Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[OrthodoxJosh]

Dear brother OrthodoxJosh,

If you are trying to impose a definition on the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” that simply does not exist, then - yes - I do not understand.

I have only been trying to point out the different ways that our respective churches interpret infallibility.

You are not listening, but seem intent on judging the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” on what you THINK it is, not on what the Catholic Church teaches it is. The Office of the Papacy is NOT the office of a single person. It is an office OF THE CHURCH, created by Christ FOR THE CHURCH, and has, for its only purpose, THE UPBUILDING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE CHURCH. I must have written that at least 3 times previously. When the Pope exercises infallibility, he is exercising the infallibility OF THE CHURCH. That is why, all the documents you will read from Catholics (please don’t trust non-Catholic sources to tell you about what the Catholic Church teaches) about “papal infallibility” insist that it is ONLY as a PUBLIC person (i.e., as a member OF THE CHURCH and representing THE CHURCH), when he is addressing THE WHOLE CHURCH, teaching on a matter of concern FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH on Faith or morals, that this charism of infallibility is active as utilized uniquely by the Pope.

Believe it or not, I have been listening. It seems that I misunderstood in thinking that the Bishop of Rome is the Petrine office. It seems from what you are saying the Pope has quite a few offices, of which I, not being catholic (though I am Catholic), was unaware. I still don’t believe that infallibility is the prerogative of any single office, but is rather a mystical act of the Holy Spirit, acting in the WHOLE BODY OF THE FAITHFUL. But, I thank you for the clarification on your position.

As stated, the Petrine office is an office OF THE CHURCH, not of a single person, whether he is a bishop or not. You are confusing the Petrine office with the office of bishop. They are not the same. In fact, the Pope is not always exercising the Petrine office. When he is exercising his role as bishop of the Church of Rome, he is not exercising the Petrine office; when he is exercising his role as metropolitan, he is not exercising the Petrine office; when he is exercising his role as Primate of Italy, he is not exercising the Petrine office; when he is exercising his role as Patriarch of the Latins, he is not exercising the Petrine office. The Petrine office is bigger than those. As stated, it is not an office of a bishop, nor of a metropolitan, nor of a patriarch, but an office OF THE CHURCH as a body.

I thought the office of “Patriarch of the Latin Church” was removed as one of the pope’s titles?

I hope that helps you understand. Please don’t take the capital letters as shouting. It is just my way of stressing things quickly.

Same here, the caps just represent what I am trying to stress.

Blessings,
Marduk

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!

 

[BusterMartin]

I just wanted to thank OrthodoxJosh and mardukm for their lively discussion about all things infallible. This has been one heck of an entertaining, enlightening, and enjoyable thread. Truly, no sarcasm here…I’ve really enjoyed it! It’s nice to read something so well thought out, well-written, and without hate for the opposing person…instead of the often utilized “You say this, and you’re wrong…because I’m right!” type of post. Bravo…

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

So much specious sophistry! This word means that word means this word means that word.

I’m all for nuance, but this card gets played every time. “It doesn’t mean what it appears to mean!”

Totally agree.

 

[dcointin]

Mardukm,

Thank you again for your thoughts on this important subject! I’d like to comment on something you wrote:

"Logic dictates that if the authority of the Church narrowed down to an Ecumenical Council is infallible for the sake of settling an issue of faith or morals, then the further narrowing of the authority of the Church to the head bishop if the body of bishops cannot solve the matter must also require infallibility. Remember, we are talking about the Faith of the Church universal.

Logic also dictates that if the body of bishops appeals to the head bishop to settle a matter of faith or morals for the Church universal, they are themselves recognizing that they are appealing to an authority that can actually settle the matter. That certainly implies infallibility."

It’s my understanding that in an ecumenical council the bishops of the Church do not vote on doctrine or morals, but rather affirm the tradition which was handed down to them by their predecessor. The body as a whole, after witnessing collectively to this tradition, then affirm unanimously the faith of the Church. I’m not aware of any ecumenical council that voted on such a matter, found itself to be divided, then was forced to appeal to a higher authority. Can you comment on this?

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

Mardukm,

Thank you again for your thoughts on this important subject! I’d like to comment on something you wrote:

"Logic dictates that if the authority of the Church narrowed down to an Ecumenical Council is infallible for the sake of settling an issue of faith or morals, then the further narrowing of the authority of the Church to the head bishop if the body of bishops cannot solve the matter must also require infallibility. Remember, we are talking about the Faith of the Church universal.

Logic also dictates that if the body of bishops appeals to the head bishop to settle a matter of faith or morals for the Church universal, they are themselves recognizing that they are appealing to an authority that can actually settle the matter. That certainly implies infallibility."

It’s my understanding that in an ecumenical council the bishops of the Church do not vote on doctrine or morals, but rather affirm the tradition which was handed down to them by their predecessor. The body as a whole, after witnessing collectively to this tradition, then affirm unanimously the faith of the Church. I’m not aware of any ecumenical council that voted on such a matter, found itself to be divided, then was forced to appeal to a higher authority. Can you comment on this?

THANK YOU, Dcointin! This is precisely the point that I have been trying to make. The Holy Spirit moves the bishops in the council to affirm the pious tradition of the Church, and that is where we find her infallibility! Finally! Antiochians have to stick together!

 

[Ghosty]

Mardukm,

Thank you again for your thoughts on this important subject! I’d like to comment on something you wrote:

"Logic dictates that if the authority of the Church narrowed down to an Ecumenical Council is infallible for the sake of settling an issue of faith or morals, then the further narrowing of the authority of the Church to the head bishop if the body of bishops cannot solve the matter must also require infallibility. Remember, we are talking about the Faith of the Church universal.

Logic also dictates that if the body of bishops appeals to the head bishop to settle a matter of faith or morals for the Church universal, they are themselves recognizing that they are appealing to an authority that can actually settle the matter. That certainly implies infallibility."

It’s my understanding that in an ecumenical council the bishops of the Church do not vote on doctrine or morals, but rather affirm the tradition which was handed down to them by their predecessor. The body as a whole, after witnessing collectively to this tradition, then affirm unanimously the faith of the Church. I’m not aware of any ecumenical council that voted on such a matter, found itself to be divided, then was forced to appeal to a higher authority. Can you comment on this?

I can’t give a long answer as I’m using my phone. The answer to your question, however, is the Council of Chalcedon which was rejected by the Egyptian bishops and many Syriac bishops. If concensus and unanimity are the hallmarks of an Ecumenical teaching then Chalcedon has absolutely no claim to such a standing.

Peace and God bless

 

[dcointin]

I can’t give a long answer as I’m using my phone. The answer to your question, however, is the Council of Chalcedon which was rejected by the Egyptian bishops and many Syriac bishops. If concensus and unanimity are the hallmarks of an Ecumenical teaching then Chalcedon has absolutely no claim to such a standing.

Peace and God bless

I would also say however that neither did a Papal decree (the Tome of Leo), end the controversy for those that would later be known as the Oriental Orthodox either. They were in fact very critical of it, and many condemend it as Nestorian.

 

[Ghosty]

I would also say however that neither did a Papal decree (the Tome of Leo), end the controversy for those that would later be known as the Oriental Orthodox either. They were in fact very critical of it, and many condemend it as Nestorian.

There’s no reason that the Tome of Leo would or should end the controversy; it was merely the theological thoughts of a bishop in a private letter to another bishop. Papal Infallibility has no application whatsoever to the Tome of Leo. The only authority it has is from its adoption at Chalcedon, and the Catholic Chu1ch has never claimed otherwise.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

There’s no reason that the Tome of Leo would or should end the controversy; it was merely the theological thoughts of a bishop in a private letter to another bishop. Papal Infallibility has no application whatsoever to the Tome of Leo. The only authority it has is from its adoption at Chalcedon, and the Catholic Chu1ch has never claimed otherwise.

Peace and God bless!

I’m not claiming that it was infallible in the sense of the strict Vatican I definition, but if the point was that the opinion of the Bishop of Rome is necessary to end theological conflict, then plainly this did nothing of the sort. If was rejected, condemned, and ignored by those that disagreed with it. To me, this is a significant piece of historical evidence about how the church understood Rome at that time.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not claiming that it was infallible in the sense of the strict Vatican I definition, but if the point was that the opinion of the Bishop of Rome is necessary to end theological conflict, then plainly this did nothing of the sort. If was rejected, condemned, and ignored by those that disagreed with it. To me, this is a significant piece of historical evidence about how the church understood Rome at that time.

All it proves is that those in error reject truth. Show me a single Council that “settled” a matter in the manner you propose. Nicaea and Constantinople didn’t “settle” the Arians, with the heretics nodding in submission to the Council.

No, what infallibility does is let us know where the Holy Spirit is assured, it certainly doesn’t eliminate the heretics. Chalcedon was not unanimous by any stretch of the imagination, so unanimity obviously can’t be the indicator of the Holy Spirit for those who accept Chalcedon. That is my point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

My point wasn’t that after an ecumenical council the matter immediately ceased to be a problem for the Church. Even the most cursory examination of the subject would show that to be false. It was rather that councils did not vote on the matter in the sense of counting those for and against, with a tie breaking vote being cast by the foremost bishop. They expressed the tradition as they had received it, affirmed the orthodox faith, and anathemized those that taught heresy.

 

[Ghosty]

My point wasn’t that after an ecumenical council the matter immediately ceased to be a problem for the Church. Even the most cursory examination of the subject would show that to be false. It was rather that councils did not vote on the matter in the sense of counting those for and against, with a tie breaking vote being cast by the foremost bishop. They expressed the tradition as they had received it, affirmed the orthodox faith, and anathemized those that taught heresy.

They did vote, however. The Coptic delegation was given time to select a new Patriarch before giving its yea or nay, and they came back with nay, and the two sides then anathemized eachother.

So the Eastern Orthodox must explain what makes Chalcedon authoritative, since it’s obviously not unanimity nor concensus. Catholics can say it was the side with the Pope, easy answer

Peace and God bless!

P.s. The Copts did affirm what they had been taught. St. Cyril explicitly taught one nature in Christ.

 

[dcointin]

I hope this isn’t too far off the topic of papal infallibility, but we would say a council is ecumenical because it was orthodox. We do not appeal to any other authority, whether a particular bishop, or even the consensus of the bishops gathered, to make this determination. It is only arrived at after prayerful reflection under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ghosty]

I hope this isn’t too far off the topic of papal infallibility, but we would say a council is ecumenical because it was orthodox. We do not appeal to any other authority, whether a particular bishop, or even the consensus of the bishops gathered, to make this determination. It is only arrived at after prayerful reflection under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This is non-sensical because Councils are called in order to determine the position that is orthodox. If the orthodoxy of a position is unanimous then a Council isn’t called. We can’t rely on circular arguments to justify Ecumenical Councils.

 

[dcointin]

This is non-sensical because Councils are called in order to determine the position that is orthodox. If the orthodoxy of a position is unanimous then a Council isn’t called. We can’t rely on circular arguments to justify Ecumenical Councils.

Ecumenical councils are called to affirm the orthodox faith and condemn heresy, not determine what the orthodox faith is. We do not believe there is any authority outside of the Holy Spirit that can infallibly declare dogma. The ecumenical councils are accepted as orthodox, and therefore used as authoritative witnesses to the orthodox faith. I think this is a major difference between our churches.

 

[hazcompat]

Ecumenical councils are called to affirm the orthodox faith and condemn heresy, not determine what the orthodox faith is. We do not believe there is any authority outside of the Holy Spirit that can infallibly declare dogma. The ecumenical councils are accepted as orthodox, and therefore used as authoritative witnesses to the orthodox faith. I think this is a major difference between our churches.

How does the Holy Spirit infallibly declare dogma?

peace

 

[dcointin]

How does the Holy Spirit infallibly declare dogma?

peace

Through the consensus of the Church.

 

[steve_b]

All it proves is that those in error reject truth. Show me a single Council that “settled” a matter in the manner you propose. Nicaea and Constantinople didn’t “settle” the Arians, with the heretics nodding in submission to the Council.

That’s a Valid point
G:

No, what infallibility does is let us know where the Holy Spirit is assured,* it certainly doesn’t eliminate the heretics.*

True. It does identify them though.
G:

Chalcedon was not unanimous by any stretch of the imagination, so unanimity obviously can’t be the indicator of the Holy Spirit for those who accept Chalcedon. That is my point.

Peace and God bless!

that’s another valid point.

 

[Ghosty]

Through the consensus of the Church.

So you agree, then, that Duophysitism, the position taught by Chalcedon, is not the teaching of the Holy Spirit since there was no concensus?

Peace and God bless!

 

[steve_b]

ß3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.
From Canon 333 of The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church

The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. (Vat I Pastor aeternus

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the** full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,** and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Pastor Aeternus

“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ,** the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.”**
Council of Florence

882 “…For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
CCC

You’ve been reading Church documents.

To answer the question posed by the thread,…the answer is No