Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[ZDHayden]

tqualey–

I apologize for the delay, I had two papers to finish for a class that were due at 5.

I do not believe I still have the booklets (they were like magazine articles what we were given) as I believe I either gave them to my little brother or they were lost during the two moves my family and I went through between my RCIA classes and now. (Most likely both occurred.)

I do believe that the classes in question (Papal Infalliability and the Immaculate Conception) were taught by the then-pastor and the then-associate pastor, respectively. Perhaps I misheard or my memory was corrupted by time, because neither tended to misspeak on theological matters. I do recall that throughout my RCIA process, very little support from Scripture or the Fathers was presented, but quite a bit from the Councils. The most I learned about what the Fathers taught I learned on my own.

So, perhaps I misheard or my memory is failing early (I do tend to forget things). I have too much respect, especially for the then-associate pastor, for me to think he taught his lessons incorrectly.

 

[dcointin]

Here’s some letters of Leo’s where he makes the Supremacy of Rome pretty clear, and what’s more he cites St. Peter as the source of this authority. I recommend reading the whole letters, so I won’t cherry pick quotes from them. They’re not long and they’re pretty eye-popping given both the authority and charity that Leo writes with. In fact, I recommend reading all his letters that are available in English as they paint a bigger picture of his view of Papal authority.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.x.html

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xiv.html

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.c.html

and here’s all the letters I can find on the internet:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.toc.html

Note that I’m not citing these to claim that everyone recognized the authority that St. Leo claimed, only to show that he certainly did claim it, and claimed it vociferously.

Peace and God bless!

Thank you again for these links. It seems that Leo did claim universal headship on the basis of the church of Rome’s succession from St. Peter, etc., which included the right to be the final court of appeals and to annul conciliar canons. Do you see any evidence however that he claimed universal jurisdiction or infallibility?

“The Roman Pontiff. . . enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ZDHayden,

I think Ghosty was quite right about spending time with the Catechism for the doctrines that the Catholic Church believes.

Here is an excellent link to the CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm … and, you can’t beat the price!

Being forgetful has become a way of life … fortunately, 41 years ago I married a gal who doesn’t forget a thing… !

God bless

tqualey–

I apologize for the delay, I had two papers to finish for a class that were due at 5.

I do not believe I still have the booklets (they were like magazine articles what we were given) as I believe I either gave them to my little brother or they were lost during the two moves my family and I went through between my RCIA classes and now. (Most likely both occurred.)

I do believe that the classes in question (Papal Infalliability and the Immaculate Conception) were taught by the then-pastor and the then-associate pastor, respectively. Perhaps I misheard or my memory was corrupted by time, because neither tended to misspeak on theological matters. I do recall that throughout my RCIA process, very little support from Scripture or the Fathers was presented, but quite a bit from the Councils. The most I learned about what the Fathers taught I learned on my own.

So, perhaps I misheard or my memory is failing early (I do tend to forget things). I have too much respect, especially for the then-associate pastor, for me to think he taught his lessons incorrectly.

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you again for these links. It seems that Leo did claim universal headship on the basis of the church of Rome’s succession from St. Peter, etc., which included the right to be the final court of appeals and to annul conciliar canons. Do you see any evidence however that he claimed universal jurisdiction or infallibility?

“The Roman Pontiff. . . enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

Well, the authority that he did claim necessarily implies universal jurisdiction and infallibility, though I don’t know that any explicit claims were made to that effect.

Think about it: you can’t be final court of appeals for the whole Church without universal jurisdiction, and you can’t annul conciliar Canons without the promise of infallibility. The latter is especially manifest because it would be absurd to have fallible annulments of infallible decrees.

That being said, universal jurisdiction is not a mandate for micromanaging Church affairs. It simply means that the Bishop of Rome, when needed, does have the authority to step in anywhere, kind of like the authority of the President to declare martial law; it’s an implied power, but one that is not regularly exercised. In theory there’s no preventing such authority from being practiced so far as I know, but in reality it is limited by the fact that people simply won’t accept overreaching of power (schism), that such an overreach is impractical in the extreme to exercise (is the Bishop of Rome really going to directly take over another diocese in addition to everything he already has on his plate), and that the power is meant to be exercised to support other Bishops and the Church not walk all over them (primacy in love). This is why I’m not really frightened by the authority of Rome; it’s got more practical constraints than I have in raising my own daughter or even in dealing with my own brother.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

Well, the authority that he did claim necessarily implies universal jurisdiction and infallibility, though I don’t know that any explicit claims were made to that effect.

Think about it: you can’t be final court of appeals for the whole Church without universal jurisdiction, and you can’t annul conciliar Canons without the promise of infallibility. The latter is especially manifest because it would be absurd to have fallible annulments of infallible decrees.

That being said, universal jurisdiction is not a mandate for micromanaging Church affairs. It simply means that the Bishop of Rome, when needed, does have the authority to step in anywhere, kind of like the authority of the President to declare martial law; it’s an implied power, but one that is not regularly exercised. In theory there’s no preventing such authority from being practiced so far as I know, but in reality it is limited by the fact that people simply won’t accept overreaching of power (schism), that such an overreach is impractical in the extreme to exercise (is the Bishop of Rome really going to directly take over another diocese in addition to everything he already has on his plate), and that the power is meant to be exercised to support other Bishops and the Church not walk all over them (primacy in love). This is why I’m not really frightened by the authority of Rome; it’s got more practical constraints than I have in raising my own daughter or even in dealing with my own brother.

Peace and God bless!

Do you see these kinds of claims being made prior to Pope Leo?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dcointin,

Yes, I do. I see Peter standing up at the Council of Jerusalem, speaking to the entire Church as it existed at that time and making an infallible decree allowing the Gentiles to come to Christ through His Church without having to be circumcised.

All of this is recorded in Acts 15.

God bless

Do you see these kinds of claims being made prior to Pope Leo?

 

[dcointin]

Hi, Dcointin,

Yes, I do. I see Peter standing up at the Council of Jerusalem, speaking to the entire Church as it existed at that time and making an infallible decree allowing the Gentiles to come to Christ through His Church without having to be circumcised.

All of this is recorded in Acts 15.

God bless

I don’t agree that this council is evidence of papal supremecy or infallibility. I was looking in particular for patristic history or works that might demonstrate this.

 

[Vico]

Vatican I, Session 4, does mention sources of the dogma:

“Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff”
…

"That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.

• This holy see has always maintained this,
• the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
• the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it."

Specific mention of fourth council of Constantinople, second council of Lyons, and council of Florence is made. It also elaborates on the holy see and custom.
[Decrees of the First Vatican Council - Papal Encyclicals 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dcointin,

Do you really think that, “I don’t agree…” is going to answer anything? WHY don’t you agree will lead to a discussion.

But, in your enthusiasm for not agreeing, consider this:

1.) Christ built His Church on Peter with power to bind and lose
2.) Christ gave the Keys to Peter as the sign of his authority
3.) Christ prayed for Peter that he would strengthen his brothers (after his denial)
4.) Peter determines that Judas will be replaced
5.) Peter preaches to the crowd on that 1st Pentecost Sunday and leads the Church
6.) Peter announces that there will be Deacons … AND THEN
7.) Peter resolves the dispute on circumcision

Notice that Christ DOES NOT
1.) Build HIs Church on anyone one else and there were not 11 other sets of Keys
2.) Publicly prayed for any other Apostle
3.) Tell Peter how to run Christ’s Church
4.) Select anyone to replace Peter because of his denial

Admittedly, it may be difficult to see the flower in bloom by looking at the seed - but, the Council of Jerusalem was where it all started - and it was the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ to guide His Church that guided Peter to the decision on circumcision. There is a real leader here - and he is Peter and he is the First Pope.

God bless

I don’t agree that this council is evidence of papal supremecy or infallibility. I was looking in particular for patristic history or works that might demonstrate this.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, the authority that he did claim necessarily implies universal jurisdiction and infallibility, though I don’t know that any explicit claims were made to that effect.

Think about it: you can’t be final court of appeals for the whole Church without universal jurisdiction, and you can’t annul conciliar Canons without the promise of infallibility. The latter is especially manifest because it would be absurd to have fallible annulments of infallible decrees.

That being said, universal jurisdiction is not a mandate for micromanaging Church affairs. It simply means that the Bishop of Rome, when needed, does have the authority to step in anywhere, kind of like the authority of the President to declare martial law; it’s an implied power, but one that is not regularly exercised. In theory there’s no preventing such authority from being practiced so far as I know, but in reality it is limited by the fact that people simply won’t accept overreaching of power (schism), that such an overreach is impractical in the extreme to exercise (is the Bishop of Rome really going to directly take over another diocese in addition to everything he already has on his plate), and that the power is meant to be exercised to support other Bishops and the Church not walk all over them (primacy in love). This is why I’m not really frightened by the authority of Rome; it’s got more practical constraints than I have in raising my own daughter or even in dealing with my own brother.

Peace and God bless!

So could Pope Benedict XVI make a declaration tomorrow that Pope Honorius is no longer amathematized, or that Theodoret’s writings are actually just a different way of expressing the orthodox faith? If he could not, why is that? Is there a time limit on how long a pope has to reject the decision of a synod? Or must the rejection perhaps be immediate? What happens if a pope accepts a council, but his successor does not? And why does Rome even deign to hold dialogue with the Ecumenical Patriarch who is nothing but a usurper according to St. Leo’s rejection of canon 28, unless Rome recognizes the fact that Leo’s rejection of canon 28 was overturned de facto by the rest of the Church, which gave Constantinople its second seat of honor and recognized its jurisdiction as described in canon 28 of Chalcedon? The ideas of infallibility and universal jurisdiction pose some rather interesting questions, some of which I’m not sure the Catholics have an answer to, much less the Orthodox.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

Questions, no doubt, that would cross a rabbi’s eyes!

But, after the smoke has cleared, just what is it you would like to have?

God bless

So could Pope Benedict XVI make a declaration tomorrow that Pope Honorius is no longer amathematized, or that Theodoret’s writings are actually just a different way of expressing the orthodox faith? If he could not, why is that? Is there a time limit on how long a pope has to reject the decision of a synod? Or must the rejection perhaps be immediate? What happens if a pope accepts a council, but his successor does not? And why does Rome even deign to hold dialogue with the Ecumenical Patriarch who is nothing but a usurper according to St. Leo’s rejection of canon 28, unless Rome recognizes the fact that Leo’s rejection of canon 28 was overturned de facto by the rest of the Church, which gave Constantinople its second seat of honor and recognized its jurisdiction as described in canon 28 of Chalcedon? The ideas of infallibility and universal jurisdiction pose some rather interesting questions, some of which I’m not sure the Catholics have an answer to, much less the Orthodox.

 

[dcointin]

Hi, Dcointin,

Do you really think that, “I don’t agree…” is going to answer anything? WHY don’t you agree will lead to a discussion.

But, in your enthusiasm for not agreeing, consider this:

1.) Christ built His Church on Peter with power to bind and lose
2.) Christ gave the Keys to Peter as the sign of his authority
3.) Christ prayed for Peter that he would strengthen his brothers (after his denial)
4.) Peter determines that Judas will be replaced
5.) Peter preaches to the crowd on that 1st Pentecost Sunday and leads the Church
6.) Peter announces that there will be Deacons … AND THEN
7.) Peter resolves the dispute on circumcision

Notice that Christ DOES NOT
1.) Build HIs Church on anyone one else and there were not 11 other sets of Keys
2.) Publicly prayed for any other Apostle
3.) Tell Peter how to run Christ’s Church
4.) Select anyone to replace Peter because of his denial

Admittedly, it may be difficult to see the flower in bloom by looking at the seed - but, the Council of Jerusalem was where it all started - and it was the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ to guide His Church that guided Peter to the decision on circumcision. There is a real leader here - and he is Peter and he is the First Pope.

God bless

There was a long discussion of the Acts 15 council already to which I have nothing to add. I’m familiar with the scriptural arguments for the papacy, which I find unconvincing, but I’m open to arguments from history and the writings of the fathers. The problem with the scriptural arguments is that they establish St. Peter as the head of the apostles, but not his supremecy over them. Further, even if supremecy were demonstrated, it would have to be shown that his personal perrogatives passed to the Bishop of Rome, which cannot be demonstrated from scripture. The argument therefore becomes one of tradition, wherein I am looking for answers.

 

[Ghosty]

Do you see these kinds of claims being made prior to Pope Leo?

The claims were made prior to Leo, but not in such explicit terms. I’ll see if I can dig up some of the references when I get back from work today.

The main reason I find Leo so fascinating is that he essentially made the same claims, using the same supports from Scripture and tradition, as modern supporters of the Papacy. He’s also highly revered in both the East and West, which makes him an interesting case study in expressing Papal authority.

Cavaradossi:

So could Pope Benedict XVI make a declaration tomorrow that Pope Honorius is no longer amathematized, or that Theodoret’s writings are actually just a different way of expressing the orthodox faith? If he could not, why is that? Is there a time limit on how long a pope has to reject the decision of a synod? Or must the rejection perhaps be immediate? What happens if a pope accepts a council, but his successor does not?

Once a Council is affirmed as an Ecumenical Council there is no going back on it. The Pope can’t overturn the infallible magisterium of the Church, period. Papal Infallibility is there to affirm the infallibility of the Church, not up-end it, and Vatican I actually makes this explicit.

An interesting point, however, is that the anathemization of Honorius and the condemnations of Theodoret’s writings are not the same kind of thing. Honorius’ condemnation is not infallible because it’s not a matter of Faith or Morals, but of discipline. The condemnation of the views that Honorius held, however, is infallible. Likewise with the matter of Theodoret.

And why does Rome even deign to hold dialogue with the Ecumenical Patriarch who is nothing but a usurper according to St. Leo’s rejection of canon 28, unless Rome recognizes the fact that Leo’s rejection of canon 28 was overturned de facto by the rest of the Church, which gave Constantinople its second seat of honor and recognized its jurisdiction as described in canon 28 of Chalcedon? The ideas of infallibility and universal jurisdiction pose some rather interesting questions, some of which I’m not sure the Catholics have an answer to, much less the Orthodox.

Constantinople was legitimately elevated to the second place of honor later, and Rome approved it. Again, it was not a matter of Faith and Morals, so Leo’s veto was not infallible, but he did have the authority to do it. Again it was more akin to a disciplinary matter, though in a positive sense.

That being said, even if the elevation of honor was never approved by Rome it wouldn’t follow that dialogue and reunion couldn’t occur between Constantinople and Rome. The issue of the elevation of honor of Constantinople didn’t even affect Church structure or function, it was merely an honorific after all. It was deemed unseemly and against the wishes of Nicea, not an attack on the structure of the Church, so “usurper” is a bit strong of a word.

So these interesting questions are not particularly difficult, and most of them have already been answered in the very documents that put forth Papal Infallibility and the magisterium of the Church. When in doubt just remember that Papal Infallibility is merely an extension of Church infallibility, and the two can’t contradict or be in conflict. The Pope is infallible in certain cases precisely because the Church Herself is infallible; the Church is not infallible because the Pope is infallible.

Peace and God bless!

 

[steve_b]

There was a long discussion of the Acts 15 council already to which I have nothing to add. I’m familiar with the scriptural arguments for the papacy, which I find unconvincing, but I’m open to arguments from history and the writings of the fathers. The problem with the scriptural arguments is that they establish St. Peter as the head of the apostles, but not his supremecy over them. Further, even if supremecy were demonstrated, it would have to be shown that his personal perrogatives passed to the Bishop of Rome, which cannot be demonstrated from scripture. The argument therefore becomes one of tradition, wherein I am looking for answers.

What see in the world today does everybody accept as the see of Peter? Please show your work.

 

[ZDHayden]

What see in the world today does everybody accept as the see of Peter? Please show your work.

I seem to recall the appeal to popularity is considered a logical fallacy. See this.

 

[Mickey]

1.) Christ built His Church on Peter with power to bind and lose

All the Apostles had this power.

2.) Christ gave the Keys to Peter as the sign of his authority

The keys were given to St Peter after his confession of faith along with the power to bind and loose. We see shortly thereafter that this authority was given to all the Apostles.

3.) Christ prayed for Peter that he would strengthen his brothers (after his denial)

Of course he did.

4.) Peter determines that Judas will be replaced

Yes ….by lot.

5.) Peter preaches to the crowd on that 1st Pentecost Sunday and leads the Church

Yes…and we see that those who were baptized were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles…and many wonders and signs were done by the Apostles.

6.) Peter announces that there will be Deacons … AND THEN

And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.
Acts 6:1-5

7.) Peter resolves the dispute on circumcision

As St John Chrysostom tells us, St James the Just, as the bishop of Jerusalem, had the chief rule.

Notice that Christ DOES NOT
1.) Build HIs Church on anyone one else and there were not 11 other sets of Keys

Let us look to Sacred Scripture:
Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

2.) Publicly prayed for any other Apostle

John 17

3.) Tell Peter how to run Christ’s Church

Christ is the Head of the Church.

4.) Select anyone to replace Peter because of his denial

Thank God! The holy Apostle St Peter repented with bitter tears and was restored to his apostleship. Judas fell into despair and hanged himself.

 

[steve_b]

I seem to recall the appeal to popularity is considered a logical fallacy. See this.

I said, show your work, not one’s appeal. That way we can work on logic and fact, not fallacy.

 

[dcointin]

What see in the world today does everybody accept as the see of Peter? Please show your work.

Are you looking for polling data?

 

[Vico]

Explain why you’re out of Communion with the Orthodox Church? If you think the Orthodox Church is not again Papal Infallibility and then why are you not in Communion with us?? You split with the Eastern Church not the other way around. You are the once’s that split on July 14, 1054

It is untrue. Cardinal Humbert had no authority, since the Pope that sent him had died. Also, the excommunications from each side were personal. There certainly was no schism in 1088 after Pope Urban II, he promoted the union of the Eastern and Western churches and supported the Christian reconquest of Spain from the Moors.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

For example the power to bind and lose ALONG WITH THE KEYS were given to Peter at one time - and there were not 11 other sets of Keys (you seem to have missed this point while trying to burry it under what the other Apostles received).

Now stick with me on this … we see Paul consecrating Timothy and Titus as Bishops - and these new Bishops had the same power and authority as the Apostles (the First Bishops) While not written in Scripture, I think we can see that the other Apostles consecrated other men to the position of Bishop and this was no mere title, but a position with Divine blessings. I really do not think you have a problem with that … do you?

Chist put Peter in charge of the Apostels and gave him alone the Keys as a sign of this authority. If continuing the position of Bishop is a natual (actually, supernatural) extension as we trace from the Apostles to our own Bishops - why do you think it so strange that the position of leader (Pope) would not be passed on, too?

God bless

All the Apostles had this power.

The keys were given to St Peter after his confession of faith along with the power to bind and loose. We see shortly thereafter that this authority was given to all the Apostles.

Of course he did.

Yes ….by lot.

Yes…and we see that those who were baptized were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles…and many wonders and signs were done by the Apostles.

And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.
Acts 6:1-5

As St John Chrysostom tells us, St James the Just, as the bishop of Jerusalem, had the chief rule.

Let us look to Sacred Scripture:
Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

John 17

Christ is the Head of the Church.

Thank God! The holy Apostle St Peter repented with bitter tears and was restored to his apostleship. Judas fell into despair and hanged himself.