Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[pneuma07]

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.

Hi Constantine !

As Paul already remarked

7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that [a]in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

By divine appointment, you see.

In Christ
P7

 

[fnr]

Oh, look to the Novationist schism. Before then, “Peter and Paul” were the basis of Roman primacy. After that, Peter alone. We don’t see Matthew 16:16-18 until long after.

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

Well, of course we Orthodox are going to be rejecting current Catholic ideas of Papal supremacy. The ideas of the Pope’s authority as understood by Catholics today were unheard of in the first millennium. Orthodox Patriarchs in the 21st century have as much authority over their particular churches as they did in the 11th century as they did in the 6th century. Orthodox ecclesiology hasn’t changed. Catholic ecclesiology has.

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?

Unless my Patriarch’s writings are really suspect, I really have no reason not to accept them. It’s not a matter of whether I have the right to disagree with my Patriarch, it’s a matter of I should agree with it if he speaks the truth.

How do you know what they desire?

The same way as telling what anyone wants: By taking a look at what they see and do.

 

[fnr]

Please see here and here for more evidence that Roman dominance at least is a product of later centuries.

As to episcopal supremacy, I would strongly suggest a contrasting look at three of the VERY earliest church fathers:

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote passionately of the need to follow the bishop. He of course was a bishop with nearly monarchical power. St. Ignatius wrote his letters from himself.

St. Polycarp of Smyrna, on the other hand, was a bishop whose writings didn’t have such episcopal leadership behind it. He wrote his epistle to the Philippians, “Polycarp and the presbyters that are with him.” In fact, when Ignatius wrote to Smyrna, he wrote to them “let nothing be done without the bishop.” If Polycarp was of the same mind, why did Ignatius need to tell the church in Smyrna?

We can also look at the letter from St. Clement to the Corinthians, after they deposed their bishop and some of the priests. Clement of Rome (i.e., the bishop) used language that was not of command, but persuasion. Still, the Corinthians listened! So there’s definite suggestion that the Roman bishop had pull (though curiously, it doesn’t seem to suggest authority over the Corinthians). He does argue for the apostolic nature of bishops:
*"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour. "
*

 

[Trebor135]

How could we come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church "effectively believes in continuing public revelation "? Because ( you say, if I more or less get it) the notion of papal infalliblity emerged in the XIII century.

Right.

I guess you do not attribute to the CC the implicit belief that some theologians of that century were the locus of public ( sic ) revelation.

Actually, I would say that the one or more Latin Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages who were responsible for coming up with the notion of papal infallibility could be called “the locus of public ( sic ) revelation”.

So one could rather propose it was in Vatican I: in other words the CC implicitly believes that she recieved a new part of Revelation in 1870. Because there was a definition on a notion that was not explicit in Sciptures or in witnesses to Sacred Tradition.

But papal infallibility was a theologoumenon in the Latin Catholic Church for a long time before the nineteenth century. So, I wouldn’t say that Vatican I invented the teaching in 1870 and immediately made it dogma.

So the question comes: are Councils called to define what has always been explicit in the previous life of the Church ? Had what was decided in Nicea in 325 or in Jerusalem around 50 been previosly explicit ? Were the two wills of Christ described so explicitly in Scriptures and in the fathers of the first six centuries ?
According to the above argument it looks like my alternative, had I been in Nicea in 325 eg, would have been either affirming that any teaching of the Council had always been explicit , or condeming the Council.

What really does matter, IMHO, is the examination of the real weight of witnesses about what was believed in the earlier Church, whether we classify it as implicit or else.

Now this is an interesting way of looking at this ecumenical council along with later ones. I concede that some doctrinal development may very well have taken place here.

I’ll propose a refinement of my argument: the Vatican I dogmas permanently and irrevocably discarded the ecclesiology of the Church of the first millennium. Papal primacy had over the centuries mutated into papal supremacy. Imagine if a hypothetical Vatican III declared that sacraments were only symbolic and Vatican IV permitted a layman to say Mass.

I’d be happy to consider together with you Trebor whether Bishop Gasser’s evidence in his Relatio ( or any other to that effect ) is just lack of evidence.

Great. Do you own the book?

Then the conclusions of the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils too have not any particular relevance, IMHO, because ( at least ) another Apostolic Church was already there. Have they ?

You raise a good point. The Oriental Orthodox Church teaches iconodoulia, so accepts the Seventh Ecumenical Council in practice if not in theory. But given that the Oriental Orthodox communion rejects the Council of Chalcedon, what does it teach about diathelitism, and does it reject the Sixth Ecumenical Council in practice and in theory?

What stands in the way of reunion between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians are the issues surrounding the council of AD 451. This state of separation, I agree with you, doesn’t invalidate the following ecumenical councils held in 553, 680-681, and 787.

Therefore, given the deplorable situation of lack of communion among the Apostolic Churches, what should we do ?

A tough question.

Am I to ponder any single doctrine against my own private interpretation of Scriptures and of the witnesses to Tradition ?
In this case how am I essentially different from our Protestant brothers ?

Well, it seems that everyone has to engage in private interpretation of some kind. For Protestants to become Catholic or Orthodox likely requires investigation of the faith of the early Church. Doing so will include determining the level of support in the patristic writings, conciliar canons, and liturgical texts for the distinctive Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zwinglian doctrines.

I am not meaning you are practicing and proposing that. I rather understand you have been discerning for a while where the most solid locus of apostolicity is nowadays, which Apostolic Church deserves your particular allegiance

Right.

And you are coming to conclude that is not the one whose center in the first millennium was consistenly referred to as “The Apostolic See”.

Correct. Recall that Rome was the only patriarchate in the West, and four other “apostolic sees” were present in the East. So, for Rome to be singled out for high praise does not show that its bishop inherently enjoyed certain special prerogatives. After all, for Antioch to be given the same warm commendation would never be interpreted by Catholic apologists as showing that its bishop held an office granting its holder a charism of doctrinal infallibility.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
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.

. I would agree that the Orthodox Patriarchs had as much authority over their particular churches in the 6th centery as they do now, with one exception: they no longer are subject to the Pope. There is ample evidence that the Pope reigned supreme from the time when the risen Lord told St Peter to tend his flock (John 21) to the present. Even in the first century, Pope Clement was writing to Corinth to reinstate their bishops. If he didn’t have authority over the church, he would not have done that.

Quote:

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 now we get down to the nub of it. How do you know he speaks the truth?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

Then why did Peter have to explain himself to the other Apostles why he baptized Cornelius? If he is the supreme leader, couldn’t he just have unilaterally said that they were baptizing the gentiles now, no ifs, no buts.

 

[Trebor135]

. I would agree that the Orthodox Patriarchs had as much authority over their particular churches in the 6th centery as they do now, with one exception: they no longer are subject to the Pope. There is ample evidence that the Pope reigned supreme from the time when the risen Lord told St Peter to tend his flock (John 21) to the present. Even in the first century, Pope Clement was writing to Corinth to reinstate their bishops. If he didn’t have authority over the church, he would not have done that.

I’d like to suggest we leave aside the thorny issue of the pope’s universal jurisdiction so as to remain on topic. If, however, you wish to submit evidence of the pope in the first millennium giving definitive statements on matters of doctrine, feel free to make your case.

So now we get down to the nub of it. How do you know he speaks the truth?

You speak as if the Orthodox faithful are lost at sea without an infallible Supreme Pontiff to guide them. Yet, both Latin and Greek hierarches very rarely exercise a (real or claimed) gift of infallibility, and everyone seems to get along fine.

How do you know Pope Benedict XVI and your diocesan bishop speak the truth, under normal circumstances?

Then why did Peter have to explain himself to the other Apostles why he baptized Cornelius? If he is the supreme leader, couldn’t he just have unilaterally said that they were baptizing the gentiles now, no ifs, no buts.

Christ’s Church doesn’t need a St. Peter Khamenei: his Iranian namesake Ali is causing Youcef Nadirkhani–and the latter’s comrades-in-faith that we don’t know about–enough grief as it is.

 

[fnr]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=7951&d=1274889461

Here’s an graphical analysis of quotes from the “Peter’s Roman Residency” page on catholic.com. I noted whether each quote mentioned “Peter and Paul” or “Peter, no Paul” as the basis of the city’s primacy. I’ve also superimposed other major events with substantial reference to papal authority. I’ve limited the analysis to around 400 AD.

It appears from this analysis that the following hypotheses are supported:
First, in the earliest years of the Church, Peter and Paul together were viewed as the basis of Roman primacy.
Second, after a series of theological conflicts, more quotes supporting Peter alone occur. The most likely cause of the change was the major conflict following the Novationist conflict in the wake of major persecutions around 250 AD.

This trend in greater support of a monarchical Roman bishop over time is also consistent with the changes of art history.
Here’s an image of the Traditio legis, showing Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom and Paul receiving the scroll of wisdom, located in the Roman catacombs:
http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/2003additions/traditioSarcJunBassus.smallfile.jpg

 

[fnr]

Also from the catacombs, 4th century.

And here, from the Catacombs of San Sebastian, graffiti invocation to Peter and Paul (not just Peter).

A 5th-7th century image of Peter alone receiving the law from Christ is here.

Look at the earliest stuff, and it looks like Peter and Paul’s martyrs death support the bishop of Rome. Later, Paul disappears from the record.

Damasus comes later, and is one of the greatest of original centralizers of Roman authority, including the Vulgate Bible under Jerome.

The Roman persecutions of Christians under Decius starting in 250 AD had problems for Christians beyond the torture and killing that the Romans did. The persecution made all citizens to get a certificate that they had sacrificed to the emperor, and many Christians went along. Afterward, those who resisted got mad; those who didn’t wanted to come back. That stuff resulted in the Novationist conflict, in which Novation was elected as the first antipope. The conflict upped the pope’s authority. The writings during that time upped the unity of the Church (e.g., Cyprian’s letters), and have subsequently been taken out of context to support the current belief in early Roman papal monarchy.

 

[Trebor135]

And here, from the Catacombs of San Sebastian, graffiti invocation to Peter and Paul (not just Peter).

When is this dated? (In case the image mentions it, my screenreading program doesn’t describe such files to me.)

 

[Trebor135]

It’s not like without the Roman Church, the Apostolic Tradition would be lost. Yes, Irenaeus received the Apostolic Tradition from the Apostolic Succession of Rome, but that’s because Irenaeus was of the Roman Church. Others under the jurisdiction of, say, Athens, received the Apostolic Tradition from the Apostolic Succession of their bishops.

All the arguing since the Great Schism over the question of what St. Irenaeus was really saying in his famous passage about Rome could have been avoided if only the bishop of Lyons had illustrated his point using Antioch or Alexandria instead…

Do you know if another important ECF pointed to an Eastern see as holding fast to the apostolic Tradition and therefore requiring our assent to its teaching?

 

[pneuma07]

Then why did Peter have to explain himself to the other Apostles why he baptized Cornelius? If he is the supreme leader, couldn’t he just have unilaterally said that they were baptizing the gentiles now, no ifs, no buts.

Dear Constantine,

why was the Vatican II called ?

In Christ
P7

 

[Trebor135]

See, this is one of my big problems with Catholicism. The Pope doesn’t need the rest of the Church, but the rest of the Church needs the Pope?

And somehow the Orthodox Church is deficient even though liturgical abuse–to borrow the Catholic phrase–seems nonexistent in even the communion’s North American parishes. The logic behind this Catholic-apologetics tack for the papacy is truly puzzling…

I’ll ask you what I’ve asked a couple others on this thread already:

What ARE the powers of the keys, anyway? How are they used?

I’m curious to read answers to this question too.

-I’d tried the Rosary(that didn’t quite resonate with me ) and the Divine Mercy Chaplet (that did better, and as things turned out, IIRC it incorporated a prayer commonly used by Eastern Christians: “Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us”),

Exact same experience here.

-I’d gone to Mass both at my local parish (which had a lot of Protestant influence, and showed nothing of a Church that boasted a rich theological tradition that had been cultivated over two milennia) and our diocesan cathedral

I know exactly what you’re talking about. The Latin parish I attended with my family for ten years might as well be some kind of warped traditional Anglican church. I was only able to make spiritual progress after I began to live in another city eight months of the year for university–I’d otherwise probably have starved to death by now in terms of faith nourishment. The Latin parishes seem to be much less short-on-substance there, but I may have been fortunate enough to avoid the problem churches. (If anyone reading happens to visit Canada’s capital Ottawa sometime, check out St. Patrick’s Basilica or St. Mary of Good Counsel.)

[A]s I learned more about the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church… I couldn’t reconcile… the history of the first-milennium Church with the RC dogmas/ideas about the Pope and ecclesiology… As far as I’ve been able to discern through a lot of study and thought, Holy Orthodoxy has at LEAST as good a claim as the Catholic Church to being the one true Church established by Jesus.

This has essentially been my experience too. Though I took a detour from my scrupulosity-dampened Catholic days to my now-hopeful approach toward a short Eastern Orthodox catechetical period by spending some time looking at Protestantism.

One thing I’ve fallen in love with about Eastern Orthodoxy is the liturgical melodies. I’m not much for singing at all, but somehow I can emulate Byzantine chant (the kinds heard at ACROD/Ruthenian and Antiochian/Melkite parishes) and generally stay on key.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic and closed.