Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[LionHeart777]

What, you don’t know Matthew 16:18 by heart by now?

Sure do! Thanks, I wasn’t sure what you guys were talking about.

edit: wait, I meant the one Cavaradossi was talking about when he said verse 44 (I think that was the verse.) I assume Cavarodassi that is the passages you just recently posted. Thanks though Shiranui117! There is perhaps a number of passages being discussed.

 

[steve_b]

You are ripping that small passage entirely out of context. In that chapter, Jesus is first addressing the multitudes:[bibledrb]Luke 12:13-21[/bibledrb]
Then to his apostles, he begins to expound upon what he said to the multitudes:[bibledrb]Luke 12:22-40[/bibledrb]
Peter then asks if Jesus is speaking this parable for the apostles or for all. Jesus responds by continuing the parable:[bibledrb]Luke 12:41-48[/bibledrb]
It should be apparent that the switch from the plural ‘servants’ to the singular ‘servant’ in verse 42 is not for the purpose of singling Peter out (something which the text never suggests that Jesus is doing), but it is for the purpose of presenting two hypothetical cases: one where the servant put into a position of leadership behaves according to his master’s will, in which case he is rewarded (verses 42-44), and one where the servant is disobedient (verses 45-46), in which case he is punished according to what he was given (verses 47-48). None of this is in any way indicative that this position of leadership applies especially to St. Peter.

If Jesus didn’t do for Peter what He did, I would agree with you. But Jesus did give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and He commanded Peter to feed, tend, rule His sheep. Jesus did this just before He ascended back to heaven.
C:

St. Cyril of Alexandria, for example, in his commentaries on the Gospel of Luke interprets this passage as applying to all of the apostles, writing:
And what is our Lord’s reply? He makes use of a clear and very evident example, to show that the commandment especially belongs to those who occupy a more dignified position, and have been admitted into the rank of teachers. “For who, He says, is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord will set over his household, to give the allowance of food at its season,” 'Let us suppose, He says, a householder; who being about to go upon a journey, has entrusted to one of his faithful slaves the charge of all his house, to give his household, that is, his servants, their allowance of corn at its due season.** When therefore, He says, he shall return, if on coming to his house he shall find him so doing as he commanded, very blessed shall that servant be. For he will set him, He says, over all that he has. But if he be neglectful and indolent, and take pleasure in oppressing his fellow-servants, eating and drinking, and given up to self-indulgent voluptuousness, he will be cut asunder, that is, will have to bear the severest punishment, when his lord shall come to him in a day that he expects not, and at an hour of which he is not aware.’

tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_09_sermons_89_98.htm#SERMON%20XCIII.

Just before Jesus ascends back to heaven, Who was the one that Jesus gave over His household to, to feed and tend and rule His sheep? It was Peter

 

[Shiranui117]

• Keep scrolling down the page. It shows how translators treat the word greek-dictionary.net/kathist%C4%93mi Acts 7:10, 7:27, 7:35
• also blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2525 “make a ruler” is used 8 times in that translation for that word

No, you’re still mistaken. You’re assuming the context in which the word was used is in fact the definition. For example, in Acts 7:10, the words “make himself ruler” in Greek are as follows:

“κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ἡγούμενον”

where Kathistemi means “to make”,
“auton” means “himself”
and “hegeomai” means "ruler.

All three of those together make the phrase “make himself ruler.” However, Kathistemi BY ITSELF simply means “make, set or appoint.”

Peter is an apostle as they all are. But Jesus elevated Peter to a position over the others. He’s not just a referee or mediator.

• Jesus renames Simon to Rock. Gives him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever Peter binds and looses on earth is bound and loosed in heaven
• Jesus said Satan will sift all of you like wheat. Peter, strengthen your brothers through the sifting of Satan. Because I have prayed especially for you.
• Peter, Feed Tend Rule my sheep

So, Peter is over and above the rest of the Apostles, and has authority over them, correct?

Jesus didn’t change everybodies name. He didn’t make everybody Peter. Jesus established a unique office in Peter.

That wasn’t my question. I’ll ask again, in the form of a premise.

-Multiple people sat in Moses’s seat.
-There is a chair of Peter.
-Therefore, just as multiple people sat in Moses’s seat, multiple bishops sit in the chair of Peter.

If you disagree, state why, please.

True. And you know why that is…right?

Because the Roman Church made it a dogma in 1870.

In the spiritual relm however, there is grave consequences to one’s soul for such division in Our Lord’s Church. Humans, knowing they must be one as Jesus and the Father are one, yet divide or remain divided, or refuse reunite, are in effect saying to God, my will be done not your will be done.

But, are Orthodox and Protestants damned if they sincerely do not see the Catholic Church as the one true Church founded by Jesus? Believing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and refusing to join it is sinful, yes. But not believing and not joining?

When Jesus said to Peter feed, tend, rule my sheep, who was Jesus leaving out of “my sheep”? If some are not under Peter’s authority, then what’s being implied is, they are not Jesus sheep. I would suggest, It’s real easy to get caught up in the realities of what’s seen and dismiss the unseen realities and the consequences of dismissing the unseen realities that Jesus also put in place.

So, again, Peter has full authority over his brother Apostles, and the Pope has full authority over his brother bishops according to you. Right? No one can tell Peter or the Pope what to do at all aside from God Himself? They can just ask really, really nicely and hope that Peter and the Pope will do it?

Just to clarify an often seen misconception. While the Roman/Latin Rite is ~98% of the Catholic Church worldwide, all the other rites united to the pope, are 100% Catholic with equal dignity. Those not in union with the pope aren’t Catholic.

Where did I leave out the Eastern Catholic Churches? I said the Roman Catholic Church AND ITS COMMUNION.

Scripture is perfectly clear on division. There is to be NONE. Personally, I don’t know how people who knowing they are seperated from the chair of Peter, grapple with that knowledge. Just being transparent, I couldn’t do it.

Though, it depends on where you think the Chair of Peter is and who sits on its seat. As St. Gregory the Great pointed out, there are more people on that seat than just the bishop of Rome

So if/when I am received into the Orthodox Church, I would be able to say with full confidence that I am indeed united with the Chair of Peter, i.e. the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

I didn’t say “same kind”. If you just say authority, I agree.

So a father and a dictator have the same authority, we agree on that?

I suppose everyone abandoning him. Then there’s no one to dictate

Precisely. Or if there are people with equal authority that can check his power and correct him. So, a father would have brothers, for instance.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If Jesus didn’t do for Peter what He did, I would agree with you. But Jesus did give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and He commanded Peter to feed, tend, rule His sheep. Jesus did this just before He ascended back to heaven.

St. Cyril in that very sermon interprets the command to Peter to ‘feed my sheep’ as a generic command, belonging to all pastors of the Church:For Christ even once said to the blessed Peter, " Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? feed My sheep; feed My lambs." If therefore he who feeds his flock loves it, then of course he that neglects it, and leaves the flock that has been entrusted to him without oversight, hates it: and if he hate it he will be punished, and be liable to the condemnation pronounced upon the unbelievers, as being convicted by the very facts of being negligent and contemptuous. Such was he who received the talent to trade with in things spiritual, and did not do so, but on the contrary brought that which had been given him without increase, saying, “Lord, I knew that you are a hard man, that you reap where others have sown, and gather whence others have scattered; and I was afraid, and hid the talent: lo! you have what is yours.” But those who had received the five talents, or even yet more, and laboured and loved service, were honoured with glorious dignities. For they heard, the one of them, “Be you over ten,” and the other, “Be you over five cities:” while that contumelious and slothful servant suffered the severest condemnation. To be negligent therefore in discharging the duties of the ministry is everywhere dangerous, or rather, brings upon men perdition: but to perform them with unwearying zeal earns for us life and glory. And this means to discourse to our fellow servants correctly and without error the things which relate to God, and whatsoever is able to benefit them in attaining both to the knowledge and the ability to walk uprightly. And the blessed Paul [Peter] also writes to certain persons, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, that when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, you may receive your reward.” And as knowing that slothfulness is the door of perdition, he again said, “Woe is me, if I preach not.”

tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_09_sermons_89_98.htm#SERMON%20XCIII.

Just before Jesus ascends back to heaven, Who was the one that Jesus gave over His household to, to feed and tend and rule His sheep? It was Peter

This is nothing more than a red herring. The one servant mentioned in the parable is symbolic of any teacher of the Church, just as St. Cyril clearly articulates:

*Let us suppose, He says, a householder; who being about to go upon a journey, has entrusted to one of his faithful slaves the charge of all his house, to give his household, that is, his servants, their allowance of corn at its due season. When therefore, He says, he shall return, if on coming to his house he shall find him so doing as he commanded, very blessed shall that servant be. For he will set him, He says, over all that he has. But if he be neglectful and indolent, and take pleasure in oppressing his fellow-servants, eating and drinking, and given up to self-indulgent voluptuousness, he will be cut asunder, that is, will have to bear the severest punishment, when his lord shall come to him in a day that he expects not, and at an hour of which he is not aware.’

Such then is the simple and plain meaning of the passage: but if we now fix our mind accurately upon it, we shall see what is signified by it, and how useful it is for their benefit who have been called to the apostleship, to the office, that is, of teacher. The Saviour has ordained as stewards, so to speak, over his servants;----that is, over those who have been won by faith to the acknowledgment of His glory;----men faithful and of great understanding, and well instructed in the sacred doctrines.*

tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_09_sermons_89_98.htm#SERMON%20XCIII.

What is signified is the responsibility of the teachers of the Church, which is why he writes that the passage is for the benefit of those who teach, and the one servant made a steward mentioned in the parable signifies the teachers, who are stewards of Christ’s sheep.

 

[steve_b]

No, you’re still mistaken. You’re assuming the context in which the word was used is in fact the definition. For example, in Acts 7:10, the words “make himself ruler” in Greek are as follows:

“κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ἡγούμενον”

where Kathistemi means “to make”,
“auton” means “himself”
and “hegeomai” means "ruler.

All three of those together make the phrase “make himself ruler.” However, Kathistemi BY ITSELF simply means “make, set or appoint.”

Since Peter didn’t ask for any title or position, didn’t make for himself any title or position, nor usurp anything, wasn’t voted an office or position by apostles, or a council, everything then that Peter is and has, came from Jesus. Since passages like these involved Jesus and Peter, I think it’s easy to compare similarities in those passages for what Jesus did for Peter.

Where in scripture, did Jesus single out any other apostle, to have one to one dialogues? Judas? Thomas? Paul? James? John?..
S:

So, Peter is over -]and above the rest of /-]the Apostles, and has authority over them, correct?

Isn’t that how Jesus set it up?
S:

That wasn’t my question. I’ll ask again, in the form of a premise.

-Multiple people sat in Moses’s seat.
-There is a chair of Peter.
-Therefore, just as multiple people sat in Moses’s seat, multiple bishops sit in the chair of Peter.
If you disagree, state why, please.

The purpose of showing “moses seat” was to

• show oral tradition is authoritative ( not everything authoritative, is written)
• there is succession to an office…moses seat

However, Jesus didn’t come to extend the tradition of moses seat. He came to establish His Church.

Matthew notes Jesus son of God, is also son of David.

That makes a connection between Jesus and Peter Mt 16:19 & [Is 22:22…] where king Hezakiah, son of David and king over Israel, gives Eliakim the keys of the house of David.(i.e. to the Davidic kingdom)

Re: multiple occupants at the same time, to one chair in multiple places

• I responded before with quote and link, that Benedict XVI refuted the notion of equalization between sees. He said no Roman pontiff ever agreed to such an equalization.Therefore bringing up pope Gregory as a defense for such equalization, is to misinterpret Gregory’s meaning. That’s also why I gave that link to the Melkite bishiop John. melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome Note his comments to chair of Peter, and “5 heads”

Just thinking out loud, what shape is Christianity in today, in Antioch, & Alexandria?
S:

Because the Roman Church made it a dogma in 1870.

Here’s the definition again. What I highlighted in red is your answer

"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 "
  The “Divine assistance” = the Holy Spirit promised to the pope in blesset Peter, by Jesus. That’s what makes a certain teaching by the pope, irreformable, and as the definition also states, not from the consent of the Church. It’s the assistance by the HS that makes it irreformable under those circumstances in the definition
  S:
  

  But, are Orthodox and Protestants damned if they sincerely do not see the Catholic Church as the one true Church founded by Jesus? Believing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and refusing to join it is sinful, yes. But not believing and not joining?

  I don’t judge you or them. Jesus will identify perfectly, what you know and don’t know, not me…
  S:
  

  So, again, Peter has full authority over his brother Apostles,

  Isn’t that what Jesus gave Peter?
  S:
  

  and the Pope has full authority over his brother bishops according to you. Right?
  -]No one can tell Peter or the Pope what to do at all aside from God Himself? They can just ask really, really nicely and hope that Peter and the Pope will do it?/-]

  Right, but Not according to me, but according to the Church.
  S:
  

  Where did I leave out the Eastern Catholic Churches? I said the Roman Catholic Church AND ITS COMMUNION.

  I wasn’t saying you were. I was merely pointing out, the name of the Church is the Catholic Church. Even though 98%+ are Roman/Latin rite, all the rites make up one Catholic Church, not one Roman Catholic Church.
  S:
  

  Though, it depends on where you think the Chair of Peter is and who sits on its seat. As St. Gregory the Great pointed out, there are more people on that seat than just the bishop of Rome

  as I pointed out in an earlier post, Benedict XVI said and I quoted him and gave the link, no Roman pontiff, (yes that includes Gregory too) accepted such equalization of sees.
  
  Melkite Bp John, talks about Antioch, but not as the chair of Peter melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
  
  If Antioch was the chair of Peter, like Rome is the chair of Peter, we should see the Church give defference to that? Did the East live and operate according to that fact? No
  
  working backwards in time
  
  AFTER Byzantium became Constatinople,(early 300’s) Church of Rome was still first in listing of sees, even though the capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople. The listing went like this
  1. • Rome
     • Constantinople
     • Alexandria
     • Antioch
     • Jerusalem
     Byzantium didn’t show up on the list before Constantine moved there and called it Constantinople. Actual apostolic sees got pushed behind Constantinople.
     
     Cyprian writes(mid 200’s) Church of Rome is the Chair of Peter, and the source of priestly unity.
     
     Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle, writes (late 100’s) all must agree with Church of Rome. Keep in mind, Irenaeus was from Smyrna, an Eastern Church Ignatius of Antioch wrote to on his way to be martyred in Rome
     
     Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St John the apostle, writes (early 100’s) that Church of Rome held the presidency. This would be a superb letter for Ignatius to write, from The Church of Antioch who holds the presidency, to the Church of Rome that holds the presidency… if things were as you suggest. But he doesn’t do that to any Church he writes to.
     
     Clement of Rome (during apostolic times) Corinth Greece, looked to Church of Rome for settlement of their sedition. Lots of other apostolic churches were much closer to Corinth than Rome.
     
     You have to admit history shows a constant theme that the Church of Rome is pre eminent…not because of politics, not because of size, but because of it being the chair of Peter
     
     Also, Re: Irenaeus, he wasn’t using a political argument, he was using an eccleastical argument based on Peter and Paul, and THEIR tradition being passed on as the litmus for everyone needing to agree with Rome.
     If Irenaeus didn’t say Rome but instead said Constantinople (which didn’t exist at his time) or Alexandria, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, you know that the Orthodox would have his quotes on the equivalent of speed dial when talking about the primacy of Constantinople, or Antioch, or Alexandria, or Jerusalem whichever the case would be. Now you know that’s true… correct?
     S:
     

     So if/when I am received into the Orthodox Church, I would be able to say with full confidence that I am indeed united with the Chair of Peter, i.e. the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

     No.
     S:
     

     So a father and a dictator have-] the same /-]authority, we agree on that?

     Authority yes, I wouldn’t necessarily call it the same

 

[Shiranui117]

Since Peter didn’t ask for any title or position, didn’t make for himself any title or position, nor usurp anything, wasn’t voted an office or position by apostles, or a council, everything then that Peter is and has, came from Jesus. Since passages like these involved Jesus and Peter, I think it’s easy to compare similarities in those passages for what Jesus did for Peter.

My point in breaking down Acts 7:10 for you was to show you that “kathistemi” does not, in fact, mean “make someone ruler.”

Where in scripture, did Jesus single out any other apostle, to have one to one dialogues? Judas? Thomas? Paul? James? John?..

Well, He kinda does with Thomas. Remember the whole Doubting Thomas episode?

Isn’t that how Jesus set it up?

Not that I’m aware. I do know it’s how you and the churches in communion with the Roan Pontiff feel about the issue.

The purpose of showing “moses seat” was to

• show oral tradition is authoritative ( not everything authoritative, is written)
• there is succession to an office…moses seat
  However, Jesus didn’t come to extend the tradition of moses seat. He came to establish His Church.

So IOW, you’re saying that no, multiple bishops do not sit in Peter’s seat?

Matthew notes Jesus son of God, is also son of David.

That makes a connection between Jesus and Peter Mt 16:19 & [Is 22:22…] where king Hezakiah, son of David and king over Israel, gives Eliakim the keys of the house of David.(i.e. to the Davidic kingdom)

I’m feeling deja vu here. Are you?

Re: multiple occupants at the same time, to one chair in multiple places

• I responded before with quote and link, that Benedict XVI refuted the notion of equalization between sees. He said no Roman pontiff ever agreed to such an equalization.Therefore bringing up pope Gregory as a defense for such equalization, is to misinterpret Gregory’s meaning. That’s also why I gave that link to the Melkite bishiop John. melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome Note his comments to chair of Peter, and “5 heads”

Not to disrespect the Pope or Bishop John, but their say-so is hardly compelling to me as a non-Catholic. A statement from a modern-day person in the RCC or the ECC’s holds no authority to me.

If you really want to substantiate your point, I advise going for a source that dates before the Schism; that would be something I would actually care about.

Just thinking out loud, what shape is Christianity in today, in Antioch, & Alexandria?

Thanks to the Muslims, not very well. But at least they’ve kept the true faith.

Here’s the definition again. What I highlighted in red is your answer
*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.
The “Divine assistance” = the Holy Spirit promised to the pope in blesset Peter, by Jesus. That’s what makes a certain teaching by the pope, irreformable, and as the definition also states, not from the consent of the Church. It’s the assistance by the HS that makes it irreformable under those circumstances in the definition

Great. Why should I, as someone who is outside the Church, believe what it claims for itself without evidence? For you, this is an authoritative source. For me, it is not.

Also, you’re just showing me more how the Pope alone has absolute authority in your Church.

I don’t judge you or them. Jesus will identify perfectly, what you know and don’t know, not me…

Yeah, so let’s not bring up the topic of who’s going to Hell and who isn’t, since it’s pointless to do so. K?

Isn’t that what Jesus gave Peter?

So, if Peter really does have this authority over his brother Apostles, and if the Popes really do have this authority over their brother bishops, are Peter and the Pope not able to exert full dominance and control over their brothers? Would they not have the authority as of a father over sons, or of a dictator over subjects?

Right, but Not according to me, but according to the Church.

Why did you cross out this:

“No one can tell Peter or the Pope what to do at all aside from God Himself? They can just ask really, really nicely and hope that Peter and the Pope will do it?”

as I pointed out in an earlier post, Benedict XVI said and I quoted him and gave the link,no Roman pontiff, (yes that includes Gregory too) accepted such equalization of sees.

You have yet to prove what I bolded. And you have yet to prove in particular what I put in red.

I would suggest starting by responding to my post #78. I’ll even link you to it again to make it easy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9584669&postcount=78

Melkite Bp John, talks about Antioch, but not as the chair of Peter melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

And why should I give heed to Bishop John again, as someone outside of his church and as someone who disagrees with both his church and the Roman church in this matter?

If Antioch was the chair of Peter, like Rome is the chair of Peter, we should see the Church give defference to that? Did the East live and operate according to that fact? No

St. Gregory the Great and St. John Chrysostom at least talked like Antioch was the chair of Peter. But Antioch+Alexandria both being taken by Muslims didn’t help with their influence.

AFTER Byzantium became Constatinople,(early 300’s) Church of Rome was still first in listing of sees, even though the capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople. The listing went like this
*Rome
*Constantinople
*Alexandria
*Antioch
*Jerusalem
Byzantium didn’t show up on the list before Constantine moved there and called it Constantinople. Actual apostolic sees got pushed behind Constantinople.

And yet Rome refused to accept that canon for hundreds of years. Later on after Rome started having a rivalry with Constantinople, they decided to use it and started shouting “HA! You’re inferior to us!”

Cyprian writes(mid 200’s) Church of Rome is the Chair of Peter, and the source of priestly unity.

Quote and context, please.

Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle, writes (late 100’s) all must agree with Church of Rome. Keep in mind, Irenaeus was from Smyrna, an Eastern Church Ignatius of Antioch wrote to on his way to be martyred in Rome

Because up until that time, Rome hadn’t gotten itself embroiled in various heresies. Rome just kept to the simple faith as they had received it, while the Easterners who were better-educated in philosophy kept attempting to clarify the faith, and falling into extremes (read: heresies) as they did so.

Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St John the apostle, writes (early 100’s) that Church of Rome held the presidency. This would be a superb letter for Ignatius to write, from The Church of Antioch who holds the presidency, to the Church of Rome that holds the presidency… if things were as you suggest. But he doesn’t do that to any Church he writes to.

Source?

Clement of Rome(during apostolic times) Corinth Greece, looked to Church of Rome for settlement of their sedition. Lots of other apostolic churches were much closer to Corinth than Rome.

So if they decided to ask Ephesus for help, would that mean that Ephesus was the foremost church, and not Rome?

You have to admit history shows a constant theme that the Church of Rome is pre eminent…not because of politics, not because of size, but because of it being the chair of Peter

It also helped that it was the old capital of the Empire, and that both Peter AND Paul were martyred there. Seriously, why does Rome build its claims solely off of Peter when both Alexandria and Antioch have legit dibs on Peter as well?

This whole Roman pre-eminence deal would be a lot more convincing if you guys brought Paul into the picture.

Also, Re: Irenaeus, he wasn’t using a political argument, he was using an eccleastical argument based on Peter and Paul, and THEIR tradition being passed on as the litmus for everyone needing to agree with Rome.
If Irenaeus didn’t say Rome but instead said Constantinople (which didn’t exist at his time) or Alexandria, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, you know that the Orthodox would have his quotes on the equivalent of speed dial when talking about the primacy of Constantinople, or Antioch, or Alexandria, or Jerusalem whichever the case would be. Now you know that’s true… correct?

So in other words, Rome was only the litmus test because they kept to the traditions of Peter and Paul, right? Not because Rome had something inherent that made it a good beacon, but because they held fast to the traditions they received from the Apostles?

And if Rome failed to keep to the Apostolic Tradition, they would no longer be a good litmus test, right?

No.

lol k, believe what you want to

Authority yes, I wouldn’t necessarily call it the same

How or why is it not the same? A father and a dictator both have the exact same authority. How much of that authority they decide to use and how they decide to use it is irrelevant. A father and a dictator both have the same level and the same kind of authority, only the execution of that authority differs.

 

[Trebor135]

I’ve been preoccupied as of late with this and that book, and am going away now with the family for a bit. There are posts in the thread from Pneuma, LionHeart, and Steve B which I hope to reply to in the next seven days at most.

 

[SPH1]

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) and Christ said that true worshipers will worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23-24. So there is such a thing as religious truth. This religious truth is not some unknowable abstraction but is something taught by Christ’s Church and is knowable to all. And I would say that by definition, Truth is infallible.

Scanning this thread, it is not specifically related to the Papacy but to church infallibility in general. Perhaps I’ve scanned wrongly, but I’m surprised to see some Eastern Orthodox question the infallibility of ecumenical councils…or not know how that works.

If even an ecumenical council is not infallible on it’s essential dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to pastoral issues, which even the Jerusalem Council contained; ie., abstaining from blood, etc.), we have two choices: 1. become like Protestants and turn to the bible alone and pretty much make up our own truth; or 2. give up on truth altogether. In either case, I’d say one might as well give up on Christianity.

Surely the Eastern Orthodox are not saying that each, individual Eastern Orthodox Bishop is infallible, as that would give each Eastern Orthodox Bishop more authority then they give the Pope. So infallibility - truth - has to lie somewhere besides each individual Eastern Orthodox Bishop…or each individual Christian.

Even the demons confessed Christ as the Son of God, because they were compelled by His power to do so.

And I think that proof then that the foundation of the Church cannot have been simply Peter’s confession of faith.

Peter just answered a simple question with a faithful answer. That’s why his confession of faith was so important, moreso than the others prior.

No, I think it a little more involved than that. For as Christ said, Peter only knew that because the Father had revealed it to Peter. Note that when Christ asked the apostles who they say Christ was, eleven of the apostles did not say anything.*

• Looking for quote/article from “Shameless Popery” at catholicdefense.blogspot.com/ re Matt 16:18. Went something like this:

Christ asking who people say he is; the apostles answered saying this and that prophet. This is similar to Protestantism; many opinions and all can be wrong.

Christ asking the apostles who they say He is. Eleven of the apostles said nothing. This is like Eastern Orthodoxy, which tends to duck issues (apparently due to lack of unifying authority)

Peter speaking up correctly, shows that the Pope…with God’s help…can get it right.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) and Christ said that true worshipers will worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23-24. So there is such a thing as religious truth. This religious truth is not some unknowable abstraction but is something taught by Christ’s Church and is knowable to all. And I would say that by definition, Truth is infallible.

Scanning this thread, it is not specifically related to the Papacy but to church infallibility in general. Perhaps I’ve scanned wrongly, but I’m surprised to see some Eastern Orthodox question the infallibility of ecumenical councils…or not know how that works.

If even an ecumenical council is not infallible on it’s essential dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to pastoral issues, which even the Jerusalem Council contained; ie., abstaining from blood, etc.), we have two choices: 1. become like Protestants and turn to the bible alone and pretty much make up our own truth; or 2. give up on truth altogether. In either case, I’d say one might as well give up on Christianity.

Surely the Eastern Orthodox are not saying that each, individual Eastern Orthodox Bishop is infallible, as that would give each Eastern Orthodox Bishop more authority then they give the Pope. So infallibility - truth - has to lie somewhere besides each individual Eastern Orthodox Bishop…or each individual Christian.

No, that is not what is fundamentally being debated. The question is do all gatherings of bishops which fit certain criteria (be they having a certain number of bishops in attendance, having certain bishops present, e.g., the bishop of Rome or the Pentarchy, being convened by certain persons, etc.) naturally have a guaranteed charism of infallibility? There is very little indication that such a belief can be found in the first millennium.

And I think that proof then that the foundation of the Church cannot have been simply Peter’s confession of faith.

The rock is Christ, Peter’s confession of faith in Christ, or Peter himself. It doesn’t matter in Orthodox theology. The three are not opposed to each other; they are all true.

No, I think it a little more involved than that. For as Christ said, Peter only knew that because the Father had revealed it to Peter. Note that when Christ asked the apostles who they say Christ was, eleven of the apostles did not say anything.*

• Looking for quote/article from “Shameless Popery” at catholicdefense.blogspot.com/ re Matt 16:18. Went something like this:

Christ asking who people say he is; the apostles answered saying this and that prophet. This is similar to Protestantism; many opinions and all can be wrong.

Christ asking the apostles who they say He is. Eleven of the apostles said nothing. This is like Eastern Orthodoxy, which tends to duck issues (apparently due to lack of unifying authority)

That is a baseless assertion. The Orthodox Church in fact has continued to hold councils and condemn heresies without any need for the bishop of Rome.

Peter speaking up correctly, shows that the Pope…with God’s help…can get it right.

But that is not what the dogma of the First Vatican Council states. It states that under certain conditions, the Pope is guaranteed not to be wrong.

 

[Shiranui117]

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) and Christ said that true worshipers will worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23-24. So there is such a thing as religious truth. This religious truth is not some unknowable abstraction but is something taught by Christ’s Church and is knowable to all. And I would say that by definition, Truth is infallible.

If you really meant what I put in bold, then I think you’ll agree with what I’m about to say. And yes, there certainly is truth. It’s sad that not everyone can come to an agreement on what that truth is.

Scanning this thread, it is not specifically related to the Papacy but to church infallibility in general. Perhaps I’ve scanned wrongly, but I’m surprised to see some Eastern Orthodox question the infallibility of ecumenical councils…or not know how that works.

If even an ecumenical council is not infallible on it’s essential dogmatic pronouncements (as opposed to pastoral issues, which even the Jerusalem Council contained; ie., abstaining from blood, etc.), we have two choices: 1. become like Protestants and turn to the bible alone and pretty much make up our own truth; or 2. give up on truth altogether. In either case, I’d say one might as well give up on Christianity.

Ahh, then it seems you skimmed over the part where this objection was addressed. No worries, I can recap for you.

You said above that “truth is infallible,” right? Let’s go through a list of premises.
1: Truth is, by definition, free from error.
2: Infallibiliity is, by definition, freedom from error.
3: Ecumenical Councils, Popes, bishops and anyone else can make true statements.
4: Based on premises 1 and 2, people who make true statements as in premise 3 are therefore infallible.

Based on these premises, I come to conclude that Ecumenical Councils are not inherently infallible. Besides, how would we even be able to distinguish which councils are infallible and which aren’t? The number of bishops present? Would we determine it by Papal approval? Or maybe the approval of all those present? Or approval by the Emperor?

However, even if all textbook criteria of an infallible Ecumenical Council are met, a given council still could be wrong, such as II Ephesus in 449.

So, it seems most logical to conclude that we know whether an Ecumenical Council is infallible, based on whether it proclaims the truth. Keeping in mind the list of premises I set out above, if someone proclaims the truth, they are therefore infallible when they claim that truth.

But how do we know whether a council or any single person has spoken the truth, and was therefore infallible in that instance? Holy Tradition (including Holy Scripture) is our guide.

And I think that proof then that the foundation of the Church cannot have been simply Peter’s confession of faith.

It seems you also missed the full context in which that statement was said. Allow me to provide it for you.

Because Peter confessed his faith in Christ in Matthew 16:18, NOT because Jesus just got done saving his tail or because He did some miraculous sign there. Peter just answered Jesus’ question about who the Apostles thought He was. Even the demons confessed Christ as the Son of God,** because they were compelled by His power to do so. Peter just answered a simple question with a faithful answer. That’s why his confession of faith was so important, moreso than the others prior.**

Again, the reason Peter’s confession of faith is more valuable than the one given by the demons, is because Peter made his confession freely, not because he was awestruck at or coerced by Jesus’ power at the time, but because he sincerely believed in Christ. The demons KNEW that Jesus was the Son of God, even more so because of His power, but they did not believe IN Him. So the quality of the demons’ KNOWLEDGE OF Christ and Peter’s BELIEF IN Christ were different. Is it clear what I meant now?

No, I think it a little more involved than that. For as Christ said, Peter only knew that because the Father had revealed it to Peter. Note that when Christ asked the apostles who they say Christ was, eleven of the apostles did not say anything.*

Does the fact that the Father revealed it to Peter change the quality of Peter’s faith?

Christ asking who people say he is; the apostles answered saying this and that prophet. This is similar to Protestantism; many opinions and all can be wrong.

Christ asking the apostles who they say He is. Eleven of the apostles said nothing. This is like Eastern Orthodoxy, which tends to duck issues (apparently due to lack of unifying authority)

Low, unclassy blow on the part of that article, and as Cavaradossi said, absolutely false.

Peter speaking up correctly, shows that the Pope…with God’s help…can get it right.

Anyone else with God’s help can get it right, too. What makes the Pope so special here?

 

[John7]

Actually no, kathistemi doesn’t mean “make ruler.” The closest definition to what you try to pawn off is “appoint someone to administer an office” which does not necessarily mean “rule.” It more commonly means just “set.” See the definitions from greekbible.com below:

1. to set, place, put 1a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it) 1b) to appoint one to administer an office 1c) to set down as, constitute, to declare, show to be 1d) to constitute, to render, make, cause to be 1e) to conduct or bring to a certain place 1f) to show or exhibit one’s self 1f1) come forward as

 

[Shiranui117]

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος· τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος ὁ φρόνιμος, ὃν καταστήσει

 

[Shiranui117]

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος· τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος ὁ φρόνιμος, ὃν καταστήσει ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ διδόναι ἐν καιρῷ τὸ] σιτομέτριον;
(Luk 12:42 BNT)

you don’t know how to actually read Greek do you

καταστήσει…ἐπὶ

didn’t notice that small preposition, there you go, you got it…now say with me, slowly now,
epi
can you read this?
please look up on your nice little greek dictionary you found, and come back and explain to me how you define EPI, and fit it in with the indicative verb

don’t know how to actually read Greek do you

please go to your nice little greek dictionary, and tell me what the number of the nominative noun is

Well, it seems someone hasn’t had their coffee today. Chill out, bro, you’re being way too snarky and acting like a condescending child. You ARE aware that it’s possible to make a point without being arrogant, patronizing and insulting to the other guy’s intelligence, right?

And no, I don’t speak Greek, but I can read a little thanks to the Cyrillic alphabet. Now come off your high horse, Herr Hellenic. If you want to make a point about the Greek, then make it. Don’t treat me like a little child and send me off to figure out what your point is for you. It’s rude and won’t do you many favors.

You’re also forgetting that this is the magical world of the Internet, where you have access to the work of people who have spent forever working with this kinda stuff, which means you don’t have to spend years and years learning Greek.

And epi means “over.” In other words, not any different than how it is in the English translation. What’s your point?

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, it seems you missed my point about “kathistemi” and “making ruler” as well. You’d do well to reread what I actually wrote.

 

[pneuma07]

I’ve been preoccupied as of late with this and that book, and am going away now with the family for a bit. There are posts in the thread from Pneuma, LionHeart, and Steve B which I hope to reply to in the next seven days at most.

Good readings Trebor !

You and your family are in my prayers.

In Christ
P7

 

[pneuma07]

If you really want to substantiate your point, I advise going for a source that dates before the Schism; that would be something I would actually care about.

You have yet to prove what I bolded. And you have yet to prove in particular what I put in red.

I would suggest starting by responding to my post #78. I’ll even link you to it again to make it easy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9584669&postcount=78

.

Hi Shirahui !

Concerning the belief that Gregory the Great would hold to an equalization of sees, I’d propose as a source himself.

You offered IMHO a great quotation in post 78. You added there an interpretive key, according to which the pope just would mean that anybody in case of fault is subject to anybody’s correction, if I get.

Let’s read the context:

*the Byzacene primate had been accused on some charge, and the most pious Emperor wished him to be judged by us according to canonical ordinance. But then, on the receipt of ten pounds of gold, Theodorus the magister militum opposed this being done. Yet the most pious Emperor admonished us to commission some one, and do whatever was canonical. But, seeing the contrarieties of men, we have been unwilling to decide this case. Now, moreover, this same primate says something about his own intention. And it is exceedingly doubtful whether he says such things to us sincerely, or in fact because he is being attacked by his fellow bishops: for, as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal. *Gregory the Great Letter IX, 59

The matter is specifically about whether the Pope should formally judge the primate of Byzacene, a North African region. That enlightens what Gregory means when he unequivocally states that all bishops ( patriarchs too are bishops BTW ), in case of fault, are subject to him.

If doubts remain on what Gregory signifies by that we can read the following:

TO bishop of Prima Justiniana ( in present day Serbia )
as regards the present, by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, we decree that, the decrees of your judgment being first annulled and made of none effect, thou be deprived of holy communion for the space of thirty days, so as to implore pardon of our God for so great transgression with the utmost penitence and tears. But, if we should come to know that you have been remiss in carrying out this our sentence, know thou that not the injustice only, but also the contumacy, of your Fraternity will have to be more severely punished. Book III, letter 6

To the bishop of Larissa ( Greece ),

*though you ought to have been deprived of the communion of the Lord’s body, for that, setting at naught the admonition of my predecessor of holy memory, whereby he exempted him ( *he’s referring to the bishop of Thebae ) and his church from the jurisdiction of your authority, you have again presumed to retain some jurisdiction over them, yet we, decreeing more humanely, and still allowing you the sacrament of communion, decree that your Fraternity shall abstain from all exercise of the jurisdiction formerly held by you over him and his church; but that, according to the written instructions of our predecessor, if any case should possibly arise, whether touching the faith, or criminal, or pecuniary, against the aforesaid Adrian our fellow priest, it be either taken cognizance of, if the question be a slight one, by those who are or may be our representatives in the royal city, or, if it be an arduous one, it be brought hither to the Apostolic See, to the end that it may be heard and decided before ourselves.
But, if you should attempt at any time, on any pretext or by any surreptitious device, to contravene these our ordinances, know that we decree you to be deprived of holy communion, and not to partake of it except at the close of your life, unless upon leave granted by the Roman pontiff. Book III, letter 7

To the bishop of Sabinianus of Jadera ( in present day Croatia ),
*the inhabitants of the city of Epidaurus have most urgently requested us to restore to them Florentius, whom they allege to be their bishop, asserting that he was driven into exile invalidly by the mere will of the bishop Natalis. And so, if your Fraternity has any knowledge of his case, please to inform us accurately by letter. But, if so far you have no knowledge of it, make enquiry, and report to us, that we may be able, with the Lord’s help, to deliberate with full knowledge before us as to what should be determined concerning him.*VIII, 10
(Quotes from newadvent.org/fathers/ )

It appears that by exercising his authority Gregory himself IMHO shows us what he means stating that all bishops in case of fault are subject to the Apostolic See.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi Shirahui !

Concerning the belief that Gregory the Great would hold to an equalization of sees, I’d propose as a source himself.

You offered IMHO a great quotation in post 78. You added there an interpretive key, according to which the pope just would mean that anybody in case of fault is subject to anybody’s correction, if I get.

Let’s read the context:

the Byzacene primate had been accused on some charge, and the most pious Emperor wished him to be judged by us according to canonical ordinance. But then, on the receipt of ten pounds of gold, Theodorus the magister militum opposed this being done. Yet the most pious Emperor admonished us to commission some one, and do whatever was canonical. But, seeing the contrarieties of men, we have been unwilling to decide this case. Now, moreover, this same primate says something about his own intention. And it is exceedingly doubtful whether he says such things to us sincerely, or in fact because he is being attacked by his fellow bishops: for, as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal. Gregory the Great Letter IX, 59

The matter is specifically about whether the Pope should formally judge the primate of Byzacene, a North African region. That enlightens what Gregory means when he unequivocally states that all bishops ( patriarchs too are bishops BTW ), in case of fault, are subject to him.

If doubts remain on what Gregory signifies by that we can read the following:

TO bishop of Prima Justiniana ( in present day Serbia )
as regards the present, by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, we decree that, the decrees of your judgment being first annulled and made of none effect, thou be deprived of holy communion for the space of thirty days, so as to implore pardon of our God for so great transgression with the utmost penitence and tears. But, if we should come to know that you have been remiss in carrying out this our sentence, know thou that not the injustice only, but also the contumacy, of your Fraternity will have to be more severely punished. Book III, letter 6

To the bishop of Larissa ( Greece ),

*though you ought to have been deprived of the communion of the Lord’s body, for that, setting at naught the admonition of my predecessor of holy memory, whereby he exempted him ( *he’s referring to the bishop of Thebae **) and his church from the jurisdiction of your authority, you have again presumed to retain some jurisdiction over them, yet we, decreeing more humanely, and still allowing you the sacrament of communion, decree that your Fraternity shall abstain from all exercise of the jurisdiction formerly held by you over him and his church; but that, according to the written instructions of our predecessor, if any case should possibly arise, whether touching the faith, or criminal, or pecuniary, against the aforesaid Adrian our fellow priest, it be either taken cognizance of, if the question be a slight one, by those who are or may be our representatives in the royal city, or, if it be an arduous one, it be brought hither to the Apostolic See, to the end that it may be heard and decided before ourselves.
But, if you should attempt at any time, on any pretext or by any surreptitious device, to contravene these our ordinances, know that we decree you to be deprived of holy communion, and not to partake of it except at the close of your life, unless upon leave granted by the Roman pontiff. Book III, letter 7

To the bishop of Sabinianus of Jadera ( in present day Croatia ),
*the inhabitants of the city of Epidaurus have most urgently requested us to restore to them Florentius, whom they allege to be their bishop, asserting that he was driven into exile invalidly by the mere will of the bishop Natalis. And so, if your Fraternity has any knowledge of his case, please to inform us accurately by letter. But, if so far you have no knowledge of it, make enquiry, and report to us, that we may be able, with the Lord’s help, to deliberate with full knowledge before us as to what should be determined concerning him.*VIII, 10
(Quotes from newadvent.org/fathers/ )

It appears that by exercising his authority Gregory himself IMHO shows us what he means stating that all bishops in case of fault are subject to the Apostolic See.

Those are all areas which would have been under Pope Gregory’s historical regular jurisdiction, which extended all the way to the borders of Thrace.

 

[John7]

Well, it seems someone hasn’t had their coffee today. Chill out, bro, you’re being way too snarky and acting like a condescending child. You ARE aware that it’s possible to make a point without being arrogant, patronizing and insulting to the other guy’s intelligence, right?

you’re seeing yourself

And no, I don’t speak Greek, but I can read a little thanks to the Cyrillic alphabet. Now come off your high horse, Herr Hellenic. If you want to make a point about the Greek, then make it. Don’t treat me like a little child and send me off to figure out what your point is for you. It’s rude and won’t do you many favors.

rude, you’re seeing yourself

You’re also forgetting that this is the magical world of the Internet, where you have access to the work of people who have spent forever working with this kinda stuff, which means you don’t have to spend years and years learning Greek.:

good boy

And epi means “over.” In other words, not any different than how it is in the English translation. What’s your point?

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, it seems you missed my point about “kathistemi” and “making ruler” as well. You’d do well to reread what I actually wrote.

what you wrote is nonsense

 

[Shiranui117]

you’re seeing yourself

rude, you’re seeing yourself

good boy

what you wrote is nonsense

Do you actually have a point, or are you just trolling?

 

[pneuma07]

It also helped that it was the old capital of the Empire, and that both Peter AND Paul were martyred there. Seriously, why does Rome build its claims solely off of Peter when both Alexandria and Antioch have legit dibs on Peter as well?

This whole Roman pre-eminence deal would be a lot more convincing if you guys brought Paul into the picture.

.

You make IMHO an excellent point here Shiranui. Indeed the Roman See is Peter PLUS Paul. And that the Roman Church has always remembered reminded that.

Indeed we read in Eusebius that the presbyter Gaius witnesses to two aediculae having been erected in the II century, one on Vatican hill, and the other one towards Ostia, to mark and celebrate the areas where Peter and Paul respectively had glorified God with their deaths. On those places St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s basilicae were respectively built in the IV centuries.
Rome has to our day Peter AND Paul as its patron saints. The feast is June 29th. The recent Pauline year proclaimed by the present Pope solemnly celebrated that date.

So in other words, Rome was only the litmus test because they kept to the traditions of Peter and Paul, right? Not because Rome had something inherent that made it a good beacon, but because they held fast to the traditions they received from the Apostles?

That Rome is the see where both Peter and Paul glorified the Lord with their deaths …that is precisely “something inherent” Shinanui

Consider then please for a second approach, the famous expression that in Irenaeus’ latin version reads “propter potiorem principalitatem” in Adv. Haer. III, 3. Whatever problems we can have with a precise translation, there is no way to escape the fact that he deals with “something inherent” to the Apostolic See IMHO.
Nothing like " because, as for now, they’re getting along well in keeping the doctrine of the Apostles ".

tbc

 

[pneuma07]

And if Rome failed to keep to the Apostolic Tradition, they would no longer be a good litmus test, right?

And here is the crux of the matter IMHO.

If we should assume that in the Roman See ( or anywhere, or in any ecclesial organ ) we cannot recognize through something inherent a beacon of Apostolic Tradition, then that leads us naturally to the question:
“Who precisely tests whom ?”

Because you’re saying, if I understand correctly, that Rome could be a good litmus test on Apostolic Tradition …just as long as it keeps to Apostolic Tradition.

But then, we could also say that my cousin and your cousin are a good litmus test on Apostolic Tradition …just as long as they keep to Apostolic Tradition.

The only problem being: says who, that my cousin keeps to Apostolic Tradition ?

If I haven’t got a clear answer, then my cousin is useless as beacon of Apostolic Tradition. If, on the contrary, we know the answer, then he is useless all the same, because it is that very answer that gives us the real beacon of Apostolic Tradition.

But then … we have to discern whether that beacon is such because of “something inherent”, otherwise… and so on ad infinitum. Guess the point is clear.

Now: who precisely tells us nowadays ( or would tell us in the XV century, or in the IX, or in the V ), in your present view, whether Rome ( or my cousin ) keeps to Apostolic Tradition ?

I hope something can help.

In Christ
P7