If the Pope is Infallible, then why do we need Ecumenical Councils

[Abu]

ChristRocket #15
It would be from my understanding, that the infallible statements made by the Pope, Ex-Cathedra are infallable.

The correct teaching of the Church is summarised well by Fr Brian Harrison.
*The three levels of teaching from Ad Tuendam Fidem are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Also:
**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

 

[Mystophilus]

If the Early Church knew since the beginning that the Pope has this special case of charism of infallibility, then why, during the rise of Arianism, did they have to spend so much time and money organizing the Nicean Council, bringing hundreds of bishops from all over the Mediterranean, debating the issue for a long time, and casting votes to decide on the final decree?

Because they did not know any such thing. The doctrine of the centrality of Rome was one which evolved gradually within the Western, Latin-speaking part of the Church, while the Greek East held to the doctrine of the supremacy of the councils. This is why, for example, the Council of Constantinople in 381 was declared by the East to be “ecumenical” and representative of “the whole church” despite the fact that they never invited the Pope, or his representatives, or sought his approval. They knew he would not approve of its chairman or of its decision about Church governance and the role of Rome, but they did not care. See also the Easter Controversy in the late C2nd, the disagreements between Carthage and Rome in the C3rd and 5th (Africa was Western, but still relevant to the evolution of the doctrine), the rest of the Meletian schism in the C4th, the Acacian schism in the C5th, and the fact that the abovementioned Council of Constantinople changed the Nicene Creed without anyone in the East batting an eyelid, whereas all heck broke loose when the West did that with the Filioque.

It is also, of course, why the Orthodox Church remains separate from the Catholic Church.

 

[dmar198]

Because they did not know any such thing.

How do you explain the following quote from St. Irenaeus? For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church *, on account of its preeminent authority. source I think that is a pretty clear indication of infallibility. What do you think?

The doctrine of the centrality of Rome was one which evolved gradually within the Western, Latin-speaking part of the Church, while the Greek East held to the doctrine of the supremacy of the councils. This is why, for example, the Council of Constantinople

in 381 was declared by the East to be “ecumenical” and representative of “the whole church” despite the fact that they never invited the Pope, or his representatives, or sought his approval. I thought it wasn’t declared ecumenical until later, after the pope had a chance to approve it. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed.”

Where are you getting your information?

They knew he would not approve of its chairman or of its decision about Church governance and the role of Rome, but they did not care.

You seem to think this incident suggests that the pope was not recognized as infallible. Is that what you mean? How does it suggest that? Because I think there is evidence that the Council Fathers accepted papal infallibility.

For example, it is my understanding that the Council Fathers all agreed to the decree issued the previous year by Emperor Theodosius, which said: “…all the various nations…should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.”

I think that decree suggests that the Roman Church and its pope were infallible, and I think the Council Fathers all agreed to that decree. Do you think that’s reasonable?

See also the Easter Controversy in the late C2nd, the disagreements between Carthage and Rome in the C3rd and 5th (Africa was Western, but still relevant to the evolution of the doctrine), the rest of the Meletian schism in the C4th, the Acacian schism in the C5th, and the fact that the abovementioned Council of Constantinople changed the Nicene Creed without anyone in the East batting an eyelid, whereas all heck broke loose when the West did that with the Filioque.

You seem to think these incidents indicate that the pope was not recognized as infallible. Is that what you think? Because I think that several of those incidents are occasions where papal infallibility was affirmed in striking ways.

For example, at the Acacian Schism, I believe all the Eastern bishops signed the Libellus Hormisdae, which decreed: “The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ (Matthew 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated…”

I think that is an affirmation of papal infallibility by all the Eastern bishops. How do you read it?

Also, regarding the Filioque, it is my understanding that it was councils who first wrote a Creed with that word in it, first in the East under St. Athanasius, then at a Persian council called the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, then in the West at the Third Council of Toledo. Is that your understanding as well? Because it sounded like you thought it was different from the way the Creed of Constantinople was created, whereas I think it was very similar. How do you interpret that data?*

 

[Mystophilus]

How do you explain the following quote from St. Irenaeus? For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church , on account of its preeminent authority. source I think that is a pretty clear indication of infallibility. What do you think?
There are three problems. The first is that the same “Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by letter for his immoderate heat” (22); the second is that the Latin for that passage is notoriously difficult; the third is that even an unambiguous and uncontradicted statement by a person that Rome could never make a mistake would only ever be a demonstration that that one person believed in Rome’s infallibility.

I thought it wasn’t declared ecumenical until later, after the pope had a chance to approve it.

 

[porthos11]

If we can ask the Pope to speak infallibly, via ex-cathedra, to settle any theological issue, then why organize an ecumenical council, to begin with? If the Early Church knew since the beginning that the Pope has this special case of charism of infallibility, then why, during the rise of Arianism, did they have to spend so much time and money organizing the Nicean Council, bringing hundreds of bishops from all over the Mediterranean, debating the issue for a long time, and casting votes to decide on the final decree? Why couldn’t they just skip the whole thing and take the question to the Pope and let Him have the final say? Surely, it would be much easier just to copy and distribute a letter of his ex-cathedra statement to the other Churches outside of Rome. After all, he can speak infallibly without the need of consent from any bishop, correct?

Thanks.

Because bishops are infallible too, when speaking collegially. The task of sanctification and teaching was not left to St. Peter alone, but to the entire apostolic college. The councils allow the continuance of this infallibility and shows the importance of the entire college of bishops.

 

[Abu]

The DOCTRINE of collegiality was “formalized under John XXIII and Paul VI” (Fr Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 221). Popes pay attention to the ideas and engage in the discussions with their bishops in an Ecumenical Council.

……“collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

On the genuine doctrinal development of collegiality, *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution of the Church), 25, teaches clearly: “But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”

 

[prodromos]

Also, regarding the Filioque, it is my understanding that it was councils who first wrote a Creed with that word in it, first in the East under St. Athanasius, then at a Persian council called the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, then in the West at the Third Council of Toledo.

The so called Athanasian creed has been interpolated with the filioque at a later date. The Council of Seleucia-Ctesipho creed does not have the verb “proceeds”. It simply says the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son.

 

[Mystophilus]

There is another thing which I should point out here, however, which is that we appear to be talking about different things.

It seems to me that what you are essentially saying is “While communion with Rome was repeatedly broken, it kept being resumed (at least until the last big break), which proves that Rome was always right.” That is a theological consideration.

What I want to point out here is simply that the repeated and often very willing breaking of that communion by the East demonstrates that the East did not believe that Rome was always right, which is merely a historical consideration. Whether they were right to break communion with Rome is a separate matter.

 

[Abu]

Mystophilus #28
What I want to point out here is simply that the repeated and *often very willing *breaking of that communion by the East demonstrates that the East did not believe that Rome was always right, which is merely a *historical *consideration. Whether they were right to break communion with Rome is a separate matter.

That Jesus of Nazareth founded His Church, and no other, on St Peter as His Chief Vicar supported by the Twelve, is historical. The break by “the East” is also historical, and breaks with the mandate established by the Christ to St Peter, as all other dissenters have done.

 

[dmar198]

There are three problems. The first is that the same “Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by letter for his immoderate heat” (22);

If I’m reading your post correctly, you think this means St. Irenaeus did Not think the pope was infallible. Am I reading you correctly? Because I think you can censure a pope for mismanaging the Church while still believing he is infallible. Do you think that’s possible?

the second is that the Latin for that passage is notoriously difficult;

I’ve never heard that before, where are you getting this information?

the third is that even an unambiguous and uncontradicted statement by a person that Rome could never make a mistake would only ever be a demonstration that that one person believed in Rome’s infallibility.

I grant that St. Irenaeus is one person, but I think his testimony carries more weight than himself alone. If St. Irenaeus had insisted that all churches must submit to a belief that no one else thought was true, I think other people would have risen up to condemn this idea. Do you think that’s reasonable? Because I think that’s exactly what he insisted on this passage, except no one rose up to condemn it. To me, that implies that the other churches agreed with him. What do you think of that argument?

"the new Synod assembled in the following year, 382, at Constantinople, sent the Latins a copy of the decrees of faith composed the year before, expressly calling this Synod [Constantinople in 381] οἰκουμενική": the difference between the Western and the Eastern views of what constitutes ecumenical is very vivid there.

I don’t think so, for several reasons. One reason concerns the copy of the decrees mentioned in your quote. The article seems to say that these decrees call the Second Council ecumenical even before the pope approved the council, but I don’t think they do.

I think the document you quoted is referring to Canon 6 of the document sent to the pope for confirmation, and I think that canon says the following: “If, however, any one, in contempt of what is here prescribed, presumes either to importune the ears of the Emperor, or to trouble the secular law courts, or an Œcumenical Synod, and thus dishonours the bishops of the diocese (patriarchate), his charge shall most certainly not be received, because he has contemned the canons and violated the order of the Church.”

If my understanding is correct, that refers to the authority of an ecumenical council in general, without saying that the Second Council was one. Does that explanation make sense?

 

[dmar198]

Socrates Scholasticus, Eusebius Caesariensis, episcopal letters, conciliar records [are my sources].

I’ve read Socrates Scholasticus and I frequently peruse Eusebius’ books and early letters and records, but I don’t agree that any of these documents imply that papal infallibility was unknown or denied by the early Church. Let’s look through some more of the examples you cite.

How does [Theodosius’ decree] suggest that [the pope] is infallible? It refers to a consensus of opinion, the very idea which was the basis of conciliar ecclesiology, and it cites Rome and Alexandria, the leading cities of the Latin West and the Greek East, as examples of that consensus. Instead of saying, “All should profess the faith of bishop of Rome”, it says, “All should profess the faith of the leading cities of West and East”.

I don’t think that refers to any kind of authority of consensus. I think the phrase “[all] should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans…as it has been preserved by faithful tradition” means that the faith professed at Rome is the standard of the true faith. When it then says that this faith “is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria,” I think that is an attempt to identify orthodox bishops of the day in order to help new Christians know to whom they should submit their faith. I think a parallel case would be if I wrote a letter to an RCIA candidate telling him to hold always to the faith of the Church of Rome as it is now held by the pope and, in America, by the president of the USCCB.

I don’t think the phrase about the faith held by the current pope and the other bishop by itself implies that they will always hold to the true faith (though it doesn’t deny it either), but I think the phrase about holding to the faith delivered to and preserved in the Roman Church does imply that the Church of Rome will always hold to the true faith. Does that make sense?

First, the reception of the Libellus was politically useful to the Byzantine emperor but still not so smooth: "The patriarch proved unwilling to sign it as it stood; but at length, after much contention, it was agreed that he might embody the libellus unaltered in a letter, with his own preamble. …] The patriarch’s preamble was a protest against the claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion to Constantinople and an assertion of the co-ordinate authority of his own see. …] Even Justin, in his letter to the pope, guards against implying that the authority of Constantinople was inferior to that of Rome, saying that “John, the prelate of our new Rome, with his clergy, agrees with you,” and that “all concur in complying with what is your wish, as well as that of the Constantinopolitan see.”

The above article appears to say that the patriarch agreed to the libellus without altering its contents, only adding his own material. Is that how you read it? Because I think that’s very significant for papal infallibility. If the libellus says that the pope is infallible, and all the bishops, including the patriarch of Constantinople, agreed to the document without altering that part, doesn’t that mean they agreed with that part?

(Note also how the East dealt with Dorotheus of Thessalonica).

I think that example is very interesting, and I don’t think it is unfavorable to the pope’s infallibility. I think it is very significant that Dorotheus reaffirmed his communion with the pope, and I don’t think it is very significant that he was put on trial before being deposed. What are your thoughts?

Second, the East’s interpretation of the connection between Rome and Peter was not Rome’s interpretation of the connection: see, for example, both Constantinople 381 and Chalcedon 451 on Constantinople as being equal to Rome simply because both were capitals.

I don’t think either of those Councils imply that Constantinople was equal to Rome, in fact I think both say that Constantinople ranks in a second place after Rome. I think the Council attributed certain privileges to being the capital, but not all of them. Moreover, I don’t think either Council thought of its statements on those matters as being ecumenical in character. What do you think?

How many of those councils did the East describe as ecumenical? That is the problem: from their perspective, Rome presumed too much.

None, but I don’t think that implies that they thought Rome presumed anything. Rome didn’t call them ecumenical either, at least not to my knowledge. I also don’t think the East protested. Do you know of any protest against the Filioque in the East before Photius? If the East rejected the Filioque, shouldn’t we expect to hear opposition to it?

Consider Church unity in the sense of catholicity, of the unanimous agreement of the οικοuμενη. Then look at how the East reacted, time and again, when Rome demanded compliance.

I think some bishops complied when Rome demanded compliance and some did not. I think those who did not comply were either deposed or the pope decided that they didn’t need to comply. That’s how I read it, how do you read it?

 

[Ignatius]

I feel so out of depth with threads like these, where do you learn it all?

There are a few good places:

blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/
biblechristiansociety.com/home.php
ewtn.com/
forums.avemariaradio.net/

and, of course
Forums.Catholic.Com

 

[dmar198]

The so called Athanasian creed has been interpolated with the filioque at a later date.

I’ve never heard that before, do you have a source for that information?

The Council of Seleucia-Ctesipho creed does not have the verb “proceeds”. It simply says the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son.

This is from the translation by S.P. Brock, with a bit of context: “…for the sake of our salvation, [He] descended and put on a body and became man, and suffered and rose on the third day, and ascended to heaven and took his seat at the right hand of his Father; and he is coming in order to judge the dead and the living. And we confess the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son.”

It seems to me that this Creed closely tracks the language and rhythm of the Nicene Creed as revised at Constantinople. At the spot where that Creed mentions that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, this Creed says that He is from the Father and the Son. In light of that, I think it is referring to procession. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Mystophilus]

As I mentioned in my other comment, you seem to be pursuing the idea that, because communion with Rome was repeatedly resumed, Rome must have been right all along. Whether or not that last is true, the East’s repeated willingness to reject Roman attempts to command Eastern obedience demonstrate that the East did not view Rome as being always right. Do not read the modern Catholic Church back into the Early Church.

Because I think you can censure a pope for mismanaging the Church while still believing he is infallible.

Only if you construct an idea of his infallibility which includes an exception for the management of the church. That exception exists now, but no one had formalised any such thing then.

If St. Irenaeus had insisted that all churches must submit to a belief that no one else thought was true, I think other people would have risen up to condemn this idea.

An argument from silence only works when response is absolutely necessary and unmissable. Assuming Eastern bishops even happened to see a manuscript of Irenaeus’ work and assuming that they could read Latin (a big assumption for the time, BTW) and assuming that they cared to read it through and assuming that they noticed what it said about Rome, there was still nothing to stop them from merely shrugging their shoulders and saying, “Latins!” There was certainly no need for them to write furious pamphlets denouncing everyone else’s opinions.

The article seems to say that these decrees call the Second Council ecumenical even before the pope approved the council, but I don’t think they do. I think the document you quoted is referring to Canon 6 of the document sent to the pope for confirmation,

Er, two things: first, we are not talking about the canons of the Council but about the letter written by them in the following year, unmabiguously referring to “the ecumenical synod” (381) which appointed Flavian bishop of Antioch “with the consent of the whole church” (despite the West’s never having been involved in that council)! Second, we are not talking about a document being sent to the bishop of Rome for confirmation, but one being sent merely as notification: Damasus still recognised Paulinus as bishop of Antioch, and so he was unhappy with the installation of Flavian, as the Easterners knew he would be. They were not asking for his agreement on the canons decreed by a Council to which they did not invite him, and Leo’s reactions to those same canons at Chalcedon in 451 demonstrates that Rome did not even know all of what Constantinople 381 had decreed.

I don’t agree that any of these documents imply that papal infallibility was unknown or denied by the early Church.

The issue is not of its being unknown in the Early Church, but of its not being held by the East. Do not assume that the East believed what Rome did, especially when customs differed. Note also how Sozomen, in the early C5th, describes the mutual agreement of East and West over the Easter controversy, not “the submission of East to West”.

this faith “is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria,” I think that is an attempt to identify orthodox bishops of the day in order to help new Christians know to whom they should submit their faith. I think a parallel case would be if I wrote a letter to an RCIA candidate telling him to hold always to the faith of the Church of Rome as it is now held by the pope and, in America, by the president of the USCCB.

That would only be a parallel if the Early Church had the same ecclesiological structure as the Catholic Church does now, with Alexandria being in submission to Rome. As the repeated schisms demonstrate, that simply was not the case: Rome was the first in honour, but it had no *power *over the other patriarchates.

If the libellus says that the pope is infallible, and all the bishops, including the patriarch of Constantinople, agreed to the document without altering that part, doesn’t that mean they agreed with that part?

Er, no. It means that, when promulgating a document which their emperor required in order to secure religious unity, they specified that the part to which they most objected was the ecclesiological issue of Rome’s attempt to order their obedience rather than a theological issue which could well have re-enacted the schism which they were ordered to repair.

I think both say that Constantinople ranks in a second place after Rome. I think the Council attributed certain privileges to being the capital

The issue there is that the Greeks repeatedly described the source of Rome’s honour as its *political *character, not its spiritual character in connection with Peter. Similarly, John Chrysostom wrote of the abovementioned Flavian, calling him “another Peter” and describing him as taking Peter’s chair, i.e. Antioch (In principium Actorum).

Do you know of any protest against the Filioque in the East before Photius?

Sorry, but that’s not the point: the issue around the Filioque was not the theology, but the ecclesiology - not what was said, but that Rome said it without asking an Ecumenical Council first.

 

[CarmelJerome]

If we can ask the Pope to speak infallibly, via ex-cathedra, to settle any theological issue, then why organize an ecumenical council, to begin with? If the Early Church knew since the beginning that the Pope has this special case of charism of infallibility, then why, during the rise of Arianism, did they have to spend so much time and money organizing the Nicean Council, bringing hundreds of bishops from all over the Mediterranean, debating the issue for a long time, and casting votes to decide on the final decree? Why couldn’t they just skip the whole thing and take the question to the Pope and let Him have the final say? Surely, it would be much easier just to copy and distribute a letter of his ex-cathedra statement to the other Churches outside of Rome. After all, he can speak infallibly without the need of consent from any bishop, correct?

Thanks.

   Since Jesus is God Incarnate, why did He need 12 apostles or a Church? Since He can no longer die, why didn't He just stay on Earth and then  everyone would know He's the immortal king? Why didn't He just zap the gospel straight into everyone's mind so they would know what it is?

The Church operates.on the same principle as her Spouse, who is not a magician. The Pope is not a shaman who goes into a trance and gets direct answers from God. He too must listen; he must pray; he must operate within his mortal limitations with God’s special help granted in the See of St. Peter. There was one of the less reputable popes who complained about the doctrine of infallibility - which had no been defined when he was pope - because it prevented him from teaching th rings he wanted to teach infallibly because he was bound by previous declarations.
The Pope is only the visible head of the mystical body of Christ; he is not the whole body, or even the entire mind of the body.

 

[Mystophilus]

Sorry, I forgot the part about the rendering of that passage in Irenaeus. Apparently, C. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, chapter 12, has a discussion of the issue.