Infallibility - revisited

[mardukm]

Could such a thread be in this forum or should it be in one of the other forums?

Though the ultimate decision lies with the moderator, IMO, such a topic would be fine in this forum because it is a relevant concern for Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

Blessings

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Though the ultimate decision lies with the moderator, IMO, such a topic would be fine in this forum because it is a relevant concern for Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

Blessings

New thread started (Primacy).

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear Brother [user]mardukm[/user]:

Was the Council of Chalcedon and the Tomb of Pope Leo “infallible”? (I’m going to assume that the answer is “yes” and then ask…) Since Pope Leo said that Christ is “in two natures”, and he did not say that Christ is “from two natures”, then are those who hold to the miaphysite view going against the magisteriam of the Church and Her infallible teaching?

 

[Vince1022]

Dear Brother [user]mardukm[/user]:

Was the Council of Chalcedon and the Tomb of Pope Leo “infallible”? (I’m going to assume that the answer is “yes” and then ask…) Since Pope Leo said that Christ is “in two natures”, and he did not say that Christ is “from two natures”, then are those who hold to the miaphysite view going against the magisteriam of the Church and Her infallible teaching?

The teachings of a Council may be infallibly taught, but a Council is, in and of itself, not infallible.

No tomb is infallible. A tomb is, well, simply, a tomb.

 

[steve_b]

A fellow member of ECF has agreed to let me attempt to convince him of the dogma of papal infallibility, so I hope everyone forgives my pretentiousness for starting a new thread on this matter.

I suppose the best way to start the thread is to present what I had thought papal infallibility was when I was not yet in the Catholic communion. The following were my (mis)conceptions about the dogma. Let me know which ones reflect your own concerns, and we can discuss them. If you have any other concerns regarding papal infallibility, please jot them down too.

I thought the dogma of papal infallibility taught that:

1. Every teaching of the Church depends solely on the infallibility of the Pope;
2. Since the Pope is the final determinant of Church teaching, his brother bishops are not true teachers but are merely his yes-men;
3. Since the Pope is the final determinant of Church teaching, an Ecumenical Council is superfluous;
4. Since the Pope is the final determinant of Church teaching, then nothing prevents him from canceling Truth or establishing falsehood (#5 and #6 below are natural corollaries);
5. The Pope can make doctrinal rulings without recourse to the rest of the Church;
6. The Pope can make doctrinal rulings without recourse to Sacred Tradition;
7. Papal infallibility is the only infallibility in the Church;
8. Conscience has no place in the Church since all Truth is determined by what the Pope says (i.e., the “just because the Pope says so” argument).

Needless to say, my misconceptions were conditioned by my dependence on non-Catholic sources to inform me about Catholic teaching. But my reading of Catholic magisterial documents, as well as the comments of the Fathers of V1 were a good remedy for my misunderstanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

St Francis De Sales (1567-1622), wrote the following “Catholic controversy”
goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy.html

*whoever says that Our Lord has placed us in the bark of his Church, at the mercy of the winds and of the tide, instead of giving us a skillful pilot perfectly at home, by nautical art, with chart and compass, such a one says that he wishes our destruction. Let him have placed therein the most excellent compass and the most correct chart in the world, what use are these if no one knows how to gain from them some infallible rule for directing the ship? Of what use is the best of rudders if there is no steersman to move it as the ship’s course requires? But if every one is allowed to turn it in the direction he thinks good, who sees not that we are lost? *

it is impious to believe that Our Lord has not left us some supreme judge on earth to whom we can address ourselves in our difficulties, and who is so infallible in his judgments that we cannot err.
**
I like his analogy.

 

[JohnVIII]

The teachings of a Council may be infallibly taught, but a Council is, in and of itself, not infallible.

No tomb is infallible. A tomb is, well, simply, a tomb.

Does anyone wish to “second” this opinion of brother [user]Vince1022[/user]? I’d like to see if there is a consensus on this.

In the “Ecumenical” Council of Chalcedon and in the Tomb of Pope Leo we have the Pope speaking to the whole Church, on a matter of faith, and the Church brought these issues up with a desire that the Pope respond to them. How can it not be a matter of “ordinary” infallible teaching?

My view of the nature of Christ is called “Miaphysite”. The view that was taught by Pope Leo (that part of it that I take issue of) is called Diaphysite. I was of the opinion that Pope Leo made a minor error here on this issue of Faith. But now as I am just beginning to believe that infallibility may be true, I have a problem here. The issue mostly boils down to only one word in the Tomb of Pope Leo - the word “in”, as in Christ is “in” two natures, as apposed to Christ is “from” two natures. As many saints in the Alexandrian tradition teach we should, after the incarnation, no longer think of Christ as having two natures. Yes Jesus is indeed true God and true man, but this is one composite nature, not two separate natures after the incarnation. Hence I believe that Pope Leo should have said “from two natures”, not “in two natures”.

It’s my understanding that the Miaphysite view is acceptable today as an orthodox view and the Church does not have a problem with believing in it as I do and being Catholic. And that’s great, but how do I reconcile this with Pope Leo? Either he taught a minor error to the whole Church on an issue of Faith, or he somehow was not speaking infallibly. Do the rules for teaching infallibly only apply to “major” issues of Faith and morals, not “minor” ones? If so, then how do we know for sure which ones are major or minor? To me this is a minor issue of Faith, but there are others who would call it major.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that I should get in line with the Pope and convert to the Diaphysite view?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

I actually started a new thread on the miaphysite issue for you- forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=498175

I’ll respond to the elements of your question related to infallibility later in the day. As for the specifically miaphysite/diophysite issues, may I humbly suggest that it be discussed in the other thread?

Blessings

Does anyone wish to “second” this opinion of brother [user]Vince1022[/user]? I’d like to see if there is a consensus on this.

In the “Ecumenical” Council of Chalcedon and in the Tomb of Pope Leo we have the Pope speaking to the whole Church, on a matter of faith, and the Church brought these issues up with a desire that the Pope respond to them. How can it not be a matter of “ordinary” infallible teaching?..Is there anyone out there who thinks that I should get in line with the Pope and convert to the Diaphysite view?

 

[malphono]

Was the Council of Chalcedon and the Tomb of Pope Leo “infallible”?

I’m not getting into this discussion, but I suppose I should mention that I think it’s called the Tome of Leo.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not getting into this discussion, but I suppose I should mention that I think it’s called the Tome of Leo.

Yep

 

[steve_b]

Does anyone wish to “second” this opinion of brother [user]Vince1022[/user]? I’d like to see if there is a consensus on this.

In the “Ecumenical” Council of Chalcedon and in the Tomb of Pope Leo we have the Pope speaking to the whole Church, on a matter of faith, and the Church brought these issues up with a desire that the Pope respond to them. How can it not be a matter of “ordinary” infallible teaching?

My view of the nature of Christ is called “Miaphysite”. The view that was taught by Pope Leo (that part of it that I take issue of) is called Diaphysite. I was of the opinion that Pope Leo made a minor error here on this issue of Faith. But now as I am just beginning to believe that infallibility may be true, I have a problem here. The issue mostly boils down to only one word in the Tomb of Pope Leo - the word “in”, as in Christ is “in” two natures, as apposed to Christ is “from” two natures. As many saints in the Alexandrian tradition teach we should, after the incarnation, no longer think of Christ as having two natures. Yes Jesus is indeed true God and true man, but this is one composite nature, not two separate natures after the incarnation. Hence I believe that Pope Leo should have said “from two natures”, not “in two natures”.

It’s my understanding that the Miaphysite view is acceptable today as an orthodox view and the Church does not have a problem with believing in it as I do and being Catholic. And that’s great, but how do I reconcile this with Pope Leo? Either he taught a minor error to the whole Church on an issue of Faith, or he somehow was not speaking infallibly. Do the rules for teaching infallibly only apply to “major” issues of Faith and morals, not “minor” ones? If so, then how do we know for sure which ones are major or minor? To me this is a minor issue of Faith, but there are others who would call it major.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that I should get in line with the Pope and convert to the Diaphysite view?

• Re: miaphysite and diaphysite, neither term is in the Catholic encylopedia. I couldn’t find either term searching CA, and I must have gone through 10 pages of google entries without finding any Church docs on the subject. I found the terms on the CA forum, but I’d like to read some Church docs on the subject. Why are these terms so elusive?
• Re: Leo’s tome, it was accepted by Chalcedon. Excerpt re: nature of Jesus ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac1.htm

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear brother Adrian,

I actually started a new thread on the miaphysite issue for you- forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=498175

I’ll respond to the elements of your question related to infallibility later in the day. As for the specifically miaphysite/diophysite issues, may I humbly suggest that it be discussed in the other thread?

Blessings

That miaphysite thread sounds interesting, but my question is 100% having to do with the issue of infallibility. I am fully persuaded already on the miaphysite matter, I still have some shortcomings about infallibility. Let me put it to you again and right to the point…

I would like to believe in infallibility but I can’t because I believe Pope Leo made an error on an issue of Faith that he taught to the whole Church!

(I think I must confess that I really don’t believe that the Council Of Chalcedon was truly ecumenical either, even though a pope very much “confirmed” it.)

Correct me - please!

 

[Vince1022]

That miaphysite thread sounds interesting, but my question is 100% having to do with the issue of infallibility. I am fully persuaded already on the miaphysite matter, I still have some shortcomings about infallibility. Let me put it to you again and right to the point…

I would like to believe in infallibility but I can’t because I believe Pope Leo made an error on an issue of Faith that he taught to the whole Church!

(I think I must confess that I really don’t believe that the Council Of Chalcedon was truly ecumenical either, even though a pope very much “confirmed” it.)

Correct me - please!

The Council of Chalcedon is considered ecumenical by the vast majority of Christian Churches. Not so much only because of who attended, but by its subsequent “reception” by the Christian Church.

Believing in infallibility does not require one to believe that Popes and/or Councils are free from error.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

That miaphysite thread sounds interesting, but my question is 100% having to do with the issue of infallibility. I am fully persuaded already on the miaphysite matter, I still have some shortcomings about infallibility. Let me put it to you again and right to the point…

I would like to believe in infallibility but I can’t because I believe Pope Leo made an error on an issue of Faith that he taught to the whole Church!

As this infallibility issue will only be resolved in consideration of the orthodoxy of Pope St. Leo’s Tome, I will address it in the miaphysite thread – soon.

(I think I must confess that I really don’t believe that the Council Of Chalcedon was truly ecumenical either, even though a pope very much “confirmed” it.)

Correct me - please!

I am not sure Catholics are required to believe in the number of Ecumenical Councils so much as the Faith and dogmas that flowed from them. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, please do so. I personally accept the 7, plus Florence, Trent, V1 and V2. Btw, though papal confirmation is required for a Council to be regarded as Ecumenical, it is not a sufficient condition for a Council to be regarded as Ecumenical. For example, the Council of Orange which condemned semi-pelagianism had papal confirmation, but has never obtained the status of “Ecumenical” in either West or East.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

It’s my understanding that the Miaphysite view is acceptable today as an orthodox view and the Church does not have a problem with believing in it as I do and being Catholic. And that’s great, but how do I reconcile this with Pope Leo? Either he taught a minor error to the whole Church on an issue of Faith, or he somehow was not speaking infallibly. Do the rules for teaching infallibly only apply to “major” issues of Faith and morals, not “minor” ones? If so, then how do we know for sure which ones are major or minor? To me this is a minor issue of Faith, but there are others who would call it major.

There is no such thing as “major” or “minor” issues of faith as far as infallibility is concerned. If the Pope erred on a “minor” issue while teaching ex cathedra on a matter to be believed by the entire Church, he might as well have been erring on a “major” issue. But the resolution of this matter requires a study of the Tome, which, as noted, I will do in the Miaphysite thread.

Blessings

 

[Vince1022]

Dear brother Adrian,

There is no such thing as “major” or “minor” issues of faith as far as infallibility is concerned. If the Pope erred on a “minor” issue while teaching ex cathedra on a matter to be believed by the entire Church, he might as well have been erring on a “major” issue. But the resolution of this matter requires a study of the Tome, which, as noted, I will do in the Miaphysite thread.

Blessings

What?

Anything the Church teaches infallibly must be believed by Catholics (whether one considers it “major” or “minor”–the Church, teaching infallibly, does not make such distinctions).

To my knowledge, the Church has not and does not teach infallibly on “minor” issues. Is this wrong?

I don’t know what “Tome” you are referring to. How does it apply to the Church’s charism of teaching infallibly? Thanks for any help.

 

[JohnVIII]

A “doctrine” instead of infallibility that would be alot easier for me to accept would be something like: The Church has the gifts from God to be correct on issues of faith, but if it errs it also has the gifts by the grace of God to correct any errors made. The Church is ever-correcting.

 

[Vico]

What?

Anything the Church teaches infallibly must be believed by Catholics (whether one considers it “major” or “minor”–the Church, teaching infallibly, does not make such distinctions).

To my knowledge, the Church has not and does not teach infallibly on “minor” issues. Is this wrong?

I don’t know what “Tome” you are referring to. How does it apply to the Church’s charism of teaching infallibly? Thanks for any help.

TheTome is Letter 28 of Pope Leo I to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, about Eutyches.

piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm
also ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vii.html

It describes the two natures of Christ and was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon of 451: “Peter has spoken through Leo”.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html

 

[Vince1022]

TheTome is Letter 28 of Pope Leo I to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, about Eutyches.

piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm
also ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vii.html

It describes the two natures of Christ and was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon of 451: “Peter has spoken through Leo”.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html

Ok, yes, that Tome.

And how does it bear on the Church’s understanding of teaching infallibly, the topic of this thread?

 

[JohnVIII]

Ok, yes, that Tome.

And how does it bear on the Church’s understanding of teaching infallibly, the topic of this thread?

I’m the trouble-maker in this case. I hold some doubts that infallibility is absolute in every matter of faith and my ‘for instance’ is the part of the Tome of Pope Leo where it says, “Christ is one in two natures”. I maintain that to be totally correct Pope Leo should have said, “Christ is one from two natures”. I suppose I am saying that there is a controversy with regard to the Diophysite/Miaphysite views. Both views are considered orthodox today by Rome. Some say that they are really one and the same view, only expressing that one view in two different ways. I find this hard to believe, I see that they are different views, different enough that they both cannot be true. I hold the Miaphysite view which is what you would hold if you believed Pope Leo’s wording should have been “Christ is one from two natures”, which is: ‘Christ has one composite nature, human and divine, united in one nature and one person without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.’ The Diophysite view comes from how Pope Leo did word it, namely, “Christ is one in two natures”, which is: ‘Christ has two natures, human and divine, united in one person without confusion, without change, without division, without separation’.

Of course, I can only have a good point here if every assumption that I have made here is correct.

I think infallibility, biblically, comes from Luke 22:32, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers”. And the answer I have for myself is that there are certain beliefs that do not harm a soul to the point of spiritual death. Just as there are mortal sins and venial sins there are mortal and venial mis-beliefs. I thing only the mortal mis-beliefs should be called “heresies”. And the promise to the successor to St. Peter goes no further than the fact that the Pope cannot teach heresy (under this specific definition) to the Church. This seems to be where the stalemate ended since I am all alone on this conclusion. The consensus of others is that they are really one and the same view, only expressing that one view in two different ways. (Either this or that the Tome of Pope Leo is not a valid example of ordinary infallibility.)

 

[Vico]

Ok, yes, that Tome.

And how does it bear on the Church’s understanding of teaching infallibly, the topic of this thread?

Jeffrey Mirus wote something on infallability, including: “Peter has spoken through Leo”: under the subtitle history, which shows its bearing*.*

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

Sometimes the bishops will make such a statement as above “Peter has spoken through Leo”. The definition must be received by the Church per Vatican II asserting that when the magisterium teaches infallibly the assent of the Church can never be wanting. The Holy Spirit directs the magisterium and the body of the faithful at the same time. The infallability is from God. For an excellent statement see:

Declaration In Defense Of The Catholic Doctrine On The Church Against Certain Errors Of The Present Day
(1973, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) contains:

1. The Oneness of Christ’s Church
2. The Infallibility of the Universal Church
3. The Infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium
4. The Church’s Gift of Infallibility Not To Be Diminished
5. The Notion of the Church’s Infallibility Not To Be Falsified
6. The Church Associated with the Priesthood of Christ

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html