be said it is without error.

 

[Shiranui117]

No

1. • Neither you or I are Peter.
   • Is my faith different from me? No.

1. 
   But we both hold Peter’s faith. You completely avoided my question. If everyone in the Church holds the faith of Peter, are they all Peter? If not, then is the Church built upon the man Peter, or upon his faith which is shared by all members of the Church? It is actually important to distinguish whether the Church was built upon Peter’s faith rather than the person Peter for this reason: Peter’s faith can be held by people other than Peter.
   

   Yep, and it’s the Catholic Church

   But does that mean the Roman Communion or the Orthodox Church?
   

   Fallible means, capable of errors.

   But that does not mean that any errors are actually made in any given instance. Something can be totally free of error without any inherent trait of infallibility.
   

   I mentioned this previously.
   
   Here’s the official definition of papal infallibility per Vat I.,This is so we can talk specifically not in generalities. Notice the conditions. If those conditions aren’t met, then a teaching or doctrine is not infallible.

   1. 
      *
      • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
      • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      • that is, when,
        1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

   1. • 
        

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

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

        papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
        
        Yes, I’m aware of the idea that the Pope can only be infallible if such and such boxes on a checklist are marked off. Now maybe you can tell me the list of things done by the Pope that are infallible? There are lots of different answers to this. Why? Because there’s no one answer that all Catholics can agree on.
        

        So at this point changing horses, I ask,
        
        if one thinks a council is infallible, what does it take for a council to be infallible? If a council can’t be infallible, then it can’t be said it is without error.

        Why can it not be said that it is without error? You are assuming that the only way we know if something is without error, is to know if it is infallible. This does not follow from the original premise. We know that something is without error if it is correct, not necessarily if it was impossible for any errors to be made in the first place.
        
        Actually, for clarification, are you working off my premise, which states that something is “infallible” because it is correct, and not the other way around?

 

[Shiranui117]

Since it’s too late to edit my post, I’ll submit the following corrections in bold.

Why can it not be said that it is without error? You seem to be assuming that the only way we know if something is without error, is to know** if it has the inherent trait of infallibility**. This does not follow from the original premise. We know that something is without error if it is correct, not necessarily if it was impossible for any errors to be made in the first place.

 

[mardukm]

The lack of a list of infallible statements really weakens the meaning of papal infallibility.

Here’s a good example of the inherent weakness of the skeptic’s arguments for lack of consistency. The fact is, Christianity as a whole does not have an agreed upon list of Scriptures. So unless you are willing to diminish the authority of the Scriptures because of the same lack of a consistent list among Christians…The fact is, scholars and theologians have attempted to put out such lists of infallible statements - so your statement that no such list exists is not true - and though they don’t seem to agree, each of them have a COMMON SET OF CONSISTENT items that are considered infallible - the same exact situation with the different lists of Scripture within Christendom.

The Traditions and Scriptures are properly considered sources of revelation. They cannot be used as empirical data, as there is no justification for saying that we can formulate statements about God using revelation as empirical data, because God is beyond experience. That is not the same, however, as saying that reason cannot be used to describe the phenomena found in the Traditions and Scriptures. The former and latter are completely different categories of justification and the latter is not as questionable of a method as the former is when matters concerning God are involved.

That is rather incorrect. Sources of Revelation are indeed empirical data because THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US BY GOD. Sources of Revelation are indeed WITHIN THE TACTILE EXPERIENCE OF THE CHURCH. Revelation is NOT, contrary to your claim, “beyond the Church’s experience” because Revelation is in fact God revealing Himself to us.

If the only defense you have against the skeptic is to attack his consistency, then you will be even less convincing.

Only skeptics, methinks, will accept the validity of skepticism.

Or perhaps the Carthaginians who opposed Roman intervention in Africa in the fifth century, or perhaps the Quatrodecimans who opposed Rome’s attempt to change their celebration of Easter, an attempt which out seems upar the entire Church but for the bishop of Rome Victor who only dropped the issue when rebuked by his fellow bishops.

We’re talking about theological matters, so your scenarios are invalid. Besides, your examples make no dent in the true Catholic teaching on the Primacy according to V1 (though they present problems for the Absolutist Petrine Neo-ultramontanist misrepresentations).

It most certainly is. Ad hominem argumentation need not be insulting to be unsound. One could just as easily say that Catholic historians should be taken with a grain of salt, since they will be biased, but this form of ad hominem argumentation is low, unsound, and entirely unconvincing. One must attempt to discredit the arguments made, not the person making them.

I already stated the reason why one should take an EO argument on this matter with a grain of salt - because there’s no ONE position that can be called “EO.” (i.e., it has nothing to do with being biased). Any such arguments cannot be said to truly represent “the EO position.” That is not an ad hominem, but a plain fact.

Evidently, you don’t know my belief at all. As I point out elsewhere, you are confounding the conviction of the fathers that they were teaching the truth (the Arians were also under the same conviction) with our knowing that they taught the truth under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As I stated, you are confusing infallibility with certainty. Infallibility is an objective reality. The Fathers of these Councils believed they were speaking under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - thus they believed in their collective infallibility. You are confusing this with the certainty that future generations may have that those Fathers spoke with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Btw, from your comments, it appears the EO do not distinguish between the charism of inspiration which ended with the last Apostle and particularly attached to the writing of Scripture from the charism of infallibility which is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that is part of the cause of your confusion?

But you are compromising the importance of the bishop as teacher because you claim the laity can judge bishops. And that’s the main difference - you allow for the laity to judge further what has already been judged by the Church’s God-ordained judges/teachers. In the Catholic paradigm, the laity have their proper place as preservers of Tradition when there are no confllicts. But when conflicts arise, it is the bishops who are the judges. The sensus fidei (which includes the laity) is part of the font of knowledge from which bishops MUST draw to make their judgment, but it is the bishops themselves who have the God-ordained role as judges, not the laity.

Not at all. Bu papal infallibility, I mean your definition, where a solemn decree is made by a council of bishops with the pope as its head. You believe that such a decree cannot fall into error, while we do not. That is the difference. And now that we have established that you are interpreting VI as an explanation for how the truth is made manifest, you must provide justification for why that explanation is preferable if your refutation is to be thorough.

Preferable to what? Like I said, the Catholic Church has never made the claim that “papal infallibility” is preferable to any other kind of infallibility. You are basically presenting a false dilemma and a straw man.

 

[mardukm]

You say you understand the difference between what is true and coming to know what is true, but your response is not indicative of that.

What is true has to do with infallibility; coming to KNOW what is true has to do with certainty, which I believe you are confusing throughout this whole debate.

Now for acts 15, you must support that exegesis with patristic exegeses, lest you wind up resorting to the same sort of proof-texting used by Protestants. St. John Chrysostom interprets Acts 15 as showing James to have the headship at the council (see his homily 33 on Acts), which shoots a major hole in your scriptural support, to say the least. Of course, if you wish to admit that you do not hold to the same faith of St. John Chrysostom, I won’t stop you.

I am at a loss to see how you think Acts 15 diminishes the Catholic position, much less Chrysostom’s interpretation of it. In fact, in other places Chrysostom says this of St. Peter “Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples” You don’t really know the Catholic position as well as you think. The Pope (having the role today as St. Peter had among the Apostles according to the principles of Apostolic Succession), is the coryphaeus of the body of bishops. The Catholic position does not dictate that the Pope must be the head or president of a particular Council, even one called Ecumenical - only that it has his approval and/or confirmation. And that is what we see in Acts 15. I’ll give you another example. Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria was the head of the Third Ecumenical Council. But the Third Ecum thereafter wrote to Pope St. Celestine to confirm and approve its proceedings. That is all the Catholic position requires and claims. The Catholic position is historic and reasonable; the non-Catholic arguments are just straw men.

I see nothing in John 17 where it says that a council held by the college of bishops with the bishop of Rome as its head will be infallible. This seems like grasping for straws.

The appeal to John 17 is with regards to the required UNITY of the head and body when proclaiming the truth about Christ, not with the mere existence of the college with its head. According to John 17, they MUST be united. That is why the High Petrine Catholic position (which requires the cooperation of head and body - whether in Council or without) is biblically sound, while the Low Petrine (which too readily separates the body from the head) and the Absolutist Petrine (which too readily separates the head from the body) don’t have a biblical leg to stand on.

There were many defenders of Orthodoxy who were not bishops and even some who disobeyed their own bishops. Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and Athanasius (a mere deacon at the beginning of the Arian controversy) come to mind. ]The laity do indeed have some role to play in doctrinal matters as it was often laymen, deacons and presbyters who served as advisors for their bishops (as Athanasius did for Alexander).

As stated previously, the sensus fidei (which involves the laity) MUST be consulted by the bishops, but AFTER the bishops have made a judgment, the Catholic paradigm does not presume to hand it back to the laity to judge once more. That is a circular system which has no ultimate authority and is purely democratic.

The bishop is the head of the diocese, but like all heads, he still works in unity with rather than in tyranny over the body,

Yes, that is the Catholic position.

and indeed, the people once had a large role in the selection of their own bishops.

A fact that is completely off-topic.

The bishops act as judges, yes, but they are not incapable of making errors.

You write as if the bishops just make judgments out of the blue. The judgments of Councils and of Popes, I assure you are made with due and proper deliberation, and is NEVER devoid of the influence of Sacred Tradition and the sensus fidei.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

This is why it was important for the correct faith to be found and struggled for over time.

And why should you assume this is not the Catholic position as well?

No, your caricature is the comment that most lay Orthodox commentators would disagree with the statement.

The caricature would be your misrepresentation of my statement. Read it again please.

The disagreement is not with the statement’s definition of an ecumenical council, it over the question of how it becomes known that a council was guided by the Holy Spirit.

The OP is with regards to whether conciliar/ecclesial infallibility exists. The Colloquy admitted it. You and many Orthodox do not, or at least misrepresent what infallibility means and then deny that misrepresentation, as if you ever truly addressed the concept of infallibility in the first place.

I am honestly not surprised you would write that, as you seem to refuse to try to understand the nuance of the Orthodox position, preferring to knock down your strawman of the orthodox faith instead.

There has been no straw man. What is going on is that you are simply denying that there are elements within EO’xy that actually deny the concept of conciliar infallibility. You are simply trying to avoid the issue by making it about the concept of certainty, instead of infallibility.

Which father wrote about the infallibility of councils? The fact that we can trace such a belief to the ninth century hints that it was an innovation. The references to past councils simply means that the fathers had by that time agreed upon that council’s faithfulness to the apostolic tradition. Yet the fathers did not treat the decrees of previous councils as being completely irreformable.

This is coming from a member of a Church that has made a near-legalistic demand on the inviolability of the Dogmatic Creed of Nicea-Constantinople? This is the fruit of inconsistent skepticism.

Same straw man

You can only repeat the accusation so many times without explanation.

Let us not forget that Chalcedon rejected both ‘from two natures’ and ‘one incarnate nature of the Word’, instead preferring that ‘in two natures’ should be used (this should not be unknown to you, since you hold to miaphysite Christology and were once in the Coptic Orthodox Church). This was, in fact, one of the major objections that Severus of Antioch had to the Council of Chalcedon (see his treatises against John the Grammarian). Only one hundred years later were the phrases ‘from two natures’ and ‘one incarnate nature of the Word’ declared to be orthodox by the Second Council of Constantinople as a corrective against this particular deficiency of Chalcedon (that is not to say that the affirmation ‘made known in two natures’ is deficient or heterodox, but that the rejection of ‘from two natures’ and ‘one incarnate nature of the Word’ were deficiencies).

That’s what development of doctrine is all about, all within the confines of the Catholic paradigm. How do you imagine your argument diminishes the Catholic position?

Surely you should know that those councils were sent to Rome for approval because the Roman bishop, an important metropolitan, was not in attendance for most of them.

If you can prove that the language of “confirm” or “approve” was used when the decrees were sent to other bishops not in attendance, then i’ll concede. Until then, the fact that these Councils asked the bishops of Rome to CONFIRM or APPROVE their decrees means that something more was going on than a mere distribution of Decrees to absent bishops.

Was not the same done for the Egyptians with the council of Chalcedon, when they had no patriarch after the deposition of Dioscoros? Surely that does not prove that the agreement of the pope of Alexandria was necessary.

The same thing was not done. The Decrees were sent to the Egyptians because the Easterns wanted to FORCE it on us. Not the same thing.

That is the logical consequent of your belief that things are only authoritative if they are approved by the apostolic college with the bishop of Rome at its head.

So you don’t believe that St. Paul was part of the Apostolic College? The fruit of inconsistent skepticism.

Blessings,
Marduk