ECF's and papal infallibility

[oneseeker2]

I’ve been reading some of the ECF’s and have come away with some questions about whether they actually teach papal infallibility. For instance, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3 states that every church should agree with the church in Rome b/c it was founded by Peter and Paul. However, in 3.2, he explains this as meaning since Rome is the capital of the empire that the faithful from all parts, representing every church, are obliged to resort to Rome; and there to come together so that the apostolic tradition of the gathering together out of all the churches will be preserved. That sounds more like the collegial view of the Eastern Orthodox, not a monarchial system with one bishop in control.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 states that Rome was given Primacy only b/c it was the capital, and has equal privileges to the other patriarchs.

Cyprian says that the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose refer to all bishops equally and decisions should be made with all bishops present. He also instructed Rome on the unity of the church saying some are always assuming more dominion with a sacreligious presumption and proud obstinancy.

Origen states that the power of binding and loosing of one who has the keys to the kingdom is that he has the answers about Jesus and the church. The power to teach truth sets free (looses) those who believe, and traps (binds in sin) those who do not believe.

How do I reconcile Rome’s growing monarchial episcopacy with accounts of earlier groups of bishops, presbyters, etc, all having equal privileges, especially when not all of them taught that Peter was the Rock, but his faith in Christ was?

oneseeker2

 

[Thing]

I’ve been reading some of the ECF’s and have come away with some questions about whether they actually teach papal infallibility. For instance, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3 states that every church should agree with the church in Rome b/c it was founded by Peter and Paul. However, in 3.2, he explains this as meaning since Rome is the capital of the empire that the faithful from all parts, representing every church, are obliged to resort to Rome; and there to come together so that the apostolic tradition of the gathering together out of all the churches will be preserved. That sounds more like the collegial view of the Eastern Orthodox, not a monarchial system with one bishop in control.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 states that Rome was given Primacy only b/c it was the capital, and has equal privileges to the other patriarchs.

Cyprian says that the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose refer to all bishops equally and decisions should be made with all bishops present. He also instructed Rome on the unity of the church saying some are always assuming more dominion with a sacreligious presumption and proud obstinancy.

Origen states that the power of binding and loosing of one who has the keys to the kingdom is that he has the answers about Jesus and the church. The power to teach truth sets free (looses) those who believe, and traps (binds in sin) those who do not believe.

How do I reconcile Rome’s growing monarchial episcopacy with accounts of earlier groups of bishops, presbyters, etc, all having equal privileges, especially when not all of them taught that Peter was the Rock, but his faith in Christ was?

oneseeker2

I’d have to say that Peters faith in Christ was Peters and nobody elses. Peter is both Peter the man and that particular faith which belongs to Peter. Peter is a rock because he has Peters faith and he is a man with Peters faith.

The idea of Peter being the first among the Apostles, and the idea that there is a first, began in Apostolic times.
26 It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: 27 And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant. 28 Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The bishops ruled the Church, but, there was one among all the Bishops who was the greatest of them, but he was also their servant, their minister.

And…

But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

The Church was to be guided by the Holy Spirit. When the Church speaks, it is guided. And the Church speaks through authority, given from Peter the rock, the minister, the servant, & the Bishops. As the Apostles were Bishops of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church speaks through, as the first or greatest of them all, their servant, Peter the rock.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’ve been reading some of the ECF’s and have come away with some questions about whether they actually teach papal infallibility. For instance, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3 states that every church should agree with the church in Rome b/c it was founded by Peter and Paul. However, in 3.2, he explains this as meaning since Rome is the capital of the empire that the faithful from all parts, representing every church, are obliged to resort to Rome; and there to come together so that the apostolic tradition of the gathering together out of all the churches will be preserved. That sounds more like the collegial view of the Eastern Orthodox, not a monarchial system with one bishop in control.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 states that Rome was given Primacy only b/c it was the capital, and has equal privileges to the other patriarchs.

Cyprian says that the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose refer to all bishops equally and decisions should be made with all bishops present. He also instructed Rome on the unity of the church saying some are always assuming more dominion with a sacreligious presumption and proud obstinancy.

Origen states that the power of binding and loosing of one who has the keys to the kingdom is that he has the answers about Jesus and the church. The power to teach truth sets free (looses) those who believe, and traps (binds in sin) those who do not believe.

How do I reconcile Rome’s growing monarchial episcopacy with accounts of earlier groups of bishops, presbyters, etc, all having equal privileges, especially when not all of them taught that Peter was the Rock, but his faith in Christ was?

oneseeker2

You seem to be mixing Primacy and Infallibility. Theres are many other quotes I have seen and read basically saying Rome has spoken it is finished, the issue is settled, Peter has Spoken thru …(the current Pope), etc. Also remember both developed over time. It would be like saying, That acorn looks nothing like that Oak tree, and doesn’t even come close to looking like that finished table.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rich SFO,

You seem to be mixing Primacy and Infallibility.

I agree, and I wish I had the time to elaborate.

Theres are many other quotes I have seen and read basically saying Rome has spoken it is finished, the issue is settled,

Yes there are many quotes, but that is not one of them. The worst thing Catholic apologists can do is to present quotes out of context that can easily be knocked down. The fact is,

Also remember both developed over time. It would be like saying, That acorn looks nothing like that Oak tree, and doesn’t even come close to looking like that finished table.

Though I don’t deny the principle of the development of doctrine, the doctrine of papal infallibility and primacy is not one (or two) of them. Papal infallibility was established by Christ with his words to Peter that “you are Rock” and “I pray for you Peter, that when you return to me you will confirm your brethren.” Papal primacy was established by Christ (Matthew 24), the practice of the early Church and by canon from the earliest times (Apostolic Canon 34 [35 in Greek]).

Forgive me for sounding harsh, but I think Catholic apologists do a disservice to the Church when they assign the development of doctrine to these two dogmas. Not only is the claim (that they are the fruit of a development of doctrine) false, but it muddles the focus of the issue (i.e., opponents don’t even have to address the dogmas anymore - they just have to deny that development of doctrine exists, claim that the dogmas are novel thereby, and viola!).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother oneseeker2,

I’ve been reading some of the ECF’s and have come away with some questions about whether they actually teach papal infallibility. For instance, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3 states that every church should agree with the church in Rome b/c it was founded by Peter and Paul. However, in 3.2, he explains this as meaning since Rome is the capital of the empire that the faithful from all parts, representing every church, are obliged to resort to Rome; and there to come together so that the apostolic tradition of the gathering together out of all the churches will be preserved.

I believe your confusion may lie in the additions to the text that non-Catholic interpreters have imposed on it. For example, nowhere does the text mention the idea that Rome is the capital of the empire. And nowhere does the text mention people gathering together in Rome. All it says is that the Faith in Rome is the same Faith that any true Christian anywhere else has.

That sounds more like the collegial view of the Eastern Orthodox, not a monarchial system with one bishop in control.

The text does not say anything about collegiality. It’s simply talking about the surest way people can know what the true faith is. Read through 3.3. again. After giving the succession of the Roman bishops, he explicitly asserts: “And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles.”

However, I would like to correct you in your perception of the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not a monarchial system. It is most akin to a federal system with a president (a president with real powers). It is collegial in all respects. But it is a different kind of collegiality than that presented by Eastern Orthodoxy. In terms of political language, Catholicism, as stated, is more like a federal system with a president; Eastern Orthodoxy is more like a pure democracy with local leaders working together. (For the sake of comparison, the Oriental Orthodox are more like an oligarchy.)

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 states that Rome was given Primacy only b/c it was the capital, and has equal privileges to the other patriarchs.

You are speaking of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The Catholic Church has always rejected the content of this canon insofar as it assigned the prerogatives of the major Churches on the basis of mere political/geographical considerations. The Catholic Church to this day continues to reject this interpretation of how the prerogatives of the major Churches came about. And the Catholic Church is not alone in this rejection. The Oriental Orthodox also rejects this idea that the source of the authority of the major Churches was purely secular/temporal (i.e., because of their geopolitical status). Both the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Chruches assert and teach that the source of the authority of the major Churches is Christ himself through the Apostles. That is why the major Churches are called APOSTOLIC SEES.

The Eastern Church gradually changed its tune and came around to the Rome’s view. In the 6th century, Constantinople (“New Rome”) finally began claiming that their authority was based on succession from the Apostle Andrew. Before this time, as you know, they were basing their authority merely on their status as the new capital of the empire. This change in its self-understanding was so complete that when Canon 28 was renewed at the Trullan Synod of 692 A.D., all references to its status as capital disappeared. This is one of the reasons Rome was finally able to accept Constantinople’s claim in the order of the major Churches in 869 A.D.

Only modern Eastern Orthodox apologists and polemicists are renewing this long-ago-rejected idea that the major Churches gained their ecclesiastical authority because the Church was located in a city with geopolitical status. Please don’t listen to that argument.

Cyprian says that the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose refer to all bishops equally and decisions should be made with all bishops present. He also instructed Rome on the unity of the church saying some are always assuming more dominion with a sacreligious presumption and proud obstinancy.

You are referring to St. Cyprian’s work De Unitate, which was written after he had a dispute with the bishop of Rome Pope St. Stephen about the re-baptism of heretics and schismatics. Three things that need to be pointed out:

1. Before the dispute, St. Cyprian was all for the authority of the Pope. In fact, he had appealed to the Pope to discipline other bishops in Gaul and Spain.
2. St. Cyprian’s De Unitate from which you have gained your information is actually a SECOND version of an earlier work. This earlier work was full-blown “the Pope possesses the primacy in the Church” rhetoric. Check it out if you have the time.
3. St. Cyprian’s position was declared to be wrong by the Ecumenical Councils. In fact, the very heretics that he claimed did not have valid baptism (the Novatians), the Ecumenical Council affirmed that they did. In short, the Ecumenical Councils sided with Pope St. Stephen. So what we have here is simply an instance of a Church Father, wholly orthodox, and agreeing with the ancient Catholic belief of the headship of the bishop of Rome and his authority, but finds himself disagreeing with the Pope (and wrongly at that), and then backtracking on his previous statements about the Pope. He was basically just having a fight with his big brother and saying some bad things about him, which he really didn’t mean.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Origen states that the power of binding and loosing of one who has the keys to the kingdom is that he has the answers about Jesus and the church. The power to teach truth sets free (looses) those who believe, and traps (binds in sin) those who do not believe.

The Church has always taught that the power to bind and loose is possessed by all priests. The missing element in your understanding is that this power to bind and loose is obtained from BISHOPS (i.e., someone higher than them in the ecclesiastical hierarchy). In truth, though Jesus Christ gave all his apostles the power to bind and loose, he gave only one the actual keys to the kingdom. The Catholic Church does not deny that the keys are inherently shared by all who have the power to bind and loose, but neither can one neglect the biblical truth that those keys were given only to one.

How do I reconcile Rome’s growing monarchial episcopacy with accounts of earlier groups of bishops, presbyters, etc, all having equal privileges, especially when not all of them taught that Peter was the Rock, but his faith in Christ was?

I hope what I have stated above has helped. As far as the Rock issue, the Catholic Church has never denied that the Rock refers to Peter AND to Jesus and his Faith. In fact, it is the offical Catholic position that the Rock refers to ALL THREE. It’s just that non-Catholics like to create a false dichotomy and claim that the Rock does not refer to Peter AT ALL. So you will often find Catholic apologists focus more on the proving that St. Peter is the Rock of Mt. 16:18. But it is not because we deny that the Rock just as equally refers to Christ and Peter’s Faith. It is only because we are defending against those who deny that St. Peter is ALSO the Rock.

The basis for the idea that all three (Jesus, Peter, and Peter’s Faith) represent the Rock is known in the Catholic Church as the Sacramental principle. If you have a question about it, I hope someone can explain it to you, because I have run out of time, I’m afraid.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother oneseeker2,

oneseeker2:

I’ve been reading some of the ECF’s and have come away with some questions about whether they actually teach papal infallibility. For instance, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3 states that every church should agree with the church in Rome b/c it was founded by Peter and Paul. However, in 3.2, he explains this as meaning since Rome is the capital of the empire that the faithful from all parts, representing every church, are obliged to resort to Rome; and there to come together so that the apostolic tradition of the gathering together out of all the churches will be preserved.

I believe your confusion may lie in the additions to the text that non-Catholic interpreters have imposed on it. For example, nowhere does the text mention the idea that Rome is the capital of the empire. And nowhere does the text mention people gathering together in Rome. All it says is that the Faith in Rome is the same Faith that any true Christian anywhere else has.

One last thing. The quote from St. Irenaeus is often mistakenly utilized to “prove” papal infallibility. In fact, it should more correctly be utilized to prove the INDEFECTIBILITY of the Church.

The more proper means of proving papal infallibility is where the Church Fathers make the claim that “Peter has spoken through [name of Pope]”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Dear brother Rich SFO,

I agree, and I wish I had the time to elaborate.

Yes there are many quotes, but that is not one of them. The worst thing Catholic apologists can do is to present quotes out of context that can easily be knocked down. The fact is,

Though I don’t deny the principle of the development of doctrine, the doctrine of papal infallibility and primacy is not one (or two) of them. Papal infallibility was established by Christ with his words to Peter that “you are Rock” and “I pray for you Peter, that when you return to me you will confirm your brethren.” Papal primacy was established by Christ (Matthew 24), the practice of the early Church and by canon from the earliest times (Apostolic Canon 34 [35 in Greek]).

Forgive me for sounding harsh, but I think Catholic apologists do a disservice to the Church when they assign the development of doctrine to these two dogmas. Not only is the claim (that they are the fruit of a development of doctrine) false, but it muddles the focus of the issue (i.e., opponents don’t even have to address the dogmas anymore - they just have to deny that development of doctrine exists, claim that the dogmas are novel thereby, and viola!).

Blessings,
Marduk

I guess you misunderstood my understanding of “development” OF course the Doctrine existed from the beginning, but was not clearly “exposed” or un-veiled so to speak except over time.

 

[jimmy]

It is nonsense to say that Papal infallibility did not develop. Catholic apologists accept that it has developed because they would be destroyed in any discussion if they did not accept that it was a development. None of the apostles and none of the fathers believed in papal infallibility. That is why there never was an infallible statement until that of the IC in the 19th century.

The Catholic structure is monarchical. In order to interpret it any other way you have to read around what the documents actually say. If you read the documents as they are you will get a monarchical understanding. You can read an interpretation that downplays all the monarchical statements but that is hardly an accurate reading of the text. We can interpret it spiritually and avoid the literal meaning but if that is the case then we might as well abandon the concept of a council because we can no longer speak plainly.

 

[mardukm]

I guess you misunderstood my understanding of “development” OF course the Doctrine existed from the beginning, but was not clearly “exposed” or un-veiled so to speak except over time.

Regarding primacy, what part of our Lord’s assertion in Matthew 24 that “WHO IS THE WISE AND FAITHFUL SERVANT OVER WHOM THE MASTER WILL SET OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD, TO GIVE THEM THEIR FOOD…” is so hard to understand?

What part of “THE BISHOPS OF EVERY NATION MUST ACKNOWLEDGE HIM WHO IS FIRST AMONG THEM AND ACCOUNT THEM AS THEIR HEAD…” is so hard to understand? This is Apostolic Canon 34, and one must remember that when this was written by the Apostles or apostolic men, the idea of national/patriarchal Churches with separate, autocephalous hierarchies had not even yet come into existence.

There are numerous others down through the centuries, but I think these are the two most primordial examples that the teaching on and belief in the universal primacy of a temporal head over the WHOLE Church has been a CONSTANT teaching of the Church from the time of the Apostles, and did not “develop” over time. On the other hand, the ways and means by which this universal primacy is exercised has been the subject of debate, and was not settled by Vatican 1, a debate that continues to this day.

As far as infallibility is concerned, see my subsequent post to brother Jimmy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is nonsense to say that Papal infallibility did not develop. Catholic apologists accept that it has developed because they would be destroyed in any discussion if they did not accept that it was a development. None of the apostles and none of the fathers believed in papal infallibility. That is why there never was an infallible statement until that of the IC in the 19th century.

I guess when St. Peter asserted with authority at the Council of Jerusalem that “God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and belief” he wasn’t teaching infallibly?

The Tome of the Leo was most certainly an ex cathedra decree. It was a dogmatic treatise written by the Pope addressed to the whole Church. Though it is often connected with the Council of Chalcedon, it was actually written TWO YEARS before that Council was convened, and, according to NPNF, “Already almost the whole West, and most of the Easterns, with Anatolius himself, Bishop of Constantinople, had gone so far as to confirm by subscription that letter, before the council took place.”

As far as proof for the belief, St. Peter’s claim at the Council of Jerusalem was certainly a claim of infallibility, and I don’t see anyone objecting to it.

St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Romans, asserts that the Church in Rome is “filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint.” Given St. Ignatius’ explicit teaching on the intimate connectedness of a local Church to its bishop…well, you get the picture.

There are many other examples demonstrating the Church’s early belief in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome. I’ll grant you this - that the word “infallible” was not used by the early Church. But the idea that the Church of Rome through its bishop was always the pure and solid standard of the Faith of the Catholic Church is not a “development,” but has been a constant belief of the Church from the beginning.

The Catholic structure is monarchical. In order to interpret it any other way you have to read around what the documents actually say. If you read the documents as they are you will get a monarchical understanding. You can read an interpretation that downplays all the monarchical statements but that is hardly an accurate reading of the text. We can interpret it spiritually and avoid the literal meaning but if that is the case then we might as well abandon the concept of a council because we can no longer speak plainly.

Well, a monarchy is defined as “rule by the will of one.” Just because the Pope has universal authority, this does not mean that the Church is ruled by the will of one. If you believe this is the case, please explain for us how the following canon could possibly exist:

ONLY the LOCAL hierarch is competent to confer on any presbyter by a special grant the faculty of administering the sacrament of penance to any of the Christian faithful.
Canon 724, Eastern Code; Canon 969, Latin Code

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

jimmy:

The Catholic structure is monarchical. In order to interpret it any other way you have to read around what the documents actually say. If you read the documents as they are you will get a monarchical understanding. You can read an interpretation that downplays all the monarchical statements but that is hardly an accurate reading of the text. We can interpret it spiritually and avoid the literal meaning but if that is the case then we might as well abandon the concept of a council because we can no longer speak plainly.

Well, a monarchy is defined as “rule by the will of one.” Just because the Pope has universal authority, this does not mean that the Church is ruled by the will of one. If you believe this is the case, please explain for us how the following canon could possibly exist:

ONLY the LOCAL hierarch is competent to confer on any presbyter by a special grant the faculty of administering the sacrament of penance to any of the Christian faithful.
Canon 724, Eastern Code; Canon 969, Latin Code

In addition, please also consider the following:
Why is it that the Church teaches infallibly that the Ecumenical Council (aside from the Pope) is the SUPREME AUTHORITY in the Church?

When the law prescribes that, in order to perform a juridical act, a superior requires the consent or the advice of some college or group of persons, the college or group of persons must be convened…the superior’s act is INVALID if the superior does not seek the consent of those persons, or acts against the vote of all or of any of them.
Canon 127-2.1, Latin Code

The competent authority CANNOT deny confirmation if the person elected is qualified according to the norm of law and the election was conducted in accordance with the law.
Canon 960-1, Eastern Code.

These canons cannot exist if the Catholic Church was really merely a monarchy, as you claim. A true monarch cannot be compelled by any law to confirm or give his consent to anything.

Though you claim that the Catholic Church is a monarchy, and that to “interpret it any other way” can only be done by “reading around” the text, isn’t it true that - really - the only way for someone to actually support your claim is to NOT READ ALL THE TEXT?

Blessings,
Marduk