Infallability of the pope

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

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

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

So if Rome was “first amongst equals”, then why are there seven today? Better yet, why seven plus Rome?

the antiochian bishop is a direct successor of st peter,can he not make the same claims?

Is he a successor of the bishop of rome, though?

Gorgias:

what’s the role of the laity in the expression of dogma?

understand the laity acknowledges the faith as handed down to them … in the spirit of the unified church.

OK.

Gorgias:

what’s the role of the pope in the expression of dogma?

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

OK, but the ecumenical patriarch isn’t the pope, though…

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…

Except that they’re given it in a different context, aren’t they? In Matthew 18, the context is disciplinary matters. Moreover, they’re not given “the keys” in Matthew 18, are they? So, the sole keyholder remains… Peter.

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

Where in the Bible does it say that every word or action out of Peter must be perfect? Where does it say that, having made a bad decision, no one is allowed to mention it to him? Where does it say that his office is taken away from him? Nowhere…

,and the Jerusalem councel is a shared decision.

Does a leader always have to make the proclamation himself? In the narrative of the council of Jerusalem, who’s the last to speak? And, does his word quiet the rest of them?

 

[Darryl_B]

I read it, not on the internet, but in a book, only problem is I do not remember which one.

 

[pablope]

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.

On Paul rebuking Peter…I think you need to distinguish between a moral failing of Peter versus a doctrinal error.

Peter did indeed proclaim the doctrine, see acts 10, this is prior to the Jerusalem council, but failed to live up to what he said.

More here:http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3485

But Eastern opponents of Petrine primacy still have Galatians 2:11-14 as a cudgel. Here was the situation. In Antioch Peter had been freely associating with Gentile Christians. On the scene came some hard-nosed Judaizers, part of James’s crowd. Even though the Church was officially open to Gentiles, those Judaizers would have criticized Peter had they seen him in fellowship with the Gentile Christians. To avoid the Judaizers’ criticism, Peter began avoiding public contact with the Gentile Christians. (Meyendorff argues that James had "priority over Peter who is even forced to ‘fear’ his [James’s] representatives.“28) Paul rebuked Peter, and rightly so.
This rebuke, says the anonymous author of Myth, shows that Peter could not have been Paul’s superior in any respect.29 Guettee says Paul “believed so little in any authority of Peter, that he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” In his reprimanding Peter, Paul affirms that he is [Peter’s] equal.”
Note first that the rebuke in itself does not deny Petrine authority. Catherine of Siena could rebuke the pope for his human failures without any thought of equating her ecclesial status with his. Moreover, we must ask what Paul actually did. He rebuked Peter for not adhering to the policy which God had established through Peter (Acts 10 again): The vehemence of Paul’s criticism underlines, rather than denies, Peter’s primacy: "You, of all people – you, the Rock!"30

 

[pablope]

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

the Jerusalem councel is a shared decision. wish it was clearer to me,Lord forgive my disbelief,help my disbelief.

Jerusalem was not a shared decision. The decision that Peter made, was already shown to him in Act 10.

Library : Peter and the Orthodox: a Reprise

Peter and the Orthodox: a Reprise Ray Ryland answers Eastern arguments against papal primacy.

www.catholicculture.org

Attempts to exalt the role of James in order to minimize the role of Peter all go against the facts. The issue was whether Gentiles could become Christians without observance of the Jewish law. The issue already had been decided. God had revealed the answer to Peter. Peter acted on God’s initiative. Humanly speaking, Peter had already made the decision. (Rulings of early Church councils always reflected decisions already made by one or more of the popes.)

James’s role

What did James do? He repeated what Peter had already said. For reasons of his own he added to the council’s instructions some judaizing elements (requirements about not eating meat sacrificed to idols, not consuming blood). What happened to Peter’s decision? It became the law of the Church. What happened to James’s additions? Scripture never mentions them again. The Church ignored them. In 1 Corinthians 8, written well after the council, Paul taught that whether one eats meat, which has been sacrificed to idols is purely a prudential judgment.

 

[Usagi]

Remember that James was the guy on the other side of the dispute. His congregation in Jerusalem was made up largely if not entirely of Jewish converts, and he and they seem to have valued their heritage highly.

Paul, though also proudly Jewish in background, had a mission primarily directed toward Gentile lands, and spent a lot of his writing making sure everyone knew that having been Jewish, much less continuing to follow Jewish customs, did not make you a better breed of Christian than the alternative.

Peter seems to have been caught in the middle on that issue. That infamous bit in Galatians has Peter at first eating with all Christians as brothers, just as had already been revealed to him and he had proclaimed. Then James sent some representatives who were all like “Now, Peter, is that how your mama raised you, to eat with Gentiles?” So he (wrongly) stopped for awhile, insulting one group of brethren while presumably trying not to scandalize another. Then Paul shows up and is like “Really? You, treating fellow Christians like that when you know better?”

Having James issue the final instruction of the Council of Jerusalem was actually kind of brilliant, and may have prevented a first-generation schism. Having the leader who was most on the Jewish-identity side (and the guy in whose territory they were meeting) give out the specific rules — and include some that took his people’s sensitivities into account while also making clear that those were the only limits the Council would support — made sure that nobody could come in afterward and claim that James had been steamrollered and really still thought that one had to be Jewish before one could properly be Christian.

 

[patro]

thanks for the efforts,giving me some food for thought,still think things could be more clear,a lot of stretching of theology .

 

[guanophore]

Jerusalem was not a shared decision. The decision that Peter made, was already shown to him in Act 10.

Peter provided leadership in such a manner that all those present could come into sharing what had already been revealed to him. This is how James could then write “it seemed right to the Holy Spirit, and to us”.

What did James do? He repeated what Peter had already said. For reasons of his own he added to the council’s instructions some judaizing elements (requirements about not eating meat sacrificed to idols, not consuming blood).

James had to be the one to correct this problem, because it originated in his own back yard.
“For before certain men came from James” Galatians 2:12 "

James had to find a way to instruct the mixed communities so as to accommodate the sensibilities of the Jewish Christians without insisting that they had to become Jews and follow the law of Moses.

What happened to James’s additions? Scripture never mentions them again. The Church ignored them.

This is like saying that, since the Scriptures “never mentioned Mary after the Gospels the Church ignored her”. We know this is not the case.

They were disciplinary instructions to ease tensions in the community. As the Church became more heterogeneous they were not needed as much. Paul gave similar instructions about women wearing veils and not speaking in Church that were disciplinary in nature. Disciplines such as these may change over time and cultures, but that does not mean they were “ignored”.

Paul’s instructions to Corinth are not contradictory. They are a support of acting in accordance with private conscience. What James wrote was for public observance. In essence James was giving his prudential judgment to the Galatians.

Remember that James was the guy on the other side of the dispute. His congregation in Jerusalem was made up largely if not entirely of Jewish converts, and he and they seem to have valued their heritage highly.

Not just valuing, but part of the “circumcision party”!

Having James issue the final instruction of the Council of Jerusalem was actually kind of brilliant, and may have prevented a first-generation schism. Having the leader who was most on the Jewish-identity side (and the guy in whose territory they were meeting) give out the specific rules — and include some that took his people’s sensitivities into account while also making clear that those were the only limits the Council would support — made sure that nobody could come in afterward and claim that James had been steamrollered and really still thought that one had to be Jewish before one could properly be Christian.

Yes, especially since James was the source of those who were preaching circumcision.

 

[patro]

still has some issues, why would someone mess with the creed of the church that was established at a counsel? who had the divine revelation to say the the spirit proceeds from the father" and the son "when Christ speaks the teaching very clear, that he sends the spirit that proceedeth from the fatehr. Its Jesus own divine teaching! The greek word for proceed even has a special meaning. Something in the context and mystery of eterenal origin.Dosent even sound grammatically correct when you listen to it in the recitation that follows “with the father and son he is worshipped and glorified” when it was just recited the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son, and If it has to be justified by twisting history with different meanings and interpretations cannot the protestant’s say the same thing about how their teachings evolved by speaking of history and situations that were taking place at the time.I just don’t understand When and why was the private interpretation of the procession of the sprirt from the father “and the son” added to the creed that was already established? and that brought such discord and confustion when the established trintarian teached was very clear. the son is eternally begotten and the spirit proceeds that keeps the father as the divine origin and monarch of the hypostasis of persons…

 

[guanophore]

who had the divine revelation to say the the spirit proceeds from the father" and the son "when Christ speaks the teaching very clear, that he sends the spirit that proceedeth from the fatehr.

This was the understanding East and West, notwithstanding language barriers.

What the Early Church Believed: Filioque | Catholic Answers Tract

.I just don’t understand When and why was the private interpretation of the procession of the sprirt from the father “and the son” added to the creed that was already established?

It sounds like you are in a good position to be doing some research! Unless you just want to criticize…

and that brought such discord and confustion

It was done to reduce confusion in the Latin Rite. And to be fair, there has been sufficient discord and confusion over a number of issues, and had been for centuries.

 

[joeybaggz]

It sounds like you are in a good position to be doing some research! Unless you just want to criticize…

Good observation. I think you need to get a clear and concise understanding of the difference between “an infallible teaching” and teaching infallibly" They don’t mean the same thing.

 

[patro]

sorry don’t want to sound criticizing,its a tough subject ,both sides been struggling this issue fo over a thousand yrs. don’t think we we solve anything on a web site,lol,

 

[patro]

please inform me what you mean by infallible teaching and teaching infallibility,thanks

 

[guanophore]

sorry don’t want to sound criticizing,its a tough subject ,both sides been struggling this issue fo over a thousand yrs. don’t think we we solve anything on a web site,lol,

Yes, it has been a point of some controversy but it is really not the biggest impediment to unity. Actually a lot can be solved on a web site, particularly learning about the history of these issues. We can certainly solve the problem of our own ignorance through research and dialogue.

 

[joeybaggz]

please inform me what you mean by infallible teaching and teaching infallibility,thanks

It is my understanding (and I am not a canon lawyer - and any on this forum, feel free to correct me) that an infallible teaching is a matter of faith and morals that is proclaimed as a doctrine or dogma of the Church that must be accepted by all, when issued by the Pope when he speaks in his position as Principle Teacher of the Church - from the chair of Peter, or when such doctrine is proclaimed by all the bishops of the church when they speak in unity, in one voice. That is an infallible teaching. I think there has only been one since the doctrine of infallibility was proclaimed in the 19th century. It was in 1950 and it is the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother.
Teaching infallibly means that, guided by the Holy Spirit, the church will not teach error. A man named Karl Keating, in a book called “Catholics and Fundamentalists” explained it with this example; "If the pope were to take a math quiz (assuming he was infallible in math - which he is not) and there were 25 questions. How many correct/right answers would the pope write on his test paper and retain his charism of infallibility? The answer is 0. Mr. Keating’s explanation was this, guided by infallibility, the pope would not write down the wrong answer. But if he didn’t do his homework, he might not know the right answer. He could hand in a paper with no answers and retain his infallibility. It simply means that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to teach error. Is everything perfectly right, probably not, but you can not err from the faith if you follow the teachings of the church.
Hope that helps.

 

[patro]

wow,that was great,your humility is inspiring. great line at the end,“the holy spirit will not allow the church to teach error” that says it all,but how it is done is the question,i talked to an orthdox priest and he said" I can tell you were the church is but cannot tell you where it is not" I guess the orthodox church is where the people are who have the correct faith under their bishop and the roman church is there who are in union with the pope,

 

[joeybaggz]

I think both Roman and Orthodox are guided by the Holy Spirit. They are both Catholic in that their roots go back to the apostles. I think the difference is a bit of politics and differing opinions on the structure of worship.