Infallibility - revisited

[mardukm]

Where does the book of Acts use the terms “Pope” or “bishop” in the passages you cite? Thanks.

It doesn’t cite those particular terms, but their actions denote the actual case. Sometimes, “definition” is simply a matter of putting a word to previously held notions or beliefs. “Pope” and “bishop” may not be terms used at that council, but what the Apostles did and what Christians believed that they could do, or had authority to do, is epitomized in persons who later came to be termed “Pope” and/or “bishop.”

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

He didn’t address a Pope, or a supreme Pontiff, or infallibility, so what do you mean? Thanks.

Such a response is irrelevant according to the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius. St. Ignatius understood a Church to be intimately connected with its bishop. A Church cannot exist or do anything without its bishop, who represents God for that Church. Him addressing the Church is tantamounnt to him addressing its bishop.

Blessings

 

[Vico]

Vico: “Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremecy.”
Yes of course. Something that does not exist cannot be formally denied.

Vico: “A. Ecumenical Councils are convoked from the whole world under the presidency of the pope or his legates,…”
Yes, that is what the Church teaches today (more or less–Church teaching today has no reference to papal legates regarding the convoking of ecumenical councils) but historically this is not what happened.

Vico: “So every general council is an example of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.”
What role did the Supreme Pontiff have in the first Ecumenical Council? Or the second? Or the third?

Anything can be formally denied, existing or not.

You said: “Church teaching today has no reference to papal legates regarding the convoking of ecumenical councils” but you do not accurately read my statement, which states “under the presidency of the pope or his legates”.

The early councils of east or west that we are discussing had the Supreme Pontiff involved in the ratification of decisions and at some legates were present.

1. Nicaea (325) - convoked by the Emperor Constantine, “on the advice of the clergy” according to historian Rufinus. Legate: Gelasius of Cyzicus affirms that Ossius “held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius.”
2. Constantinople (381) - convoked by Theodosius I and it seems very possible that through Ascholius the Emperor consulted Rome beforehand. It was an local eastern council, approved later by Rome, which was informed, for example, of the creed at Chalcedon (451). Pope Damasus summoned Eastern Bishops to Rome to settle issues due to dissatisfaction with the local council decisions.
3. Ephesus (431) - convoked convened by Theodosius II and Valentinian III. Papal legate Philip of Pope Celistine I. When the papal legates arrived the council reconvened, and reaffirmed its position.

 

[Vico]

Where does the book of Acts use the terms “Pope” or “bishop” in the passages you cite? Thanks.

I do not mean to say those terms are used in the bible, rather that the pattern established in the bible with Peter and the apostles is, now and before, used with the Pope and bishops.

 

[Vince1022]

These are examples of the exercise of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, which has the quality of finality which implies infallibility.

You are saying Clement’s letter implies papal infallibility? Is that right?

I don’t see anything in the letter itself that implies such, though of course many things can be read into it (i.e. inferred by those reading it).

 

[Vince1022]

It doesn’t cite those particular terms, but their actions denote the actual case. Sometimes, “definition” is simply a matter of putting a word to previously held notions or beliefs. “Pope” and “bishop” may not be terms used at that council, but what the Apostles did and what Christians believed that they could do, or had authority to do, is epitomized in persons who later came to be termed “Pope” and/or “bishop.”

Blessings

Exactly. All documents, primary sources, etc. need to be read and understood in the context of their times.

 

[Vince1022]

Such a response is irrelevant according to the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius. St. Ignatius understood a Church to be intimately connected with its bishop. A Church cannot exist or do anything without its bishop, who represents God for that Church. Him addressing the Church is tantamounnt to him addressing its bishop.

Blessings

Yes but Ignatius didn’t refer to infallibility, or papal infallibility, or the Pope, or the bishop of Rome.

 

[Vince1022]

1. Nicaea (325) - convoked by the Emperor Constantine, “on the advice of the clergy” according to historian Rufinus. Legate: Gelasius of Cyzicus affirms that Ossius “held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius.”

Who is the Gelasius you refer to? Was he there? Or is he the much later writer, from the 5th century, whose account may or may not be historically accurate, given that he was not an eyewitness? Where does any of this suggest or prove that the Council’s authoritative and binding teachings involved the Bishop of Rome? Nowhere.

1. Constantinople (381) - convoked by Theodosius I and it seems very possible that through Ascholius the Emperor consulted Rome beforehand. It was an local eastern council, approved later by Rome, which was informed, for example, of the creed at Chalcedon (451). Pope Damasus summoned Eastern Bishops to Rome to settle issues due to dissatisfaction with the local council decisions.

The Council of 381 A.D. could not be informed by the Creed at 451 A.D. Unless I misunderstand you? Sorry, I’m not clear on what you mean.

Many things can “seem very possible” but that is not proof nor fact.

Why do you consider the ecumenical Council of Constantinople a local eastern council as the Catholic Church (and almost all Christian Churches) consider it ecumenical?

Pope Damasus had nothing to do with Constantinople I (381 A.D.) did he?

1. Ephesus (431) - convoked convened by Theodosius II and Valentinian III. Papal legate Philip of Pope Celistine I. When the papal legates arrived the council reconvened, and reaffirmed its position.

Exactly. The Pope (Bishop of Rome) had no role.

 

[Vince1022]

I do not mean to say those terms are used in the bible, rather that the pattern established in the bible with Peter and the apostles is, now and before, used with the Pope and bishops.

Ok,thanks.

 

[Vico]

Who is the Gelasius you refer to? Was he there? Or is he the much later writer, from the 5th century, whose account may or may not be historically accurate, given that he was not an eyewitness? Where does any of this suggest or prove that the Council’s authoritative and binding teachings involved the Bishop of Rome? Nowhere.

The Council of 381 A.D. could not be informed by the Creed at 451 A.D. Unless I misunderstand you? Sorry, I’m not clear on what you mean.

Many things can “seem very possible” but that is not proof nor fact.

Why do you consider the ecumenical Council of Constantinople a local eastern council as the Catholic Church (and almost all Christian Churches) consider it ecumenical?

Pope Damasus had nothing to do with Constantinople I (381 A.D.) did he?

Exactly. The Pope (Bishop of Rome) had no role.

Gelasius of Cyzicus is a writer ~ 475 A.D. and his works are of some importance. He wrote that Ossius “held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius.” No, he was not at Nicea (325 A.D.). That there were legates from Rome, means the Pope had a role.

CCC 247 The affirmation of the *filioque *does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [76] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

I posted previously: “Pope Damasus I summoned Eastern Bishops to Rome to settle issues due to dissatisfaction with the local council decisions.” This was after the Constantinople I met, and before ratifying it’s decisions.

Constantinople I (381 A.D.) was an eastern local council. Later some of the canons were accepted by the Supreme Pontiff and at it was ratified, so became ecumenical at that time. Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized Constantinople I as one of the four general councils, in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).

Pope Celistine I did have a role at Ephesus (431 A.D.), he sent his legates, and the council reconvened with them and voted again. This is why the council is accepted by Rome.

 

[Vico]

You are saying Clement’s letter implies papal infallibility? Is that right?

I don’t see anything in the letter itself that implies such, though of course many things can be read into it (i.e. inferred by those reading it).

Well, read it again, maybe you will begin to understand. Pope Clement warns the Corinthians to listen to him because condemnation is inevitable for “us all” unless we “do those things which are good” and “worthy of Him.” Faith without works is dead James 2:26, and this must be done “with one mind,” in the unity of the Church.

He spoke, as Supreme Pontiff, with final teaching authority.

Regarding “the way that Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church” this was Smyrna, about 106 A.D. He addresses the Roman Church as the one which “presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others.” Of course this is achieved through the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff with doctrinal finality.

 

[SCALCO]

You are saying Clement’s letter implies papal infallibility? Is that right?

I don’t see anything in the letter itself that implies such, though of course many things can be read into it (i.e. inferred by those reading it).

Well, read it again, maybe you will begin to understand. Pope Clement warns the Corinthians to listen to him because condemnation is inevitable for “us all” unless we “do those things which are good” and “worthy of Him.” Faith without works is dead James 2:26, and this must be done “with one mind,” in the unity of the Church.

He spoke, as Supreme Pontiff, with final teaching authority.

Hi Vince and Vico,

Let’s read some of Clement’s letter…

1Clem 63:2
For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience
unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit …

Alternative translations

63:2 For joy and rejoicing will ye afford us if, becoming obedient to the things that have been written by us, ye put an end, by the suggestion of the Holy Spirit, to the unlawful … (by Lighfoot)
Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out…(New Advent).

While translations differ somewhat, they appear consistent about obedience being what is expected by the author of the letter.

Why did the author expect obedience to his words ?

Why should all believers in Corinth obey Clement ?
Or, why should the Church in Corinth obey the Church in Rome ?

Clement wrote with final teaching authority and this implies papal infallibility IMHO.
I read this from another thread post by my friend Pneuma07 a couple of years ago.

God bless you.
Scalco

 

[dcointin]

D. Biblical process
1 bishops meet to examine the matter (Acts 15:6)
2 debate (Acts 15:7)
3 The Pope decides on the debate (Acts 15:7-11)
4 The Petrine position is explained (Acts 15:12-19)
5 Amendments may be made for the sake of peace (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:28-29)

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Disagree: Peter spoke but there is no indication that this decided the matter.
4. Disagree: Paul and Barnabas testified to the grace of God among the Gentiles (v. 12), then James rose and gave the final judgement, which agreed with Peter, but was not given on Peter’s authority. It was James, not Peter, who acted as the “Pope” in Acts 15.

 

[joeantony]

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Disagree: Peter spoke but there is no indication that this decided the matter.
4. Disagree: Paul and Barnabas testified to the grace of God among the Gentiles (v. 12), then James rose and gave the final judgement, which agreed with Peter, but was not given on Peter’s authority. It was James, not Peter, who acted as the “Pope” in Acts 15.

Hi All,

It is impossible for anyone who just happened to glance through the 15 page discussion to comment on the topic after analyzing all the posts.

But after reading many posts, I believe some are expecting an affirmative phrase in the Bible as “Papal Infallibility” ? I hope all are not Protestants, if those who claim to be catholic expect such a “proof” what makes them not so “sola scriptura” followers?

Imagine Marian Dogmas are supported by Scripture, but dos scripture says the same words that we use today as, “Divine Motherhood”, “Perpetual virginity”, “Immaculate conception” are used in Bible? Yet we decipher and understand them as truth. Then why is it so hard to understand the Papal Infallibility ??

I am sorry if I am too out of the context!!

Joe

 

[dcointin]

I agree with you that it isn’t necessary to find a doctrine explicitly stated in scripture in the exact terms that are used in the modern Church. What I am disagreeing with is the idea that Acts 15 has any relevence to papal claims, which it does not. I just couldn’t see that comment go by without a response.

 

[joeantony]

I agree with you that it isn’t necessary to find a doctrine explicitly stated in scripture in the exact terms that are used in the modern Church. What I am disagreeing with is the idea that Acts 15 has any relevence to papal claims, which it does not. I just couldn’t see that comment go by without a response.

Thats nice if you agree that Papal Infallibility does not have to be stated explicitly in Bible. And about Act 15, Forgive and forget, sometime it feels good when we just let it go!!!
But seek it if you must.
Joe

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Church is the Body of Christ that is led into all truth by the Holy Spirit. Of course, the Spirit will protect the Church against error. That is entirely Scriptural.

So is the Petrine Ministry. The question is how it is to be exercised. Catholic and Orthodox Churches disagree on this but both agree the Church is indefectible and cannot be led into error - is protected against error, in fact.

The question is then one for a future Church Council between Rome and Orthodoxy to decide.

It was Pope John XXIII who once said, “I am only infallible when I speak ‘ex cathedra’ - and I will never speak 'ex cathedra!”

Alex

 

[MoreCoffee]

Excellent thread; I have enjoyed reading it.

A special thanks to mardukm for his very informative replies and statements.

 

[Vince1022]

Gelasius of Cyzicus is a writer ~ 475 A.D. and his works are of some importance.

A “writer” may or may not be of significance for the Catholic Church. Why are his works important to Catholics/Christians? Thanks. I’ve just never heard of him before.

I’ve heard of course of Pope Gelasius, but not Gelasius of Cyzicus.

He wrote that Ossius “held the place of Sylvester of Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincentius.” No, he was not at Nicea (325 A.D.). That there were legates from Rome, means the Pope had a role.

Ok, so the role of the Bishop of Rome at the first ecumenical council was to send legates. Which, of course, happened before the council, and does not give any information about what the Bishop of Rome thought about what the ecumenical council taught. Agreed.

 

[Vince1022]

CCC 247 The affirmation of the *filioque *does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [76] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

I think the key point of CCC 247 for this thread is

“The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.”

Gradually admitted. Between the 8th and 11th centuries. Into the Latin Rite.

Back to this thread…nothing about the Pope or papal infallibility regarding this addition to the Creed.