Orthodoxy and the Papacy.

[holdencaulfield]

Council of Sardica

"But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before. (Canon 3)

 

[holdencaulfield]

St. Jerome

“…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” (Epistle 15:1)

 

[holdencaulfield]

Lets see a Early Church Father who is a saint who does not support the Papacy. The only attempt by most of you has been Pope St. Gregory I who was taken out of context. He used the term Universal Bishop because John the Faster the Patriarch of Constantinople wanted to be the only bishop of Constantinople. Furthermore St. Gregory excommunicated him even though he was outside of his jurisdiction. This clearly shows how the Bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over the entire Church.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Show me where they denied the Immaculate Conception so that we know that you are not taking something out of context. Furthermore many Early Church Fathers did agree with the Immaculate Conception.

My point was not about the Immaculate Conception, so the quote from St. Ambrose is irrelevant. The point was that St. Augustine (or any Father) could opine something theologically different from the Church’s present standpoint and not be considered a heretic.

Here is a citation from an article:
***“During the middle ages, authors such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine.” ***
ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm

 

[ForeverAdam]

However making a dogma is the only thing that is possible to be Infallible. If the Pope contradicts prior Tradition than the dogma is not Infallible. Just as an Orthodox Ecumenical Council could go insane and make some random dogma that violates Tradition, you would not deem it as Infallible.

If any Pope may fall into heresy on any part of the Faith, how can such fallible pontiffs be the final arbiter of truth in the Church? Such Popes would possess no more doctrinal authority than any bishop. Ergo, quotes that refer to the Pope as an “incorruptible head” and praise the faith of individual pontiffs would possess no additional ecclesiological significance as would praise to any bishop, as the pope would be just as capable of erring as the rest of the episcopacy.

Yes it does, however at one time the entire Church accepted Arianism. It got over that it will get over this. The Novus Ordo is not heresy it is just abused and can then become heresy.

Every bishop didn’t endorse Arianism. If they did, the gates of Hades would have conquered the Church for a period of time, since the Church, as a sacramental organism, must contain a bishop in order to exist.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

** Pope St. Clement I (96 AD)**

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 59:1)

Right. However, obedience to the words of St. Clement is conditional on his choice to teach the true Faith, as would be true of any Orthodox bishop. It would be incorrect to interpret these words as demanding obedience because of an automatic infallibility present in the Papacy, as this is not even found in the works of approved Roman Catholic theologians, canonists and leaders, which hold open the possibility of papal heresy. Therefore, all that this quote reveals is a bishop requesting obedience of other bishops when he teaches the true Faith. To argue otherwise is to reveal ignorance of the long-standing Orthodox and Roman Catholic tradition of papal fallibility.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

Their sound has gone out into every land, and their words into the ends of the world." But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. For He wished him who had been received into partnership in His undivided unity to be named what He Himself was, when He said:“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church Matthew 16:18 :” that the building of the eternal temple by the wondrous gift of God’s grace might rest on Peter’s solid rock: strengthening His Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it." (Letters 10:1)

I find it interesting that St. Leo the Great says that from the Head (St. Peter) God’s gifts flow to the Body (the Church). Catholicism tends to limit the flowing of these gifts from Peter to the Church, opting instead to reserve some gifts to Peter, while denying them to the rest of the apostles. I would also contend that we haven’t seceded from Peter’s solid rock, as this rock is found in the local Church with her bishop, and not only Rome with her bishop. Rome isn’t the only Church built on the rock, as can be seen when popes fall into heresy (and the possibility of the same) and the spotless faith of St. Peter is carried on by other worthy bishops.

“If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (Letters 14:11)

St. Leo gives a beautiful exposition on the nature of ecclesial primacy and its origin in the formation of the apostolic choir, in this passage. However, I’m not sure how this supports the distinctive doctrines of the Papacy, as the Orthodox Church has always advocated obedience and good order in the various organs of primacy in the Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

If any Pope may fall into heresy on any part of the Faith, how can such fallible pontiffs be the final arbiter of truth in the Church? Such Popes would possess no more doctrinal authority than any bishop. Ergo, quotes that refer to the Pope as an “incorruptible head” and praise the faith of individual pontiffs would possess no additional ecclesiological significance as would praise to any bishop, as the pope would be just as capable of erring as the rest of the episcopacy.

However this is inaccurate. A Pope could endorse a false doctrine even speak Ex Cathedra about a heretical doctrine and yet it wouldn’t be infallible. A Pope cannot speak infallibly about something that contradicts previous Tradition.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I find it interesting that St. Leo the Great says that from the Head (St. Peter) God’s gifts flow to the Body (the Church). Catholicism tends to limit the flowing of these gifts from Peter to the Church, opting instead to reserve some gifts to Peter, while denying them to the rest of the apostles. I would also contend that we haven’t seceded from Peter’s solid rock, as this rock is found in the local Church with her bishop, and not only Rome with her bishop. Rome isn’t the only Church built on the rock, as can be seen when popes fall into heresy (and the possibility of the same) and the spotless faith of St. Peter is carried on by other worthy bishops.

However, yes St. Peter is not the only Bishop, St. Leo merely states that he is the head and does not keep the other bishops from leading, he only states the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

St. Leo gives a beautiful exposition on the nature of ecclesial primacy and its origin in the formation of the apostolic choir, in this passage. However, I’m not sure how this supports the distinctive doctrines of the Papacy, as the Orthodox Church has always advocated obedience and good order in the various organs of primacy in the Church.

Yes, all the Bishops are equal, however the Bishop of Rome holds a special “power” over the others to quote St. Leo.

 

[ForeverAdam]

However this is inaccurate. A Pope could endorse a false doctrine even speak Ex Cathedra about a heretical doctrine and yet it wouldn’t be infallible. A Pope cannot speak infallibly about something that contradicts previous Tradition.

I agree with you. However, how can the Pope have authority as the final arbiter of truth in the Church if he is as fallible as any other bishop?

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

However, yes St. Peter is not the only Bishop, St. Leo merely states that he is the head and does not keep the other bishops from leading, he only states the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

We don’t argue with the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In fact, we look forward to the day when the Bishop of Rome returns to Orthodoxy so that he can exercise his role as the Primary Bishop of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Yes, all the Bishops are equal, however the Bishop of Rome holds a special “power” over the others to quote St. Leo.

As long as this power is canonical (like that of a patriarch) and not ontological, Orthodoxy accepts it in principle.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

I agree with you. However, how can the Pope have authority as the final arbiter of truth in the Church if he is as fallible as any other bishop?

Because he is the head of the Church. He can solve problems because he is the head. Can’t you see the need for a final arbiter?

 

[holdencaulfield]

As long as this power is canonical (like that of a patriarch) and not ontological, Orthodoxy accepts it in principle.

However he had the power over the entire Church. We can see the following from the Early Church Fathers. Feel free to argue and then I will provide support.

• St. Peter was the Rock
• The Roman Church holds a Primacy over the others
• The Roman Church has the last word on doctrinally issues
• Just as the Church can teach Infallibly, so can the Pope
• The Pope has Universal Jurisdiction.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Pope St. Celestine I

“Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity.” Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430).

Pope St. Boniface I

“The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.” Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).

 

[wynd]

However this is inaccurate. A Pope could endorse a false doctrine even speak Ex Cathedra about a heretical doctrine and yet it wouldn’t be infallible. A Pope cannot speak infallibly about something that contradicts previous Tradition.

Isn’t the point of infallible ex cathedra statements that the pope cannot declare something heretical that way?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Isn’t the point of infallible ex cathedra statements that the pope cannot declare something heretical that way?

I’m not sure, maybe it is null if it is heretical. I may be wrong.

 

[wynd]

I’m not sure, maybe it is null if it is heretical. I may be wrong.

This is from Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus:

“…We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA…he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

I think that would mean that he can’t say wrong things when speaking ex cathedra. Otherwise, what would even be the point if you couldn’t tell what was infallible and what wasn’t? (We would first have to know if the pope in fact was actually speaking ex cathedra, which is a debate unto itself.)

 

[holdencaulfield]

I think that would mean that he can’t say wrong things when speaking ex cathedra. Otherwise, what would even be the point if you couldn’t tell what was infallible and what wasn’t? (We would first have to know if the pope in fact was actually speaking ex cathedra, which is a debate unto itself.)

However the problem that many people get confused about is this. Ex Cathedra is a Solemn Magisterium issued by the Pope, or an Ecumenical Council. It is always Infallible, unless it contradicts previous Infallible statements (Solemn Magisterium) or previous Tradition (Constant Magisterium). We can know that something is (Solemn Magisterium) if it is:

• Taught by the Pope, or an Ecumenical Council
• Is in agreement with previous Tradition (Constant Magisterium)
• Effects the entire Church
• Must be followed
• Does not contradict previous Tradition (Constant Magisterium)

 

[josephdaniel29]

Regardless St. Cyprian was obviously in the wrong as you cannot Baptize someone more than once. I’m confused as to how he was a saint if he obviously taught heresy.

You’re right you can’t baptize more than once. The issue was and is whether or not a heretical baptism is a baptism at all. As to whether or not he is a saint neither Church requires infallibility to be considered a saint. St Gregory of Nyssa and St Justin Martyr both had views that may have been heretical but that doesn’t affect their sainthood.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[ForeverAdam]

Because he is the head of the Church. He can solve problems because he is the head. Can’t you see the need for a final arbiter?

Being the “head” doesn’t translate into infallibility. For example, my patriarch is a head and he isn’t infallible. And by bishop is a head with many responsibilities, yet he isn’t infallible. The same applies to the Pope. The Pope cannot be the final arbiter of truth if there exists an approved tradition in both East and West stating that Popes may lose the Faith and become heretics. Such a Pope wouldn’t be up to the job of final arbiter, as this role requires an inability to fall into heresy. The tradition of papal fallibility that persisted into the last century even in Catholicism ensures that the patristic quotes you provide praising the faith of Rome and the faith of individual pontiffs don’t translate into the Pope as the final arbiter of truth in the Church. If they do, the ancient Church held to a more developed form of the Papacy than did the High Middle Ages (which believed that popes could err), which isn’t tenable. I would also add that the final arbiter of truth is that faith of the Church which can be traced back to the apostles. This may seem sloppy, but it was advocated by many saints as sufficient, whereas popes could always fall and be judged by this apostolic Faith.

God bless,

Adam