Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[Trebor135]

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

Seconded. I had always been under the impression that the official Catholic view of the “keys” in Matthew 16:17-19 was/would be that they were given exclusively to (1) St. Peter and his papal successors rather than (2) the Twelve Apostles and their episcopal successors. The former is an interpretation which, as per the “Power of the Keys” article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, became prevalent in Catholicism only around the time of the Protestant Revolt. Either the prayer cited of ordination is an out-of-place holdover from a previous era, or it illustrates that the latter is still a valid interpretation in the current day. What do you think, Marduk?

Perhaps, but such a warning also implies that this coryphaeus is indeed fallible, and subject to having his rank stripped from him for failing to heed the commandments of the Lord. It is certainly a position of great responsibility, and as Jesus said, to whom much is given, much is required.

Indeed. In the parable you and Marduk were discussing, Christ warns sternly (Luke 12:45-46), “But if [the] servant says to himself, `My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful.” His words recall the dark prediction made about Eli’akim (Isaiah 22:25): “In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.” This verse concludes the pericope so often cited in Catholic apologetics as foreshadowing the institution of the papacy…

 

[Trebor135]

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.

I can definitely see how one can take this passage to imply St. Pope Leo’s belief in conciliar infallibility. At this point I must remain undecided on whether the early Church held this doctrine. But you’re citations render less far-fetched the possibility that conciliar infallibility is a patristic teaching.

Now some further questions:

Sure.

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 ?

These are important questions. I answer by saying that the notion of “receptionism” is logically untenable. I highly recommend (1) a blog entry by Eastern Orthodox apologist Perry Robinson entitled “Against Khomiakov” and (2) the discussion in the comment section which was sparked by the post.

 

[pneuma07]

Finally playing catch-up…

I don’t have any issues with that notion.

.

Dear Trebor,

that means we can build on common ground here.

It may be. The burden of proof rests with the Catholic camp, though.

Ibid.

Why ?

I mean, cannot this be a common exploration of the above issues, considering the merits of the Orthodox positions and of the Catholic position ?

In any case I see you are open on the issue that the indefectible Church can in some instances express her indefectibility with an infallible voice, and moreover that this voice could be detected in Ecumenical Councils.
So i dare say we’re playing in a quite common camp here.

As for what I propose here, IMHO an indefectibility which is to be a priory regarded as devoid of any infallible manifestation is somehow incomplete and abstract.

( as for the “bigger sticking point” we could start with post 125, if you agree )

 

[pneuma07]

I can definitely see how one can take this passage to imply St. Pope Leo’s belief in conciliar infallibility. At this point I must remain undecided on whether the early Church held this doctrine. But you’re citations render less far-fetched the possibility that conciliar infallibility is a patristic teaching.

.

If at this point you see as possibly patristic the notion of conciliar ( and therefore ecclesial ) infallibility, that means, inter alia, that the fact that bishop Theodore Abu Qurrah was perhaps the first one to explicitly teach on this notion, does not necessarily mean that he invented it.

I assume we’re speaking about the modern meaning of “inventing”.
If, on the contrary, we go by the original meaning ( from Latin in-venire, ie finding, coming upon ), then I’d say he invented the notion.
Where? In the memory of the Church, or the Apostolic Tradition.

This is BTW precisely the sense in which the well known theologian Joseph Ratzinger in his last book, the second volume on Jesus ( hope you can read it sooner or later BTW) explains that the Church did find Apostolic Succession, the Canon of the Scriptures, the regulae fidei.

Why did the notion come up explicitly just around 800 AD? Because IMHO of the new challenges connected with a new environment, ie Muslim rule.

Now that we appear not extremely far from sharing the possibility of ecclesial infallibility through conciliar infallibility, before going on further, I have to confess to you the …“second secret”, so to say, of Catholicism.
That we have no irreformable list of all the irreformable statements issued by Councils.
( the first one being, as you know very well, that we have no irreformable list of irreformable papal statements ).

Probably those Orthodox brothers who hold to conciliar infallibility also don’t have such a list.

Is all that a terrible mess? IMHO it is not, for reasons that I’ll propose in case you were interested.

Sure.

These are important questions. I answer by saying that the notion of “receptionism” is logically untenable. I highly recommend (1) a blog entry by Eastern Orthodox apologist Perry Robinson entitled “Against Khomiakov” and (2) the discussion in the comment section which was sparked by the post

Thanks for the link. ( I guess a commentary on the specific insights on Florence and 2nd Nicea would lead us probably away from the present points, what would you say? ).

And I concur, as you can imagine, that some aspects of “receptionism” à la XIX century, as I can understand it, appear untenable. (With this I do not exclude every form or aspect of a receptionism in the first millennium, or even in second millennium Catholicism )

I hope something can help.
In Christ
P7

 

[Shiranui117]

Yaaayyy, settled into college! Now, onto catch-up.

What about feeding the Lord’s sheep and confirming the brothers (John 21, Luke 22), all of them?

What does “confirming the brothers” mean? And don’t the rest of the Apostles also shepherd Jesus’ flock? Is feeding and tending the flock of Christ really unique to Peter? If so, then what about the rest of the Apostles and the bishops?

It is not. How can we separate the college and its head ?

Allow me to put it a different way, then. How is the Petrine ministry distinct from that of the other Apostles’?

Yes. The gist of the message is that since it is pre-eminent, Rome is supposed to hold the AT.

And without holding fast to the AT, Rome would not be pre-eminent, correct?

Thanks for this refreshing and so true remark.
In debating with Protestant brothers it can be so enlightening to show the degree of consensus we have within the Apostolic home! Somebody imagines that the seven Sacraments are just a medieval novelty. Then you can show that the CC the EOCs and the OOCs all hold the same seven Sacraments/Mysteries.
Our unassailable commonality is IMHO what makes Apostolic Christianity (or i’d dare say Christianity) so credible. Unfortunately someone can retort “But some Orthodox underline that they are so different from you, how come?”

I find that the underlining of differences between the Apostolic Churches is psychological in nature. I believe our differences are stressed over our similarities is because it’s much easier to discuss our differences and similarities. Having a conversation where the other side just nods and says “Yep, that’s right, I agree” doesn’t last very long, and once you both have reached full agreement, what point is there in further discussing the topic?

However, with differences, that provides a much livelier discussion, with each side challenging the other’s ideas. The question of who’s right becomes a puzzle that needs to be solved. And people love puzzles. Solving puzzles means progress.

Yes, meaning that the Church of any age remains faithful to his Lord. So we concur that the Church is (inherently, I presume) indefectible.

I think we’re agreed on the indefectible part, but inherent is still up in the air for me, if only because we would have to then define how indefectibility is inherent and what the implications of that are.

Infallibility is not the quality of one who got it right. He did not fail in that case. Period. Yesterday I did not die, but I am not immortal. Infallibility is the quality of being uncapable of erring. ** Ecclesial infallibility refers to being uncapable of authoritatively teaching error.**

See what I bolded? That’s always the copout whenever someone brings up an event that challenges the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The idea that “Oh, well if they taught something wrong, then they weren’t authoritatively teaching” is simply a No True Scotsman fallacy. If the Pope or a Council teaches error, you handwave it and say “Oh, well, they didn’t teach it authoritatively.” Well, how do we define “authoritatively?” What does that mean, and how can we tell when something is “authoritatively” taught?

The indefectibility of the Church without ecclesial infallibility is IMHO a very abstract gift. It is wonderful that we know that somehow Jesus’ message goes on. But, as for us now, how and where can we attain His message?
That is why I believe He left us ecclesial infallibility, ie an infallibility of His visible living Church, which is expressed through visible living organs.

Throwing infallibility into the mix doesn’t help anything. How do we know when the Pope or a Council is infallible and when it isn’t? Because they clearly aren’t always infallible.

Just not to give anybody the impression that there is only Canon 3 in Sardica about the appelate universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome

I underline that this is Greek version of the Canons.

Alright, nothing I haven’t already mentioned as part of my argument (except maybe Canon 4).

However, appellate universal jurisdiction is quite different from the universal jurisdiction that the Pope enjoys in the Catholic Church today.

Also note that the Bishop of Rome is never the initiator in any of those canons. He only acts (or refuses to) after being requested to. Even in canon 5, the Pope is never a judge in the bishop’s trial himself, but sends some priests to be judges with the rest of the bishops.

So Rome kept the orthodox faith. And provided a vital support for those brave Easterners who were trying to defend it against the overwhelming might of emperors and in many cases patriarchs. (Besides setting the line in decisive moments. )
** If this has not to do with " confirm your brothers "… **

As I said before, the meaning of “confirm your brothers” needs to be agreed upon before you can pull that card.

Shiranui, do you expect to be officially taught error by the mouthpiece of Peter?

Define “officially.” This smells like another No True Scotsman.

Not just no one. (And we could also usefully examine’s Leo’s own view on the matter.) The case for Papal infallibility is probably considered ( even ? ) stronger in connection with another Ecumenical Council, ie Constantinople III.

Do you have the relevant part from Constantinople III?

Oh, and Bishop Leo of Rome thinks Bishop Leo of Rome is right. SURPRISE!

PS Looking forward to your opinions on post 179.

Looking forward to your opinions on my opinions.

 

[Shiranui117]

Seconded. I had always been under the impression that the official Catholic view of the “keys” in Matthew 16:17-19 was/would be that they were given exclusively to (1) St. Peter and his papal successors rather than (2) the Twelve Apostles and their episcopal successors. The former is an interpretation which, as per the “Power of the Keys” article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, became prevalent in Catholicism only around the time of the Protestant Revolt. Either the prayer cited of ordination is an out-of-place holdover from a previous era, or it illustrates that the latter is still a valid interpretation in the current day. What do you think, Marduk?

I’d also be very much interested in hearing Marduk’s thoughts on this.

Indeed. In the parable you and Marduk were discussing, Christ warns sternly (Luke 12:45-46), “But if [the] servant says to himself, `My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful.” His words recall the dark prediction made about Eli’akim (Isaiah 22:25): “In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.” This verse concludes the pericope so often cited in Catholic apologetics as foreshadowing the institution of the papacy…

You took the words right out of my brain. I felt like saying that, but I don’t think I ever did. Perhaps Jesus foresaw what would become of the Papacy and left us a well-hidden clue about its fate…

 

[paul_c]

It seems rather obvious (at least to me) that there must be a trusted infallible source of what is the path to salvation or else we wouldn’t know what to believe. Jesus recognized that and created a hierarchical system at the head of which he placed St. Peter with the promise for him and for us that he would have the keys to the kingdom and that the church thus created would prevail against the gates of hell. When the risen Christ told Peter that he should tend his flocks in John 21, Peter took it to heart and within days had set forth the doctrine of Apostolic succession, replacing Judas with Matthias in Acts 1 and setting forth the requirement to be baptized to be saved in Acts 2 (As Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:18-20). These teachings were authoritative and thus infallible, in the same way that Vatican I defined infallibility. That didn’t mean that Peter couldn’t err in other parts of his life - for instance we know that St. Paul called him out in Galatians for not freely associating with the Gentile Christians in the presence of the Jewish Christians - but his teaching authority is not questioned. This is the same for our current popes.

But let’s also explore that alternatives. What happens if you don’t believe in papal authority? Well one thing that often happens is that others try to usurp that same authority but without the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. Luther denied Papal authority, saying that scripture was the one and only infallible authority and then proceeded to set himself up as an alternative to the Pope by wielding his own interpretation of the Bible and creating a new set of traditions. Luther may not have called himself an infallible pope but he expected his followers to adhere to his authority and was extremely dismayed that almost immediately, those that followed him began to wield their own personal authority, starting their own splinter churches and becoming in effect, their own popes. I would maintain that a similar thing happens within the orthodox community, where individual patriarchs provide the same role as the pope for their communities, but without the promises and protections afforded to the real pope.

The other possibility is to make truth democratic, defined by the whims of the populace. That has led to gay marriage, gay bishops, abortion, divorce, etc in the various churches. But we all know that unlike popular opinion, the truth never changes so a church without authoritative teaching will disintegrate over time as it becomes obvious that it has lost the truth.

Vatican 1 served as a reminder to the modern world that Jesus set Peter and his successors apart to teach faith and morals authoritatively and infallibly. The chair of St. Peter can be trusted to lead us to salvation.

 

[Trebor135]

Playing more catch-up…

Let’s put it this way. The early Church always had the Roman Church among it’s membership, something the current Eastern Orthodox cannot say and which makes them different from the early Church.

That East and West were united then does not prove that they should be now. While the Greeks have not dogmatized any teachings since the Great Schism, the Latins have proclaimed as necessary for salvation the friction-causing doctrines of St. Mary’s immaculate conception, papal universal ordinary jurisdiction, and papal doctrinal infallibility in the past two centuries.

Eastern Orthodoxy might look different from the early Church in that it is not in communion with the see of Rome. But Catholicism too looks different from the early Church (up to AD 451) in that it is not in communion with the see of Alexandria. Ought this fact compell both of us to convert to Oriental Orthodoxy?

This side discussion leaves unresolved the real issue at hand: did the early Church believe in papal infallibility? If so, one searches in vain for the text of even a single ex-cathedra proclamation from the bishop of Rome accepted as such by the Church during the first millennium.

No council can be binding/infallible without at least the assent of the Roman Church on board.

Are there particular citations from the early Church, e.g., conciliar canons, which demonstrate Christians of the first several centuries to have believed thus?

Just as the Jerusalem Council could not have been binding if Peter were absent or not on board.

Do you find this rule somewhere in the book of Acts or one of St. Paul’s epistles? I have never come across it before.

Besides–granting the statement for argument’s sake–it doesn’t necessarily mean that the head of the apostles was endowed with charisms of universal ordinary jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility.

Take away Peter/Roman Church assent and no council can be binding. This Petrine assent is ultimately what marks for us a (potentially) binding council.

On the basis of what data from the early Church may one draw this conclusion?

Yet the so-called autonomous Eastern Orthodox Churches (bishops), being not infallible and not able to pronounce binding Christian doctrine, therefore must be subject to some higher Church authority. At the least, these autonomous Churches are bound by an Ecumenical Council, whether they personally agree with it or not.

This paragraph is puzzling. The head bishops of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches freely accept that they are “subject to some higher Church authority” and, “being not infallible”, are “not able to pronounce binding Christian doctrine” on their own. It is the pope, in fact, who claims extraordinary privileges: his communion teaches that the bishop of Rome can be judged by no earthly authority and can define dogmas ex cathedra free of error under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Shiranui117]

They were all apostles, but “beginning from one” , Cyprian is refering back to Peter, ergo his successors too, which Jesus made as the leader over the others.

“AS beginning from one”, not just “beginning from one”. Big difference there. “As beginning from one” means to give the appearance of beginning from one. The Apostles are all of one mind, so they have the appearance of all being from one.

1st among equals is a nonsense term. It’s a way to equalize authority for those who have authority problems.

Only if you take “authority” to mean “monarchial rule.” Interpreting authority as influence, pre-eminence and being a person with good faith, insight and mediation/arbitration skills fits in just swell with “first among equals.” Think of it like an elder brother. He doesn’t have control over his younger brothers, but he can certainly settle disputes between them and be a good source of advice and support when they need it.

not the only instance

But it’s the only instance Cyprian cared about when he was writing that letter, so this point of yours is moot.

Jesus has 2 wills, human and Divine. If one isn’t clear on how the following is explained, there could be misunderstandings.

Yep

John 6:38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

Since we know whatever Jesus did, He did perfectly,

Mhm

If one is not absolutely precise with their language, it could LOOK like using Jn 6:38, Jesus only used one will even though He has 2 wills. Honorius not formulating his thoughts on this, nor formulate the language for correct understanding, requested Sergius by letter, that the subject of Jesus 2 wills, be tabled. That’s where Honorius failed. By tabeling this, he was accused of not stopping the monothelite heresy, thereby he was condemned.

Yep. He kowtowed to heresy and paid for it.

Put simply, if one is in Istanbul, and ask where is the Catholic Church, one will be directed to
St Antoine Catholic Church. BTW, it’s the largest Church (active membership) in Constantinople/Istanbul today

Would you drop the semantics? It’s quite childish. We’ve been over this before. You COMPLETELY ignored my point and just restated your earlier idea.

If it’s unpredictability of travel you’re considering, then travel by land isn’t easier. Especially since the Romans were persecuting the Church severely as in throwing Catholics to the lions or using them as human torches to light up the appian way at night,… In that case, One might consider the shorter distance given the perils.

…Have you ever been out on the ocean, or watched anything about people who have been? You’re severely underestimating the ferocity and fickleness of the seas. Much easier to keep and deliver a letter safe (and DRY >_>) overland. You can keep a constant speed and rate of progress overland, and it’s a straight shot to Rome on the imperial roads.

They would have been at risk of being targeted for being Christians regardless of whether they went by sea or by land, so that part of your point is moot.

Distance between Corinth and Ephesus is ~250 miles where St John was.
Distance between Corinth and Rome, is ~700 miles where Clement was

BTW, in order to reduce the miles from Corinth to Rome to ~700 mi, sea travel is required also.

Being closer to someone does not mean it’s easier to get a hold of them. You’re forgetting about terrain, how you’re traveling, etc. Do you want me to explain to you the pros and cons of various methods of travel in that area? It looks like you need some pointers.

Now, tell me, which sounds easier to travel:

• -A nicely-paved Imperial road with plenty of options for picking up a horse or mule or hooking up with a caravan, being able to stop at an inn/shelter and get provisions for the trip about whenever you need them,
• -or taking a ship equipped with sails that rely on wind blowing in the direction you need it to go, and when the winds aren’t blowing your way, you have to either: set anchor/go to port and wait for a change in the winds, take detours, or push on into the headwinds, with each option slowing progress dramatically creating delays and changes of plans while weaving through rocky shores of dozens of islands, while ALSO dealing with stormy weather, rough seas, and threats of running around?

It still begs the question, why didn’t Corinth seek help from John who is much closer?

See above point, and my previous posts. The Corinthians wanted to go to someone they knew and trusted. It also may have been easier for the Corinthians to get a message to Rome.

It doesn’t beg any question. You’re really just not taking the time to process what I’m telling you. If you think about what I’m saying, it makes perfect sense.

St John, a living apostle, is only 250 miles away from them. Peter and Paul died ~67 a.d. Clement writes his letter ~80 / ~90 a.d. I think your point avoids the real issue.

What real issue? I think your points avoid what I’ve been telling you for multiple posts now.

All should agree with Rome, is apostolic tradition passed on. That’s the point that follows

You don’t get to restate your original point after I’ve countered it without providing anything to back your statement up.

• what is “the faith” preached to men by succession of what bishops?

The entire faith of the Church. Jesus being the Son of God, the Trinity, baptism for the remission of sins… You know what, you can go look at this stuff in the Creed and the works of the earliest Fathers. I really shouldn’t have to explain to you what Holy Tradition is.

• What Church is “this Church” that “every Church should agree with”?

Didn’t I already cover this?

• who specifically are the succession of bishops Irenaeus names who pass on this Tradition, preserved continuously and faithfully to faithful men who exist everywhere?

He names the Roman bishops as proof that the Church has received the faith of the Apostles through her bishops.

1. “the apostles, [Peter & Paul] then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus ,- from Linus the bishopric passed onto Anacletus; Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius; Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

So Irenaeus, a Roman, talks about the Roman succession of bishops that hand down the Apostolic Faith and Tradition to the Roman Church. Big surprise.

If Irenaeus was from Antioch, he’d talk about Antioch’s succession of bishops and how the handing down of the faith from the bishops of Antioch to the rest of the Antiochian church would be proof “that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

And note what I bolded. Irenaeus is saying that the Apostolic Succession at Rome is proof of the Apostolic Tradition being handed down throughout the rest of the Church. And they SHOULD all agree with Rome, because Rome has the faith of the Apostles, and theoretically, so do the rest of the churches.

1. • What Church is this Church that every Church should agree with? It’s Rome.
   • How do we know? Where do these bishops named, come from? Irenaeus names 12 popes of Rome, in apostolic succession, down to his day. Therefore, the teaching “All must agree with this Church” i.e. Rome, comes from Peter and Paul, via those bishops down to Irenaeus time.

1. 
   You have yet to show that “All must agree with Rome” is the faith of Peter and Paul. Oh, and if you really think that just agreeing with Rome is the Apostolic Faith handed down by the bishops everywhere, then I have bad news for you.

 

[Shiranui117]

I would maintain that a similar thing happens within the orthodox community, where individual patriarchs provide the same role as the pope for their communities, but without the promises and protections afforded to the real pope.

Yeah, I think it’s safe to say you don’t know much about Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

[Trebor135]

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 )

Hi LionHeart–I hope the room-painting project has been successful and your wife is doing well as the little one’s arrival is coming up fast.

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.

That’s a fascinating quotation (if only I could figure out how to select the “multi-quote” option–the excerpt would be present in this post).

If we take into account the words of St. Maximus when faced later in life with the decision to be in communion with the see of Rome, it becomes clear that he did not deem the pope to be the centre of ecclesiastical unity and a sure guide on matters of faith and morals. To cite Eastern Orthodox apologist Joseph Suaiden’s first rebuttal in a debate on the role of the papacy in the early Church:

From the life of St Maximus the confessor (print: HTM, Boston 1982):

“To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem?”… To this the righteous man wisely replied, “Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it.”

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions….

The Saint said, “They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?”

[To this the interrogator asked if St Maximus alone would be saved; he replies that he cannot say, but that he would rather die than unite to heresy.—JS.]

“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, "when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. "

The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”

 

[paul_c]

Yeah, I think it’s safe to say you don’t know much about Orthodox ecclesiology.

So educate me.

 

[Trebor135]

What is it you deny

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

St. Peter was succeeded by the first bishops at Rome and Antioch. The keys were passed on from one episcopal generation to the next, so that, e.g., absolution could be granted to penitants. It is thus far unproven that a charism of infallibility was transmitted from St. Peter to the first bishop of Rome and subsequently passed down to his papal successors.

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

Let’s consider the NT.

…

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.

How does the exercise of conciliar authority demonstrate a belief in papal infallibility? The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would like to look into the source looked back to and the reasoning given by the Eastern Orthodox Church for the New Testament canon.

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]).

Pneuma cited a quote from another pope to the same effect but, as Cavaradossi pointed out, an author making a claim does not entail the veracity of the statement.

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.

You seem to be assuming that a Church’s geographical extent demonstrates the truth of its claim to being the visible body of Christ. Have I misunderstood your argument?

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

I was not suggesting that Catholics should accept Protestant doctrines, but was providing an example of fallacious reasoning to illustrate how I deemed you to be falling into the same error: “One group teaches X in contrast to all its rivals, so the other groups must all be wrong with their unique rival vindicated.”

What special case?

The apostles were given charisms by the Holy Spirit in greater measure than the bishops who came after them. St. Ignatius of Antioch wasn’t writing inspired epistles to the churches of Asia Minor and Rome. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was not, as far as we know, performing miracles of the kind and number recorded in the book of Acts in order to convert the heretics whose doctrines he was refuting. Both were ordained into the episcopacy, but the outpouring of divine grace onto the Church which occurred so noticeably during the apostolic age had come to an end.

 

[Shiranui117]

So educate me.

Well, the obvious thing is, there is nothing in Orthodoxy that is equivalent to a Roman Catholic Pope. The Russian Patriarch, for instance, is the head bishop of his own Russian Church, but he has no business messing with the Antiochian Church, and vice-versa. There is no ordinary universal jurisdiction in Orthodoxy.

Secondly, Papal infallibility is a strange creature unique to Catholicism. Orthodox Patriarchs are not viewed to be infallible; they are just as subject to error as you and I. This is not to say that they cannot be trusted; indeed, as bishops and Patriarchs they have (hopefully) grown in God’s grace and learned His commandments very well. Are the Patriarchs infallible? No. Have they inherited the commission from the Apostles to care for, shepherd and teach the flock of Christ, and have they been given help in order to better do that? Yes.

So, in short, Orthodox Patriarchs are not wannabe Popes, nor do they have any desire to be so.

 

[pneuma07]

Yaaayyy, settled into college! Now, onto catch-up.

Dear Shiranui,

that’s great !

What does “confirming the brothers” mean?

According to the Sixth Ecumenical Council it means:

this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing ( letter of Pope Agatho to the Emperor Constantine )

And don’t the rest of the Apostles also shepherd Jesus’ flock? Is feeding and tending the flock of Christ really unique to Peter? If so, then what about the rest of the Apostles and the bishops

Each bishop does feed and tend the particular flock which is entrusted to him. The entire flock being entrusted to Peter, with the help of all the others.

Allow me to put it a different way, then. How is the Petrine ministry distinct from that of the other Apostles’?/

I guess they were somehow entrusted to him too (although we believe they were infallible), since they were shepherds but also sheep of the Lord.

And without holding fast to the AT, Rome would not be pre-eminent, correct?

You see Shiranui, if a tell you “ Look at X to check your own orthodoxy … as long as X remains orthodox”, what is the sense ? I am just saying “ You check the orthodoxy of X”.
Now, as for the famous passage of Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III, 3, it just cannot be read that way, IMHO.

Generally speaking, if I have to scrutinize the Orthodoxy of X, and can do that, that means IMHO I have to know an even more reliable touchstone of Orthodoxy, say Y. By Y I check X. Otherwise that would just be my private judgement ( is Martin Luther listening to us ? ), and I’d be back to see myself as the best architect in town. Wouldn’t I ?

If OTOH we do not want to look at the litmus test of the litmus test ad infinitum, we IMHO have to postulate an infallible living touchstone.

tbc

 

[Trebor135]

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.

Sure. The truth taught by the visible body of Christ is based–according to the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches alike–on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

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.

My objective is to discuss whether infallibility of either the conciliar or papal variety was believed in by the early Church. As apostolic Christians we cannot simply argue that “X is logically required”; we have to show that “X is historically required”.

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)

I would like to ask you to name specific issues on which the Eastern Orthodox “duck”: without elaboration this will be (as others have pointed out) a gratuitous cheap shot.

 

[pneuma07]

I find that the underlining of differences between the Apostolic Churches is psychological in nature. I believe our differences are stressed over our similarities is because it’s much easier to discuss our differences and similarities. Having a conversation where the other side just nods and says “Yep, that’s right, I agree” doesn’t last very long, and once you both have reached full agreement, what point is there in further discussing the topic?

However, with differences, that provides a much livelier discussion, with each side challenging the other’s ideas. The question of who’s right becomes a puzzle that needs to be solved. And people love puzzles. Solving puzzles means progress.

And a definite progress is discerning that both can be considered right, and getting through that, building on every contribution, a higher and common point of view.
Let us thank the Lord for our already manifest extraordinary commonalities !

I think we’re agreed on the indefectible part, but inherent is still up in the air for me, if only because we would have to then define how indefectibility is inherent and what the implications of that are.

A not inherent indefectibility would mean a quality the Church can loose. An indefectibility which can be lost …is not indefectibility. Should we believe that Jesus’ message can be lost before His second coming ?

See what I bolded? That’s always the copout whenever someone brings up an event that challenges the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The idea that “Oh, well if they taught something wrong, then they weren’t authoritatively teaching” is simply a No True Scotsman fallacy. If the Pope or a Council teaches error, you handwave it and say “Oh, well, they didn’t teach it authoritatively.” Well, how do we define “authoritatively?” What does that mean, and how can we tell when something is “authoritatively” taught?

Throwing infallibility into the mix doesn’t help anything. How do we know when the Pope or a Council is infallible and when it isn’t? Because they clearly aren’t always infallible.

Speaking about infallibilty, consider please that there is no a priori reason to single out the Pope, or whatever organ. A No True Scotsman game can be played about any organ or source of infallibility.
And it can be played even about the inerrancy of the Scriptures. What is the precise scope of biblical inerrancy ? The Church is still working on that question, as I understand. So Christians could be charged with making inerrancy a mobile target.
Are we going then to throw away biblical inerrancy ? Or are we going to throw away ecclesial infallibility because of that ?

Infallibility has other problems, deeper that the True Scotsman game.
Namely, that I have to discern the infallible source ( whatever it is, the Toronto Star say ) fallibly.
Then I have to interpret its statements fallibly. That is IMHO a critique we should all consider.
So it is important IMHO fixing whether a given difficulty we may have concerns a specific organ of infalliblity, or infallibility in itself.

As for the definition of the scope of the expression of ecclesial infallibility through the pope, I guess the answer is in Pastor Aeternus. We also know that the scope is the same, ratione materiae, for Ecumenical Councils, and that in such solemn gatherins the college must be united with its head.
And no, there is no irreformable complete list of irreformable statements .

I am under the impression that many Orthodox brothers do believe in ecclesial infallibility, in particular expressed though the organ of Ecumenical Councils. Is that correct ? I don’t know whether you are being taught this way.
How do we know that a particular Council is Ecumenical, and therefore infallible ?

Alright, nothing I haven’t already mentioned as part of my argument (except maybe Canon 4).

However, appellate universal jurisdiction is quite different from the universal jurisdiction that the Pope enjoys in the Catholic Church today.

Also note that the Bishop of Rome is never the initiator in any of those canons. He only acts (or refuses to) after being requested to. Even in canon 5, the Pope is never a judge in the bishop’s trial himself, but sends some priests to be judges with the rest of the bishops.

More accurately, per Canon 5 the Bishop of Rome has the power to be judge through legates.
Anyway we seem to agree that the the principle of universal jurisdiction was there in the first millennium. An appellate jurisdiction.
To honor St. Peter ( Canon 3), say the Fathers of Sardica. ( which does underline that the link between the bishop of Rome and Peter was perceived as unique ).
So universal jurisdiction cannot be anathema, in itself, it seems.

As I said before, the meaning of “confirm your brothers” needs to be agreed upon before you can pull that card.

See previous post please. Is your present difficulty about the meaning of “confirm your brothers”, or about the Popes being entrusted with that task after Peter ( or both ) ?

Please, do not explain away the unique role of the Apostolic See in preserving Orthodoxy through the upheavals to the IX century. (Try a mental experiment imagining those centuries without Rome and the West. )

Define “officially.” This smells like another No True Scotsman.

I

s any adverb a No True Scotsman here ?
Seriously, the adverb is not the operative word . What I invite to consider is that the way the Council adresses the Pope seems to imply a belief in a sort of infallibility. Am I completely off target ?

Do you have the relevant part from Constantinople III?

See again previous post.

Oh, and Bishop Leo of Rome thinks Bishop Leo of Rome is right. SURPRISE!

Well I do not think I am exercising an infallible magisterium. Do you ? Leo did, we can infer, about his Tome. Is that irrelevant , in a thread about about ecclesial infallibility in the early church ? BTW, nobody told St. Leo he was a fool, to my poor knowledge.

As a general remark, the argument about what first millennium Popes would attribute to their own ministry, is not just about their own opinions ( on this part, if you are going to tell me that it is obvious that a pope in any century declares his ministry is jure divino over all churches, or that Rome has a stainless record in orthodoxy, well, I’m OK. Let’s consider it within the obvious if we want )

The fact is you don’t have routine rejections, or rebuking on that, by orthodox hierarchs. On the contrary, you sometimes have full reception by Easterners. ( I am not suggesting that words, and actions, were always consistent and linear through the centuries, far from that ). And that is what I hope that can be appropriately pondered by anyone.

Looking forward to your opinions on my opinions.

And here they were, for what they can help.
In Christ
P7

 

[ConstantineTG]

Each bishop does feed and tend the particular flock which is entrusted to him. The entire flock being entrusted to Peter, with the help of all the others.

Why is it then that Peter was called the Apostle of the Jews and Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles? That doesn’t sound like the entire flock was entrusted to Peter.

 

[paul_c]

Well, the obvious thing is, there is nothing in Orthodoxy that is equivalent to a Roman Catholic Pope. The Russian Patriarch, for instance, is the head bishop of his own Russian Church, but he has no business messing with the Antiochian Church, and vice-versa. There is no ordinary universal jurisdiction in Orthodoxy.

I understood this point. My point is that by refusing to acknowledge the Pope;s authority, the individual Orthodox patriarchs and Bishops assumed supreme authority for their own jurisdictions.

Secondly, Papal infallibility is a strange creature unique to Catholicism. Orthodox Patriarchs are not viewed to be infallible; they are just as subject to error as you and I. This is not to say that they cannot be trusted; indeed, as bishops and Patriarchs they have (hopefully) grown in God’s grace and learned His commandments very well. Are the Patriarchs infallible? No. Have they inherited the commission from the Apostles to care for, shepherd and teach the flock of Christ, and have they been given help in order to better do that? Yes.

Okay so lets explore what this really means. When YOUR Orthodox patriarch takes a position on an issue of faith and morals are you free as his subject to disagree with him and still be an Orthodox Christian in good standing? Or should you accept what he says in these matters with full confidence that he is preaching the truth?

So, in short, Orthodox Patriarchs are not wannabe Popes, nor do they have any desire to be so.

How do you know what they desire?

 

[paul_c]

Why is it then that Peter was called the Apostle of the Jews and Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles? That doesn’t sound like the entire flock was entrusted to Peter.

That was Paul’s statement. But in Act’s 15, Peter said that he was chosen by God to bring the faith to the Gentiles and he was not disputed. So he clearly had the entire flock