Infallibility - revisited

[SCALCO]

Well, nowhere does this letter mention the Pope, or the Bishop of Rome, or infallibility. That’s all.

I agree, Canon Law is essential. And it’s essential definition of infallibility is not met by the Letter of Clement.

Dear Vince,

Thank you for the response.

The definition is not so clear to me, which is why I’m still asking and trying to learn more. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the definition, just my understanding of it. At least, I don’t see that it has to mention the word “Pope”.

Mardukm said, “The reason that Pope St. Clement’s letter cannot be taken as evidence of papal infallibility is because Pope Clement was addressing a disciplinary issue, not a doctrinal one.”

I’m still curious to know the reason(s) why Clement’s letter would not meet the definition of infallibility to you?

May God bless.
Scalco

 

[SCALCO]

It was Pope Gregory VII (Supreme Pontiff: 1073-1085) that recognized Constantinople IV of 869 as the eighth ecumenical council, from May 1077 letter to Hugh of Die specified using canon 22 from council of 869. Lay investitures were forbidden in a decree of Pope Gregory VII.

See pp. 177-179, The chronicle of Hugh of Flavigny: reform and the investiture contest in the late eleventh century, By Patrick Healy (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2006)

Also:
fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-invest1.html

This is the canon approved by Pope Hadrian II, referenced by Pope Gregory VII, from Constantinople IV (869).

“Canon 22
This holy and universal synod declares and decrees, in agreement with earlier councils, that the promotion and consecration of bishops should be done by means of an election and decision of the college of bishops. So it promulgates as law that no lay authority or ruler may intervene in the election or promotion of a patriarch, a metropolitan or any bishop, lest there be any irregularity leading to improper confusion or quarrelling, especially since it is wrong for any ruler or other lay person to have any influence in such matters. Rather he should be silent and mind his own business until the election of the future bishop has been completed with due process by the ecclesiastical assembly. But if any lay person is invited by the church to join in the discussion and to help with the election, he is permitted to accept the invitation with respect, if he so wishes. For in this way he may be able to promote a worthy pastor in a regular manner, to the benefit of his church. If any secular authority or ruler, or a lay person of any other status, attempts to act against the common, agreed and canonical method of election in the church, let him be anathema- this is to last until he obeys and agrees to what the church shows it wants concerning the election and appointment of its leader.”

piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm

Dear Vico, thank you for the reference.

God bless,
Scalco

 

[PJM]

=SCALCO;7498646]Dear Vince,

Thank you for the response.

The definition is not so clear to me, which is why I’m still asking and trying to learn more. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the definition, just my understanding of it. At least, I don’t see that it has to mention the word “Pope”.

Mardukm said, “The reason that Pope St. Clement’s letter cannot be taken as evidence of papal infallibility is because Pope Clement was addressing a disciplinary issue, not a doctrinal one.”

I’m still curious to know the reason(s) why Clement’s letter would not meet the definition of infallibility to you?

May God bless.
Scalco

My dear friend in Christ;

In Addition to Matt. 16:15-19 I submit the testimony of these Early Fathers for confirmation. From the Agape Bible Study:

Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, **To Pope Soter (A.D. 171). **

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 **(A.D. 180). **

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 **(A.D. 251-256). **“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

Every bit of evidence is relevant. lease READ Jn. 14:16-17 anf John 17: 14-19 which further support the Infallibiliy of the Seat of Rome on all matters of Faith and Morals.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Vince1022]

I’m still curious to know the reason(s) why Clement’s letter would not meet the definition of infallibility to you?

May God bless.
Scalco

Well, for one thing, it doesn’t meet the Church’s current criteria for infallible teaching. But, also, at the time of this letter, there was no doctrine of infallibility, so such an idea would simply have been unknown to the Church.

Does that make sense, or clarify my point?

Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

My dear friend in Christ;

In Addition to Matt. 16:15-19 I submit the testimony of these Early Fathers for confirmation. From the Agape Bible Study:

Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, **To Pope Soter (A.D. 171). **

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 **(A.D. 180). **

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 **(A.D. 251-256). **“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

Every bit of evidence is relevant. lease READ Jn. 14:16-17 anf John 17: 14-19 which further support the Infallibiliy of the Seat of Rome on all matters of Faith and Morals.

God Bless,
Pat

Neither John’s Gospel nor the Letter of Clement mention infallibility in and of itself.

There is a difference between the Church teaching truth (which of course it does, and has always been considered to do so) and the Church teaching specific matters infallibly.

 

[Vico]

Infallibility is the exercise of the teaching authority of the Church on faith and morals that are irreformable, it does not have to be named as an infallible teaching at the time or even later. It is clearly stated to be of the Holy Spirit in Pope Clement’s statement.

 

[Vince1022]

Infallibility is the exercise of the teaching authority of the Church on faith and morals that are irreformable, it does not have to be named as an infallible teaching at the time or even later. It is clearly stated to be of the Holy Spirit in Pope Clement’s statement.

Where is infallibility mentioned in the letter of Clement? thanks!

 

[Vico]

Where is infallibility mentioned in the letter of Clement? thanks!

I wrote: “…it does not have to be named as an infallible teaching at the time or even later.”

 

[Vince1022]

I wrote: “…it does not have to be named as an infallible teaching at the time or even later.”

Ok, so we agree then that infallibility is not mentioned in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians? Thanks.

 

[Aramis]

Ok, so we agree then that infallibility is not mentioned in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians? Thanks.

You’re mincing words.

Pope St. Clement speaks with the full authority of the Church. He states that he’s sending the teachings of the church.

His teaching in his letters is considered infallible, and an exercise in infallibility, and it has never been overturned, even tho he never mentions it as such.

They were a mixture of material on faith and morals as well as discipline, and he was speaking ex-cathedra as the head of the church, and therefore, by the definitions in VI, it is infallible on the faith and morals issues.

 

[SCALCO]

Well, for one thing, it doesn’t meet the Church’s current criteria for infallible teaching. But, also, at the time of this letter, there was no doctrine of infallibility, so such an idea would simply have been unknown to the Church.

Does that make sense, or clarify my point?

Thanks.

Dear Vince,

Thank you, I appreciate your response and your time.

Can you please specify which criteria for infallible teaching that Clement’s letter does or does’t meet and why?

I get from you that part of the reason Clement’s letter is not an example of infallible teaching is because the doctrine of infallibility was unknown at that time. My response would be similar to Vico’s - see post 263.

Can you clarify, are you saying that anything prior to the official definition of infallibility in 18xx cannot be used as an example of infallible teaching? What about the Immaculate Conception which was defined earlier, correct?

God bless you.
Scalco

 

[SCALCO]

Some of this back and forth reminds me a little of the “Who’s on First?” act between Abbott and Costello.

Costello: Where does the letter mention infallibility?
Abbott: It doesn’t have to mention infallibility?
Costello: So, we agree it doesn’t mention infallibility?
Abbott: Why does it have to mention infallibility?
Costello: It doesn’t meet the criterial for infallibility?
Abbott: Why not?
Costello: Because it doesn’t mention it?
Abbott: Doesn’t have to, why?

 

[ramson00]

The most basic digital product license is when you purchase a downloadable product for personal use. Then you can use the product yourself and that’s all. Some product developers protect their products by requiring a code for activation (for example, registration number, username and password, or serial number).

Business Ebooks

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

The topic does pertain to faith and morals:

“If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger.” - Pope Clement

The classic ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch should be considered in this statement. He states that our bishops generally speak to us as God on earth. We would hope and pray that all the actions of our hierarchs are true works of God. This does not mean that everything they do or say has been graced with infallibility. Infallibility refers to a very specific action of the hierarchy.

Just because St. Clement states that “God has spoken through us” or that there is “no slight transgression and danger” does not necessarily mean that it is a matter of faith and morals. Disobedience is certainly a sin, but disobedience in the context of St. Clement’s letter was a cause of schism. But schism is not the same thing as heresy. If the Church in Corinth was being heretical, then I would agree that Pope St. Clement was exercising infallibility. But infallibility does not come into play on a matter of obedience.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SCALCO,

I appreciate your response. Is this the only reason not to consider Pope Clement’s letter an example of papal infallibility?

There is another reason - the fact that Pope St. Clement was only addressing the Church in Corinth and not the universal Church. My response to brother Aramis might explain it a bit more (next post below).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

You’re mincing words.

Pope St. Clement speaks with the full authority of the Church. He states that he’s sending the teachings of the church.

His teaching in his letters is considered infallible, and an exercise in infallibility, and it has never been overturned, even tho he never mentions it as such.

They were a mixture of material on faith and morals as well as discipline, and he was speaking ex-cathedra as the head of the church, and therefore, by the definitions in VI, it is infallible on the faith and morals issues.

I can agree that as far as Pope St. Clement was teaching, he was exercising the infallible Magisterium. But I would more concisely say that what he was exercising was not papal infallibility (which is defined as an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium), but simply the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

The classic ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch should be considered in this statement. He states that our bishops generally speak to us as God on earth. We would hope and pray that all the actions of our hierarchs are true works of God. This does not mean that everything they do or say has been graced with infallibility. Infallibility refers to a very specific action of the hierarchy.

Just because St. Clement states that “God has spoken through us” or that there is “no slight transgression and danger” does not necessarily mean that it is a matter of faith and morals. Disobedience is certainly a sin, but disobedience in the context of St. Clement’s letter was a cause of schism. But schism is not the same thing as heresy. If the Church in Corinth was being heretical, then I would agree that Pope St. Clement was exercising infallibility. But infallibility does not come into play on a matter of obedience.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks Mardukm,

Note that in the seminal post #229 I did not say infallible teaching authority. Sometimes the conversion gets a bit confusing and meanders with so many questions asked. I believe it pertains to faith and morals however if it does not, and is disciplinary, then it is still an example of teaching authority. *

"On your question about examples, I posted “So these are examples of where faith and morals are presented with certainty, such as was quoted earlier in this thread:” and then I gave the Clement quote as one such example. The examples are what we began with in post # 193, but also whatever followed that I posted.

Pope Saint Clement said: “…if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit…”. This is an example of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff."

Note that Catholic Encyclopedia (Infallibility) states:
But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

• Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century, …

• Heresy is a sin against truth, schism a sin against unity and love.

 

[SCALCO]

Dear brother SCALCO,

There is another reason - the fact that Pope St. Clement was only addressing the Church in Corinth and not the universal Church. My response to brother Aramis might explain it a bit more (next post below).

Hi Mardukm,

I agree, but still have one line of questioning on this. Does it have to be made sufficiently clear or can this be an implied intent? I know present day teaching must be clear that it is addressed to the whole Church, but due to communication limitations, wasn’t sure if this applied historically.

Dear brother Aramis,

I can agree that as far as Pope St. Clement was teaching, he was exercising the infallible Magisterium. But I would more concisely say that what he was exercising was not papal infallibility (which is defined as an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium), but simply the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

So you are saying that Clement was excercising an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium?

I thought this had to also pertain to faith and morals? Sorry for my poor knowledge.

Thanks and God bless.
Scalco

 

[Aramis]

Hi Mardukm,

I agree, but still have one line of questioning on this. Does it have to be made sufficiently clear or can this be an implied intent? I know present day teaching must be clear that it is addressed to the whole Church, but due to communication limitations, wasn’t sure if this applied historically.

So you are saying that Clement was excercising an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium?

I thought this had to also pertain to faith and morals? Sorry for my poor knowledge.

Thanks and God bless.
Scalco

Some parts do talk of faith and morals, whole the overall is disciplinary. St. Clement didn’t make clear distinctions between the two, in the same way neither did St. Peter nor St Paul.

 

[PJM]

=Vince1022;7500910]Neither John’s Gospel nor the Letter of Clement mention infallibility in and of itself.

There is a difference between the Church teaching truth (which of course it does, and has always been considered to do so) and the Church teaching specific matters infallibly.

The current Current of Canon Law states:

Infaaibility apples ONLY to the catagories of Faith and Morals, and even then it must be proclaimed specifically as such.

That said: it goes on to say that:

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

God Bless, Pat