Papal infalibilty

[Joe_73]

I got hit with this argument:

and yet, there are cases where Popes have tried to exercise supreme authority, and his brother bishops stood against him going all the way back to Pope Victor, and most clearly in the 5th Council where Pope Vigilius was excommunicated and he repented

Then I was looking at Pope Honorous and I ran into this: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/pope.html

Its making the case that Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the ecumenical council (and he was making an infallible statement), and that decision was never revisited, but accepted by Pope Leo and still considered cannonical today.
Like the first article on free will, its scary because it appeals to logical contradictions. I am trying to relax though. Here are some things I noticed.
The presumed evidence for why Pope Leo’s statement was infallible:

The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:

The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of montheletism.
He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.
On the validity of the council
According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgment of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgment or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology.
(Is this right? I was under the impression the councils are cannon, but not neccesarily infallible. So do they have it wrong here?)

I’m gonna look into what the requirements for infallibility are exactly.

There sheer number of historical arguments being made is enough to drive one crazy, but someone is going to have to confront them all I guess.

 

[Joe_73]

I’m gonna look into what the requirements for infallibility are exactly.

I’m still worried though. I suspect If I argue that Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra, that it wil lead to this claim:

“the overly specific requirements for speaking cathedra are just protection against cases like these. Besides, there doesn’t seem to be any historical examples of the Pope using all of these conditions. Thats because papal infallibility never was real, so very specific conditions were created for it, in order to rule out every historical contradiction.”

I don’t know why I’m so good at coming up with the next counter point, but its not fun. I guess I’m terrified of the catholic faith being wrong, and my fear is envisioning it as reality. I really don’t like this place of doubt I am in. But the orthodox have come up with so many claims and counter claims against catholicism. It’s like a conspiracy theory, but its convincing because of the vagueness of history and writings, in a time we can’t go back to and precisely fact check everything.

 

[PluniaZ]

Pope Honorius I was orthodox. Search for “History of the Councils” by Hefele on Google Books, the volume covering up to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Hefele gives the full text of Pope Honorius’s letters and of those he was corresponding with. Pope Honorius did not write any heretical statements, but rather simply ordered all discussion on the controversy to cease for the sake of preserving the peace and unity of the Church. It was a pastoral decision, not a teaching error. Pope Leo II wrote the authoritative signing statement for the Sixth Ecumenical Council and stated that Pope Honorius I was condemned for negligence, not for teaching heresy.

Moreover, the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirmed the letter of Pope Agatho I stating that no Pope had ever erred or ever could err.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Thus, the Sixth Ecumenical Council actually affirmed papal infallibility.

Finally, Saint Maximus the Confessor understood this issue better than anyone, and was martyred Constantinople for it, and he said that Pope Honorius I was completely orthodox, as described in Hefele.

 

[Joe_73]

From What I’ve been reading It looks arguing that Pope Honorius did not write heretical statements may be moot. I think we know that he affirmed the false doctrine in his reply, though some claim was a terminology error.
But It doesn’t matter, because he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra anyway.

 

[PluniaZ]

Ex cathedra is not a limitation on infallibility. Vatican I did not say, “The Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.” It simply said he is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

Vatican I made it very clear in fact that the Pope can never teach error, ex cathedra or not:

1. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
2. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

1. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/V1.htm

Why people find this so offensive bewilders me. The Papacy is a tremendous gift from God that enables us to know the truth with certainty and to maintain perfect harmony and unity among 1.2 billion Catholics. Why anyone would spit in the face of such a gift is baffling.

 

[Joe_73]

Thanks for the information. I am horrible mixed up now though. What counts as the pope teaching error? like if the pope says on social media “Their is a fourth person in the trinity”, does that count as “teaching”?

 

[PluniaZ]

I don’t think there is a formal explication of all these things anywhere.

The message of the gospel is fundamentally one of placing childlike trust in the Lord and in the pastors the Lord has set in authority over the church. We should simply trust and obey the Pope and the bishops and priests in communion with him.

 

[Joe_73]

Hows this for a reply? I already sent it.

I got feedback from a catholic who corrected me. We don’t believe that there is no infallibilty outside of the exact ex cathedra formula. The pope is protected from teaching error. something like the pope saying on social media “this is a sin” is a little ambiguous if he intends it to be teaching, or if it is merely an expression of his opinion. But in speaking ex cathedra, we know for sure that he is teaching. The pope didn’t need to use all the neccesary language for it to be an infallibe statement, but the ex cathedra formula helps us to know for sure that it was. This is why there are only 2 “absolutely certain” cases of the Pope speaking infallibly in history. Now in this letter anyway, the pope is not really saying “I affirm and teach this”, but "yes I agree with this, teach it, and silence those who dont. He’s commanding(not teaching) that people don’t speak out against it.

 

[lynnvinc]

One thing I’ve noticed about very holy priests is how they are so very eager to give the Eucharist to people. It is a passion with them. Such a priest in India died a few weeks ago. He was only 59 years old, my husband’s best friend.

He was exceedingly moved to work toward overcoming the hatred towards, oppression of, and atrocities against the lowest caste Catholics by the upper caste Catholics there (much worse than the racism in the US) that has led to closing some churches in some areas. He would travel far to go and say Mass for them during his spare time during weekends (he was headmaster of a boys school), especially for Christmas and Easter and other holy days, despite his serious health problems. He literally poured himself out for them, sort of a type of martyrdom.

It is a passion with them which we lay persons cannot understand. I’m thinking they would rather err on the side of giving the Eucharist to the unworthy than to refrain from giving it to the worthy.

I received my First Communion that way from a very holy priest (VG) in India, my husband’s uncle. Of course, I am unworthy to receive Jesus that way, no matter how worthy I may be according to Church rules.

 

[Joe_73]

I don’t think there is a formal explication of all these things anywhere.

The message of the gospel is fundamentally one of placing childlike trust in the Lord and in the pastors the Lord has set in authority over the church. We should simply trust and obey the Pope and the bishops and priests in communion with him.

Thank you very much for this. I think you broke my doubt apart. Here are my thoughts:

We know that God prayed for Peter(the pope) not to fail in is faith. We know, and the orthodox agree, that Peter had a great charism of teaching. We know that the pope came to the conclusion, and it was confirmed by an ecunemical council(though I’m sure this is disputed), that his teaching on faith and morality is infallible. We know that God promised that Christ promised "on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Why shouldn’t we trust the Pope(a teacher of great faith) and the council that confirmed this? We should. And God promised the church would not ber overcome, If the foundation of the church, peter, has abandoned the church, it has been overcome. remove the cornerstone, and the building collapses.

Yesterday I had an interesting experience. as a result of the great uncertainty that came upon my unexpextedly, I was terribly divided.

One part of my conscience was saying “Your’e just being proud, you just don’t want to deal with the repurcussions of the catholic faith not being the true one, you need to let go of belief in one of them, and see which faith is true by reason, your putting your faith in the church above your faith in God”,

and the other “I can’t disobey the true church by not believing in it for one second.”

I finally gave up, and made a desperate prayer “Help, I don’t know how to believe”, and right after that I remembered St. Thomas, who doubted Jesus rising from the dead, demanding proof. God gave it to him, and said “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” That was pretty humbling, because up into that point that’s what I was doing, looking for proof, and I realized I’ve realized I’ve been lacking trust. That’s what the orthodox is lacking, Trust in the head of the church.

 

[Joe_73]

Well I’m at a pretty good place at the moment.

I poured out my heart in my last reply, basically saying what I said above.

I’m wary of continuing though, of what I might hear in response. I don’t know If I can bear to read a counter argument though, because they’ve been breaking my soul apart. I hope I’ve at least learned something, or at least strengthned my faith from this experience, but I don’t want it to continue to tear my faith up. Maybe I don’t need to argue every little thing they throw at me, but I can just leave my last statement as a closing remark. I shudder at the thought of them making a convincing invalidation of my heartfelt profession of faith. The context of the debate went like this. Someone who seemed pretty convinced(because they had a very prejudiced response to a poor catholic argument) they wanted to convert to orthodox, but wasn’t quite sure, asked for help debating catholic teachings, infallibility, the imaculate conception, ect. a well educated orthodox member took the lead with some convincing arguments. toward the begining I interjected myself to clear up catholic misconceptions, and before long we were head to head, arguing with the likes of which you saw me share, I sought help on the catholic forums after becoming very distressed, and hear I am. What do you think? should I step out? or perhaps just take a break.

 

[Joe_73]

Actually I know what they have to argue. They are going to try to show history proves this false. They are going to try to highlight historical examples where the Pope needed to use his infallibility and didn’t. They will say I’m putting faith in something debunked. and more specifically, they are gonna try to prove the council that decided the pope was infallible was rigged and invalid. and that the pope is just symbolically the cornerstone of the church, and that the church can survive without him. or that the Peter was the cornerstone, and no other pope inherits the “rockhood”, but it only existed in peter.

 

[PluniaZ]

Hows this for a reply? I already sent it.

I got feedback from a catholic who corrected me. We don’t believe that there is no infallibilty outside of the exact ex cathedra formula. The pope is protected from teaching error. something like the pope saying on social media “this is a sin” is a little ambiguous if he intends it to be teaching, or if it is merely an expression of his opinion. But in speaking ex cathedra, we know for sure that he is teaching. The pope didn’t need to use all the neccesary language for it to be an infallibe statement, but the ex cathedra formula helps us to know for sure that it was. This is why there are only 2 “absolutely certain” cases of the Pope speaking infallibly in history. Now in this letter anyway, the pope is not really saying “I affirm and teach this”, but "yes I agree with this, teach it, and silence those who dont. He’s commanding(not teaching) that people don’t speak out against it.

Sorry I’m not really sure what letter you are referring to.

If you really want to defend Papal Infallibility, I would simply cite Chapter 4 of Vatican I, and explain that it is basically a verbatim word for word repetition of the teachings concerning the Pope from the first millennium.

I would also ask, given how explicitly the infallibility of supremacy of Rome was declared in the first millennium, why we don’t have any writings from the first millennium arguing against them?

 

[PluniaZ]

Actually I know what they have to argue. They are going to try to show history proves this false. They are going to try to highlight historical examples where the Pope needed to use his infallibility and didn’t. They will say I’m putting faith in something debunked. and more specifically, they are gonna try to prove the council that decided the pope was infallible was rigged and invalid. and that the pope is just symbolically the cornerstone of the church, and that the church can survive without him. or that the Peter was the cornerstone, and no other pope inherits the “rockhood”, but it only existed in peter.

I have debated this endlessly with Eastern Orthodox. They tend to be relentless. Even in the face of the Formula of Hormisdas, which declares that “the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides” in the Church of Rome, they will bend and twist everything, arguing that this or that bishop didn’t sign on, or only signed grudgingly, or added some ambiguous statement to his signing. But they can’t produce any writing from the 6th century saying, “The Formula of Hormisdas is completely wrong. It isn’t necessary to agree with the Church of Rome in order to be in the communion of the Catholic Church. The Pope is just the first among equals.”

So the question is … why? Why didn’t anyone in the first millennium respond to Rome’s claims by writing an argument against them? Why do all such arguments date to post-schism second millennium authors?

 

[PluniaZ]

I’m thinking they would rather err on the side of giving the Eucharist to the unworthy than to refrain from giving it to the worthy.

This is an excellent point. Jesus specifically told us, in multiple parables, to be overinclusive. It is better to include too many people in Holy Communion, than to cut out one person who should receive Holy Communion.

Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes.
Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth.
So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just.

Matthew 13:47-49

 

[Joe_73]

I think it worked pretty well. They are avoiding the difficult issues so far, and this is what they came up

no Ecumenical Council confirmed papal infallibility.

I haven’t yet given them the formula of Pope St Hormisdas, or shown them Vatican I, because I don’t understand the historical context very well. Did I mispeak about the council being ecunemical? What makes it ecunemical? How does the catholic church determine the validity of the council? If I tell them they were wrong not to accept the council, we will be accused of hypocrisy, for the fact that we don’t accept the “Quinisext Council” which took place in between the 6th and 7th. I read on wikipedia “The Roman Catholic Church does not consider the validity of an ecumenical council’s teaching to be in any way dependent on where it is held or on the granting or withholding of prior authorization or legal status by any state”, If this is true, I would like to know how we determine them. I don’t know if you have the answer to this.

 

[Joe_73]

Thank you for the tip about the 6th council on it, I was able to look at Agatho’s letters, and more, with my own eyes to see the contex, and it went amazingly well for an argument against Honorius’s Heresy.

I was able to get all of these facts out of it into my argument:

Agatho explicitly defined papal infallibility.
Agatho suggest silence is a crime.
Those who attended confirmed Agatho’s teachings, though it is possible they didn’t realize it.
The Council did not teach Honorius was a heretic
The council condemned hin as a heretic.
Leo confirms all of this.
Honorius got in trouble for failing to use his authority to stop an error.

I don’t think they will ever want to use this as a case again.

 

[Joe_73]

Oh darn, I got this curt reply:

actually, the one that defends Papal infallibility is a corrupt Latin version, which is probably dated later than the Greek version, which does not. so, no, argument still stands. and I have the NPNF in front of me.

so, nope, no actual defense for papal infallibility.

but even in the erroneous version, there is nothing about infallibility.

and after this

I just read the other letter of St Agatho to the Fathers at the Council. again, nowhere is papal infallibility enforced or mentioned. in fact the closest is His commenting that no heresy had arisen in Rome (which WAS true), so that and his headship is why he should be listened to. however, he insists that it be affirmed by the Synod and State, and it was analyzed prior to being accepted. according to Vatican I, papal infallibility is above any consideration of even a synod. the fact that it was reviewed first shows no infallibility.

 

[AlNg]

That the Roman church has never erred;

Was it a mistake for the Roman Church to have supported the use of torture during the Inquisition?

 

[AlNg]

So the question is … why?

The Orthodox agree to the primacy of the bishop of Rome, but not to the infallibility or to the universal supremacy.