Infallability of the pope

[patro]

A pope in history Pope Leo III (795-816) rejected the filloque. Now was he right in that rejection,if so then why was it made dogma,and if he was wrong(but it was later made dogma) then how can popes be infallible,also st paul rebuked peter,and in acts of the apostles it says it “seemed good to the holy spirit and US”,also “i will teach my church all things” and the “church is bulwark of truth and infallible” are the orthodox right??,confused about absolute infallibility in a bishop,any help let me know to help me understand papal infallabilty besides "upon this rock "etc…,because that can be interpreted as peters confession “as the rock” and also him as a member of the church,"stone " of the church.

 

[Reuben_J]

With this kind of post I am going to get my pop corn.

 

[Vico]

A pope in history Pope Leo III (795-816) rejected the filloque. …

Catholic Encyclopedia:

The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed.

Maas, A. (1909). Filioque. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

 

[HarryStotle]

A pope in history Pope Leo III (795-816) rejected the filloque. Now was he right in that rejection,if so then why was it made dogma,and if he was wrong(but it was later made dogma) then how can popes be infallible…

It isn’t true that Leo “rejected” the Filioque. He was in full agreement with the dogma, but given the sensibilities of the Byzantine Church, he felt that its inclusion would cause unnecessary division, which it later did, leading to schism.

The different liturgical traditions with regard to the Creed came into contact with each other in early-ninth-century Jerusalem. Western monks, using the Latin Creed with the added Filioque, were denounced by their Eastern brethren. Writing to Pope Leo III for guidance, in 808, the Western monks referred to the practice in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen as their model. Pope Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East” in which he declared his personal belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at Rome.

Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf of Orleans, the principal author of the Libri Carolini, to write a defense of the use of the word Filioque. Appearing in 809, De Spiritu Sancto of Theodulf was essentially a compilation of patristic citations supporting the theology of the Filioque. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. …
Source: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...ox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

 

[patro]

your funny,i need beer,joking aside,im truly confused,

 

[Darryl_B]

I believe the first part of your question has been addressed. The second part is this

also st paul rebuked peter,and in acts of the apostles it says it “seemed good to the holy spirit and US”,also “i will teach my church all things” and the “church is bulwark of truth and infallible” are the orthodox right??

I am confused about what you are saying. Could you express this again just so I can get a clearer understanding?

 

[angel12]

any help let me know to help me understand papal infallabilty

Papal infallibility does not mean that every word said by a Pope is infallible. This from Catholic Answers should help you understand better:

Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers Tract

 

[patro]

interesting,but the question still remains,if he (pope leo) omitted it for byzantine sensitivity but also ageed with it,then if it has no real truth to the dogma,then why proclaim it all? is it a choice for the universal church to believe in the filloque or not? is it revealed truth pertaining to our salvation or was it just invented to elevate Jesus to the God status to fight Arianism. I was at a uniate church and (proceeds From the son) was in parenthesis as if to say ,well up to you if you want to say it…Does it not distort the Father as primal God head,with the son eternally begotten and the holy spirit proceedeth as Jesus Taught. Jesus can send the spirit but does the holy spirits eternal origin come from the son?If so then all Trinitarian theology becomes relative and each person in the trinity is distorted and robbed of their unique identity. Yes ,Jesus is God,So is the Spirit,then why not say the Holy spirit is eternally begotten from the son(the son is God) etc…it falls into sabellianism. Thanks ,sorry for this but its disturbing,i feel caught in the middle of east and west and both make great points.But if the filloque is a true error(heresy),then there is a great problem with papal infallibility.

 

[patro]

was just trying to understand if the ancient church way of a counsel was more of an agreement between all the bishops of the church and acceptance by the laity of dogma as opposed to the bishop of rome(the pope) being the only one who decides truth.

 

[Gorgias]

interesting,but the question still remains,if he (pope leo) omitted it for byzantine sensitivity but also ageed with it,then if it has no real truth to the dogma,then why proclaim it all?

No, the question isn’t whether there’s truth to the dogma, but rather, whether proclaiming it in a particular way will lead to unity (or division) within the Church. Leo agreed with the dogma, but decided that, as a prudential judgment, he thought it should not be proclaimed in that context in that particular way.

is it a choice for the universal church to believe in the filloque or not?

No. The ‘choice’ comes in the way that it is to be proclaimed.

is it revealed truth pertaining to our salvation or was it just invented to elevate Jesus to the God status to fight Arianism.

If we call it ‘dogma’, then implicitly, we’re saying that it’s revealed truth.

I was at a uniate church and (proceeds From the son) was in parenthesis as if to say ,well up to you if you want to say it

I would disagree that this is the intent.

Jesus can send the spirit but does the holy spirits eternal origin come from the son?

With the Father, yes, it is.

Yes ,Jesus is God,So is the Spirit,then why not say the Holy spirit is eternally begotten from the son(the son is God) etc…it falls into sabellianism.

I disagree. Sabellianism, it would seem, would be the effect of pointing to one member of the Godhead – and, in the process, excluding another! – in the definition of the Spirit.

But if the filloque is a true error(heresy),then there is a great problem with papal infallibility.

Ahh, but if it is not heresy, then no such problem exists. Are you willing to say that part of the Church that Christ founded is heretical?

 

[Gorgias]

was just trying to understand if the ancient church way of a counsel was more of an agreement between all the bishops of the church and acceptance by the laity of dogma as opposed to the bishop of rome(the pope) being the only one who decides truth.

You’re asking three distinct questions here:

• what’s the role of the college of the bishops in the expression of dogma?
• what’s the role of the laity in the expression of dogma?
• what’s the role of the pope in the expression of dogma?

Before giving an answer, let me ask you: how do you answer these three questions?

 

[TheOldColonel]

I liked your post because you mentioned “beer.”

 

[Darryl_B]

This question is way outside my pay grade, I can only relate the way I see it.

In the OT there were patriarchs 12. But there are actually 13. The eldest was given a double portion, in this case Ephraim and Manasseh. Modeled off this the NT there are 12 patriarchs (Apostles), but there are actually 13. Paul. Both St Peter and St Paul were at Rome. The episcopate of Rome had the double portion. I see this in the early councils. The question really is whether, when the secular capital changed location, did the Catholic Church move with it. Some say yes, some say no, the two are independent of each other.

 

[Reuben_J]

Make that one pint for me.

 

[patro]

im gonna need more than a pint

 

[Reuben_J]

Good for you. Can’t hold my drink much. But one pint would be ok before hitting the sack.

 

[patro]

you seem very nice,thanks for bringin some levity into this post,forgive oh lord the little jokes on thee and I will forgive the great big one on me,

 

[patro]

I like the way you broke it up into questions,im not really good at writing but will do the best I can,

1. I think the bishops in the college are all equal ,no higher order,the bishop of rome (pope) was considered first amongst equals based on its influential role but not viewed as in a monarchal role,in fact their are popes in the orthodox church till today,jerusalem etc,the 7 ecumenical councels were that way as modeled from acts ,“good to the holy spirit and us”. that each church under a bishop was cathoilic,full,in unity with all the other churchs with christ in the midst and as absolute head, like ignatious said where the bishop is their is the cathoilic church,and the antiochian bishop is a direct successor of st peter,can he not make the same claims?
2. understand the laity acknowledges the faith as handed down to them through the tradtions under the bishop,the laity ascends to the teaching, lives it , expresses it,many laity in the history of the church have fought heresys,but is never of individual divine revelation,has to be in the spirit of the unified church.

3.the ecumenichal patriarch is a mouth piece of the church but not its overlord. but I find it interesting and troublesome to me

is that peter was given the keys to the kingdom to bind and loose,then 2 chapters down its given to the apostles also to bind and loose…that’s the stuff that confuses me,i see in scripture that peter has a special role,but then its also shows that he is rebuked by st paul,and the Jerusalem councel is a shared decision. wish it was clearer to me,Lord forgive my disbelief,help my disbelief.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yup … With this topic, keep it light.

 

[Whitney]

The question really is whether, when the secular capital changed location, did the Catholic Church move with it.

Say what?
I’m not familiar with this part of history but want to read more!