Non-Catholic Christians...Simon to Peter?

[Non_Serviam]

Two points can be hopefully of some help.

1. We often listen from non-catholic brothers . “Would Peter behave as a Pope ?”.
   The nature of the question seems to imply a unique possible style of being Pope, through the centuries. Now, do we believe the service is exercised in the very same style by BXVI as it was by, say, just a XVIII century predecessor ? Or by a IV century as by a XII century pope ? Does a negative answer imply some ( who ?) of the afore mentioned ones are not to be considered Popes ? I’d simply say:
   there is IMHO no single “papal style”, through the millennia and the extremely different historical contexts and personalities against which we must check whether Peter, BXVI or anyone between the two should precisely conform in order not be disqualified from being a legitimate Pope.
   (personally I do not hear BXVI repeating routinely “I’m the Pope guys”, we just know he is, while he obviously won’t deny that if asked ).
2. There are core doctrines which are not made so clear in the Gospels ,let alone in all of them. (there must be reasons why we have received four Gospels,and not just a single one after all ). This is why, IMHO, building Christianity from scratch by a “cover-to-cover reading” does not have as much sense as quite many Christian brothers seem to believe in modern times.
   Think just of Christ’s divinity. More central to Christianity than Peter’s role, isn’t it ? I wish you good luck debating with JWs about that on the synoptics alone !
   The striking thing is that petrine service is pointed explicitly to in no fewer than three Gospels. You can be sure that was not the product of a “party” within the primitive e Church.

1. It is important to recognize that by “behave as a Pope” not all non-Catholics mean did Peter wear a ring and sit on a throne, etc. Some quite simply mean did he do things that a Pope would do. For example, if I ask the question “Did Peter behave as an Apostle?” the answer is yes, and we can agree on any number of passages where Peter does so. It is not a matter of Peter saying “I’m an Apostle, guys” but rather those Apostolic actions which he performs without a second thought. The same applies for John or Paul, they clearly act “apostolic” in the way they write to churches, appoint other leaders and other similar actions.

Yet returning to the original questions, we see no evidence that Peter ever acted papal. If “confirm thy brethren” meant to build up and shepherd the other Apostles as the current Pope does for Bishops, we see no mention of Peter doing so. If Peter was the universal leader of the church, why would Paul include those who “follow Cephas” in with the other divisive factions, since they should all be following Cephas, Paul included? Paul tells his readers to follow him as he follows Christ, wouldn’t it make sense that he would say the same about Peter in Cortinthians if Peter was indeed the “source of visible unity on earth”?

1. Agreed that a plurality of Gospels is useful in understanding the life of Christ-as stated before we agree that God chose Peter for a special task, we disagree on what that task was.

We cannot even find any specific time limitation in God made a choice among you,(U) that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear. But even if you should find this limitation in the particular context, at present my difficulty with the exegetic proposal we’re dealing with (which I confess I encounter now for the first time, ignoring therefore its patristic support, which could be considered together later ) is another one. Which is:

the core commission to Peter, in both John 21 and Luke 22:31-32, is not about starting the Church, or churches. It is not about leading new believers into the flock.
It is about *shepherding those **belonging ***to the fold, without exclusions or limitations:
“tend my sheep”, “confirm your brothers” .

Bless you

How do we know this was the “core”? Many Catholics would claim the passage in Matthew 16 was the “core.” See above my point on “confirm your brothers”. We see no examples of Peter doing either of these things in the way the Catholic church interprets them. Yet we do see Peter feeding individual churches and supporting their leaders in the same way the Apostles did. Doesn’t that argue more toward a restorative interpretation of John 21?

 

[jlhargus]

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth-He never said when that would take place or whether it would only be reconciliation with him at the end of life when one would arrive at “all Truth”.

JL: Actually Christ did tell them when that would take place, [Lk 24:48 you are witnesses of these things 49 I SEND the promise of my Father upon you WAIT in Jerusalem TILL YOU ARE ENDUED WITH POWER FROM ON HIGH.] Jn16:5-12 Christ tells the apostles it is to their advantage that he go away so the Counselor will come to them and he will convince the world of sin. Then in [Jn16:13 Howbeit WHEN he, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, IS COME, he will GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.]

Also we see that same GIFT passed on by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by laying on of hands [2 TIM 1:6 …stir up the GIFT OF GOD IN YOU BY THE PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS 7 GOD HAS GIVEN US the SPIRIT OF POWER. Titus 1:5 For this I left you in Crete that you should set in order …and ORDAIN ELDERS in EVERY CITY AS I APPOINTED YOU. Acts 14:23 when they had ORDAINED elders IN EVERY CHURCH and prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed. Acts 20:28 Take heed of yourself, and the flock over which the HOLY SPIRIT has MADE you OVERSEERS TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD purchased with his own blood, 1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE. 1 Tin 4:13 Till I come attend to READING to EXHORTATION to DOCTRINE 14 Do not neglect THE GIFT in you GIVEN you by prophecy WITH THE LAYING ON OF the HANDS of the presbytery 16 TAKE HEED to yourself TO THE DOCTRINE continue in them for in doing this you shalt both SAVE yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU.]

We even know what those who heard and believed the truth did and how important it was to have the correct DOCTRINE. [Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were baptized. They were brought into the Church by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship.] 1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR] Belonging to that ONE FELLOWSHIP is how we know with assurance TRUTH from ERROR

-we know from history that there were valid differences in the doctrine and practice of difference assemblies who were taught by different Apostles-we see them moving toward unity, but respecting diversity with charity whenever possible-a very different view than is often suggested by Catholics when discussing the church in Acts.

JL: I’m not sure what you mean here, do you have an example of differences in the doctrine taught by the Apostles. Differences in practices I understand and diversity, but not differences in doctrinal teaching, I’m not aware of any.

Paul even checked his teaching with that one fellowship, to be sure he was not teaching another doctrine or gospel. [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.]

 

[Peter_J]

We agree that what David wrote was without error. I believe we also agree that David was protected from introducing error into his writing. Yet David to the best of our knowledge was not aware of any such protection.

It’s a very different sort of situation when a person can tell us that the text he is about to write will be of a certainty without error and then sits down to write something.

Yes, I do believe that there have been instances where a person exercised infallibility and knew that he was exercising infallibility. But honestly I don’t see how that makes a difference, practically speaking. Somebody saying “I just exercised infallibility” doesn’t prove to me that he exercised infallibility.

Indeed, even with regard to St. Paul, who wrote more books of the New Testament than any other Apostle, I would not say as an absolute principle that “If St. Paul wrote something and called it infallible, then it had to be infallible.”

Paul speaks of testing all things, having spiritual gifts and utterances in the church verified and validated by the assembly, and even tells his readers to test what he has written-it seems to be a very different dynamic than one of an infallible church, infallible councils and infallible Popes.

Does that make sense?

Is the idea of “infallible Popes” really all that different from the idea of “infallible Apostles”?

P.S. On a side note, you believe in Branch Theory, right? If so, do you think that Branch Theory is incompatible with the idea of an infallible church?

 

[Peter_J]

Per my last post, it’s a sense of dynamic-we don’t see the Apostles bandying about claims to being an infallible Magisterium while they make these mistakes and have these quarrels.

Perhaps not, but later Christians certainly thought that the Apostles exercised infallibility.

They are leaders, but at the same time they display an attitude of learners, recognizing that being led by the Spirit doesn’t mean they will always say or do the right thing-they may have to backtrack, apologize and revisit their actions or words.

Nothing has changed, in principle. Certainly there have been humble popes and not-so-humble popes. (Catholic trivia question: How many popes have said “I am tradition”?)

 

[pneuma07]

I believe Newman became convinced of the need for a human authority, and expressed that conviction in a compelling literary fashion. It is interesting to note that Newman had grave misgivings about the dogmatization of papal infallibility prior to Vatican I in spite of his acceptance of a need for authority.

Do I believe human authority is useful? yes. Do I believe it is valuable to have individuals in authority who are aware of how the documentation of an organization came into being so as to better understand the “spirit” of that documentation? Yes. Do I believe that an organization should have officers to ensure that it runs smoothly and in line with its original intent? Yes.

That said, I have serious concerns about the model of one Bishop over a diocese and one Pope over the Church. Jesus and the Apostles appointed plural leadership in every instance. Jesus named 12, Bishops (plural) were appointed over local churches that were planted, they met in council to discuss problems in Acts 15-and resolved the issue through consensus.

We see in 3 John that one leader Diotrophes was trying to take sole control of that church, and the other elders were resisting him and appealing to John for help.We see in letters of Clement and other ECFs that the church in Rome was led by Bishops (plural) who guided it and kept one another accountable. We do not see singular leadership and a reliance on infallibility to preserve that individual from catastrophic error.

I agree that a study of the pericopes in John would be very interesting, but beyond the scope of the discussion (as much of what we are currently writing is as well)

I agree that Acts 15 is a paradigm, but one that is no longer followed since the triumph of the monarchical episcopacy-any thoughts on that development?

Dear NS,

first of all thanks for your precise answers.

About Diotrephes
3 John 9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to dominate, 6 does not acknowledge us. I understand you see him as a bully. I’d propose however that the key words are “does not acknowledge us”. The first and preliminary step in order to establish an illegitimate authority, is rejecting the legitimate one.

The issue of rebellion against legitimate authority comes out even more clearly in Jude ( verse 11). Woe to them! They followed the way of Cain, abandoned themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. 9
It is Korah’s sin. So, for sure rebellion was and is always there, and we know something about that in the moder age.
Now, that nothwistanding, I cannot follow a possible presentation of monoepiscopacy as fruit of a rebellion/bully pattern. That would mean the authority established by Jesus would have been defeated by a general movement , and Church leadership was illegitimate, since the very first post-apostolic generation. The picture of Church organization from Ignatius’ letters ( himself a rebel leader ?) would be that of a victorious Korah-like full scale rebellion, with a group of bullies ruling over Christian communities through Asia Minor and Syria …. and in great harmony with each other
This picture IMHO is not realistic.

1. It is doubtful whether we know the Church organization of the apostolic age well enough to be able to use it as a precise paradigm. In particular, do we know whether the model of a plurality of Bishops ( others would rather describe it as a presbytery) was the standard one ? Granted this ( which is not so granted IMHO ), we should consider that the whole picture was not then just presbyteries/groups of Bishops: it was, in any case, that plus the Apostles ( plus “prophets”), ie quite an unrepeatable scenario, as such.

On top of that, whence do we get that the supposed existing first- generation-standard-model was intended by the Apostles as a perpetual and normative one ?

1. If we share that a legitimate authority is necessary to guard Revelation ( or at least useful and valuable, as you put it) , that implies the legitimacy of this authority, in the first place. We cannot therefore imagine that this legitimacy disappeared ( or even was seriously compromised) in the very first steps of Christianity. Have Christians always been guided by a bunch of little Korahs, or at least guys leading the flock astray ?
   Whatever the precise sort of assistance we understand Jesus promised, that seems at odds with that. Finally: can we nevertheless get Jesus’ message ?

Since you appreciate Cardinal Newman’s prose, you may want to spend half an hour reading this chapter from his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, where his view on papal infallibility is outlined.
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html

I’d certainly enjoy your considerations on the main points of this exposition.

Why do you say the Church abandoned the Council as tool ?

 

[pneuma07]

1. It is important to recognize that by “behave as a Pope” not all non-Catholics mean did Peter wear a ring and sit on a throne, etc. Some quite simply mean did he do things that a Pope would do. For example, if I ask the question “Did Peter behave as an Apostle?” the answer is yes, and we can agree on any number of passages where Peter does so. It is not a matter of Peter saying “I’m an Apostle, guys” but rather those Apostolic actions which he performs without a second thought. The same applies for John or Paul, they clearly act “apostolic” in the way they write to churches, appoint other leaders and other similar actions.

Yet returning to the original questions, we see no evidence that Peter ever acted papal. If “confirm thy brethren” meant to build up and shepherd the other Apostles as the current Pope does for Bishops, we see no mention of Peter doing so. If Peter was the universal leader of the church, why would Paul include those who “follow Cephas” in with the other divisive factions, since they should all be following Cephas, Paul included? Paul tells his readers to follow him as he follows Christ, wouldn’t it make sense that he would say the same about Peter in Cortinthians if Peter was indeed the “source of visible unity on earth”?

How do we know this was the “core”? Many Catholics would claim the passage in Matthew 16 was the “core.” See above my point on “confirm your brothers”. We see no examples of Peter doing either of these things in the way the Catholic church interprets them. Yet we do see Peter feeding individual churches and supporting their leaders in the same way the Apostles did. Doesn’t that argue more toward a restorative interpretation of John 21?

Within his undisputable narrative primacy, we see different situations where Peter has the initiative within the Apostles. And is followed. ( see John 21:3, or Acts 1:15. ). That is called leadership.
Speaking about John, when Peter and John go together, who speaks, who acts ? That does again point to a leadership. Whose exact scope and nature could be explored or debated ad infinitum, but whose existence ( as a status, rather than reduced to a single peculiar deed or set of deeds) can IMHO hardly be rejected.

If you then consider the nature and style of the one book in the NT which is nowadays generally ascribed to Peter (ie 1 Peter), you see a very pastoral text.
It is addressed to a large number of communities ( most probably not founded by Peter) , and gives special instructions to the presbyters, who have to tend their particular flocks. It can look like an “encyclical letter”, in which he does tend Jesus’ sheep, the local shepherds of particular flocks being clearly among them.

Coming to your question on the divisions in Corinth according to Paul. .
One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[a]”; still another, “I follow Christ.” (1 Cor 3). Can Christ be divided ? … The remarkable aspect is IMHO that even “I follow Christ” is quoted, in this particular context, as a divisive statement. How so then ?
We could imagine that, by this, those guys wanted to say: “I follow no human authority”.
So understood, the statement does become most divisive. If so “I follow Cephas”, could mean here : “I trust no human authority but the highest one”. Which not only makes sense, but is again a very divisive attitude.

I expect you to object to the above description of Cephas I dare to attribute to the supposed corinthian.
Consider nevertheless: was it just a mere case that besides Paul himself and Apollos, who were specially dealing with the Corinthian community themselves, the Rock is the one and only human character quoted here ? Wasn’t it that maybe b/c Paul in his teachings had introduced Cephas as having a permanent primacy among the Apostles and all believers ?

In this letter itself you can see how Paul does point repeatedly to that .

*Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife (or “ministering woman) along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ? (9:5) *
This is in the form of crescendo argument, ending with Cephas, Cephas himself, as if pointing to the ultimate living source of orthodoxy.

In the well known tale about the Resurrection, he tells them:

1 Corinthians 15:5
and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
These Pauline words do again stress a petrine primacy among the original Apostles, and a major one. The Lord appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Lastly, I don’t mean that John 21 and Luke 22:31-32 give us the core and Matthew 16 does not, and my expression was probably not accurate enough. I mean these pericopes, together with Matthew 16, give us fundamental aspects of the picture. Which, IMHO, don’t let us reduce the whole issue into Acts 15:7. Luke 22 is in particular often overlooked in its construction by many non catholic brothers, and sometimes its (re-)consideration changes their opinions.

Bless you.

 

[Non_Serviam]

JL: Actually Christ did tell them when that would take place, [Lk 24:48 you are witnesses of these things 49 I SEND the promise of my Father upon you WAIT in Jerusalem TILL YOU ARE ENDUED WITH POWER FROM ON HIGH.] Jn16:5-12 Christ tells the apostles it is to their advantage that he go away so the Counselor will come to them and he will convince the world of sin. Then in [Jn16:13 Howbeit WHEN he, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, IS COME, he will GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.]

JL: I’m not sure what you mean here, do you have an example of differences in the doctrine taught by the Apostles. Differences in practices I understand and diversity, but not differences in doctrinal teaching, I’m not aware of any.

Christ said they would be endued with power, agreed-and after that the Spirit would guide them into all truth. Jesus didn’t say they were there yet or that they would be there once they Spirit filled them. We even see Peter telling us that some of Paul’s writings are difficult to understand-obviously the leading was still ongoing for him-he didn’t claim to possess all truth at that point.

For a difference in doctrinal teaching look at the dispute that led to the council in Acts 15-different ministers, taught by different Apostles were telling people different things about the requirements to be saved (sounds like a doctrinal teaching to me) When this became a problem, they got together and resolved it, but it demonstrates that not all Apostolic teaching was homogeneous.

Likewise, the difference in dates for the celebration of Easter that occurred at the time of Anicetus and later with Victor was a matter of diversity of doctrine, just as a dispute over the elements to be used during communion would be.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Yes, I do believe that there have been instances where a person exercised infallibility and knew that he was exercising infallibility. But honestly I don’t see how that makes a difference, practically speaking. Somebody saying “I just exercised infallibility” doesn’t prove to me that he exercised infallibility.

Indeed, even with regard to St. Paul, who wrote more books of the New Testament than any other Apostle, I would not say as an absolute principle that “If St. Paul wrote something and called it infallible, then it had to be infallible.”

Is the idea of “infallible Popes” really all that different from the idea of “infallible Apostles”?

P.S. On a side note, you believe in Branch Theory, right? If so, do you think that Branch Theory is incompatible with the idea of an infallible church?

What I highlighted in orange gets to the heart of our discussion-just because the CC says it speaks infallibly doesn’t mean that it does-it’s the circular reasoning argument again.

It is interesting to note that at least once Paul specifically noted in an Epistle that he was speaking, not the Lord, so it does raise a point about how he perceived his writings-whether he understood himself to be inspired some of the time or whether he meant he wasn’t making reference to a previous teaching of Jesus at that point. I don’t know.

There is a difference between the two-no claim to infallibility on the part of the Apostles, not all of them wrote documents that became Scripture, and their office ended with the last writing of Scripture. They were witnesses to what they had seen and the teaching Christ had given them-it goes back to the math example I had given before, that they could communicate something correctly without necessarily being the recipient of a charism of infallibility.

Don’t you share all kinds of information accurately during the run of a day without possessing such a charism? I’m not sure why we need to rush in and limit the ability of others to do so unless they’ve received such.

I can’t say that I’m 100% behind any theory-I’d like to think that Apostolic succession continued to our time, but looking at things as they are gives me a great deal of pause.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Perhaps not, but later Christians certainly thought that the Apostles exercised infallibility.

Nothing has changed, in principle. Certainly there have been humble popes and not-so-humble popes. (Catholic trivia question: How many popes have said “I am tradition”?)

Did they think the Apostles (not just Peter) exercised it in such as way as is described in Vatican I? Or did they believe that some of the Apostles’ writings were inerrant? If the former, did those making the claim have anything to gain personally by having this claim accepted?

I only know of one, 9 of 12. Was that before or after he dashed of the letters stating that democratic government was contrary to the will of God and should be opposed by the church? (Some more of those currently inconvenient, hence less quoted documents we discussed in previous threads)

As for the quote, I’m sure Victor I, wherever he is, wishes he’d thought of it first.

Statements like “I am tradition” are just one of the reasons I don’t see a link between Peter’s authority and that claimed by later Roman bishops.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Dear NS,

first of all thanks for your precise answers.

About Diotrephes
(snipped due to post length restraints)

1. It is doubtful whether we know the Church organization of the apostolic age well enough to be able to use it as a precise paradigm. In particular, do we know whether the model of a plurality of Bishops ( others would rather describe it as a presbytery) was the standard one ? Granted this ( which is not so granted IMHO ), we should consider that the whole picture was not then just presbyteries/groups of Bishops: it was, in any case, that plus the Apostles ( plus “prophets”), ie quite an unrepeatable scenario, as such.

On top of that, whence do we get that the supposed existing first- generation-standard-model was intended by the Apostles as a perpetual and normative one ?

1. If we share that a legitimate authority is necessary to guard Revelation ( or at least useful and valuable, as you put it) , that implies the legitimacy of this authority, in the first place. We cannot therefore imagine that this legitimacy disappeared ( or even was seriously compromised) in the very first steps of Christianity. Have Christians always been guided by a bunch of little Korahs, or at least guys leading the flock astray ?
   Whatever the precise sort of assistance we understand Jesus promised, that seems at odds with that. Finally: can we nevertheless get Jesus’ message ?

Since you appreciate Cardinal Newman’s prose, you may want to spend half an hour reading this chapter from his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, where his view on papal infallibility is outlined.
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html

I’d certainly enjoy your considerations on the main points of this exposition.

Why do you say the Church abandoned the Council as tool ?

That’s quite a bit to pack into one post! I’ll see what I can do with it.

Diotrophes-to quote from the NAB:

9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to dominate, does not acknowledge us.
10 Therefore, if I come, I will draw attention to what he is doing, spreading evil nonsense about us. And not content with that, he will not receive the brothers, hindering those who wish to do so and expelling them from the church.

John is writing to a presbyter (vs. 1) and yet he refers to Diotrophes expelling individuals from the church-if Diotrophes hadn’t had a leadership role to begin with, John would have referred to him as a usurper, much along the lines of those mentioned in the Epistle to Clement. According to John, Diotrophes’ fault was his desire to dominate, rather than work with the other leaders of the church, expelling them if they didn’t agree with him. (sounds a lot like Victor to me)

As for Jude, we see he is discussing “intruders” (vs 4) who have come into the church rather than church leadership who have fallen into error. Both perils faced the early church, and we see Paul tell Titus that this made it essential to appoint presbyters (plural) in every town-a word he uses interchangeably with bishop in vs 7, just as Clement does in his Epistle, switching between the use of bishops and presbyters without hesitation. Both men were part of a church with plural leadership and both vigourously mandated it for church health.

To be clear, I didn’t state that all monoepiscopal candidates were bullies. rather I said that it wasn’t the form of the original church and it left the church more vulnerable to false teachers and bullies. Some individuals displayed excellent Christian character and I’m sure for that reason their fellow leaders deferred to them (Polycarp comes to mind). This, as well as a thinning of the ranks from which to draw leaders due to the persecutions that were ongoing, likely contributed to the rise of the monarchical episcopate its accompanying dangers.

We have examples to the present day of how some men, when placed in a role with no local accountability, perform admirably and some commit heinous acts and attack those who try to bring them to light. It is perhaps useful to note that shepherds, the role on which Jesus modeled his leadership charge to the Apostles, was done by multiple shepherds together as we see in the Gospel account and historical descriptions of the task.

1. With regard to this point, we see multiple leaders in the church in Jerusalem, in Antioch where they send out Paul and Barnabas, in Rome as we read in Clement’s Epistle. Given the Apostolic prominence of these particular churches, can you think of a reason to deviate from their practice, especially given the examples of Diotrophes and Victor and Pauline sanction of plural leadership? For a church that states it is the original church, to continue to deviate from the “norm” begs the question whether it is constructed on Peter’s shoulders or Victor’s?
2. As I stated previously, I don’t believe every Bishop has acted in bad faith or been a bully, but I would suggest that they have been working at a serious disadvantage due to the imposition of a one-person leadership model foreign to the New Testament church. Given that many Catholic theologians recognize that there was some degree of plurality of church leadership in the early church, shouldn’t the current model be reevaluated?

I’ll treat Newman’s letter in another post since I already had to snip once to keep this material together.

As for the comment about church councils-I didn’t say the church abandoned councils, but rather that the council in Acts 15 was comprised of representatives from churches with plural leadership, which the Catholic church did abandon. Sorry I was unclear.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Since you appreciate Cardinal Newman’s prose, you may want to spend half an hour reading this chapter from his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, where his view on papal infallibility is outlined.
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html

I’d certainly enjoy your considerations on the main points of this exposition.

I’ll do my best, although there are 2 things to keep in mind as you read my answer:

1. Neither of us would claim Newman to be inerrant in this writing, and it doesn’t possess any official status within the church-therefore some of Newman’s conclusions, while beneficial to the church, can’t be claimed to be the thought of the church.
2. I don’t have access to many of the other works cited, so I’m replying to Newman’s end of the discussion only-that can make for difficulties in interpretation, etc.

I’m going to focus on 3-4 points in the letter as I think they can show points of divergence most readily.

The Vatican definition, which comes to us in the shape of the Pope’s Encyclical Bull called the Pastor Æternus, declares that “the Pope has that same infallibility which the Church has” [Note 2]: to determine therefore what is meant by the infallibility of the Pope we must turn first to consider the infallibility of the Church. And again, to {322} determine the character of the Church’s infallibility, we must consider what is the characteristic of Christianity, considered as a revelation of God’s will.

Our Divine Master might have communicated to us heavenly truths without telling us that they came from Him, as it is commonly thought He has done in the case of heathen nations; but He willed the Gospel to be a revelation acknowledged and authenticated, to be public, fixed, and permanent; and accordingly, as Catholics hold, He framed a Society of men to be its home, its instrument, and its guarantee. The rulers of that Association are the legal trustees, so to say, of the sacred truths which He spoke to the Apostles by word of mouth. As He was leaving them, He gave them their great commission, and bade them “teach” their converts all over the earth, “to observe all things whatever He had commanded them;” and then He added, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.”

Here, first, He told them to “teach” His revealed Truth; next, “to the consummation of all things;” thirdly, for their encouragement, He said that He would be with them “all days,” all along, on every emergency or occasion, until that consummation. They had a duty put upon them of teaching their Master’s words, a duty which they could not fulfil in the perfection which fidelity required, without His help; therefore came His promise to be with them in their performance of it. Nor did that promise of supernatural help end with the Apostles personally, for He adds, “to the consummation of the world,” implying that the Apostles would have {323} successors, and engaging that He would be with those successors as He had been with them.

The same safeguard of the Revelation—viz. an authoritative, permanent tradition of teaching, is insisted on by an informant of equal authority with St. Matthew, but altogether independent of him, I mean St. Paul. He calls the Church “the pillar and ground of the Truth;” and he bids his convert Timothy, when he had become a ruler in that Church, to “take heed unto his doctrine,” to “keep the deposit” of the faith, and to “commit” the things which he had heard from himself “to faithful men who should be fit to teach others.”

This is how Catholics understand the Scripture record, nor does it appear how it can otherwise be understood; but, when we have got as far as this, and look back, we find that we have by implication made profession of a further doctrine. For, if the Church, initiated in the Apostles and continued in their successors, has been set up for the direct object of protecting, preserving, and declaring the Revelation, and that, by means of the Guardianship and Providence of its Divine Author, we are led on to perceive that, in asserting this, we are in other words asserting, that, so far as the message entrusted to it is concerned, the Church is infallible; for what is meant by infallibility in teaching but that the teacher in his teaching is secured from error? and how can fallible man be thus secured except by a supernatural infallible guidance? And what can have been the object of the words, “I am with you all along to the end,” but to give thereby an answer by anticipation to the spontaneous, silent alarm of the feeble company of fishermen and {324} labourers, to whom they were addressed, on their finding themselves laden with superhuman duties and responsibilities?

Newman begins by stating that Jesus wanted his teaching “authenticated” on earth-there is no example given of this, rather we see in the Gospels and Acts that Jesus promises to authenticate the Apostles when they teach. Therefore, Newman’s description of the church as guarantor, begs the question from the start. Later on, he correctly identifies their commission to teach and that Jesus would be with them. There are two important points to consider here:

1. The Apostles taught what Jesus taught and His actions. Each day, hundreds of thousands of people do this without any supernatural protection. The claim that a charism of infallibility is need to do so needs to be proved, not inferred.
2. If we accept what Newman says, that the Apostles were supernaturally protected from error while teaching, why was that protection later limited to councils and specific papal pronouncements (which Newman points out that he cannot be sure which are or aren’t infallible) rather than all the successors of the Apostles when teaching? Or if you claim that only some statements of the Apostles were inerrant, how are we to know what they were, apart from Scripture?

(cont)

 

[Non_Serviam]

We do see Paul handing on the charge to teach others what he has been taught, and this begs my previous second point-is Newman claiming that Timothy would be exercising infallibility in some manner during his acts of teaching? If so, why the huge changes in the operation of the gift, to the point where by Newman’s day it wasn’t operational the vast majority of the time? (note all of his exceptions and justifications for examples of error he was provided with)

Likewise in 2 Peter 15, we see that Peter wishes to:
15
I shall also make every effort to enable you always to remember these things after my departure.

How does he do this/ By training more teachers? No, he writes an Epistle, just Paul states that his teachings are contained in his Epistles and can be referred to to settle disputes. That seems like a very different model than the one Newman proposes.

In spite of pointing out that the presuppositions underlying Newman’s arguments are incorrect, I want to touch on a couple of points in his letter:

1. The Church has the office of teaching, and the matter of that teaching is the body of doctrine, which the Apostles left behind them as her perpetual possession. If a question arises as to what the Apostolic doctrine is on a particular point, she has infallibility promised to her to enable her to answer correctly. And, as by the teaching of the Church is understood, not the teaching of this or that Bishop, but their united voice, and a Council is the form the Church must take, in order that all men may recognize that in fact she is teaching on any point in dispute, so in like manner the Pope must come before us in some special form or posture, if he is to be understood to be exercising his teaching office, and that form is called ex cathedrâ. This term is most appropriate, as being on one occasion used by our Lord Himself. When the Jewish doctors taught, they placed themselves in Moses’ seat, and spoke ex cathedrâ; and then, as He tells us, they were to be obeyed by their people, and that, whatever were their private lives or characters. “The {325} Scribes and Pharisees,” He says, “are seated on the chair of Moses: all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do you not, for they say and do not.”

We see here that Newman has specifically stated that infallibility does not protect the teaching of “this or that Bishop” and yet in his example of Timothy, that is exactly what he implies. Each Apostle and those that followed them taught as individuals-there were differences in teaching, sch as the need for circumcision, the appropriateness of meat offered to idols and the date of Easter. Therefore Newman has either rendered Apostolic teaching null and void unless all of them agree too it (which makes the New Testament moot) or the Apostles did indeed make mistakes while teaching, that were later corrected as part of plural leadership-rendering infallibility as taught by Catholicism to be incorrect. If the only time the Apostles were protected was when they jointly issued the letter in James’ 15, how could there have been a deposit of faith for Timothy to teach?

1. Such passages, however, as these are too closely connected with the definitions themselves, not to be what is sometimes called, by a catachresis, “proximum fidei;” still, on the other hand, it is true also that, in those circumstances and surroundings of formal definitions, which I have been speaking of, whether on the part of a Council or a Pope, there may be not only no exercise of an infallible voice, but actual error. Thus, in the Third Council, a passage of an heretical author was quoted in defence of the doctrine defined, under the belief he was Pope Julius, and narratives, not trustworthy, are introduced into the Seventh.

This remark and several before it will become intelligible if we consider that neither Pope nor Council are on a level with the Apostles. To the Apostles the whole revelation was given, by the Church it is transmitted; no simply new truth has been given to us since St. John’s death; the one office of the Church is to guard “that noble deposit” of truth, as St. Paul speaks to Timothy, which the Apostles bequeathed to her, in its fulness and integrity. Hence the infallibility of the Apostles was of a far more positive and wide character than that needed by and granted to the Church. We call it, in the case of the Apostles, inspiration; in the case of the Church, assistentia.

Newman acknowledges that there have been errors, and seeks to justify them by a) making the basis for the Pope or Council’s decision of no import-in other words, God draws truth from false sources. and b) that Jesus’ promise, which Newman quotes to prove his point about protecting the church from error, doesn’t actually do so because it works differently for the Pope and other Bishops.

(cont)

 

[Non_Serviam]

1. Another limitation is given in Pope Pius’s own conditions, set down in the Pastor Æternus, for the exercise of infallibility: viz., the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel either of Scripture or {330} Tradition; and, though the Pope is the judge whether it is so referable or not, yet the necessity of his professing to abide by this reference is in itself a certain limitation of his dogmatic action. A Protestant will object indeed that, after his distinctly asserting that the Immaculate Conception and the Papal Infallibility are in Scripture and Tradition, this safeguard against erroneous definitions is not worth much, nor do I say that it is one of the most effective: but anyhow, in consequence of it, no Pope any more than a counsel, could, for instance, introduce Ignatius’s Epistles into the Canon of Scripture;—and, as to his dogmatic condemnation of particular books, which, of course, are foreign to the depositum, I would say, that, as to their false doctrine there can be no difficulty in condemning that, by means of that Apostolic deposit; nor surely in his condemning the very wording, in which they convey it, when the subject is carefully considered. For the Pope’s condemning the language, for instance, of Jansenius is a parallel act to the Church’s sanctioning the word “Consubstantial,” and if a Council and the Pope were not infallible so far in their judgment of language, neither Pope nor Council could draw up a dogmatic definition at all, for the right exercise of words is involved in the right exercise of thought.

10…However, there are other conditions besides this, necessary for the exercise of Papal infallibility, in moral subjects:—for instance, his definition must relate to things necessary for salvation. No one would so speak of lotteries, nor of a particular dress, nor of a particular kind of food;—such precepts, then, did he make them, would be simply external to the range of his prerogative. {332}

And again, his infallibility in consequence is not called into exercise, unless he speaks to the whole world; for, if his precepts, in order to be dogmatic, must enjoin what is necessary to salvation, they must be necessary for all men. Accordingly orders which issue from him for the observance of particular countries, or political or religious classes, have no claim to be the utterances of his infallibility. If he enjoins upon the hierarchy of Ireland to withstand mixed education, this is no exercise of his infallibility.

This very section of the definition would nullify the pronouncement regarding The Assumption as it was neither a)part of Scripture or Tradition, using Newman’s definition of Tradition as that which Jesus taught the Apostles and b)necessary for salvation given the fact that it was not taught universally in the early church and only defined as necessary to salvation almost 2 millenia later. Of course Newman did not know of such a pronouncement coming in the future or he could have adjusted his writing to ensure that it didn’t conflict.

In a nutshell, that’s what Newman has done in this whole document-taken a brush at his point in church history and drawn a target around everything that came before and then claimed a bullseye. In wanting to prove infallibility he has accepted enough qualifications and exceptions to nullify any of the arguments that were made against it in his day-as I said before he does it eloquently, but it is still begging the question, and it leaves unresolved just what is infallible, making it impossible to objectively evaluate such claims.

 

[pneuma07]

…As for Jude, we see he is discussing “intruders” (vs 4) who have come into the church rather than church leadership who have fallen into error. Both perils faced the early church, and we see Paul tell Titus that this made it essential to appoint presbyters (plural) in every town-a word he uses interchangeably with bishop in vs 7, just as Clement does in his Epistle, switching between the use of bishops and presbyters without hesitation. Both men were part of a church with plural leadership and both vigourously mandated it for church health.

To be clear, I didn’t state that all monoepiscopal candidates were bullies. rather I said that it wasn’t the form of the original church and it left the church more vulnerable to false teachers and bullies. Some individuals displayed excellent Christian character and I’m sure for that reason their fellow leaders deferred to them (Polycarp comes to mind). This, as well as a thinning of the ranks from which to draw leaders due to the persecutions that were ongoing, likely contributed to the rise of the monarchical episcopate its accompanying dangers.

We have examples to the present day of how some men, when placed in a role with no local accountability, perform admirably and some commit heinous acts and attack those who try to bring them to light. It is perhaps useful to note that shepherds, the role on which Jesus modeled his leadership charge to the Apostles, was done by multiple shepherds together as we see in the Gospel account and historical descriptions of the task.

1. With regard to this point, we see multiple leaders in the church in Jerusalem, in Antioch where they send out Paul and Barnabas, in Rome as we read in Clement’s Epistle. Given the Apostolic prominence of these particular churches, can you think of a reason to deviate from their practice, especially given the examples of Diotrophes and Victor and Pauline sanction of plural leadership? For a church that states it is the original church, to continue to deviate from the “norm” begs the question whether it is constructed on Peter’s shoulders or Victor’s?
2. As I stated previously, I don’t believe every Bishop has acted in bad faith or been a bully, but I would suggest that they have been working at a serious disadvantage due to the imposition of a one-person leadership model foreign to the New Testament church. Given that many Catholic theologians recognize that there was some degree of plurality of church leadership in the early church, shouldn’t the current model be reevaluated?
   …

Dear NS,

here are my observations on this issue. Later I’m going to say just something about your interesting points on Newman’s quotations.
Then, not to derail the thread, I hope we are going back to post 106 (and Simon Peter. ) and the considerations you may want to share about it.

As I can see it now, you do not propose a wide rebellion, rather a derailing from a mandated norm .

The point is clearly whether we see a strictly plural leadership over local churches as mandated ( “vigorously so” ) by the Apostles. That would mean their teaching were not followed…On a mandated issue. By those they have called to the episcopate as first fruits of their evangelization.
That would mean, the Apostles, selected by Jesus as teachers of the world, and the most direct prolongation of the Incarnation of the Lord, were a failure ( on this and on what else ?) in their teachings .

Moreover, if so we’re IMHO in an epistemological mess. What about the depositum fidei, if the delivery was unsuccesful in the very first generational passage ? ( And, what about our own access to Jesus’ message then ? Can we get His original message without the sub-apostolic leadership ? )
I’d say we should be taught by those disciples of the Apostles about how the Church had to be organized after the apostolic generation and before the parousia. … Rather then teaching them. If they decided for monoepiscopacy, I am confident that was neither heresy nor error. ( And about expediency, again, how can we know what was expedient better then them ? They would live the situation we’re speaking about )

How are you assessing the supposed mistake/derailment ? Through (your interpretation of ) Scriptures. Which were selected , validated, protected by that sub-apostolic leadership against which in 2009 you seem to say it is a “smoking gun” on the monoepiscopacy issue.
My assumpiton here is that you do not do everything to transmit to posterity smoking guns against yourself.

So I guess the leaders of the sub-apostolic Church were not after all mandated to that peculiar solution, about how to organize the Church, which you at present read, as described and prescribed, in the NT.
That is my basic line.

 

[pneuma07]

Exegetical exercise is IMHO quite a secondary issue in the above described approach. Nevertheless I am offering some alternative readings which could be auxiliary .

You can see Titus 1 as proof that presbiteries without a head within them are mandatory. I can see as Paul appointing Titus as (de facto ) bishop of Crete in a situation of interchangeble terminology.

Titus 1:5-7: “*For this reason I left you (singular) in Crete so that you (singular ) might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you (singular) , on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless, not arrogant…” *

You can see multiple leaders in the Church in Jerusalem, I can see James as de facto bishop and indicidual leader there.
in Acts 21:1 you have “The next day Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present.” Similarly, and even more clearly as Mark Bonocore points out:

“in Galatians 2:12, as St. Paul complains about some Judaizing Christians from the church of Jerusalem, he does not say that these Jewish brethren came “from Jerusalem” or from “the presbyters of Jerusalem,” but rather “from James” – thus equating James with the church of Jerusalem itself. Also, in Acts 12:17, as Peter flees Jerusalem after his miraculous escape from prison, he does not command the local flock to “report this to the presbyters”; but instead directly says, “Report this to James,” thereby revealing that James was the leading authority”.

(I observe BTW, that one can hardly argue this James was as important as Peter when considering the Council in Acts 15, AND, at the same time, this person was not more important than other presbyters in the Jerusalem local church.)

You quote Antioch as example of city were presbiteries as a mandated model could be taught most clearly: Yet is precisely the monarchical bishop of Antioch, around 100 AD who describes monoepiscopacy in the asian churches, AND prescribes it.

You say 1 Clement states there are several co-ruling bishops in Rome around 90 AD. I am ready to consider your quotations from 1 Clement about this point, which say the above situation is mandated, but 1 Clement can also be seen as referring to an ecclesial situation/trend where he cites the jewish order as having a high priest, (ie a single individual), priests and Levites as something as a parallel. Yes, I know this connection is far from being sure. …

Back to Scriptures, in 1 Timothy 3 we read: “Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor…Do not accept (singular) an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. Reprimand (singular) publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid. I charge you (singular) before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to keep these rules without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism. Do not lay hands ( singular) too readily on anyone…”

Again, it looks like Timothy is being appointed to an office which is over those of the other presbyters in Ephesus.

I am aware all interpretations suggested here can be seen differently. (I am not so fond of them ). So can yours own.

 

[pneuma07]

I’ll do my best, although there are 2 things to keep in mind as you read my answer:

1. Neither of us would claim Newman to be inerrant in this writing, and it doesn’t possess any official status within the church-therefore some of Newman’s conclusions, while beneficial to the church, can’t be claimed to be the thought of the church.
2. I don’t have access to many of the other works cited, so I’m replying to Newman’s end of the discussion only-that can make for difficulties in interpretation, etc.

I’m going to focus on 3-4 points in the letter as I think they can show points of divergence most readily.

Newman begins by stating that Jesus wanted his teaching “authenticated” on earth-there is no example given of this, rather we see in the Gospels and Acts that Jesus promises to authenticate the Apostles when they teach. Therefore, Newman’s description of the church as guarantor, begs the question from the start. Later on, he correctly identifies their commission to teach and that Jesus would be with them. There are two important points to consider here:

1. The Apostles taught what Jesus taught and His actions. Each day, hundreds of thousands of people do this without any supernatural protection. The claim that a charism of infallibility is need to do so needs to be proved, not inferred.
2. If we accept what Newman says, that the Apostles were supernaturally protected from error while teaching, why was that protection later limited to councils and specific papal pronouncements (which Newman points out that he cannot be sure which are or aren’t infallible) rather than all the successors of the Apostles when teaching? Or if you claim that only some statements of the Apostles were inerrant, how are we to know what they were, apart from Scripture?

(cont)

You say something in that exposition was beneficial to the Church, so I assume you somehow , in spite of all the critiques, find the issue, so explained, less disturbing, or more palatable, then previously presumed, (if I am not reading too much into your word).
That would be very meaninigful. The author was made Cardinal, some four years after the quoted work, so, even apart from the beatification procedure, it is official that his view is in the pure catholic orthodoxy.

That Apostles are looked at as organs of the infallibility of the Church uti singuli, and the bishops are as college ( I understand you like colleges and collegiality) , is rooted IMHO in the unique experience of the Twelve, living for years alongside the Word of God. I am not aware of a formal definition of the scope of the Apostles’ infallibility.
The real starting point IMHO, is whether we acknowledge the Church as indefectible and infallible, the question of the organs of infallibility being down-stream.

 

[pneuma07]

We do see Paul handing on the charge to teach others what he has been taught, and this begs my previous second point-is Newman claiming that Timothy would be exercising infallibility in some manner during his acts of teaching? If so, why the huge changes in the operation of the gift, to the point where by Newman’s day it wasn’t operational the vast majority of the time? (note all of his exceptions and justifications for examples of error he was provided with)

Likewise in 2 Peter 15, we see that Peter wishes to:
15
I shall also make every effort to enable you always to remember these things after my departure.

How does he do this/ By training more teachers? No, he writes an Epistle, just Paul states that his teachings are contained in his Epistles and can be referred to to settle disputes. That seems like a very different model than the one Newman proposes.

In spite of pointing out that the presuppositions underlying Newman’s arguments are incorrect, I want to touch on a couple of points in his letter:

We see here that Newman has specifically stated that infallibility does not protect the teaching of “this or that Bishop” and yet in his example of Timothy, that is exactly what he implies. Each Apostle and those that followed them taught as individuals-there were differences in teaching, sch as the need for circumcision, the appropriateness of meat offered to idols and the date of Easter. Therefore Newman has either rendered Apostolic teaching null and void unless all of them agree too it (which makes the New Testament moot) or the Apostles did indeed make mistakes while teaching, that were later corrected as part of plural leadership-rendering infallibility as taught by Catholicism to be incorrect. If the only time the Apostles were protected was when they jointly issued the letter in James’ 15, how could there have been a deposit of faith for Timothy to teach?

Newman acknowledges that there have been errors, and seeks to justify them by a) making the basis for the Pope or Council’s decision of no import-in other words, God draws truth from false sources. and b) that Jesus’ promise, which Newman quotes to prove his point about protecting the church from error, doesn’t actually do so because it works differently for the Pope and other Bishops.

(cont)

Timothy was made member of the teaching Magisterium. As such he would contribute to preserve the depositum. Being part of an infallible organ is not the same as being as infallible organ.
I’m not sure I understand correctly your argument about the single Apostles. Are you stating they would teach doctrinal errors, this making catholic ecclesiological views pointless ?

Now, about the successors again, I do not understand why the preservation of the depositum should need, as you seem to imply ( just for argument’s sake ?? ) as many organs of infallibility as there are bishops. You say Jesus constituted a college. We believe there is a perpetual college of the successors of the members of the original college.
Think of the the indefectibility of the Church as such, first of all.
Why is a peculiar role of the head of the college contrary to the protection given to the Church ? There is no contrast IMHO between the concept of college and that of a head of its.

 

[pneuma07]

This very section of the definition would nullify the pronouncement regarding The Assumption as it was neither a)part of Scripture or Tradition, using Newman’s definition of Tradition as that which Jesus taught the Apostles and b)necessary for salvation given the fact that it was not taught universally in the early church and only defined as necessary to salvation almost 2 millenia later. Of course Newman did not know of such a pronouncement coming in the future or he could have adjusted his writing to ensure that it didn’t conflict.

In a nutshell, that’s what Newman has done in this whole document-taken a brush at his point in church history and drawn a target around everything that came before and then claimed a bullseye. In wanting to prove infallibility he has accepted enough qualifications and exceptions to nullify any of the arguments that were made against it in his day-as I said before he does it eloquently, but it is still begging the question, and it leaves unresolved just what is infallible, making it impossible to objectively evaluate such claims.

As for the points on future statements let’s read again
though the Pope is the judge whether it is so referable or not, yet the necessity of his professing to abide by this reference is in itself a certain limitation of his dogmatic action. A Protestant will object indeed that, after his distinctly asserting that the Immaculate Conception and the Papal Infallibility are in Scripture and Tradition, this safeguard against erroneous definitions is not worth much, nor do I say that it is one of the most effective: but anyhow, in consequence of it, no Pope any more than a counsel, could, for instance, introduce Ignatius’s Epistles into the Canon of Scripture;

. You object as to a then future statement precisely what the protestant of the example is supposed to object to the Immaculate Conception. Nothing different.
Convenient as it can easily be described ( or “dismissed”), that the Pope himself judges whether his statement is referable to Scripture or Tradition, not only is that a trasparent and coherent clause.
It is also IMHO without practical alternatives, unless we postulate another living authority giving its imprimatur about that to the Pope.

Could Newman really nullify all the arguments against the Pope being an organ of the infallibility of the Church ? That is great Non Serviam ! ( although I do not get what you say by leaving unresolved what is infallible ).
About qualifications: why on earth would you want an unqualified infallibility ?

Bless you

 

[Peter_J]

What I highlighted in orange [orange??] gets to the heart of our discussion-just because the CC says it speaks infallibly doesn’t mean that it does

I knew we’d eventually agree on something. Certainly I don’t claim that the CC = Catholic Church, I assume?] speaks infallibly just because it says it does. (Just like I wouldn’t claim that the Bible is infallible just because it says it is – assuming that it even says that, which I don’t believe it does.)

They were witnesses to what they had seen and the teaching Christ had given them-it goes back to the math example I had given before, that they could communicate something correctly without necessarily being the recipient of a charism of infallibility.

Don’t you share all kinds of information accurately during the run of a day without possessing such a charism?

I hope so!

In fact, there have been a lot of ex cathedra statements (which, as you know, I consider infallible) but I don’t know of a single infallible statement that says that there have been any ex cathedra statements.

 

[Peter_J]

I only know of one

…

Statements like “I am tradition” are just one of the reasons I don’t see a link between Peter’s authority and that claimed by later Roman bishops.

Really? Based on one Pope (out of 265, so that’s about 0.4%) who said “I am tradition”?