Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[Trebor135]

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

Can you repost your response? When I hit “Reply with quote”, all that comes up is this paragraph, and when I hit “Multi-quote this message”, nothing happens.

 

[Trebor135]

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.

This explanation makes sense. But this tangent is moot because Francis Sullivan is a Catholic priest, not an Eastern Orthodox commentator.

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.

Do you believe that Eastern Orthodox today are ecclesiastically and morally bound to accept the Council of Florence-Ferrara (AD 1439-1442) because at a certain point a small number of hierarches from their Church agreed to do so? And based on Catholic principles, why should one reject the Robber Council (AD 449)?

 

[LionHeart777]

Attempt at repost:

Originally Posted by Trebor135
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.

Edit: My apologies if I misappropriated any quotes, the original post can de found here.

 

[pneuma07]

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

Dear Trebor,

here is another patristic passage on the issue of conciliar infallibility.

Pope Leo writes to Theodoret of Cyrus

On the return of our brothers and fellow priests, whom the See of the blessed Peter sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Wherefore we make our boast in the Lord, singing with the prophet: our help is in the name of the Lord, who has made heaven and earth : who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded* from Himself**: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head. And herein our cause for rejoicing grows greater when we see that the more fiercely the foe assailed Christ’s servants, the more did he afflict himself. For lest the assent of other Sees to that which the Lord of all has appointed to take precedence of the rest might seem mere complaisance, or lest any other evil suspicion might creep in, some were found to dispute our decisions before they were finally accepted*. Ep. 120, 1.

Now some further questions:

Did Pope Leo and St. Athanasius ignore that Ecumenical Councils need a reception ? ( There is moreover no mention in Gregory’s letter of a process of reception having taken place about the Ecumenical Councils that he receives and reveres as the Gospels)

By whose authority do we, on the contrary, know today that Ecumenical Councils need a process of reception after which we get to know they spoke correctly ?

From whom do we know the essential rules this reception has to follow, and when ( if ever ) this reception is definitive ?

In Christ
P7

 

[steve_b]

As I was getting at before, it’s one thing to provide evidence and explain it.

Commentary isn’t always necessary with evidence that is so clearly written.
S:

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.

If it substantiates a point, what needs explaining?
S:

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.

The power to make Irrevocable decisions does not mean as you characterize, that he can do whatever he wants with no one to stop him.
S:

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?

No. The scriptural reference rule, and also rule with a “rod of iron” implies strength to me. And in that reference to “poimaino” as rule with a “rod of iron”, the reference was to Jesus as I said. In other places “poimaino” definitionally, means, all the other terms spoken of as well.
S:

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.

It begs the question, When has a pope nullified decision(s) by other bishops “on a whim”? Give references
S:

“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.”

As Ignatius of Antioch said, “do nothing regarding the Church without the bishop”. Bishops rule over their diocese. Just as the pope, rules over the entire Church. Not as a dictator but as a Father over his family.
S:

Great job taking all that out of context and changing the wording around.

You asked for examples of how you distort and misstate what I said. So I gave you specific examples. Then I further took those examples and compiled them into one paragraph. I changed nothing. Seeing it all compiled in a single paragraph was illuminating, ….right? Those were not my views they were yours.
S:

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 merely copied what you said. I wasn’t drawing attention to any typo or phrasing issues. Everybody makes mistakes. I was pointing out your view, how you call the pope heavy handed. Go back and look at your statement. I was accurate in what I quoted.
Re: “Pope makes both heavyhanded rulers…” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9578822&postcount=64
S:

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.

Of course you were talking about the pope. No one would mistake that. For my part, I’ve quoted scripture, ECF’s, Eastern Canon Law, etc in this discussion. My personal opinion on this subject has been minimal at best. Which means your argument is not with me but the sources. Besides, my personal opinion and $5 will buy a cup of coffee @ Starbucks. Iow, my personal opinion on this subject doesn’t carry much currency.
S:

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?

If you said it that way, I wouldn’t have made a comment.
S:

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.

At the risk of drawing more heat for quoting, I offer what Bp John, an Eastern bishop, has to say here in a Q / A. 2 questions, 2 answers
· melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites recognizing the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals
· melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome what’s it mean to be united to the pope

 

[Trebor135]

Attempt at repost:

Thanks

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.

Sure. But where has it been made with the greatest success, in your view?

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

In his book “The Gift of Infallibility”, James T. O’Connor provides the text of the Relatio of Vatican I, which was presented verbally by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser. The evidence the good hierarch proffered from Sacred Tradition comprises a handful of patristic and conciliar proof-texts, many of which are recycled in Catholic apologetics even now.

The Catholic Church, represented by Bishop Gasser, indeed made arguments from Sacred Tradition, but all on the basis of “implicit” data–hardly a solid foundation for a dogma which has caused such controversy and bars reunion with the Orthodox Church.

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

Right.

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.

Please see above.

 

[Shiranui117]

Commentary isn’t always necessary with evidence that is so clearly written.

Yes, but when someone doesn’t understand your exact view or the “clear evidence”, throwing a link at them doesn’t help unless the link is clear, precise and actually clears up what the guy doesn’t understand. The stuff you’ve given me has not helped me understand your position, and has either reinforced in my mind what you think are misrepresentations of your argument, or done nothing at all to affect my understanding.

If I do not know how your evidence supports your argument, it is your job to explain to me how your evidence supports your argument.

If I do not know what your argument is, it is your job to elaborate for me what your argument is.

If you don’t do your job, that’s your fault, not mine. Seriously, this stuff isn’t hard. You should have learned how to communicate a point to someone in high school.

If it substantiates a point, what needs explaining?

Here’s the problem, and I’m going to say this as simply and bluntly as it can: I do not understand how it substantiates your point, or even what your point seems to be. You claim I’m not correctly representing or understanding your argument, so actually talk me through your argument and your source, don’t just give me another link and say “Here, have fun.”

The power to make Irrevocable decisions does not mean as you characterize, that he can do whatever he wants with no one to stop him.

Then explain to me why it doesn’t mean as I characterize.

No. The scriptural reference rule, and also rule with a “rod of iron” implies strength to me. And in that reference to “poimaino” as rule with a “rod of iron”, the reference was to Jesus as I said. In other places “poimaino” definitionally, means, all the other terms spoken of as well.

I’m not understanding what you’re getting at here. Both “ruling with a rod of iron” and “ruling with an iron fist” sound quite authoritarian, or, as you put it, “imply strength.” Explain to me how Peter’s “poimaino” is any different from ruling with a rod of iron/iron fist.

It begs the question, When has a pope nullified decision(s) by other bishops “on a whim”? Give references

It begs no question. You’re missing my point entirely. Just because it is theoretically possible does not mean it has actually happened. It’s like God being theoretically able to give humans the ability to fly. Did He actually? No. But CAN He, if He wanted to? Yes.

So, based on your very own arguments, CAN the Pope nullify or overturn decisions of his brother bishops on a whim? Yes. Do we have examples of him doing it? I don’t know, and likely not.

If you think I’m misrepresenting your argument, then explain to me how I am wrong and what you actually mean.

As Ignatius of Antioch said, “do nothing regarding the Church without the bishop”. Bishops rule over their diocese. Just as the pope, rules over the entire Church. Not as a dictator but as a Father over his family.

What’s the difference between ruling as a dictator and ruling as a father, in terms of their authority and how that authority is utilized?

You asked for examples of how you distort and misstate what I said. So I gave you specific examples. Then I further took those examples and compiled them into one paragraph. I changed nothing. Seeing it all compiled in a single paragraph was illuminating, ….right? Those were not my views they were yours.

You distorted and misinterpreted MY words. I never meant my words to go together like that, and you hacked them apart and jigsawed them together in a way that I clearly never intended.
Offense #1, you repeatedly shuffled my words around and took them out of the contexts of the ***very sentences *** in which they were said, making them lose ALL of their original meaning.
Offense #2, you conveniently made it look like those were my actual views of the Pope, when in reality, I was simply taking your own arguments, taking them to their logical conclusions, and spitting them back at you so you could see what your arguments looked like to me.

I merely copied what you said. I wasn’t drawing attention to any typo or phrasing issues. Everybody makes mistakes. I was pointing out your view, how you call the pope heavy handed. Go back and look at your statement. I was accurate in what I quoted.

Oh, give me a break. You didn’t copy it, you ripped it out of its context. That snippet-blob of what I said didn’t even come close to what I was originally saying. All of that was talking about your view, not mine. You were not even close to accurate in what you quoted.

Re:“Pope makes both heavyhanded rulers…”

Are you seriously too lazy to even read my full sentence? I am rapidly losing patience for these ridiculous shenanigans, and if this keeps up for one more post, I’m done with the argument.

Here’s what I actually said. I’ll make sure to emphasize the parts you left out.

Jesus JUST got done saying that the Apostles are not to lord power over one another, 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.

Get it now? I was talking about your view, not mine. I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall here.

Of course you were talking about the pope. No one would mistake that. For my part, I’ve quoted scripture, ECF’s, Eastern Canon Law, etc in this discussion. My personal opinion on this subject has been minimal at best. Which means your argument is not with me but the sources. Besides, my personal opinion and $5 will buy a cup of coffee @ Starbucks. Iow, my personal opinion on this subject doesn’t carry much currency.

No one would mistake the hatchet job you’ve done of my posts for what I actually said.

I’ve looked at your evidence, and I’ve either countered it, or haven’t been able to make heads or tails of it because you won’t tell me how you’re using it to support your argument.

I have asked for clarification from you over and over again about what your sources mean and how you’re using and interpreting them, and I’ve asked you repeatedly to explain yourself in instances where you claim I’m misunderstanding or misrepresenting your argument. You have not done either.

I have no argument with the sources, because as far as I can tell, you haven’t even made a tangible argument using them.

Oh, and I see you never commented on my response in post 76. Does this mean that you’ve been pursuing this tangent of “I said, you said” because you can’t refute my post?

At the risk of drawing more heat for quoting, I offer what Bp John, an Eastern bishop, has to say here in a Q / A. 2 questions, 2 answers

That does not answer my question. All that said was is that Catholics have to submit to the Pope and the Roman dogmas. It did not say a word on what those dogmas actually said.

My confusion is about what your sources mean and how you’re using them. Explain to me what your argument is and how your sources support your argument and how you’re interpreting those sources. If you do not, then I see no reason why I should keep talking to you.

 

[Trebor135]

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…”

I understand the Catholic Church teaches that all public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle and am not claiming that it officially holds the Mormon view. Rather, I’m saying that, because of the lack of evidence from the early Church for papal infallibility (a notion which emerged only in the Middle Ages, according to Brian Tierney and other scholars–who as of yet have not really been taken on by Robert Sungenis et al), the Catholic Church effectively believes in continuing public revelation.

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

Well, you concede that evidence for papal infallibility before the Great Schism is primarily or exclusively “implicit”; I find no reason to accept evidence of this sort; where can we go now?

The way out of our impasse would be for Catholics to demonstrate that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches as necessary for salvation one or more doctrines for which evidence from the early Church is primarily or exclusively “implicit”. The dormition of the Theotokos does not meet this criterion because the Orthodox Church has not deemed it necessary to dogmatize the teaching.

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.

Point taken. It is certainly conceivable that infallible statements could help to make a teaching better understood and more theologically precise, something which would help the average Fr. Joe to explain the doctrine well.

Thanks for the reference

No problem.

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

If we have to believe dogmas chiefly or solely because a Christian communion which claims (along with two other important rivals) to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches them, how can we hope to check for doctrinal innovation on the part of this body?

Thanks for that link and for answering my question.

You’re welcome.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi Trebor,

I might not get to a response for a bit (I’m painting my daughter’s new room tomorrow, which will help to get her old room ready for my new daughter in September )

But I found this gem from St. Maximus of Constantinople today:

The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Maximus of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 2 Aug. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi Trebor,

I might not get to a response for a bit (I’m painting my daughter’s new room tomorrow, which will help to get her old room ready for my new daughter in September )

But I found this gem from St. Maximus of Constantinople today:

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Maximus of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 2 Aug. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm.

And what are the six inspired councils mentioned in the quote? Since Maximus the Confessor reposed in the Lord in the year 662, almost twenty years before the Sixth Ecumenical Council, it would seem that we have lost one of those six. Was it the council held by Pope Martin in 649? Why is this council not regarded as an ecumenical and infallible council, if Maximus the Confessor meant to speak of papal infallibility in that quotation?

 

[LionHeart777]

And what are the six inspired councils mentioned in the quote? Since Maximus the Confessor reposed in the Lord in the year 662, almost twenty years before the Sixth Ecumenical Council, it would seem that we have lost one of those six. Was it the council held by Pope Martin in 649? Why is this council not regarded as an ecumenical and infallible council, if Maximus the Confessor meant to speak of papal infallibility in that quotation?

I personally saw the mention of the councils as pointing to a belief in Conciliar Infallibility whereas the last part pointing to a belief in the Infallibility of the See of Rome.

 

[Shiranui117]

And what are the six inspired councils mentioned in the quote? Since Maximus the Confessor reposed in the Lord in the year 662, almost twenty years before the Sixth Ecumenical Council, it would seem that we have lost one of those six. Was it the council held by Pope Martin in 649? Why is this council not regarded as an ecumenical and infallible council, if Maximus the Confessor meant to speak of papal infallibility in that quotation?

Maybe the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

 

[LionHeart777]

Maybe the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

That thought crossed my mind too. When did Councils start taking on the numbers they have today?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I personally saw the mention of the councils as pointing to a belief in Conciliar Infallibility whereas the last part pointing to a belief in the Infallibility of the See of Rome.

Rome has held many councils which are not ecumenical councils, like the aforementioned Council of the Lateran held in 649. Why is this council (and others like it) not included in dogmatic manuals, commemorated on calendars or treated in any way like the ecumenical councils?

 

[LionHeart777]

Rome has held many councils which are not ecumenical councils, like the aforementioned Council of the Lateran held in 649. Why is this council (and others like it) not included in dogmatic manuals, commemorated on calendars or treated in any way like the ecumenical councils?

Why is which council “not included in dogmatic manuals, commemorated on calendars or treated in any way like the ecumenical councils”?

I am now trying to understand what 6 councils St. Maximus refers to, since I wasn’t aware of the fact that, as you had pointed out “Maximus the Confessor reposed in the Lord in the year 662, almost twenty years before the Sixth Ecumenical Council…”

 

[steve_b]

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

So iow, someone operating under inspiration, making what they teach infallible, among certain members of the Church, is not some new idea that popped up in the 19th century. We agree!

So…when did operating under such guidance of the Holy Spirit and corresponding infallibility, end? Please explain
T:

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.

That presumes one knows with certainty what is and is not inspired divine revelation…true? The Scriptures were written in, by, for and canonized by the Catholic Church. Therefore, what you seem to take and not take as certain truths is arbitrary based on your feelings.

infallible truths, about the faith have to be taught and declared to the world, by someone or a body of people, who are capable to teach and declare with certainty, and without error, what that truth is…correct?

Otherwise it’s all just fallible opinion. Is that what you’d rest your soul on? Fallible opinion?
T:

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.

also governance.
T:

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

Re: the keys?

“Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me…I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures.”—Ephraim, Homily 4:1,(A.D. 373),JUR,I:11

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Pope Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis (Acts 9:32-34).” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (“Catechetical Lectures” c. 350 A.D*.)*

“They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’” St. Ambrose of Milan (“On Penance,” 388 A.D.)

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.’” St. Augustine of Hippo (“Sermon 295,” c. 411 A.D.)

COUNCIL OF EPHESUS
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [a.d. 431]).
T:

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)?

Jesus already addressed that issue.

Lk22:31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (this is plural meaning all of them) as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you,(singular) Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you (singular) have turned back, strengthenyour brothers."

Jesus said this to Peter in front of all the apostles in the upper room just before they left for the garden.

There were no surprises here. Peter would deny Jesus and Jesus made sure everybody knew it in advance. But they also knew all of them would be sifted as well, but Peter in a special way was prayed for because he is the one who Jesus will give the keys to the kingdom to. And we know that after Jesus death and resurrection but before His ascension back to heaven, Jesus assembles all His apostles around Him again. And in from of all the apostles He singles Peter out again. And says to Peter feed, tend and rule my sheep.

And we can see from the quotes above, how ECF’s understood what Jesus said, and today 2000 years later, we can see how that continued with the popes of Rome and the Catholic Church.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I haven’t followed this thread for two weeks or so and have just been doing some reading up. Here are some things I wish to say±

The Sixth Council that Maximus mentioned was indeed the 649 Lateran Council held under Pope Martin like Cavaradossi mentioned. The Lateran Council regarded itself as Ecumenical and upheld dyothelitism. The nice remarks about the papacy that St. Maximus made were because Rome was the only Patriarchate at the time which repudiated Monothelitism. Earlier though Jerusalem under St. Sophronius was the only See which was dyothelite, Rome was then monothelite under Pope Honorius or at least tolerant to it.

Besides, when the Fathers use the “See of Peter” they don’t always refer to the See of Rome. I am pretty sure St. Ephrem the Syrian had the Patriarch of Antioch in mind.

That presumes one knows with certainty what is and is not inspired divine revelation…true? The Scriptures were written in, by, for and canonized by the Catholic Church.

Nobody disputes this, yet the Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be that Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

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

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

What is it you deny

• Peter has successors
• the keys didn’t get passed on
• infallibility didn’t continue on in the Church

Here’s something to think about regarding infallibility in the early Church .
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.htm

Let’s consider the NT.

The New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, no canon was firmly settled.

So

• one either agrees that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon, or he has to disagree.
• If one disagrees, then
• he has no certainty the New Testament canon is true,
• he has no certainty the books he uses to argue his positions and base his faith on are true, because they were established by the Council of Rome.

But if he agrees that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then he is going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God’s providential guidance—which is infallible guidance). They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. If Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, then the argument infallibility was not seen in the early Church has no traction.

btw here is a quote from Pope Damasus at this time

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Pope Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
T:

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.

The Catholic Church is one East and West. When there was a schism in the East, those churches ceased being Catholic. Some of those Churches in the East returned to Catholic communion with Peter and are rightly called Catholic.

Re: Protestant denominations, there’s not a valid church among them.
T:

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.

What special case?

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

 

[mackbrislawn]

However, it does not mean that he became a ruler over the other Apostles, or that he was always in the right in matters of faith and morals.