Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[mardukm]

I think I missed that explanation. Would you mind filling me in? Even copypasting the point would be good, whatever works best for you in this regard.

The keys, as a symbol of the government of the Church, does not rest with the Pope alone (though they were indeed GIVEN to St. Peter and handed down to his successors). Even at Vatican 1, it was recognized that the bishops govern the Church with the Pope (it was a document called de ecclesiae which was formulated but did not have a chance to be voted on due to time constraints - but its contents were effectively affirmed at Vatican 2). The keys were MEANT to be shared by St. Peter and his successors with the Apostles and the bishops in succession. That is why I believe the keys are a symbol of collegiality instead of primacy/supremacy.

Ahh, fascinating, I had no idea of that. That prayer does seem to imply that the keys were entrusted to all bishops, not just the Roman Pope. Thanks for sharing.

The Catholic position is that the keys were entrusted directly to St. Peter and his successors and intended by Christ to be SHARED with the rest of the Apostles and the bishops in succession.

Perhaps,

Jesus’ statement is pretty explicit - he will set one servant in charge of the other servants. I don’t think “perhaps” is an appropriate term. That’s what Jesus said.

but such a warning also implies that this coryphaeus is indeed fallible,

Not exactly. Read the verses again. The job of this servant is to feed his fellow servants (in the parallel verses in Matthew, the job of this servant is to feed the entire household). “Feeding” is normally understood to refer to the spiritual food of right doctrine. If this coryphaeus will be punished, it is not for failing to feed the servants/household (i.e., give them proper doctrine), but for abusing his fellow servants/household members and failing to keep the Lord on his mind (the meaning of “getting drunk and over eating”).

and subject to having his rank stripped from him for failing to heed the commandments of the Lord.

Interestingly, I think this is one of the verses that has traditionally been used to support the idea that the Pope CANNOT be judged - because only the Lord himself will judge this coryphaeus when He returns (not that I necessarily agree with that particular interpretation).

It is certainly a position of great responsibility, and as Jesus said, to whom much is given, much is required.

Indeed!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[thenobes]

So in other words, the Pope calls all the shots, no one can overrule him, and he has full and complete authority to act within another bishop’s diocese freely, and he establishes how things are done in the Eastern Churches, and he’s the supreme pastor and everyone acts in his name and by his authority, do I have that right?

I think the operative words here are “ordinary power”, that is power to execute the Church’s laws. No more.

One the other hand, laws made by council must be approved by him, and solemn universal definitions by him concerning faith and morals must be followed by the universal church.

peace
steve

 

[Trebor135]

Interestingly, I think this is one of the verses that has traditionally been used to support the idea that the Pope CANNOT be judged - because only the Lord himself will judge this coryphaeus when He returns (not that I necessarily agree with that particular interpretation).

Who interpreted the verse in that way before the Great Schism?

 

[thenobes]

I think the operative words here are “ordinary power”, that is power to execute the Church’s laws. No more.

One the other hand, laws made by council must be approved by him, and solemn universal definitions by him concerning faith and morals must be followed by the universal church.

peace
steve

Ok looked up ordinary power from a catholic source, not wikipedia.

It involves legislation, execution and governance, related to an office.

Supreme and full ordinary power may be more than I thought.

Sorry about the interruption. Carry on with your argumentation.

peace
steve

 

[steve_b]

Oh yay, your own words. Continue! Tell me more. Elaborate, please.

Why the big deal? even When I “use my own words” it’s not enough. Evidence is still asked for .
S:

And removing those bishops is perfectly fine, no matter what way you want to slice it. Those bishops are within the Roman Church, and IIRC, according to the ancient Canons, they do need assent from the primate of their Church. If they were ordained illicitly, even more reason to throw them out. However, that doesn’t talk about the power of the keys, just about the canonical proceedings of the election and ordination of a bishop.

Keys are also equated with governing the Church.
S:

You have yet to show how I’m misrepresenting you. You can either clarify what you said with your own words, or concede that I am indeed representing the ends of your arguments accurately. As of yet, you have not done a single thing of substance to show that I’m misrepresenting you. You’ve just copypasted more stuff and not explained it.

You have not corrected a single instance of what you claim is me “misrepresenting” you. You’re saying I’m making a misrepresentation of your argument, but you have not shown how or why it’s a misrepresentation. You’ve just asserted that it is a misrepresentation, and then given me more stuff that leads me to believe I have you pegged.

here are some examples

I was accused of saying the following, bulleted “statements”]

• "THIS is the thing I’m talking about, where you say (but not explicitly) that the Pope has the power to do whatever he wants without anyone to stop him."

I never said the pope has the power to do anything he wants without anyone to stop him. I’ve never suggested that. If you can find where I ever said that, please quote it.

• “yet your view of Peter and the Pope makes both heavy-handed rulers who rule over their fellow Apostles and bishops–and over the rest of the faithful–with an iron fist.”

I never gave the impression Peter or the pope were heavy handed rulers, who rule with an iron fist. Neither did I use those terms

• "And this nearly screams to me that you believe the Pope is able to nullify the decisions and actions of the other bishops and Patriarchs on a whim. "

On a whim? Really!!! Where have I ever said that?.

• *"Also, regarding the part of your post that I bolded, it’s that sort of thing that makes me believe that you think of the Pope as a *heavyhanded ruler who subjugates the other bishops and is able to rule completely on his own power"

that response was to what I said as follows "it says he can shut what no one can open and can open what no one can shut. That tells me others can open and shut, but not when compared to the one with the keys."
how did you get from my response, “heavyhanded”, “subjugate other bishops” ?

• "I can’t speak for others. All I know is, I cannot accept the power structure you describe. And no matter how you want to claim otherwise, that looks a heck of a lot like a dictatorship. Unless you prove me wrong by your own words, that is."

The power structure I described?

who said the following about the pope?
:
"Pope has the power to do whatever he wants without anyone to stop him., *Pope makes both heavy-handed rulers who rule over their fellow Apostles and bishops–and over the rest of the faithful–with an iron fist.", Pope is able to nullify the decisions and actions of the other bishops and Patriarchs **on a whim, **the Pope as a *heavyhanded ruler who subjugates the other bishops and is able to rule completely on his own power"

it was Shiranui, not steve b

• If the Patriarch or archbishop ignored the issue at hand, they would be liable to censure as well. However, in the early Church, this was not restricted to just the Pope. Other Patriarchs and bishops dogpiled them heretics as well. If no one ELSE acts to correct them, then yeah, the Pope kinda has to step in, because he’s the only man that will.

It’s that consistant negative spin in responses that I object to
S:

I’ve seen Catholics interpret those canons in different ways before. Your saying “just read the canons” is just like the Sola Scripturist “Just read the Bible.” And I say that without any offense intended, it’s just the way you’re arguing ATM.

All I can say, we’ve seen how things can get reinterpreted by joe six pak. We all know very clearly how some people can interpret and reinterpret texts disasterously. In the subject we’re discussing, I chose to quote alot of Church documents. And since East is being stressed, I chose to quote Eastern canons that address this subject.

 

[Trebor135]

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

Thanks for this information. I’ll acknowledge that at least a few of the Fathers–upon further study, we might find more–held that St. Peter surpassed the other apostles in his authority to bind and loose.

Worth noting is what Origen wrote about the meaning of such authority:

But to me it seems that, to the case of him who after being thrice admonished was adjudged to be as the Gentile and the publican, it is fitly subjoined, Verily, I say unto you,— namely, to those who have judged any one to be as the Gentile and the publican— and what things soever you shall bind on the earth, Matthew 18:18 etc.; for with justice has he, who has thrice admonished and not been heard, bound him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican; wherefore, when such an one is bound and condemned by one of this character, he remains bound, as no one of those in heaven overturns the judgment of the man who bound him. And, in like manner, he who was admonished once for all, and did things worthy of being gained, having been set free by the admonition of the man who gained him, and no longer bound by the cords of his own sins, Proverbs 5:22 for which he was admonished, shall be adjudged to have been set free by those in heaven. Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven.

So, the apostles, in Origen’s view, did not possess a special charism of infallibility according to the Matthew 16 and 18 passages. By his interpretation, it appears, these pertained to church discipline and penance.

Also,

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

What do you mean by “Magisterial teaching”?

 

[Shiranui117]

Why the big deal? even When I “use my own words” it’s not enough. Evidence is still asked for .

As I was getting at before, it’s one thing to provide evidence and explain it. It’s another thing to give evidence without anything more than a “Here, look at this.” You have to explain the evidence you bring in. Providing evidence is no substitute for making your own points. Evidence is simply there to substantiate a point you are making or have already made.

I never said the pope has the power to do anything he wants without anyone to stop him. I’ve never suggested that. If you can find where I ever said that, please quote it.

As I said, you never said it explicitly. But, here’s an example of where I took that from:

that response was to what I said as follows “it says he can shut what no one can open and can open what no one can shut. That tells me others can open and shut, but not when compared to the one with the keys.”

As clearly shown here, you ascribe to the Pope irrevocable power. What he does, no one can undo. Therefore, if the Pope wanted to do any given thing, he would be free to do it without anyone being able to stop him.

how did you get from my response, “heavyhanded”, “subjugate other bishops” ?
I never gave the impression Peter or the pope were heavy handed rulers, who rule with an iron fist. Neither did I use those terms

I got that from this:

But as long as we’re on that point, scripture says “poimaino” is rule with a “rod of iron”. That’s the phrase used in Revelation describing Jesus who will (poimano) “rule with a rod of iron”. So “poimaino” is actually used in scripture to mean rule. That’s the same word Jesus used with Peter.

Here, it seemed to me that you were implying that Peter/the Pope was to rule with a rod of iron. Not much difference between ruling with a rod of iron and ruling with an iron fist, no?

On a whim? Really!!! Where have I ever said that?

If he has the full ability to nullify the actions and decisions of his brother bishops, then he certainly can do it “on a whim.” I got that idea from one of your points, as quoted in post 67:

One person gets the keys in Is 22:22… , and one person gets the keys in Mt 16:19. While there are many ministers under the king, who have authority, there is one prime minister, over the other ministers, who has primacy over the other ministers. iow, the key holder, can also bind what they loose and loose what they bind.

Like I said, if the Pope is over and above his other bishops and can undo their actions, then he is perfectly capable of nullifying their decisions on a whim.

that response was to what I said as follows “*it says he can shut what no one can open and can open what no one can shut. That tells me others can open and shut, but not when compared to the one with the keys.”
how did you get from my response, “heavyhanded”, “subjugate other bishops” ? *

Actually, no, you’re wrong. That was said in response to your point, as quoted in post 67:

BTW, I never said iron fist. You added that to what I said. But as long as we’re on that point, scripture says “poimaino” is rule with a “rod of iron”. That’s the phrase used in Revelation describing Jesus who will (poimano) “rule with a rod of iron”. So “poimaino” is actually used in scripture to mean rule. That’s the same word Jesus used with Peter.

Again, Peter/the Pope ruling over the entire Church (and I presume this also includes Peter’s fellow Apostles/the Pope’s brother bishops) “with a rod of iron” doesn’t advertise much else aside from “dictatorship/monarchy.”

who said the following about the pope?
:
“Pope has the power to do whatever he wants without anyone to stop him., Pope makes both heavy-handed rulers who rule over their fellow Apostles and bishops–and over the rest of the faithful–with an iron fist.”, Pope is able to nullify the decisions and actions of the other bishops and Patriarchs on a whim,the Pope as a heavyhanded ruler who subjugates the other bishops and is able to rule completely on his own power"

it was Shiranui, not steve b

Great job taking all that out of context and changing the wording around. Now it doesn’t even make any sense. “Pope makes both heavyhanded rulers” Lol what? Next time you try to take my words, twist them up and roll them into a ball, AT LEAST make sure you get the quotes right.

I was never talking about the Pope, just about how you seem to view him. Which, with how little you’ve explained, leaves me quite in the dark about what you’re apparently actually thinking.

It’s that consistant negative spin in responses that I object to

How the heck is that “negative spin?” All I said was, if no one else steps up to the plate to put heretics in their place, then it’s the Pope’s duty. What’s negative about that?

All I can say, we’ve seen how things can get reinterpreted by joe six pak. We all know very clearly how some people can interpret and reinterpret texts disasterously. In the subject we’re discussing, I chose to quote alot of Church documents. And since East is being stressed, I chose to quote Eastern canons that address this subject.

Then what’s the right way to interpret those things? You have yet to show me how they should be interpreted, which was my big gripe earlier.

 

[Shiranui117]

The keys, as a symbol of the government of the Church, does not rest with the Pope alone (though they were indeed GIVEN to St. Peter and handed down to his successors). Even at Vatican 1, it was recognized that the bishops govern the Church with the Pope (it was a document called de ecclesiae which was formulated but did not have a chance to be voted on due to time constraints - but its contents were effectively affirmed at Vatican 2). The keys were MEANT to be shared by St. Peter and his successors with the Apostles and the bishops in succession. That is why I believe the keys are a symbol of collegiality instead of primacy/supremacy.

Interesting interpretation.

The Catholic position is that the keys were entrusted directly to St. Peter and his successors and intended by Christ to be SHARED with the rest of the Apostles and the bishops in succession.

Yet, the power of the keys was also given by Jesus to the rest of the Apostles.

Jesus’ statement is pretty explicit - he will set one servant in charge of the other servants. I don’t think “perhaps” is an appropriate term. That’s what Jesus said.

I just don’t typically see this passage as being about Church governance. I understand how you can interpret it as such, however.

Not exactly. Read the verses again. The job of this servant is to feed his fellow servants (in the parallel verses in Matthew, the job of this servant is to feed the entire household). “Feeding” is normally understood to refer to the spiritual food of right doctrine. If this coryphaeus will be punished, it is not for failing to feed the servants/household (i.e., give them proper doctrine), but for abusing his fellow servants/household members and failing to keep the Lord on his mind (the meaning of “getting drunk and over eating”).

Who put forth these ideas? Anyone from the first millennium?

Interestingly, I think this is one of the verses that has traditionally been used to support the idea that the Pope CANNOT be judged - because only the Lord himself will judge this coryphaeus when He returns (not that I necessarily agree with that particular interpretation)

Right. When did this idea come into play?

 

[Trebor135]

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.

This approach precludes the apostolicity of doctrine from being examined by historical investigation, however. I’d like to ask for your comment on the “real-world scenario” I proposed in post #49:

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.

Would this turn of events not justifiably raise the eyebrows of Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican onlookers?

We might not have explicit evidence for everything.

The wide acceptance of this attitude opens the way for the abandonment of Sacred Tradition as a chief source of doctrine.

I would argue that we have explicit evidence for the Papacy and for the Infallibility of the Church.

If by “the Papacy” you mean the primacy of the see of Rome, I agree. As for “the Infallibility of the Church”, this is still at issue in the sense of how the charism is supposed to manifest.

But we as Catholics believe that the Church sorts these things out.

With this line of reasoning, though, we’ll see a stand-off like the following:

Catholic: No one believed in imputed righteousness until the Reformation; why should we accept a teaching invented by Luther and Calvin at the same time as they claimed to be returning the faith to how it looked during the early Church?

Protestant: Well, no one believed in papal infallibility until the Middle Ages; why should we accept a teaching which does not align with your own rule of faith, consisting in part of Sacred Tradition?

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

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?)

The two parties seem to diverge concerning the place given to the Fathers’ writings.

Michael Liccione provides a useful summary of the “hermeneutical circles” employed by the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic camps for determining sound doctrine. Here are a couple relevant excerpts:

The Orthodox HC. Scripture is indeed inspired by the Spirit and materially sufficient for expressing the DF. But Scripture is a work of the Church and for the Church, and can only be reliably understood as read by the Church in light of the broader “Holy Tradition” handed down to her from the Apostles. Tradition in that sense is the sum total of the ways in which the life of the Holy Spirit is manifest in the Church as a collectivity. Those ways chiefly include: the liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, the lives and wisdom of the saints, and the Ecumenical Councils. Although ecclesial teaching authority is ordinarily exercised by individual bishops over their flocks, only the dogmatic decress of the Ecumenical Councils must be understood as affirmations of faith which bind the whole Church.

The Catholic HC. … Although Scripture and Tradition taken together are “materially sufficient” for expressing the entire DF, and can sometimes be understood to a great extent by various individuals without ecclesial authority, they can only be interpreted and understood “authentically”—i.e., with the authentic and thus binding voice of the Church—by the apostolic teaching authority or “Magisterium” of the Church. The “ordinary” way in which that is done is by the consensus of the bishops, which must be at least diachronic and is ideally synchronic too; “extraordinarily,” it is done by the dogmatic decrees of ecumenical councils of the bishops and/or the dogmatic definitions of popes.

Continued in next post.

 

[LionHeart777]

This approach precludes the apostolicity of doctrine from being examined by historical investigation, however. I’d like to ask for your comment on the “real-world scenario” I proposed in post #49:

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.

Would this turn of events not justifiably raise the eyebrows of Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican onlookers?

In this hypothetical the Orthodox would have to make their case. The case has been made on the Catholic side in regards to Papal Infallibility.

The wide acceptance of this attitude opens the way for the abandonment of Sacred Tradition as a chief source of doctrine.

How so? The Catholic Church drew on Sacred Tradition in regards to the Dogma of Papal Infallibility to my understanding.

If by “the Papacy” you mean the primacy of the see of Rome, I agree. As for “the Infallibility of the Church”, this is still at issue in the sense of how the charism is supposed to manifest.

The Papacy as taught by the Catholic Church and the Infallibility of the Church as taught by the Catholic Church

With this line of reasoning, though, we’ll see a stand-off like the following:

Catholic: No one believed in imputed righteousness until the Reformation; why should we accept a teaching invented by Luther and Calvin at the same time as they claimed to be returning the faith to how it looked during the early Church?

Protestant: Well, no one believed in papal infallibility until the Middle Ages; why should we accept a teaching which does not align with your own rule of faith, consisting in part of Sacred Tradition?

Again, the case has been made in regards to Papal Infallibility with respect to Scripture and Tradition (and it was taught by the extraordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church.) The Protestant would need to make their case.

Continued in next post.

I put my responses in blue (I don’t know how to split up the quotes.)

 

[Trebor135]

Perhaps this article would be a good read for you and I both (I have skimmed it.)

Though I’ve just perused the first part, this article looks very good–thanks for linking 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.)

Right. But Mormonism holds that revelation still continues to be received in the present, long after the deaths of Joseph Smith and his disciples. If papal infallibility emerged only in the Middle Ages, with no trace of the doctrine from the prior roughly thirteen centuries, how is it not also new revelation–de facto if not de jure?

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.

If you uncover anything, be sure to let us know.

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?

Haha, point taken. But how else can we proceed from here?

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?

In post #49, when I wrote,

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?

I was referring to Catholic deacons, priests, and bishops who not just wholeheartedly embrace but also zealously proclaim the teachings of their Church, without need for recourse to a charism of infallibility.

Also, I couple of questions I was wondering…

Sure.

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?

The Michael Liccione blog entry linked in post #90 offers a good, concise exposition on the Orthodox view on the interplay between Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

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.

Sure. But the infallible declaration of a proposition does not render it true; such a declaration merely fortifies our psychological confidence that it is true. Further, the utility of a charism of infallibility, whether exercised by council or pope, depends on the faithful being aware that the Church has been granted such a charism.

I think this begs a couple of questions too.

1. Says who?

1. Who defines what “clear testimony” is?

The criterion I supplied was indeed too vague, so let’s reframe. From Catholic apologists I am asking for testimony to the early Church’s belief in papal infallibility and its recognition of the exercise of this charism.

If you find the time, I invite you to take a look at this essay by Eastern Orthodox scholar and ecumenist Sergius Bulgakov. (If the page does not load in your browser, a Google search for the phrase

the+vatican+dogma+sergius+bulgakov

will bring up a Cached version.)

edit:

Another question if I may:

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

I struggled with the assumption/dormition of St. Mary for a long time. I attained peace about it after realizing that all three apostolic churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox) accept the doctrine and becoming aware of less-known early Church testimony to the belief (see this exposition on the Coptic view of the Theotokos (PDF)).

 

[Shiranui117]

I put my responses in blue (I don’t know how to split up the quotes.)

If you don’t mind, I’ll explain.

So, say for example, you have a post like this (I deliberately messed up the end quote tag so you could see how it looks in the text box) :

I put my responses in blue (I don’t know how to split up the quotes.)

Point 1

Point 2

Point 3 /QUOTE]

To break them up, you would insert more quote tags like so (you can find the button next to the “Insert Picture” button in the toolbar on top of the text box; just highlight the text you want to put quote tags around, and you have the text as its own separate quote)
LionHeart777;9589150:

I put my responses in blue (I don’t know how to split up the quotes.) /QUOTE] (Remove the space between the bracket and the slash)

Point 1 /QUOTE] (Again, remove the space)

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[thenobes]

The wide acceptance of this attitude opens the way for the abandonment of Sacred Tradition as a chief source of doctrine.

Interesting.

What if a council decided that they no longer retained the authority of the keys and to bind and loose. Would that be valid? How would we know?

peace
steve

 

[Trebor135]

What if a council decided that they no longer retained the authority of the keys and to bind and loose. Would that be valid? How would we know?

If what you mean here is to suggest the hypothetical of a gathering of bishops purporting to give up–on behalf of their episcopal successors–“the authority of the keys and to bind and loose”, I don’t imagine that such would be possible, given the indefectibility of the Church.

 

[LionHeart777]

Shiranui117,

I certainly don’t mind you showing me how to do the split quotes. I appreciate it, Thank you!

 

[LionHeart777]

Though I’ve just perused the first part, this article looks very good–thanks for linking it.

You’re welcome. I need to read it myself.

Right. But Mormonism holds that revelation still continues to be received in the present, long after the deaths of Joseph Smith and his disciples. If papal infallibility emerged only in the Middle Ages, with no trace of the doctrine from the prior roughly thirteen centuries, how is it not also new revelation–de facto if not de jure?

These are your assertions. To my understanding, the Catholic Church does not teach that “…papal infallibility emerged only in the Middle Ages, with no trace of the doctrine from the prior roughly thirteen centuries…”

Haha, point taken. But how else can we proceed from here?

I guess I’m not sure what you are wanting to proceed towards. Maybe then I can better answer.

In post #49, when I wrote,

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?

I was referring to Catholic deacons, priests, and bishops who not just wholeheartedly embrace but also zealously proclaim the teachings of their Church, without need for recourse to a charism of infallibility.

If you are just talking about a Parish Priest teaching inquirers and Parishioners then no, he is not infallible. But he has recourse to the Infallible teachings of the Church and to the Church Herself which is Infallible.

The Michael Liccione blog entry linked in post #90 offers a good, concise exposition on the Orthodox view on the interplay between Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

Thanks for the reference

The criterion I supplied was indeed too vague, so let’s reframe. From Catholic apologists I am asking for testimony to the early Church’s belief in papal infallibility and its recognition of the exercise of this charism.

Originally 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)

Then I responded:

"*I think this begs a couple of questions too.

1. Says who?
2. Who defines what ‘clear testimony’ is?*"

I think the point I was trying to make is that it is the Church who is the authority.

I struggled with the assumption/dormition of St. Mary for a long time. I attained peace about it after realizing that all three apostolic churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox) accept the doctrine and becoming aware of less-known early Church testimony to the belief (see this exposition on the Coptic view of the Theotokos

(PDF)).

Thanks for that link and for answering my question.*

 

[Trebor135]

(For the purpose of saving space, I have taken the liberty of removing the colour and font tags employed in your post.)

But you are extrapolating

How? The apostles operated under inspiration, so we have no concrete need to speak of their infallibility.

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?

They were inspired, so they were infallible. A teaching like the trinity is not true because it is declared infallibly, but is true because it conforms to reality as shown to us through divine revelation.

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.

True. The Fathers, though, seemed to think of the keys and binding/loosing as pertaining to the same kinds of authority, chiefly forgiveness of sins, church discipline, and penance.

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

If this were a notion based in Tradition, we should expect to find much more support for the doctrine from the early Church.

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

Sure. If Peter lacks the faith, however, can he still be relied upon as a solid witness to the faith, built as it was on the prophets and other apostles (cf. Ephesians 2:20)?

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.

This is an interpretation necessary for modern-day Catholic authority claims to hold up. If the early Church didn’t generally accept that interpretation, those claims are in trouble.

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

The vast majority agree that it is Peter who received the keys.

But none of them held that St. Peter’s successors in Rome could make doctrinal proclamations ex cathedra by virtue of those keys.

And when we see how history plays out, we see the Catholic position is true.

What episodes do you have in mind which demonstrate papal infallibility to have been a teaching accepted by the early Church?

sheesh!

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
   
   What makes the Oriental Orthodox communion different is not that it has a pope. In fact, the Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Armenian, and Syro-Malankara Orthodox Churches each have their own head bishop(s), if I am not mistaken, and none of these hierarches are recognized as enjoying either a power of universal ordinary jurisdiction throughout the whole communion or a charism of doctrinal infallibility as chief shepherd and universal pastor over all of the Oriental Orthodox faithful.
   
   Further, that the setup of the Catholic Church is clearly distinct from that of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches does nothing to demonstrate the correctness of its ecclesiology. Among Protestant denominations, the Church of Christ stands alone in holding to adult-only regenerative baptism, yet this fact in itself does not indicate that the peculiar view of the sacrament held by the Church of Christ should be adopted by all other Protestants.
   

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

   Right.
   

   Why?

   Because they represent a special case which, given the lack of early Church evidence for the handing down of a charism of infallibility, doesn’t help your argument.
   
   Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

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.

To speak the truth does not require a charism of infallibility. Not being protected from all doctrinal error by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, does a Coptic Sunday school teacher who instructs her pupils about Christ as the divine Son of God have to be concerned that the Muslims who attend the mosque across the street might be correct in regarding Jesus as a mere human prophet?

Could you narrow this down.

In post #44, you wrote,

Using those 3 sources of authority, the evidence for the positions the Church takes is quite volumenous beginning with the 1st century.

If, to be able to give evidence in support of a particular teaching, the Catholic Magisterium must engage in private interpretation of Scripture with results that do not at all line up with the interpretations proffered by the Early Church Fathers, while simultaneously claiming to teach doctrine firmly planted in history, it is evident that something has gone very wrong.

Scripture also contradicts that protestant notion.

I was urging that we stick to the tried-and-true scriptural interpretations from the early Church. I was not suggesting that some passages refute (Catholic interpretations of) other biblical citations.

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.

Sure.

We would no doubt agree that a human being is normally fallible.

Right.

But is that always 100% of the time?

That point is yet to be proven.

From Karl Keating of C.A.

…

Definition of infallibility, so we can talk specifically not in generalities

1. 
   

   …

   All of the foregoing explains what infallibility is, while failing to demonstrate that the Church has been granted this charism. Wasn’t it a Scholastic opponent of the immaculate conception who pointed out that God was able to cause this event to occur but was not thereby bound to do so?