Papal infalibilty

[Joe_73]

I’ve been getting into debate with orthodox members. It hasn’t gone absolutely terrible, but I did not know what I was getting into. We circled around and ended up back on the topic of church fathers supporting it in their writings. I expect to hear that the Pope has a symbolic role as the head of the church, but doesn’t have any greater authority than that of other bishops, but a special charism of teaching. are there any arguments against this idea?

On the subject of the writings of the Church fathers, its getting tricky. I’ve been looking at Catholicanswers.com at the pages “Peter’s succesors” and “Peter’s Primacy”, It’s hard to tell whats real and whats not though. Cyprian in particular seems to disagree with Papal authority, despite some out of context quoting, and I saw for myself that Jerome was taken out of context, as he was explaining his oponents point of view. Its making me feel shaky and uncertain about the rest of them. Anyone that studies this stuff that I can contact?

No one spoke of this argument yet, but I thought of it myself as I was thinking, and found an article on it The Fallacy of Papal Infallibility | by The Shepherdess | Medium
I’m gonna lay it out logically.

The pope has protection from teaching error
protection from teaching error restricts free will.
Therefore, the pope’s free will is restricted

Well it doesn’t reach exactly the same case the article says it does, but its still disconcerting.
I guess there two things I want to know. Is the second premise correct, does protection from teaching error mean that God will restrict the exercise of free will? If it does, does it violate our teaching of free will to say that God would restrict it. I know we are restricted in our will by our limitations, like I can’t fly just because I want to, so perhaps you could say that about this. but this seems more like God is actually stopping the pope from excersizing his will, as opposed to the popes limitations, and it seems odd that a charism from God would restrict will. any thoughts?

It’s shaking my faith severely, and I could use some prayers, do you have Anything on these topics? I could use some direction and support.

Thanks

Joe

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I’ve been getting into debate with orthodox members. It hasn’t gone absolutely terrible, but I did not know what I was getting into. We circled around and ended up back on the topic of church fathers supporting it in their writings. I expect to hear that the Pope has a symbolic role as the head of the church, but doesn’t have any greater authority than that of other bishops, but a special charism of teaching. are there any arguments against this idea?

On the subject of the writings of the Church fathers, its getting tricky. I’ve been looking at Catholicanswers.com at the pages “Peter’s succesors” and “Peter’s Primacy”, It’s hard to tell whats real and whats not though. Cyprian in particular seems to disagree with Papal authority, despite some out of context quoting, and I saw for myself that Jerome was taken out of context, as he was explaining his oponents point of view. Its making me feel shaky and uncertain about the rest of them. Anyone that studies this stuff that I can contact?

No one spoke of this argument yet, but I thought of it myself as I was thinking, and found an article on it The Fallacy of Papal Infallibility | by The Shepherdess | Medium
I’m gonna lay it out logically.

The pope has protection from teaching error
protection from teaching error restricts free will.
Therefore, the pope’s free will is restricted

Well it doesn’t reach exactly the same case the article says it does, but its still disconcerting.
I guess there two things I want to know. Is the second premise correct, does protection from teaching error mean that God will restrict the exercise of free will? If it does, does it violate our teaching of free will to say that God would restrict it. I know we are restricted in our will by our limitations, like I can’t fly just because I want to, so perhaps you could say that about this. but this seems more like God is actually stopping the pope from excersizing his will, as opposed to the popes limitations, and it seems odd that a charism from God would restrict will. any thoughts?

It’s shaking my faith severely, and I could use some prayers, do you have Anything on these topics? I could use some direction and support.

Thanks

Joe

The Pope’s free will is not inhibited any more than Mary or Jesus’ free will was. They could have chosen sin but did NOT because God gave them extra graces that the sin would not occur.

Should God not grant special power to those He asks more of?

I see it like this. You have children and you put the oldest in charge. You tell him that any rule he makes while you are away is binding. It would be irresponsible of you to do this without first knowing that he was trustworthy AND giving him the tools to ensure he is capable of this action.

I see the Papacy in the same way. It’s not that God “takes” the free will, but that God provides mind-blowing graces to the Pope which ensures that he acts in accordance with Divine Will.

 

[Wesrock]

and I saw for myself that Jerome was taken out of context, as he was explaining his oponents point of view. Its making me feel shaky and uncertain about the rest of them. Anyone that studies this stuff that I can contact?

Jerome may not have supported it, but doesn’t the fact that Jerome’s opponents stated such things support the fact that there were those who claimed it during his time?

Regarding Cyprian, that can be discussed on a much deeper level. Accusing Catholics of misquoting it is itself a surface reading of good, Catholic apologetics about it.

 

[Wesrock]

I guess there two things I want to know. Is the second premise correct, does protection from teaching error mean that God will restrict the exercise of free will? If it does, does it violate our teaching of free will to say that God would restrict it. I know we are restricted in our will by our limitations, like I can’t fly just because I want to, so perhaps you could say that about this. but this seems more like God is actually stopping the pope from excersizing his will, as opposed to the popes limitations, and it seems odd that a charism from God would restrict will. any thoughts?

Let me ask you this, were the authors of scripture prevented from exercising free will since their writings are free from teaching theological and moral error and are the inspired word of God?

 

[Gorgias]

The pope has protection from teaching error

protection from teaching error restricts free will.

Therefore, the pope’s free will is restricted

“Protection from teaching error restricts free will”… only if the pope wills to teach error, n’est-ce pas?

After all, if my wish is to learn to play the accordian, and I’m doing it wrong, and my teacher prevents me from doing it wrong (and in the process, aids me in doing it correctly), then my free will hasn’t been abridged, has it?

Here’s the thing: in 99.999% of these discussions about “free will”, usually the logical error proceeds from a mistaken notion of what “free will” means. Usually, the mistaken notion makes free will into something far more all-encompassing than what it really is. That, I think, is what’s going on here. Your interlocutor is making the (invalid) presumption that anything that provides a ‘course correction’ is an infringement on free will. That’s simply not the case.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

That’s a literalist explanation of free will though.
No matter how you look at it, there is no way we can fully be free. We are bound by our bodies, we are bound by natural laws etc.
In theology when we talk about free will, we talk about the free will to choose or reject God.
Even if this was restricting the Pope’s free will, its a different kind of free will.
There are good arguments to think that it isn’t restricting his free will, but I don’t think it matters in the first place because its a strawman of what free will in essence is.

 

[Joe_73]

Ah, I think I get you. The only power we have the right to is the power to choose or reject god, Everything other thing we are able to do is just bonus freedom. am I right?
So Maybe I should see it this way, In a mysterious way, God does not grant the Pope the extra freedom to deliberately authorize sin. When the Pope declares something infallibly, He wills to teach the truth, and God Grants him the freedom and the grace to do it. God hasn’t given the pope the ability to authorize erranous teaching. How that works is a mystery. Probably God’s graces prevent the pope from falling into that sin in that regard, and God knows exactly who will be pope and what they will do, and so knows that none of them will have the willpower and audacity to desire to teach falsehood.

Thanks for that.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s a literalist explanation of free will though.

Doesn’t really matter that this (incorrect) definition is theirs, though, does it? (Other than pragmatically knowing from where they’re arguing.) If they defined the moon as “made of green cheese”, that wouldn’t require me to accept their definition!

No matter how you look at it, there is no way we can fully be free. We are bound by our bodies, we are bound by natural laws etc.

That’s not “free will” either, though. That’s “freedom from physical limitations.” We don’t propose that as either the definition of “free will” or as a gift God has granted us.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

That’s not “free will” either, though. That’s “freedom from physical limitations.” We don’t propose that as either the definition of “free will” or as a gift God has granted us.

Yeah but what I am saying is, people take it literally and apply free will to a lot of circumstances like this one, where it really doesn’t contradict free will. I do it sometimes myself when asking questions and I am ashamed.

 

[PluniaZ]

Papal infallibility is the historic teaching of the Church.

Saint Irenaeus of Lyon

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; 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 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 tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage:

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.

The Formula of Hormisdas

For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council:

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council

And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.

Dicatus Papae of Pope Gregory VII

That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

 

[rtsender]

Well it doesn’t reach exactly the same case the article says it does, but its still disconcerting.

I guess there two things I want to know. Is the second premise correct, does protection from teaching error mean that God will restrict the exercise of free will? If it does, does it violate our teaching of free will to say that God would restrict it. I know we are restricted in our will by our limitations, like I can’t fly just because I want to, so perhaps you could say that about this. but this seems more like God is actually stopping the pope from excersizing his will, as opposed to the popes limitations, and it seems odd that a charism from God would restrict will. any thoughts?

If the Pope is conforming his will to the will of God then there would be no problem with a man’s will. The same could be said of the evangelists.

 

[Joe_73]

Post part 1:
They got back with a lot of arguments. I cut the fluff out as much as I could, and here is a summary of them:

we do agree there was a headship to Rome, as there is to Constantinople today. Alexandria bears the historic title of Judge over the universe…that does not give them any authority over anyone, just because they have a flowery title or epithet.

Rome absolutely had a place of authority and certain prerogatives within the Church. she has lost those, however, since she has left. None of the church fathers say that St Peter’s successors in Rome alone have the headship modern Rome says she has.

History is not you your side, there are countless times the Church acted without Rome’s consent, and those synods were deemed higher than Rome’s attempt to use authority.

St Irenaus of Lyons wrote against St Victor concerning Victor trying to force the Quartodecimens, St Cyprian vs St Stephen, the rejection of the Hormisidae, Ephesus, 5th Council excommunicated Vigilus, 6th Anathematized Honorius, and the list goes on.

when St Stephen started trying to force his way of receiving the heretics and lapsed on Cyprian, Cyprian refused, and the Church sided with Cyprian. this was not the first time this happened, was not the last either.

Ephesus was called and her canons enacted before Rome even got there. seems St Cyril did not think Rome had any headship as you see it.

Popes have contradicted previous Popes concerning what their authority is, how much they have.

so the Popes who were saints against the great heresies (Sts Martin, Agatho, Leo, Celestine, etc.) all knew they had this grace, and chose not to do it or use it why? and why was the first thing infallibly declared was that the Pope is infallible 1800 years after the fact?

 

[Joe_73]

Post Part 2

Unfortunately, showing them proof of Peter’s, and by extension Rome’s primacy doesn’t faze them, because they pass him off has having a title or an epithet. Rome just had an initial “special, respected, but not infallible” authority in the church, symbolically embodied by peter, which was lost after Rome commited heresey. Something like that.

They back this up with these arguments:

nothing in Scripture or Church history points to St Peter’s successors in Rome alone as having a unique charism alone. or that his authority above his brother bishops.

Chalcedon says that Rome had rights and privileges because she was the old capital of the Empire, which Constantinople was granted second as the new capital.

Looking around for the last one I accidentally ran into an extension of the same argument in a wikipedia citation.

Schwerin, Philip, How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of “Vicar of Christ”, p3, "Leo believed that in him was the voice of Peter. The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 declared that Constantinople had the same patriarchal status as Rome (28th canon), a statement with which Leo never agreed, and which he even tried to declare invalid. When Leo tried to reinstate a defrocked French bishop, St. Hilary who presided over the Gallican Church as Supreme Pontiff, told Leo to keep his Roman nose out of French affairs. Leo’s aspirations were strongly opposed, especially by the patriarch of Constantinople. Yet through him the papacy still gained some ground
Yikes. Do we agree with this, that constantinople had the same patriarchal status as Rome? I want to know what that means. Did Leo actually try to declare this invalid? I wonder what stopped him. The orthodox use this to claim he didn’t have infallibility.

The writings provided above provide some support that the church is infallible. It’s helpful to be able to back up the concept of infalibility in the church, because then logically it points toward a clear unity of the church, which needs to be found in the pope. They can skirt the idea of an infalible pope, by claiming the church doesn’t need to be 100% accurate,They say It’s founded by the truth revealed to them by the holy spirit at pentecost, which is defined and preserved by the bishops at councils with a certain charism of authority when they convene. Are there some good arguments for infallible teaching of Christ’s church(as opposed to to not needing to having 100% accuracy)?

at the moment I’ve argued that the church fathers support the notion of Peter having authority over the other apostles, but they are going to hold to their claim that there is no proof Peter’s succesors inherited Peter’s charism. If so I should be able to direct them back to all the citations of the church fathers suggesting That those in the chair of peter have the same authority as him.

I’ll keep you updated, and I really appreciate the support.

 

[PluniaZ]

There’s any easy way to resolve this: ignore what anyone after the first millennium said. All the arguments you listed from the EO were written after the first millennium to justify their schism. Look instead to the actual words of the first millennium church. Here are some helpful links to get you started:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5ry0pk/rome_has_always_been_the_head_of_all_churches

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/6nu9nc/apologetics_1st_millennium_opposition_to_the_pope

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/rome-2000-years-of-consistent-orthodoxy/435704

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/6si88r/comment/dld5jrv

The History Of The Primitive Church Complete : by JULES LEBRETON, S.J., & JACQUES ZEILLER : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

History Of The Primitive Church

archive.org

 

[Ron_Conte]

“The pope has protection from teaching error. protection from teaching error restricts free will. Therefore, the pope’s free will is restricted”

The Pope freely accepts his office, and can freely resign. Therefore, the gifts of the office do not restrict his free will. Vatican I says that the Pope has the gift of truth and of a never-failing faith.

 

[Gorgias]

we do agree there was a headship to Rome, as there is to Constantinople today. Alexandria bears the historic title of Judge over the universe…that does not give them any authority over anyone, just because they have a flowery title or epithet.

Glad that they recognize that Alexandria doesn’t have authority over anyone. Wish they would recognize Jesus’ words, when He explicitly set Peter in charge of the Church…

Rome absolutely had a place of authority and certain prerogatives within the Church. she has lost those, however, since she has left.

Left where, exactly? As far as I can tell, Rome is still in the same place, and the bishop of Rome is still the bishop of Rome…

None of the church fathers say that St Peter’s successors in Rome alone have the headship modern Rome says she has._

That’s 'cause Jesus already said it for them. No need to refute Jesus… is there?

History is not you your side, there are countless times the Church acted without Rome’s consent, and those synods were deemed higher than Rome’s attempt to use authority.

On matters of faith and morals?

and why was the first thing infallibly declared was that the Pope is infallible 1800 years after the fact?

This comment betrays a profound lack of understanding of how the Church operates. The Church makes declarations reactively – that is, they don’t create new doctrine out of thin air, but rather, they solemnly declare what has been known… but only once there is a controversy or misunderstanding about the doctrine. In this case, that means that, having declared solemnly what ‘infallibility’ is, they took the next logical step and solemnly declared that the office of the papacy possesses infallibility in its declarations of faith and morals. Duh.

 

[Joe_73]

Left where, exactly? As far as I can tell, Rome is still in the same place, and the bishop of Rome is still the bishop of Rome…

None of the church fathers say that St Peter’s successors in Rome alone have the headship modern Rome says she

That’s 'cause Jesus already said it for them. No need to refute Jesus… is there?

Well by that first point they are saying "Rome lost their place of authority, because they became heretics, seperating themselves from the church.

The bible isn’t convincing them,
Here is the gist of their arguments:

Yes we agree Peter is the rock, that he as a unique authority, but that doesn’t mean he has infallible authority"

Yes we agree God gave peter a special role wtih special powers, but that doesn’t mean he gave his succesors those special powers. His succesors are honored for being symbolically the same as peter.

arguments they have not totally put together, but which I suspect they have

There is no proof that church is not infallible. Indeed God gave/gives the church (The pope(or peter) especially, and then followed by the bishops) guidance and grace of the holy spirit, to define things.

The pope(or peter) can use his authority to teach without a council, but it must be verified that the bishops accept it, similar to how we give the regular bishops authority to join together and teach in a council, If the layity of the church accept it.

Rome’s claiming infallibilty was heretical, that is, it was not accepted in consensus by the bishops.

The Pope and Rome became heretics, when they declared the pope infallible, exagerated his charism to include infallible teaching, in reality it is simply has a strong charism of teaching which enables him to aquire knowledge from the Holy spirit, in a way which no other bishop can, which is symbolically connected to peter and stronger than that of the other bishops, but still can be clouded by him human imperfection. The Pope’s after the division have been inhibiting there charism, because it is of God, will only work toward the unity of the true church of God, which they seperated themselves from. They might think they have it, but they are talking out of their hats.

A good deal of it would break apart if you could convince them that the church needs to have infallibility. They are convinced that unity of the church can exist, even if not 100% of its teachings are correct, because everyone follows the same teachings.But here’s another thing. I think to argue with this I can compare them to the protestants, How can you know that your teaching system is the true one of christ? Protestants might make this claim as well. Where is your evidence? Christ did not tell the apostles in the bible when he was forming the church, “Upon this council system I will build my church”, he said “I say that you are Peter(rock), and upon this rock I will build my church”.

Case closed! at least I think so.

 

[PluniaZ]

I mean really all you need to do is quote the Formula of Hormisdas of 519 AD:

"For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.

“Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.”

The Formula of Pope St Hormisdas

This was the formula that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519: The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that t...

www.byzcath.org

That formally states papal infallibility and supremacy as the official doctrine of the first millennium church. The only people who didn’t sign on were monophysite heretics, which is the same pattern throughout history - the people who reject the Pope are always the heretics.

 

[Joe_73]

I mean really all you need to do is quote the Formula of Hormisdas of 519 AD:

Well maybe…
but its definately not a slam dunk.

I looked at the source and found this argument:

the “Formula” was imposed on the Eastern Churches by the Emperor Justin I as a means of ending the Acacian Schism and therefore open the way to the reestablishment of Byzantine jurisdiction over Italy (which was accomplished by Justin’s successor Justinian the Great). When the document was ratified by the Church of Constantinople, the Patriarch signed his name with a caveat, that “Constantinople, being ‘New Rome’, is one with and equal to ‘Old Rome’”. There was never on the part of the Eastern Churches any interpretation of the Formula of Hormosidas as making them “subordinate” to the Church of Rome, let alone the notion that Rome had any sort of jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches. Going beyond the immediate facts around the signing of the Formula, one must look at how the Eastern Churches actually lived their relationship with the Church of Rome in order to see what interpretation must be given to the Formula itself. And there, we see that the Eastern Churches acted as full and independent, neither subordinate to or under the jurisdiction of Rome. In effect, everything stayed as it was, and in the three centuries after the signing of the Formula, it remains an historical fact that the Bishop of Rome had to have his election ratified by the Emperor of New Rome, and had to submit a synodicon to the imperial exarch at Ravenna. In other words, the Formula of Hormosidas had absolutely NO effect on the inner or outer lives of either the Western or Eastern Churches, and therefore has no bearing on relations between the Eastern and Western Churches today–except in the minds of people like Jim Likoudis.

I don’t know enough to respond to that.

 

[PluniaZ]

The patriarch of Constantinople wrote an introduction. All he said was, “I declare that the See of Saint Peter and the Imperial See are one.” He didn’t say they were equal. “One” simply means they were one in communion together. As for the rest of the EO arguments, how many were articulated in the first millennium? The answer is none. All of their arguments were first articulated in the second millennium after the schism.

How come their arguments can’t be found in the first millennium, while Roman Catholics can simply quote first millennium document after document from the links I provided.

It’s not like Rome’s claims to universal authority were kept secret. Rome openly declared it again and again, and the rest of the Church repeatedly acknowledged it.

In matters of religion, go with the old.