Papal infalibilty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe_73
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlNg said:
Is torture immoral? Recent Popes seem to think so. Although your limbs are not broken when you are put on the rack, your arms and legs can be dislocated and the whole process is very painful. Similarly when you are hanged by the arms?

A papal bull, although not infallible generally, is part of the ordinary teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church, is it not?
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood me. The Pope has to intend to speak infallibly. In the bull Ad Extirpanda he doesn’t intend to do so. As I said, the first sentence is, “A Proclamation of the Laws and Regulations be followed…” He doesn’t define a dogma on torture . It’s a proclamation on laws regulations not a definition of dogma. and If a Catholic disagrees with the “laws and regulations” he isn’t being a bad Catholic. No serious Catholic has ever held the bull to be infallible. If it were infallible, it would not be worded as concerning laws and regulations.
 
Last edited:
With reference to papal infallibility and papal supremacy, some historians have raised questions about the situation with Pope Vigilius and with Pope Honorius.
 
Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage in 252 [Epistle 59:14 in PL ],
“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.”

Patriarch St. John I Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says [Homilies on the Gospel of St. John 88:1 in PG 59:478]
“He says to him, “Feed My Sheep.” Why does He pass over the others and speak about these to him? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the other … He entrusts him with the primacy of the brethren; and as He does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him with the past, but says: “If you love Me, rule the brethren.” … And if anyone would say “How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem,” I would reply that He appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world…”

Patriarch St. Flavian the Martyr of Constantinople in 449 [Epistle to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in ]
“Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. … Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference … but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. … Further to issue an authoritative instruction … so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.”

Monk Bachiarius of Spain in 420 [Professio fidei 2 in PL 20:1023]: “…none of the heresies could gain hold of or move the Chair of Peter, that is the See of faith.”

Pope St. Clement I the Martyr of Rome (November 23) says in 95 [Letter to the Corinthians 59]: “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin.”
 
Bishop St. Irenaeus the Martyr of Lyons says in 180 [Against Heresies 3:3:2 in PG 7A:847AB]
“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 [propter potentiorem principalitatem] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”

Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:
“You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim–each for himself–separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit“

St. Jerome says in 376 [Letter 15:1-2 to Pope St. Damasus I of Rome in PL 22:355]:
“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul … The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold … My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.“

Abbot St. Theodore of Studion says in Letter II:63 to Naucratius [PG 99:1281AB]:
“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
 
Pope St. Zosimus of Rome says in 417 [Letter 12:1 to the Council of Carthage in PL 20:676AB]:
“Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter… For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat… Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time…and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.”

Pope St. Boniface I of Rome says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica in PL 20:776A]:
“For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See."

Bishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna says in 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]:
“We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.”
 
Last edited:
Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:
“Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.”

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:
“Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic… we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.”

Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus says in 649, in a letter read in Session 2 of the Council of the Lateran [Letter to Pope Theodore I of Rome in Mansi X:914]:
“O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed."
 
Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:
“Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man … but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.”
 
Last edited:
None of them defined definitively and Pope Vigilius was under duress. That surely is not the condition for infallibility

Pope Honorius is a weak case as he never taught monohhelitism at all. He was just badly misunderstood by the eastern bishops. His scribe later came out and testified the true meaning of the words in his letter saying “one will” referring to Our Lords humanity only… in that he did not have conflicting wills of flesh and spirit as St Paul attributes to all humanity
 
Last edited:
Wandile said:
Pope St. Boniface I of Rome says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica in PL 20:776A]:

“For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See."
Click to expand...
Is it true that at that time the creed had been decided and it did not contain the filioque?
 
Wandile said:
Pope St. Boniface I of Rome says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica in PL 20:776A]:

“For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See."
Click to expand...
Was Unam Sanctam reevaluated?
 
Yes the original creed did not have the filioque but not for the reasons Eastern Orthodox like to pretend…

The original creed of nicae did not really mention of the Holy Spirits procession or anything about him really but rather just ended with “We Believe in the Holy Spirit”. THE END

The Council of Constantinople went on to expand on this saying “Who proceeds from the father”… this was to combat the pneumotochai heretics who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Later the Latin Church added the filioque to respond to a new version of Arianism that denied the Sons divinity on the account of the creed seemingly indicating (so they thought) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and not the Son. In essence they asked how the Son can he be God if he does not have the Spirit of God from him. The latins clarified that the creed denied no such thing. It just never addressed it because up until then it was not necessary. So they added the line in the creed to confirm the Sons divinity.

The creed changed with time as new heresies appeared. The so called ban on additions to the creed in the Council of Ephesus refers to the creed of Nicae not the creed of Constantinople. More importantly it outlaws additions that change the faith of the creed and not additions themselves.

The church fathers openly confessed the filioque though.
 
Last edited:
Nope and it remains in force till this day. It’s infallible. What he said was just a very “flamboyant” way of restating the old teaching of the church. Outside of her there is no salvation
 
AlNg said:
“For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See."
Click to expand...
First you say that you can’t discuss what has been decided, but then you say it was all right to discuss and change the creed which was already decided?
 
Wandile said:
What he said was just a very “flamboyant” way of restating the old teaching of the church. Outside of her there is no salvation
Click to expand...
Was it ever said that a Jew cannot be saved? And then later on it was discussed and said that a Jew can be saved?
 
The creed was not set in stone. Not was it set by Rome but by ecumenical councils confirmed by Rome. The quote teaching nobody can questions Rome’s decisions was in reference to her judgments and dogmatic pronouncements.

The creed is an organic tool used to express our faith. The creed changes organically over time in response to various erros. The orthodox believers didn’t not question the creed. The changes to it are clarifications.
 
Yes some have attempted to discuss such an issue but only in a different context.

I think you’re approaching this from the wrong angle. The fact that is has canonically not been allowed to question Rome’s decisions does not mean people don’t ignore that, we are dealing with men after all. But never has it been that Rome’s decision has been overturned.

In that all the quote is saying is that Rome’s ecclesiastical pronouncements on faith and morals are irreformable. That has proven true for 2000 years
 
Well, I’ve still been going through a rough time, but I lost confidence in the orthodox church for this reason:
  1. They don’t claim any part of the church is infallible, they can never be totally certain about things, they might be revealed to be false over time.
  2. They hold that they are certain they are the one true church
The problem is that though they say they aren’t infallible, they imply otherwise, that “the majority opinion of the bishops and people presently in communion with the church are to be treated as infallible”.

The biggest claim they logically be be able to make is “We know we are the most true church”, but they can’t claim they are the one, correct, true church without contradicting themselves

Here are my remaining doubtful ideas:

(protestantish view)The one true church isn’t a single visible denomination, but invisible, led by the holy spirit, with varying degrees of unity(in teaching). Nothing is infallible. Peter was a major help, but over time, his succesors have fooled themselves into thinking they are infallible. The orthodox church is the most accurate in holding to tradition, so they are “the best” church.
AND/OR
The church is one because it has the Eucharist. The Orthodox and Catholic church are both wrong about being the exclusive church, they are both part of the one church because they are undivided in sharing the Eucharist.

Catholic position:
3.(Catholic view) The one true Church is a single visible denomination, lead by the holy spirit, visibly led in teaching by the pope, who by the inspiration of the Holy spirit, discovered that he had the authority to infallibly teach things.

Are there any good arguments on why the catholic position is right, or to refute the other ideas? Thanks.
The biggest thing I can’t resolve is the visible vs invisible church debate.

Joe
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top