T
Tradycja
Guest
When you say “everyone is fallible” are you infallible in saying this or could you be wrong?
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
That question is akin to the common Atheist argument, “can God create a rock he cannot lift” to prove that he cannot possibly be omnipotent. You create a logical paradox in the hopes that no one will call you on the issues with it.
If you truly believe the question you asked is a good one, then I must assume you believe this question of Atheism is also a good question, as it follows the same structure and logic, and that therefore you must be an atheist.
I am fallible, everything I say is fallible, but this does not mean everything I say is incorrect. The teaching of the Church is that everyone is fallible, I simply repeat that teaching, and I speak with certainty.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
So why doesn’t the Holy Spirit help us all in this manner?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The powers of binding and losing does not include introducing new doctrine. Your reasoning means that the Pope can virtually introduce any doctrine he wants. If the Pope says, “by the power of binding and losing, I declare that God is actually 5 persons, God the Father, God the Mother, God the Son, God the Daughter, and God the Baby”. Will you accept that?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Does the Pope have exclusivity on the Holy Spirit?
I
Ion
Guest
I was wondering, did any of the popes with a messed personal life, interfere with the doctrins?
Did any of them something fallible ?
Did any of them something fallible ?
R
Rawb
Guest
Really? I would say it was Pope Honorius, who was condemned as a heretic at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematized by the council, and his letters subsequently burned.
“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!” - 17th Session of the 3rd Council of Constantinople.
Interesting post here from an older conversation about His Holiness.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Yow… sometimes I think I’ve had a bad day… But they haven’t burned my letters yet.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The charism of infallibility when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra is a charism of the seat of St. Peter, promised by Jesus himself, “I will give you the key to the Kingdom of Heaven … .”
A particular Pope like everybody else may be gifted with other charisms, like the gift of preaching, writing, leadership, etc, where it may apply. There are many gifts but they are from the one Spirit, the purpose of which is to build the body, the Church.
The Holy Spirit can act on anybody He wishes as it is His prerogative. There are many roles in the Church and the Spirit very often gifted God’s servants with gift from on high so that the servants can better serve the Church.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yet from St. Peter to Vatican I, not one Pope has declared anything ex cathedra
J
jinc1019
Guest
Is that true?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The best example of the non-existence of Papal Infallibility in the First Millennium is not by a heretic but by a very orthodox Pope, Pope St. Martin I. He was professing the orthodox faith rightfully and was persecuted against by the Emperor and the “Eastern” Patriarchs who were siding with heresy. He was persecuted with St. Maximos the Confessor.
If he knew he had infallibility, he would have just declared Monothelitism to be a heresy and ended the issue right there and then. But he was deposed and died in exile, and only later to be venerated as a defender of orthodoxy.
If he knew he had infallibility, he would have just declared Monothelitism to be a heresy and ended the issue right there and then. But he was deposed and died in exile, and only later to be venerated as a defender of orthodoxy.
R
Rawb
Guest
Actually an excellent argument, an approach I hadn’t considered before. I like it.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Thanks! Pope St. Martin I had all the ingredients right there in front of him. First, he called for an Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649 (which didn’t turn out Ecumenical because of the lack of support and acceptance by the Eastern bishops). Second, he taught the orthodox faith, proponents of Papal Infallibility say that the Holy Spirit will not allow a heretic Pope to declare any heresy Ex Cathedra and we know that Pope St. Martin I was thoroughly orthodox in faith. And finally, this was a huge issue. The Eastern Patriarchs were teaching heresy and thus there is a pressing need for a dogmatic declaration of the true faith to correct the errors of those bishops who support Monothelitism. This wasn’t a “he had no reason to speak ex cathedra” moment, he had every reason to impose the true doctrine of the faith over many who taught in error.Actually an excellent argument, an approach I hadn’t considered before. I like it.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Brilliant response.
I do have one question though…more about Orthodoxy in general than about a specific issue. I am really uncertain about papal authority, truly on the fence. I listened to a lecture by Dr. Scott Hahn on the issue and some of it, namely the Isaiah 22 “keys” reference, I didn’t buy at all for some very good reasons.
But once he started referencing all of the early Christian writers, especially the very early ones like Pope Clement, all emphasizing apostolic succession and the primacy of Peter’s seat, it became hard for me to overcome that. It seems that papal authority (not infallibility) appears to be true. What is the Orthodox response to this?
Also, in Mathew 23:2, Jesus talks about how we are all called to listen to those Jews who sit on the chair of Moses, which Hahn uses to show that we are called to listen to the Pope, on the chair of Peter. Is there an Orthodox position on this?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
No level headed Orthodox will deny the primacy of Peter or even the Pope of Rome. But the biggest contention is, does Primacy equate to universal ordinary jurisdiction? Does primacy equate to infallibility in of himself and apart from the Church? The problem in this debate is that any Catholic immidately interprets anything that could be interpreted as denoting primacy to mean Papal Supremacy. It is like interpreting Exodus and saying that God gave Moses two iPads. We’re looking at a past event in today’s context, rather than look at it in their own context.
It is a stretch to say Matthew 23:2 is about the Papacy. For one thing, no other Apostle, not even Peter, taught that. If it is that integral to the faith, why is it not mentioned at all in Scripture explicitly? If this was the intended hierarchy of the Church, why was everyone so silent? Why are there no references in St. John’s Revelations to the Papacy which was written way after the martyrdom of Peter?
Plus, Matthew 19:28 says that the 12 Apostles will sit on the 12 judgment seats judging the 12 tribes of Israel. There is no primary seat for one Apostle above the other 11.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I appreciate the response, as always…I can certainly understand your point, but at what point do Orthodox Church theologins draw the line between “primacy,” which they accept, and authority? In other words, if Peter has primacy, what powers does he have? What does “privacy” even mean then?
Does primacy mean more power than the other breakaway churches in apostolic succession? If so, shouldn’t that mean that those churches should always stay in communion with Peter’s seat?
I guess this is the crux of the whole debate. I can COMPLETELY sympathize with the Orthodox (and other churches as well) response on this. If there is no papal infallibility, which is something all Christians outside of the Catholic Church agree on, then a pope who does something that is viewed by other groups of bishops to be against the true teachings or meaning of Christ have an obligation to stand up and protest, or even leave if necessary. God comes first. But at the same time, if Jesus established the papal office with the idea that Peter’s seat would be one of primacy, shouldn’t we all listen and adhere to that seat? How can we recognize Peter’s primacy but ignore his authority?
I know these aren’t easy questions, but they really are the issues that keep the two largest Christian bodies in world separated from one another.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The one thing I loved when learning about Orthodox theology and especially on this issue is how consistent their views are to the model of the Church. I love how the theology of one thing is applied to another thing, it really speaks volumes about the truth that is contained in the teaching.
There are two things to look at, the model of the Trinity, and the model of the Eucharist.
The Trinitarian model teaches us that there is One God in Three Persons. Each Person is equally God to another, no one is more God or less God, all are the same One God. But they have an order to them that the Son and the Holy Spirit submits to the Father, not because of authority or power, but becaues of love. This should be the case with our bishops. Each bishop must have equal power and authority, and those chosen to head a group of Churches isn’t necessarily more authoritative, but the other bishops defer and submit to him out of love. He doesn’t rule them, but leads them in love. That is why Jesus told the Apostles that whomever wants to be the greatest needs to be the servant of all. Every Archbishop/Metropolitan, every Patriarch, should be a servant of those whom they lead.
The other is the Eucharistic model of the Church, that each Church is in itself the fullness of the Kingdom of God. So the Church in Antioch is the fullness of the Church, the Church in Moscow is the fullness of the Church, the Church in Ottawa, Canada is the fullness of the Church. Each bishop has with him the fullness of the Church, this is why St. Ignatius of Antioch said that wherever the bishop is and the people are gathered around him and the Eucharist is there, there is the Church. So each bishop represents the fullness of the Church. The oneness of the Church is in their communion with one another and in Christ, and this is the exact same way how we all are one with Christ. That is why no one Church can be above the other Churches, it either means that there is more Church in that Church, or the other Church are somewhat defective and thus having lesser dignity.
That is the problem, Primacy isn’t about power or authority.
And history has proven that there were times when other bishops have opposed the Pope. This concept of the unopposable Pope only came about at the turn of the First Millennium when the Pope wanted to assert his authority over the temporal rulers of Western Europe.
- Status