Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[Hesychios]

What’s so confusing about the infallibility of the Pope (which is connected to the infallibility of the Church)…

I am going to go on a tangent here, just to open up the discussion a little bit.

We all believe in the infallibility of the church. The church will always prevail.

The idea of infallibility of the bishop of Rome specifically is connected with the concept of universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

In other words, if one considers that ALL of the responsibility for the church is vested in one man, then it can plausibly be argued that ALL of the infallibility resides in that one man.

The claim for Papal Universal Jurisdiction does not pass muster, even if one looks only at the historical facts surrounding the western church (much the less when also considering the eastern church). This makes arguing for Papal Infallibility pointless.

My position is that the Honorius case is not a concern over infallibility claims directly, it actually impinges (further) on the claims for universal jurisdiction more than anything else, and on the claims for Papal Infallibility obliquely.

p.s. Do not confuse infallibility with impeccability.

It appears no one here does.

The accusation of “confuse infallibility with impeccability” is a mild canard.

This is a logical argument:

One group asserts that Jesus (God) intended the bishops of Rome, no matter who they might be from age to age, to have fully absolute control over the entire church.

To name bishops (and transfer them around) …

To call councils, to suppress councils, sessions, canons and decrees of councils …

To modify, edit, compose and codify the holy canons of the church …

To regulate the liturgy …

To canonize the saints and control the calendar …

To erect and suppress dioceses outside of his Metropolitan territory … etc.

And finally then, to proclaim or define dogma on his sole authority on behalf of the entire church.

If these powers had existed with the bishop of old Rome they would have automatically devolved onto the bishop of New Rome (as the next in priority) for the eastern church at the time of the schism. In fact, these rights and powers were unknown to the church at that time.

Really none of these universal powers were operative in the early church, and so they were unknown to anyone. In fact, the beginnings of each of these Papal powers can fairly accurately be dated. You probably know this, because you are intelligent and well read. (For example, Papal monopoly over the canonization of saints dates to the year 1200AD with Innocent III, yet today it is sometimes cited by apologists as a form or aspect of Papal infallibility at work. The power derives -in fact- from claims of Papal jurisdiction.)

And that there is no recourse to the man’s judgment, no matter whom he is or what he thinks. Whether he is a holy and prayerful man or not, whether he is thinking rightly or not, whether he is dissolute and corrupt or not, whether he keeps concubines, sells church offices, wages war or condones other sins, or even if he is a heretic. He is to be the head of the church, there is no recourse to his judgment and he cannot be removed, or even remonstrated with.

There has never been an impeccable man (with the exception of Our Lord) to walk the earth, much less in the church, so no one expects to see one in any bishops chair, anywhere. Orthodox believers will refuse to follow such a man, and this is what saved Holy Orthodoxy in times past. For Catholics though, there is no recourse, they must obey the heretic/simoniac/adulterous/bi-polar/what-have-you Pope in all matters of church administration and practice.

These fallible men who have already held that particular office then, make a very poor case for universal jurisdiction, on behalf of any bishop of any See (Rome or elsewhere). It cannot be seen how Jesus would have wanted the entire church under the absolute control of a single very peccable heretic (much less the various other aberrations that have somehow snared the prize through history).

Perhaps this is why Orthodox Catholics cannot accept this new idea, this novelty.

 

[Vasian]

Infallibility does not entail being sinless.

Nope
“The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, (as noted) i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin”

 

[AMDGtoo]

Since there now seems to be some questions about the charism of Infallibility, the Charism, the Roman Pontiff and the Charism and finally that of the bishops, perhaps it will be these definitions will be helpful.

This concerns the charism of Infallibility:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2035

The supreme degree of partcipation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved explained, or observed."

This concerns the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 891:

"The Roman Pontiff…enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…The infalibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium" above all in an Ecumenical Council. (The emphasis is mine. Please notice that it doesn’t say anything about personal Infallibilty or being Infallibile in any other issues besides faith and morals when outside of his office.)

This concerns the infallibility of the bishops:

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 25:

Athought the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey Josie,
Tried to IM you but your PM box is totally full and won’t allow messages right now…Clear some space so I can IM ya…

Scott

Infallibility does not entail being sinless.

 

[josie_L]

Nope
*“The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not *signify that the Pope is impeccable, (as noted) i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin”

So then what was the point of your original post as I am well aware of what papal infallibility means

 

[Vasian]

So then what was the point of your original post as I am well aware of what papal infallibility means

I enjoy reading what people have to say.
Furthermore, I’m quite intrigued by the literally thousands and thousands of pages of “information” (for the lack of as better word) that the Church seems to need to tend to the flock and govern themselves as well.
I’m not criticizing here, just making an observation.

As far as my own understanding, it is clear to me that the infallibility clause speaks to a very narrow criteria on behalf of the papacy.
The greater public seems to believe it means the Pope cannot sin whatsoever, and that all that he does or say is infallible, which is not the case.

 

[steve_b]

We do not need to disprove the “doctrine” of papal infallibility. It did not exist then…and it does not exist to the Orthodox now.

That’s not what you said when you were a Catholic

 

[steve_b]

As far as my own understanding, it is clear to me that the infallibility clause speaks to a very narrow criteria on behalf of the papacy.
The greater public seems to believe it means the Pope cannot sin whatsoever, and that all that he does or say is infallible, which is not the case.

True

 

[steve_b]

My position is that the Honorius case is not a concern over infallibility claims directly,

Nor indirectly as well
h:

it actually impinges (further) on the claims for universal jurisdiction more than anything else, and on the claims for Papal Infallibility obliquely.

Only if one insists on defining juristiction and infallibility counter to how the Church defines them.
h:

It appears no one here does.

The accusation of “confuse infallibility with impeccability” is a mild canard.

Explain
h:

This is a logical argument:

One group asserts that Jesus (God) intended the bishops of Rome, no matter who they might be from age to age, to have fully absolute control over the entire church.

All one has to do to make a case is show how the Church from the beginning, East and West, viewed the bishop of Rome. Then compare that with how the Church East and West viewed the bishops respectively of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople.
h:

To name bishops (and transfer them around) …

To call councils, to suppress councils, sessions, canons and decrees of councils …

To modify, edit, compose and codify the holy canons of the church …

To regulate the liturgy …

To canonize the saints and control the calendar …

To erect and suppress dioceses outside of his Metropolitan territory … etc.

And finally then, to proclaim or define dogma on his sole authority on behalf of the entire church.

• The pope doesn’t work and operate in a vaccum. He doesn’t make decisions alone.
• There was a curious argument that broke out at the last supper. It had to do with who is the greatest among the apostles and probably some of the things you bring up. Jesus settles the argument

Notice the word “Hegeomai” and it’s definition
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3544884&highlight=hegiomai#post3544884
h:

If these powers had existed with the bishop of old Rome they would have automatically devolved onto the bishop of New Rome (as the next in priority) for the eastern church at the time of the schism. In fact, these rights and powers were unknown to the church at that time.

Wrong.

• This isn’t about a city where the emperor resides. It’s about Peter and his successor and where he resides.

h:

Really none of these universal powers were operative in the early church, and so they were unknown to anyone. In fact, the beginnings of each of these Papal powers can fairly accurately be dated.

all doctrins can be said to have dates depending on when the teaching behind the doctrine was attacked
h:

You probably know this, because you are intelligent and well read. (For example, Papal monopoly over the canonization of saints dates to the year 1200AD with Innocent III, yet today it is sometimes cited by apologists as a form or aspect of Papal infallibility at work. The power derives -in fact- from claims of Papal jurisdiction.)

And that there is no recourse to the man’s judgment, no matter whom he is or what he thinks.

He doesn’t work in a vaccum.
h:

Whether he is a holy and prayerful man or not, whether he is thinking rightly or not, whether he is dissolute and corrupt or not, whether he keeps concubines, sells church offices, wages war or condones other sins, or even if he is a heretic. He is to be the head of the church, there is no recourse to his judgment and he cannot be removed, or even remonstrated with.

That’s quite a rant.
h:

There has never been an impeccable man (with the exception of Our Lord) to walk the earth, much less in the church, so no one expects to see one in any bishops chair, anywhere. Orthodox believers will refuse to follow such a man, and this is what saved Holy Orthodoxy in times past. For Catholics though, there is no recourse, they must obey the heretic/simoniac/adulterous/bi-polar/what-have-you Pope in all matters of church administration and practice.

That’s as offensive as anything I’ve seen posted over the years.

 

[Nine_Two]

• The pope doesn’t work and operate in a vaccum. He doesn’t make decisions alone.
• There was a curious argument that broke out at the last supper. It had to do with who is the greatest among the apostles and probably some of the things you bring up. Jesus settles the argument

Notice the word “Hegeomai” and it’s definition
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3544884&highlight=hegiomai#post3544884

Using that definition of “ἡγέομαι” is problematic because if you want to use it to prove there is one ruler, you must accept that the second clause of that sentence - that of the servent - means there can only be one servant.

You’ll also note that Christ refused to provide a straight answer as to which of them was the greatest, so if anything that verse backs up the Orthodox position.

 

[steve_b]

Using that definition of “ἡγέομαι” is problematic because if you want to use it to prove there is one ruler, you must accept that the second clause of that sentence - that of the servent - means there can only be one servant.

Jesus uses the term ἡγέομαι *hēgeomai [Lk 22:26] *with only Peter. Just as He uses ποιμαίνω poimainō [Jn 21:16] with only Peter.

(emphasis mine)

Poimaino (definition)
1) to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
a) to rule, govern

1) of rulers
2) to furnish pasture for food
3) to nourish
4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need
​

Hegiomai (definition)

1) to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader

1) to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
​

This is what Jesus said to Peter in the upper Room the night before He died, and again after the resurrection but before His ascension. This is Peter’s role.

Doesn’t this sound like who a pope is?

And to your point re: serve, as you might already know regarding serve, one of the titles of the pope is “servant of the servants”. Which is what Jesus is also saying to Peter in that passage as he serves the good of the entire Church.
N:

You’ll also note that Christ refused to provide a straight answer as to which of them was the greatest, so if anything that verse backs up the Orthodox position.

Jesus was gentle with them but He was direct. Who again does Jesus go to? It’s Peter.

As I said later in that thread I referenced

:
If the apostles at this point are still in doubt over which apostle is their leader,

especially when Jesus is

• continually singling Simon out from the others, changing his name to Peter, builing His Church on Peter, giving Peter the keys to the kingdom, allowing him to bind and loose on his own, allowing Peter to walk on water, having Peter pay his and Jesus tax to the temple, preaching from Peter’s boat, Peter is the one who will strengthen them after Satan sifts them all like wheat, Jesus prays specifically for Peter, confirming Peter is the leader,
• Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter…

then they really ARE slow. I don’t think that’s the case at all though, I just think this is how Satan works. He HATES God, HATES authority and those in authority, and even more, HATES obedience to authority. He will cause sedition, and division to authority, and disobedience to authority every chance he gets.

Jesus left no ambiguity who He chose as leader. It was Peter. Division is a result of Satan sifting.

 

[Nine_Two]

Peter never called Peter a hegemon. For starters the “you” in that verse is always in the plural, never in the singular. Second, “Hegemon” is a verb in the participle form, and is not being used as an adjective. Third, it is in the present tense, not future tense, thus it is not declaring that Peter will be a leader. Using your interpretation you would have to say Peter is above Christ himself.

Be careful when looking at Greek, just because the dictionary form (which is what you quoted) means one thing, doesn’t mean the actual form being used means the exact same thing. The actual word used is ἡγούμενος, not ἡγέομαι. Even if it was ἡγέομαι it wouldn’t quite convey the meaning you seem to be attaching to it. ἡγέση would be the form used if Jesus was saying that St. Peter “will be leader.”

 

[Hesychios]

That’s quite a rant.
…

That’s as offensive as anything I’ve seen posted over the years.

I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention.

Nevertheless, there have been Popes of every type I mentioned in my post, and it is unfortunately true that there is no way to remove one once he gets in there.

 

[Hesychios]

It appears no one here does.

The accusation of “confuse infallibility with impeccability” is a mild canard.

Josie throws these little comments out as red herrings.

No one has suggested here that a Pope, or any bishop, should be impeccable.

In fact Vasian, to whom Josie’s comment was directed, not only agreed but quoted some texts to show this. He is obviously well read on the topic.

Some people think that by pointing out Infallibility does not equal impeccability, that makes what Honorius did excusable.
My point is that this kind of argument can be (and apparently has been) used to justify simony, heresy, adultery and many other grievous sins.

The response to those ecclesial crimes should be to throw the bum out. But if the miscreant is a Pope of the Catholic church, this cannot be done without his own consent.

We are expected to believe that Jesus himself wanted this when He gave the keys to Peter? That’s the kind of ecclesiastical set up He anticipated the church developing into?

It’s excusable and defendable because the Pope never claimed to be impeccable?

 

[Hesychios]

Wrong.

• This isn’t about a city where the emperor resides. It’s about Peter and his successor and where he resides.

You are wrong in your response to me, perhaps because you misunderstood.

The Primus inter Pares for Orthodox Catholic Christianity was in Rome until 1054AD. Then Rome abandoned the communion and went off on it’s own, leaving Holy Orthodoxy behind.

Afterward, the Primus inter Pares for the remaining church fell to Constantinople, as next in honor and dignity. If you look please note that the bishops of Constantinople never exercised the types of powers that Latin Catholicism claims are the Pope’s prerogative.

In fact, no one had seen these powers exercised by any Primus inter Pares in the first millenium. Look for yourself.

If these things were being done for the church by Popes, the Patriarchs of Constantinople would have had to (and most assuredly would have wanted to) take them up and do them for the church after the schism.

I specifically mentioned the canonization of saints as merely one example. In the year 1200AD (almost 150 years after the schism) the bishops of Rome took that prerogative upon themselves not because their perennial powers were being attacked! History is very clear that the canonization of saints was always a local matter in the east and in the west, and every Catholic source will point this out to you, so your argument does not stand.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think that’s what Josie is saying at all. She hasn’t said that his behavior was excusable. If anything she made the point a few pages back that Honorius was guilty of inaction, bad judgment, and foolhardiness. I agree with her. The argument she and many other Catholics are making, me included, is that Honorius’s poor judgment in recommending silence and inaction with Monothelitism had nothing to do with infallibility. Pope’s can have private opinions that are idiotic or heretical, it’s the official teaching and dogma that they teach that is protected by infallibility. And since he never officially proclaimed it to the masses and issued edicts or public recommendations to accept and extoll Monothelitism, it’s not a breach of his infallibility, just lousy private judgment. And with the little Honorius was told by Sergius, the Lombards being Honorius’s preoccupation, and the poor communication between Rome and Constantinople that was well-known at that time, it didn’t help Honorius to make wise choices personally anyway. The reason Josie keeps bringing up impeccability vs. infallibility is because Orthodox arguments seem to keep focusing on Honorius and his private sins, his private missteps, not his official dogma, which would lead a Catholic to feel an Orthodox must not understand the difference…otherwise, why would an informed person make the argument?

Josie throws these little comments out as red herrings.

No one has suggested here that a Pope, or any bishop, should be impeccable.

In fact Vasian, to whom Josie’s comment was directed, not only agreed but quoted some texts to show this. He is obviously well read on the topic.

**Some people think that by pointing out Infallibility does not equal impeccability, that makes what Honorius did excusable.**My point is that this kind of argument can be (and apparently has been) used to justify simony, heresy, adultery and many other grievous sins.

The response to those ecclesial crimes should be to throw the bum out. But if the miscreant is a Pope of the Catholic church, this cannot be done without his own consent.

We are expected to believe that Jesus himself wanted this when He gave the keys to Peter? That’s the kind of ecclesiastical set up He anticipated the church developing into?

It’s excusable and defendable because the Pope never claimed to be impeccable?

 

[Nine_Two]

Honorius was condemned as a heretic. That goes beyond private sin.

 

[GeorgeSword]

The Orthodox church makes the most sence to me for several reasons.

1. The latin church easily wins a debate against any protestant, because the protestant movment was such a major failure that the only reason to remain protestant is because YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF ORTHODOXY…and you don’t agree with Roman catholosism.

Agreed, except for the part about Orthodoxy.

2)The idea of one bishop above all others is not logical…OR directly proclaimed in the bible…or Tradishion with a capitol “T”. If the Church needed ONE bishop to govern a global church, then Christ choosing 12 apostles makes no sence…he would have only needed ONE APOSTLE which would have been peter, the rest would have been diciples under peter.
Not 12 men with the same title…for example you don’t have 12 kings with one king over other kings…no you have one king…then all others have a completely different title and job function.

There was no reason to have multiple leaders at the time - Christ was on earth. Christ taught multiple men to lead His Church, as only one would not be sufficient in number to propagate the message to the far corners of the earth. Peter himself could not have done alone what had to be done - to spread Christ’s message to the furthest corners of the Roman Empire, and the world.

1. what one man has the wisdom to govern a global Church, or the moral conduct?
   Before the answer that God would give ONE man this wisdom…first find it in the bible where God states this…HE DOSENT…its just asumed that if something was told to one person to feed his sheep for example, that it wasent ment for all sheapherds…or a key to the kingdom was givin to one apostle…that it didn’t mean all apostles had this athority.

One man has neither the wisdom nor the moral conduct to lead Christ’s sheep on his own, but with God, all is possible. Whom does God tell to feed His sheep? Whom does God speak to when He declares that they have the keys?

1. Peter had the same title…writings in the same bible with no more weight then any other apostle…peter was not in one city ruling over the lands converted by other apostles…he traveled just like all other apostles and died in rome…but had he not, he probably would have traveled somewhere else to spread the gospel…the whole idea is simply foreign to scripture unless certain scriptures are added to in order to get the papal idea from them.

The words of Jesus as recorded in the Bible hold no more authority than the narrative in which the words are contained, or even the Epistles of Paul. They are equal. Is Jesus, therefore, not above the other writers of the Bible in authority?
Peter didn’t so much rule over the apostles as the Pope would in modern times. The slowness of travel and difficulty of communication didn’t allow for that. For the most part we see the apostles communicating to an extent through writing, but periodically meeting for a council, with Peter at their head. When a debate rises, who settles it? Not John. Not Paul. Not Jude. Not all of them. They don’t come to an agreement. Peter settles it. With a few words, Peter settles it…

1. The Church is divine, and dosent need a human head like man made companies.
   Again one man dose not even have the ability to sheapherd a global church…but one man can sheapherd his jurisdiction as a bishop. Just look at the latin Church today…there are liberal bishops, parishes becoming more protestant, huge problems in america as so many latin Catholics don’t know anything about there church because of a blatant problem with schools and RCIA…one man is not close to fixing half these problems.

One man cannot govern the Church alone - but he can have authority over it. If the Pope was the only bishop, I agree, there would be complete, total utter chaos. Luckily, we have bishops with authority as well, and though the Pope is their head, they directly take care of their jurisdiction. And I ask, too, is the Orthodox Church perfect? Do they have no problems?

1. haven’t we already proved that it dosent work anyway, which was the whole reason for the protestant revolt. If it wasent broke martin luther would have had no real valid issues…these were not issues of human imperfection, but actual wrong practises going on in a church that one man is supposed to stop from happening to begin with.

There was a break that occurred before Luther - East and West broke. If there being a break automatically means that system doesn’t work, then does that not undermine the Orthodox claims as well? The Orthodox claim that the Church was governed before the split entirely as they do so now, whereas the Catholics say prior to the split all recognized the bishop of Rome. Historical writing point towards the later, but if the Orthodox are right, would not, using your logic, the split also harm Orthodox claims that their system ‘works’?

1. simply no point in having other bishops if one is needed,

As mentioned above, someone has to govern directly the different jurisdictions and carry out direct action. The Pope cannot govern such a large body all on his own, but that does not mean that he does not have more authority than the bishops.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nobody is disputing his being condemned a heretic. But what was the source of the heresy: public proclamations or private letters expressing inaction? Did this heretic publically teach the heresy? Does the Catholic Church teach that private opinions enter into the infallible teaching charism of the papacy?

Honorius was condemned as a heretic. That goes beyond private sin.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nobody is disputing his being condemned a heretic. But what was the source of the heresy: public proclamations or private letters expressing inaction? Did this heretic publically teach the heresy? Does the Catholic Church teach that private opinions enter into the infallible teaching charism of the papacy?

To actually be anathematised by a council requires a bit more than simply privately holding beliefs.