Papal authority for gryskull

[Contarini]

Gryskull,

Since you rightly pointed out that we had wandered away from the theme of the thread, I’m moving the discussion of papal primacy to a new thread. Possibly there isn’t much to say that hasn’t been said before, but who knows?

You had made what I found the rather paradoxical statement

The Bishop or Rome being the successor of Peter, the head of the Church was always accepted in the early Church; though the East had its tendency to rebel against the West

To which I responded that clearly by your own admission, if the East was as rebellious as all that, the authority of Rome was not accepted by large parts of the Church for large periods of time. To which you now respond:

I certainly wouldn’t admit to that. The authority of Rome was very clear. At least in the mainstream fathers. St. Ireneus of Lyon, in his writing Against Heresies, points to her as being superior in which all churches must agree.

Or to the city of Rome having a “more powerful principality” [potiorem principatum] as the capital of the Empire, and containing Christians from all over the Empire, making it the best place to get the pulse of the whole Church. The passage is highly ambiguous and has been translated in more than one way. It will not bear the weight you are trying to put on it, although it does indicate that Rome had some kind of primacy–which, as I said, I’m not questioning.

St. Augustine said “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.”

Actually, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, he said: “Jam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est”. (Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the replies have come back; the question is settled.)
However, the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to note: “But he was mistaken; the matter was not yet settled.” After the death of Innocent I, his successor Zosimus reopened the case because he wasn’t sure Pelagius was really a heretic. The African bishops protested, and Zosimus sent the documents to Africa where they held a council and condemned Pelagius. The Pope did finally uphold the judgment of this council.

So while it’s true that Rome ultimately condemned Pelagius, Augustine’s quote is not only cited inaccurately but taken completely out of context. The cause wasn’t settled when he thought it was, and ultimately it was the Africans themselves who settled it, with Rome simply approving their decision.

St. Basil the Great when he saw the eastern churches in disarray because of arianism he writes to Pope Damasus and ask to intervene and bring the churches(eastern) back in communion.

And of course he would–as I said, no one disputes that Rome had primacy. However, you have chosen a rather unfortunate example to make your point. Once again, I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Some difficulty has arisen out of the correspondence of St. Basil with the Roman See. That he was in communion with the Western bishops and that he wrote repeatedly to Rome asking that steps be taken to assist the Eastern Church in her struggle with schismatics and heretics is undoubted; but the disappointing result of his appeals drew from him certain words which require explanation.” The CE tries to make the best of this, pointing out that Basis did put a lot of stress on Rome’s influence. But it’s clear from the Encyclopedia’s embarrassment that the whole incident doesn’t support the later Roman Catholic (I use that term here quite deliberately, not intending to give offence but choosing clarity over political correctness) understanding of the primacy.

St. Ignatius of Antioch refers to HER as the church who holds the presidency in his letter to the romans.

Actually he says that Rome “presides in love.” No one knows exactly what that means. It certainly is not a very clear definition of the primacy, and it is not something which conflicts with either Protestant or Orthodox interpretations of said primacy.

St. Clement of Rome dare settles the conflicts arising in the church of corinth.

He exhorts them, yes. He hardly uses language that implies the sort of jurisdictional primacy claimed by later Popes. I know that many devout Catholics see such implications in I Clement, but those of us who don’t already come with Catholic assumptions do not see those implications. We see a primacy that consisted in persuasion and influence more than anything else.

We can see through the early church that Rome had authority and a special office.

But this is not controversial. The extent of that authority and the nature of that office are under dispute.

 

[Contarini]

What seems ironic to me is your very own words. You acknowledge the primacy of Rome but not the authority behind HER office. That could hardly be reconciled.

I apologize if my careless language confused you. Given that you were clearly claiming that the early Church is on the side of Catholicism against Protestantism and Orthodoxy, I presumed that by “the authority of the Pope” you meant those aspects of papal authority denied by Protestants and Orthodox.

I do not deny papal primacy or papal authority. I deny that papal authority is unlimited. When Rome tries to exert tyrannical authority (that is, authority that exceeds its just limits), any resulting schism is at least partly the fault of Rome. It seems clear to me that the medieval papacy did try to exert tyrannical authority over the East. That is not to say that the East was guiltless either. There’s plenty of fault to go around in the shape of a lack of charity and humility.

The same is true of the Reformation, although Protestants were far less justified than the Easterners had been. But it’s hard to deny that the papacy of the early 16th century was tyrannical in many ways.

Just because you(and others) don’t recognize HER authoritty doesn’t mean that SHE doesn’t have it.

True, but that’s not the point. You were appealing to history to show that the claims of the papacy in more modern times are correct. You were arguing that the claims of papal authority now rejected by Protestants and Orthodox were accepted consistently by the early Church. This was not the case. That doesn’t mean that those claims are wrong, simply that their truth is not patently obvious from history.

[QUOTEWith regard to the east being in schism during the early years of Christianity, yes I would admit to that. But they were only in schism for a short time and then they would reunite back with Rome.
[/QUOTE]

Hardly. Again I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: “From the beginning of the See of Constantinople to the great schism in 867 the list of these temporary breaches of communion is a formidable one. There were fifty-five years of schism (343-98) during the Arian troubles, eleven because of St. John Chrysostom’s deposition (404-15), thirty-five years of the Acacian schism (484-519), forty-one years of Monothelite schism (640-81), sixty-one years because of Iconoclasm. So of these 544 years (323-867) no less than 203 were spent by Constantinople in a state of schism.” And as the Encyclopedia notes, Constantinople was usually follows by much of the East. As with Basil, the CE puts a strongly pro-Catholic slant on the whole story. I’m citing them here simply to establish the fact that the East frequently defied Rome. The CE doesn’t include in that list the schism under Photius (because they are about to discuss that schism at that point in the article).

Not until 1054. This was marked by the excommunication of Marcus Ceraularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, by Pope Leo IX. But during this time the Primacy and Authority of the Pope has been well established.

Actually, at that time the See of Rome, for understandable reasons given the historical context, had begun to make unprecedented claims of authority. (Read the Dictatus Papae: they make Vatican I look like an ecumenical picnic.) Rome was to a large extent inventing its own canon law because traditional canon law didn’t justify papal authority. This has been called the “Gregorian Revolution.” Obviously to Catholics it is just another step in the development of the Faith. But to non-Catholics it appears in a very different light. No wonder that conflict with the East broke out at this time. The Popes had enough trouble getting Western Christians to accept their innovations.

You did not address the point of whether the excommunication of Cerularius was justified. The bull of excommunication cited, among other things, the omission of the Filioque from the Creed. Given that this “omission” was simply the failure to go along with a Western innovation resisted by the Popes until the 11th century, how can such an excommunication be justified? This alone makes the claim that “the Orthodox split away” bogus. The Catholic Church today allows the Eastern Catholic churches to omit the Filioque (this is separate from the doctrinal question of whether the Filioque is correct). This is a tacit confession that Cardinal Humbert was wrong. (Cerularius was no paragon of meekness either, be it said. Again, there are plenty of faults to go around.)

Edwin

 

[gryskull]

Before anything else I want to let you know that it pleases me to have this conversation with you.This allows me to know my faith and what others think the Catholic Church teaches. Although we are on different sides of the fence, I know that we are only seeking the truth.

Before I get into any details I first want to establish something. In your previous post you have said that you recoginze the Primacy of Rome and HER authority…but to a certain degree. If this is so, to what extent do you recognize it. Is it that SHE only has authority over her see and not the whole church? That SHE is not the supreme teacher when it comes to faith and morals? That the other churches(eastern) has the same level of authority as SHE does? I just want some clarification.

P.S.
It will take sometime before I could reply back since I only have limited time to read all the things that you pointed out.

 

[Contarini]

Gryskull,

Thank you for your courteous reply. The main limit I’m interested in is the limit that many Catholics argued for right up to Vatican I–namely that Papal pronouncements are always subject to review by the Church as a whole, represented by an Ecumenical Council. This isn’t a Council vs. Pope matter per se, since a Council would have to include (or at least be approved by) a validly elected Pope. In other words, I’m not getting into the question of how (and whether) a papal decision might be overturned against the will of the current Pope (obviously the Pope might change his mind or a later Pope might overrule the previous Pope’s decision); the bottom line as I see it is that any papal decision cannot automatically be taken as the decision of the entire Church unless/until it is confirmed either by common consent (i.e., if all controversy on the matter ended) or by an Ecumenical Council. Of course, this ceased to be an acceptable position within Catholicism more than a century before I was born. And that is probably my single biggest doctrinal issue with modern Catholicism.

The second and even more complex issue concerns the essential equality and (in a sense) autonomy of all bishops. The “in a sense” is why this is more complex and less clear-cut than the previous issue. Obviously the Church must be able to act as a Universal Body. But I cannot escape the impression when reading the Fathers that the Church was seen as a fellowship of local churches led by bishops (i.e., local pastors of the Church in a particular city), and that the universal structures of the Church were primarily structures of consultation and consensus, rather than bureaucratic structures enabling a central authority to give orders to its “branch offices.” It’s very hard to define exactly at what point the growth of bureaucracy and the bureaucratic outlook ceases to be a contingent and legitimate development (whether good, bad, or indifferent) and becomes a genuine corruption. But something went wrong somewhere. The papal appointment of bishops is one place I can point to (and I know that in many, maybe most of the Orthodox churches bishops are appointed by some metropolitan or patriarch instead of being elected in the ancient and canonical manner; there is at least some lip service to the principle election among the Orthodox, but that appears to be all it is).

I hope this is at least somewhat helpful.

Edwin

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

Or to the city of Rome having a “more powerful principality” [potiorem principatum] as the capital of the Empire, and containing Christians from all over the Empire, making it the best place to get the pulse of the whole Church. The passage is highly ambiguous and has been translated in more than one way. It will not bear the weight you are trying to put on it, although it does indicate that Rome had some kind of primacy–which, as I said, I’m not questioning.

Not true. Ignatious does not speak of the city of rome. He speaks about the Church in Rome. Here are the exact words:

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].

Actually, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, he said: “Jam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est”. (Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the replies have come back; the question is settled.)
However, the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to note: “But he was mistaken; the matter was not yet settled.” After the death of Innocent I, his successor Zosimus reopened the case because he wasn’t sure Pelagius was really a heretic. The African bishops protested, and Zosimus sent the documents to Africa where they held a council and condemned Pelagius. The Pope did finally uphold the judgment of this council.

So while it’s true that Rome ultimately condemned Pelagius, Augustine’s quote is not only cited inaccurately but taken completely out of context. The cause wasn’t settled when he thought it was, and ultimately it was the Africans themselves who settled it, with Rome simply approving their decision.

The matter was settled. The doctrines that pelagius and caelestius were teaching were condemed. The heresy tended to go on. Two distinc matters. When the african bishops convened and condemed the doctrines of pelagius the matter was also settled. The problem is it was only binding within their see and not the universal church. They sought the authority of the apostolic see, as mentioned in the CE, so as to bind the whole church. With regard to the continuation of the heresy, yes it did continue even to the time of Pope Zosimus.

I just like to note also the Pope Zosimus didn’t reverse the decision of his predecessor in condeming the false doctrine that pelagius was spreading since that was already settled. What he did was to reinvestigate the matter of involvement of pelagius. Pelagius was able deceive the pope since he was saying something while doing a totally different thing. This is what he did also when he was summoned by the african bishops earlier.

Cealestius while trying to be a presbyter was summoned by a council of bishops in carthage to recant his heretical view but he didn’t. His views were condemed and wasn’t allowed to be a priest but he stated his intentions to *appeal to rome. *The question is why? Why would he appeal to rome if his views were already condemned by a council. Because he knew where the ultmate authority was although he never did appeal to rome since he was ordained somewhere else(ephesus).

Here is another quote from St. Augustine

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church,274 the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!”

Here he speaks about the bishops of Rome.

This will do for now.

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

And of course he would–as I said, no one disputes that Rome had primacy. However, you have chosen a rather unfortunate example to make your point. Once again, I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Some difficulty has arisen out of the correspondence of St. Basil with the Roman See. That he was in communion with the Western bishops and that he wrote repeatedly to Rome asking that steps be taken to assist the Eastern Church in her struggle with schismatics and heretics is undoubted; but the disappointing result of his appeals drew from him certain words which require explanation.” The CE tries to make the best of this, pointing out that Basis did put a lot of stress on Rome’s influence. But it’s clear from the Encyclopedia’s embarrassment that the whole incident doesn’t support the later Roman Catholic (I use that term here quite deliberately, not intending to give offence but choosing clarity over political correctness) understanding of the primacy.

The reason why I cited the situation of St. Basil is because he clearly knew where the authority was. Arianism during that time created such havoc in the eastern churches. One of the reasons was because some of the eastern bishops became semi-arians. To me, the chaos was caused by their very own because some of the bishops tolerated the heresy instead of sticking to orthodoxy. Why? Here’s one reason I see, politics. They tolerated it because they wanted to gain favor with the emperor since he himself favored the arians. Now my question is, why did St. Basil appeal to Rome if a council is what it takes to settle the situation? St. Basil could have called his brother bishops and settled it themselves. But no, he appealed to rome since that’s where the authority lies. Not until the intervention of rome did the heresy start to die.

Actually he says that Rome “presides in love.” No one knows exactly what that means. It certainly is not a very clear definition of the primacy, and it is not something which conflicts with either Protestant or Orthodox interpretations of said primacy.

There is a little bit of a discrepancy between what newadent says and what Jurgens says and this is something I will not argue.

He exhorts them, yes. He hardly uses language that implies the sort of jurisdictional primacy claimed by later Popes. I know that many devout Catholics see such implications in I Clement, but those of us who don’t already come with Catholic assumptions do not see those implications. We see a primacy that consisted in persuasion and influence more than anything else.

Partly true if you only look at the exhortations itself. But if you look at the situation it is different.

The church in corinth is having some problems. The bishop and presbyters and not being followed. Now who did they appeal to? They appealed to St. Clement. Why? Remember, St. John the apostle was still alive then and he lived in Ephesus which was a lot closer to corinth than Rome(map). If there was anyone who had authority it was St. John. Again, my question is why appeal to St. Clement?

In Clements epistle we him exercising his authority. A little bit closer to the end of his epistle he commands the dissenters to submit to the presbyters.

 

[gryskull]

…con’t

This all shows the authority of the Bishop of Rome. I am not saying that the other churches didn’t have authority but it wasn’t the same as the authority that the Bishop of Rome has. Councils have authority and their decisions are binding but only on a local level unless the pope intervenes and binds the whole church then it becomes ecumenical. This has been the tradition and it still goes on up to this time.

Every apostle was given the power to forgive sins but only peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Only Peter was prayed for by Jesus to strengthen his brothers. It was to Peters care that the flock of Jesus was left to. Peter was different. Rome is different.

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:

Not true. Ignatious does not speak of the city of rome. He speaks about the Church in Rome.

That’s not entirely clear–scholars argue about it.

It’s certainly very possible, even likely, that “potentiorem principalitatem” (I’m not sure where I got the variant I quoted from–it was how I remembered it–but it may be a textual difference; at any rate the meaning is the same) refers to the primacy of the church of Rome. But it’s by no means certain. The possessive pronoun “its” is not present in the Latin (that would be “eius” or “suam”). Latin often dispenses with the possessive pronoun when the meaning is clear otherwise, which is why the meaning you favor remains likely. But it could also mean “on account of [the city’s] more eminent principality.” Since this is a translation of a now lost Greek text, it’s hard to be certain what the precise meaning is. It’s simply not a passage on which you can base too much. The English translation you cite makes it sound a lot clearer than it really is. Another example of this is the translation of “convenire.” This literally means “come together with.” The Latin text could quite easily mean that Christians from all over the empire come to Rome because it’s the capital, making the Roman church the best place to find the tradition preserved by Christians everywhere. However, “convenire” can also mean “agree with,” and that’s how it’s generally translated here. Again, there’s simply no way to be certain. (The English word “convention” has preserved the same ambiguity. “Convention” can mean a group of people who come together for a meeting, or it can mean an agreed-on, traditional way of doing things.)

The matter was settled. The doctrines that pelagius and caelestius were teaching were condemed. The heresy tended to go on. Two distinc matters.

No, because the later Pope questioned whether Pelagius was actually a heretic. Granted, the question was not whether Pelagius’s teaching as interpreted by Augustine was heretical, but whether Augustine’s polemical interpretation of Pelagius was correct. But that’s still a significant issue, and Augustine was wrong when he thought that Rome had settled that particular issue. (I don’t think anyone has ever defended Pelagius’s teaching in the form Augustine attacked it–the question was whether the statements Pelagius made yielded all the implications Augustine found in them.) I don’t see how you can get around this. It wasn’t simply that the heresy went on in spite of condemnation by Rome–it was that a later Pope reopened the case, putting in question the condemnation issued by his predecessor.

Pelagius was able deceive the pope since he was saying something while doing a totally different thing.

That’s a convenient but not very convincing interpretation of what happened. I see no reason to think that Pelagius was the blatant hypocrite you are describing. Rather, Pelagius and his supporters did not think that his teaching had the heretical implications Augustine found there. And the Pope was at least temporarily inclined to agree, enough to reopen the case anyway. (To put the issue briefly, Augustine was accusing Pelagius of teaching that human beings could save themselves without divine grace. Pelagius would reject this accusation indignantly, but what he meant by “grace” was, from Augustine’s point of view, inadequate. If you look at a respected Eastern Father such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, you find him using very similar language to the language Pelagius was condemned for using–in his homilies on the Beatitudes he speaks of Christ’s commands as if they had in themselves the power to change the human heart, which is pretty much what Augustine objected to in Pelagius’s teaching. These issues are always more complicated than they appear.)

Here he speaks about the bishops of Rome.

True enough. But since I’m not denying the unique authority of the Roman see, these quotes aren’t relevant (for me–I’ll back you up against those Protestants who don’t recognize any kind of papal authority). Our disagreement is about the extent of papal authority, not its existence.

I agree entirely that the consent of the See of Rome is necessary in order for the Church to settle any matter authoritatively. But I don’t think that it is *sufficient. *Since Vatican I Catholics are, it seems to me, obligated to believe that it is sufficient, at least in some sense. And that I cannot find in the Fathers. The See of Rome is the most important single organ of authority within the universal Church. But it is only a part of the universal Church, and like any other part it is subordinate to the whole and cannot arrogate to itself the authority that belongs to the whole. This, in the judgment of Protestants and Orthodox, it has done for the past millenium or so, but most clearly since 1870.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:

The reason why I cited the situation of St. Basil is because he clearly knew where the authority was.

And when Rome did not use that authority as he wanted it to, he used language that the CE (without telling us what it was) finds hard to reconcile with a Catholic understanding of papal authority. In other words, he accepted the authority of Rome but he did not think that that authority was unquestionable or infallible. That is exactly the point of view for which I’m arguing.

Now my question is, why did St. Basil appeal to Rome if a council is what it takes to settle the situation?

Well, one answer is the one you just gave (and I omitted to save space). For political reasons, the eastern bishops were more wishy-washy with regard to Arianism. However, your question is puzzling, because in fact it was a Council (I Constantinople), and not the unilateral intervention of Rome (in fact Rome was not involved in I Constantinople, if I remember correctly, although it accepted the Council’s decrees of course) that eventually resolved the controversy.

Councils, obviously, are difficult to call. And not all Councils wind up being true Ecumenical Councils. There are plenty of reasons to appeal to Rome. But Basil’s behavior shows that he did not think that Rome was the final, unquestioned authority in the Church.

Generally, I’m not very impressed by claims that Father X recognized Roman authority because he appealed to it when he thought it was on his side. We all tend to invoke the authorities that we think will support us. (We conservative Anglicans, for instance, invoke the authority of the Anglican Communion, but we do so because we believe it is orthodox. We don’t think it is infallible.) I’m much more interested in how the Fathers behaved when they *disagreed *with Rome. And I can’t see that their behavior in those circumstances bears out modern Catholic claims.

The church in corinth is having some problems. The bishop and presbyters and not being followed. Now who did they appeal to? They appealed to St. Clement. Why? Remember, St. John the apostle was still alive then and he lived in Ephesus which was a lot closer to corinth than Rome(map). If there was anyone who had authority it was St. John.

You don’t know this–it’s highly speculative. And since I’m not disputing that Rome has unique authority within the Church it’s not relevant either. If you want to argue about whether Rome has authority, go argue with someone else. I accept that the Church at Rome received the authority that St. Peter held within the college of Apostles. I simply deny that this authority was that claimed by the Gregorian papacy or by Vatican I. It was an authority exercised through persuasion and exhortation and the building of consensus rather than through direct command. It’s interesting that, as you note, St. Clement intervened to support the legitimate authority of the local presbyters. If he were condemning the local presbyters and appointing his own representatives to lead the Church at Corinth, then you would have a much stronger case.

Edwin

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

True enough. But since I’m not denying the unique authority of the Roman see, these quotes aren’t relevant (for me–I’ll back you up against those Protestants who don’t recognize any kind of papal authority). Our disagreement is about the extent of papal authority, not its existence.

I agree entirely that the consent of the See of Rome is necessary in order for the Church to settle any matter authoritatively. But I don’t think that it is *sufficient. *Since Vatican I Catholics are, it seems to me, obligated to believe that it is sufficient, at least in some sense. And that I cannot find in the Fathers. The See of Rome is the most important single organ of authority within the universal Church. But it is only a part of the universal Church, and like any other part it is subordinate to the whole and cannot arrogate to itself the authority that belongs to the whole. This, in the judgment of Protestants and Orthodox, it has done for the past millenium or so, but most clearly since 1870.

Edwin

This statement of your is something I find really odd. You say that the authority of Rome is unique. You say that the consent of Rome is needed to settle a matter authoritatively. Now my question is, how is rome’s authority unique? Why would you need her consent to settle a matter authoritatively? Why would a council be called ecumenical only if rome gave her consent?

These are the questions that I cannot find an answer to with your arguments. We see two different shades of arguments when it came to the church fathers. You say that pelagius’ heresy didn’t get settled when rome declared it so. I see it as settled since it was binding to the whole church. We can argue on and on on the church fathers without coming to an agreement. But the question still remains. Why is Rome unique as your above statement says so? How is her authority unique and different from the whole church? 'Coz if what she says is only binding to her see then that is not something unique because the bishops of other churches can do that to.

The church of rome has never been tyrannical as you so assert. She only exercises her authority that was given to her and that was unique only to her.

We conservative Anglicans, for instance, invoke the authority of the Anglican Communion, but we do so because we believe it is orthodox. We don’t think it is infallible

I don’t know how orthodoxy and infallibility can be separated. If you remain orthodox to the teachings of Christ how can you be fallible? Rome has remained true when the eastern bishops have swayed in times of heresy for political reasons. And that is her job. To remain firm in truth no matter what and this she does with great authority.

In any kind of government there will be a final authority. The hierarchy will always be there. There will be someone who will speak for the whole even if there are some who oppose him. In a hierarchical form of goverment the very leader(let’s say the president) doesn’t take away the authority of the local leaders(mayors, governor, etc.). Same goes with the church. Local bishops are suppose to settle the problems of their own diocese. But when it comes to matters that are much greater(matters that pertain to the country of America) then a synod or council can be called. But a council is only ecumenical when the authority of the pope is called in. Why? Because it binds the whole church and this is what I’ve been arguing for looking at the church fathers. I want to know if there has been any council that became ecumenical without the authority of the pope being called for(there are 21 and you can correct me if i’m wrong).

Her authority didn’t come from her own. It was given to her by Christ. This is what makes her unique. I don’t think you or your church would have any problems exercising such authority if you were in her place. I don’t think that you would give it up either just to be equal with the others. Would you not exercise the authority given to you by the Master himself if you knew you had it? I think you would. The only problem is, the authority of leading the flock(the church) of Christ fell onto Peter and his succesors and not the other apostles. But that is not to say that the other apostles didn’t have authority. What I’m saying is Peter was just unique, and you said it yourself.

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:

This statement of your is something I find really odd. You say that the authority of Rome is unique. You say that the consent of Rome is needed to settle a matter authoritatively. Now my question is, how is rome’s authority unique? Why would you need her consent to settle a matter authoritatively? Why would a council be called ecumenical only if rome gave her consent?

For all the reasons that you think this–because the bishop of Rome is the rightful successor of St. Peter. You shouldn’t find this odd. I understand that you would find it odd that I don’t go “all the way,” and I’m happy to explain why.

You say that pelagius’ heresy didn’t get settled when rome declared it so. I see it as settled since it was binding to the whole church. We can argue on and on on the church fathers without coming to an agreement. But the question still remains. Why is Rome unique as your above statement says so? How is her authority unique and different from the whole church? 'Coz if what she says is only binding to her see then that is not something unique because the bishops of other churches can do that to.

It is binding, but only if it receives the consent of the whole Church (as many Catholics believed until 1870). I never said that Rome’s authority is restricted to one see. (For that matter, historically many bishops have exercised authority beyond their local see.) Rome’s authority is the authority to speak for the whole Church. But if it becomes clear that Rome is not speaking for the mind of the Church as a whole, then Rome’s pronouncements are null and void.

My position is quite simple, really, at least in principle. As long as Rome does not support a position, it cannot be said that the whole Church supports it (and this is true of no other single see). But the fact that Rome supports a position does not mean that the whole Church supports it. Rome + the consensus of the Church = authority. Rome without consensus does not have final authority. A consensus that doesn’t include Rome has no final authority.

The problem of course is in applying this in practice. When is a consensus in place? And that’s where there is no simple answer, which is why modern ultramontanism (like Protestant paleofundamentalism) is so appealing.

The church of rome has never been tyrannical as you so assert. She only exercises her authority that was given to her and that was unique only to her.

Well, that’s one of those statements that is impossible to refute, because clearly you’re assuming a priori that whatever Rome does is a legitimate exercise of authority. (It’s like saying “The Supreme Court can never misinterpret the Constitution because the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution.”) And that’s precisely what I’m challenging.

I don’t know how orthodoxy and infallibility can be separated.

And this is a common confusion in the modern world. I suspect that the divisions of Christians are to blame. We can afford a sane view of authority and consensus when we have a sufficiently unified Christendom to achieve consensus. But in the chaotic post-Reformation world, people have become more and more fond of some kind of infallible authority to shortcut the hard work of reaching consensus.

But I challenge you to defend this view logically. It seems to me that you’re confusing being “infallible” with being right. But these are two completely different things. Infallible means that a given authority can be counted on, before the fact, to give a reliably correct answer, with no possibility that it will ever go wrong. That’s obviously not the same thing as being orthodox.

 

[Contarini]

If you remain orthodox to the teachings of Christ how can you be fallible?

Well, if over a long period of time you always take a fully orthodox position on every matter, no matter how small, then granted you have some excuse for suspecting that you are infallible. But of course with regard to the post-schism Papacy this begs the question, since the claim of Protestants and Orthodox is precisely that Rome’s teachings in the past thousand years have not been fully correct. Even in the first thousand years, Rome did in fact sway from time to time, but admittely it was rare and never reached the stage of formally teaching heresy. This is unquestionably a remarkable record. But not enough to warrant our placing implicit trust in whatever Rome may choose to decree in the future, in spite of the evidence of the *past *thousand years.

I think you’re assuming that God is far more predictable than we have any reason to believe that He is. God is faithful to His promises, but in the absence of a promise we should not second-guess Him. If you could show that the promise to Peter in Matt. 16 implied infallibility, then you would have a case. But I do not find that argument convincing at all. The major issue is that many Catholics see any error, however small, as equivalent to the gates of hell prevailing. I simply don’t find this convincing. I think the Church can fall into relatively serious errors without abandoning the Faith. God will ultimately bring us back, but it may take a while. That’s the essence of the Protestant claim–not that the Church apostasized, but that the Church sometimes gets confused about certain things and that God can use unlikely instruments to bring her back on track.

In any kind of government there will be a final authority.

But this analogy doesn’t help you at all, because secular governments are not infallible. The Supreme Court is an excellent example. Roe v. Wade was a disastrously wrong decision, and it wasn’t the only one the Court has made in its 200+ years of history. But it still has considerable authority.

And I grant that no Council permanently opposed by the Pope (Vigilius did oppose 2 Constantinople for a while, but he came around with a bit of nudging from the Emperor) can be called Ecumenical. That’s exactly what I said, and what you found odd.

It was given to her by Christ. This is what makes her unique. I don’t think you or your church would have any problems exercising such authority if you were in her place. I don’t think that you would give it up either just to be equal with the others. Would you not exercise the authority given to you by the Master himself if you knew you had it? I think you would.

I’m not really sure what this is supposed to mean, frankly. It looks like begging the question. The question is precisely what authority has been given Rome by Christ. I deny that this authority is absolute or unquestionable. I maintain rather that it flows out of the consensus of the whole Church and is dependent on it. And in this I believe that I am agreeing with the majority of the early Church, the Eastern Church up to this day, and many Catholics until Vatican I.

Edwin

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

It is binding, but only if it receives the consent of the whole Church (as many Catholics believed until 1870). I never said that Rome’s authority is restricted to one see. (For that matter, historically many bishops have exercised authority beyond their local see.) Rome’s authority is the authority to speak for the whole Church. But if it becomes clear that Rome is not speaking for the mind of the Church as a whole, then Rome’s pronouncements are null and void.

I don’t think we have anything to argue with the above statement. I believe the same thing to. The bishop of rome is not infallible at all times. He doesn’t exercise his charism like it was something magical. He too can be corrected. He is not impeccable as others would think the doctrine of infalliblity teaches. All I’m saying is that the bishop of rome, as you so said, has the authority to speak for the whole church. He is the one on top of the heirarchy. I don’t think your belief contradicts catholic teaching.

My position is quite simple, really, at least in principle. As long as Rome does not support a position, it cannot be said that the whole Church supports it (and this is true of no other single see). But the fact that Rome supports a position does not mean that the whole Church supports it. Rome + the consensus of the Church = authority. Rome without consensus does not have final authority. A consensus that doesn’t include Rome has no final authority.

And this is what i’ve been trying to emphasize. Like I said before, I’m not trying to take away the authority of the local bishops. All I’ve been trying to say is that the Bishop of Rome has a authority unique only to him.

But I challenge you to defend this view logically. It seems to me that you’re confusing being “infallible” with being right. But these are two completely different things. Infallible means that a given authority can be counted on, before the fact, to give a reliably correct answer, with no possibility that it will ever go wrong. That’s obviously not the same thing as being orthodox.

True and I’m not saying it is. What I’m saying is they go hand in hand. It is inseperable because if you are infallible you also are orthodox and vice versa. That’s why I asked “If you are orthodox(being true or of the right opinion) then how can you go wrong(infallible)?”

Well, if over a long period of time you always take a fully orthodox position on every matter, no matter how small, then granted you have some excuse for suspecting that you are infallible. But of course with regard to the post-schism Papacy this begs the question, since the claim of Protestants and Orthodox is precisely that Rome’s teachings in the past thousand years have not been fully correct. Even in the first thousand years, Rome did in fact sway from time to time, but admittely it was rare and never reached the stage of formally teaching heresy. This is unquestionably a remarkable record. But not enough to warrant our placing implicit trust in whatever Rome may choose to decree in the future, in spite of the evidence of the *past *thousand years.

Here is where I think the confusion is. If your use of the word ROME is limited to the bishop of rome and not to the teaching authority, then I would agree. But the catholic church has never said that he couldn’t go wrong. That is impeccability and that is where most of the non-catholics err in their understanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility. What the CC says is that he will not teach, ex-cathedra, anything that is wrong in his scope of authority which is faith and morals. And this you so agree with your words. And how often does the pope exercise such authority you might ask, correct me if i’m wrong, twice in 2005 years.

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

I think the Church can fall into relatively serious errors without abandoning the Faith.

if you mean the church as a whole, I’d ask you how? How can the whole church fall into serious error and still keep the faith. Seems like total apostasy to me.

But this analogy doesn’t help you at all, because secular governments are not infallible. The Supreme Court is an excellent example. Roe v. Wade was a disastrously wrong decision, and it wasn’t the only one the Court has made in its 200+ years of history. But it still has considerable authority.

I’m not saying they are. All I’m trying to point out is that you’ll always have a hierarchy in any kind of government and so is true with the church. There will always be someone on top who call speak for the whole and that someone, and I know that you’ll find this hard to accept, is the pope. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t consult with his brother bishops before he binds the faithful to believe or not to believe on something.

And I grant that no Council permanently opposed by the Pope (Vigilius did oppose 2 Constantinople for a while, but he came around with a bit of nudging from the Emperor) can be called Ecumenical. That’s exactly what I said, and what you found odd.

that’s not what i find odd. what i find odd is that you admittedly say that rome’s authority is unique

The second and even more complex issue concerns the essential equality and (in a sense) autonomy of all bishops.

but yet you seek equality with the Pope. This is something that the patriarch of constantinople tried to do. If the bishop of rome has something unique then he cannot be co-equal with his brother bishops and this is the point I’ve been trying to drive at. The pope is the only one who can bind the whole church and not any other bishop. Although he hardly exercises it without consulting with his brothers. If he was only the bishop of rome then yes, i would say that he is of equal rank and authority. But as pope, he is not. The problem is the bishop of rome and the pope are one person and you cannot separate one from the other.