Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[dcointin]

First of all Fr. Hopko is simply wrong in his statement that the Councils reached a consensus of all believers; you yourself have admitted as much in previous posts.

Secondly, Fr. Hopko contradicts your assertion that we can’t be certain of the teachings of these Councils, as he says they were inspired by God. He’s certainly saying that Councils have a formal authority, but how can we be certain that this Council was inspired, but not that one? His answer would seem to be that they reached a consensus, but that is simply a false assertion.

So do you agree with Fr. Hopko that we can have certainty of the teachings of the Councils? If you do then how can we know which Councils are true and which are robber councils, since you’ve already agreed that true consensus isn’t the mark of a true Council?

Peace and God bless!

No council can ever reach an absolute consensus in the sense of every single person accepting its decrees since heretics would deny them, and I doubt that was the meaning he intended. I believe his point is that all orthodox Christians accept them, and it is this consensus which establishes them as normative.

I never stated that we can’t be certain of what the councils taught. Their acts have been preserved and are available for anyone that wants to read them. I know of no scholarly reason to doubt that they have been preserved in their original form.

 

[Ghosty]

There was consensus! The faithful body of believers, who had always held the orthodox view of faith held Chalcedon to be true, and therefore it was. The consensus is not merely the consensus of the bishops in council. If the faithful reject the decision the bishops came to (the council of florence for example) then the Holy Spirit has shown infallibility through the entire body of the faithful, and not just the episcopacy.

No, the Faithful body of believers held Chalcedon to be false, and therefore it was a robber council, but Florence was a true Council because the Faithful body of believers accepted it while the perfidious Greeks and Russians rejected it and embraced heresy.

Do you see how weak your argument is? It can be applied to any Council, even the ones you reject.

Cavaradossi:

The only certainty that Christ left us was that he had trampled down death by death. Nowhere did He guarantee that we would not fall into heresy if we followed some magic formula to invoke the protection of the Holy Spirit. St. Maximus the Confessor’s certainty in the orthodoxy of dyothelitism certainly came from no infallible council or pontiff.

I’m not advocating any kind of magic formula, and I don’t think anyone else here is. Certainly the Catholic Church does not advocate any kind of magic formula for determining the will of the Holy Spirit.

My question remains, however. How does the Church know the will of the Holy Spirit when even Councils were extremely divided and led to schisms that exist to this very day? God is not the author of confusion, so there must be something else from which we derive the certainty of His teaching and the protection of His Church, and I’m waiting for a clear answer from the Eastern Orthodox on what this is. It doesn’t have to be a magic formula, it doesn’t even have to be a formal authority; it could be the “burning in the bosom” of the Mormons for all I care. I’m just looking for an answer that is actually consistent and non-circular, something more than “we know we’re correct because we’re the correct ones”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

First of all Fr. Hopko is simply wrong in his statement that the Councils reached a consensus of all believers; you yourself have admitted as much in previous posts.

Secondly, Fr. Hopko contradicts your assertion that we can’t be certain of the teachings of these Councils, as he says they were inspired by God. He’s certainly saying that Councils have a formal authority, but how can we be certain that this Council was inspired, but not that one? His answer would seem to be that they reached a consensus, but that is simply a false assertion.

So do you agree with Fr. Hopko that we can have certainty of the teachings of the Councils? If you do then how can we know which Councils are true and which are robber councils, since you’ve already agreed that true consensus isn’t the mark of a true Council?

Peace and God bless!

The mark of a true council is that it teaches the truth. As circular as the logic may seem, there is simply no better answer. To say that a council can only be true when it meets certain criteria is about as silly as those who tried to prove the existence of the soul by weighing the body at the moment of death to determine if any mass was lost, or those who think that they can scientifically prove or disprove God. We cannot by reason alone ascertain what makes councils credible witnesses to the faith; I think it is something more intuitive than that.

 

[Ghosty]

No council can ever reach an absolute consensus in the sense of every single person accepting its decrees since heretics would deny them, and I doubt that was the meaning he intended. I believe his point is that all orthodox Christians accept them, and it is this consensus which establishes them as normative.

I never stated that we can’t be certain of what the councils taught. Their acts have been preserved and are available for anyone that wants to read them. I know of no scholarly reason to doubt that they have been preserved in their original form.

Let me first say that I never said you claimed that we couldn’t know what Councils taught. I’m not sure what I said that gave you this impression.

To the first part, we don’t know who the orthodox Christians are without the definitions of the Councils, however, as Fr. Hopko says that the dogmas of the Councils are the essential source of the Orthodox Faith. So Fr. Hopko can’t mean what you are suggesting I’m afraid.

Cavaradossi: You don’t know what truth is without the Councils, and that is the failure of circular arguments; a circular argument isn’t an argument at all, not even a weak one, it is simply false.

God promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us to Truth. Where is the Holy Spirit, and how do we know? God obviously wasn’t lying, so there must be an answer to this question.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

Secondly, Fr. Hopko contradicts your assertion that we can’t be certain of the teachings of these Councils, as he says they were inspired by God.

 

[dcointin]

Let me first say that I never said you claimed that we couldn’t know what Councils taught. I’m not sure what I said that gave you this impression.

To the first part, we don’t know who the orthodox Christians are without the definitions of the Councils, however, as Fr. Hopko says that the dogmas of the Councils are the essential source of the Orthodox Faith. So Fr. Hopko can’t mean what you are suggesting I’m afraid.

Cavaradossi: You don’t know what truth is without the Councils, and that is the failure of circular arguments; a circular argument isn’t an argument at all, not even a weak one, it is simply false.

God promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us to Truth. Where is the Holy Spirit, and how do we know? God obviously wasn’t lying, so there must be an answer to this question.

Peace and God bless!

On the contrary we can. The councils do not make us orthodox, they witness to and affirm the orthodox faith, which is received by the faithful.

 

[dcointin]

God promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us to Truth. Where is the Holy Spirit, and how do we know? God obviously wasn’t lying, so there must be an answer to this question.

Peace and God bless!

Our Lord promised his apostles that he would send them the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth, which was fulfilled at Pentecost. The apostles then passed on the faith to the Church and entrusted its teaching to the bishops who they appointed to govern the churches. The bishops likewise passed down this faith, etc. on to the present time. This passing on can be found orally, liturgically, scripturally, conciliarly, etc., which are the sources of our tradition.

 

[Ghosty]

Our Lord promised his apostles that he would send them the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth, which was fulfilled at Pentecost. The apostles then passed on the faith to the Church and entrusted its teaching to the bishops who they appointed to govern the churches. The bishops likewise passed down this faith, etc. on to the present time. This passing on can be found orally, liturgically, scripturally, conciliarly, etc., which are the sources of our tradition.

And the Oriental Orthodox are also from the Apostles, also had their traditions handed down from them, and they reject Chalcedon. Who is correct?

Peace and God bless!

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

According to the definition of papal infallibility, (emphasis mine)

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher **of all Christians,
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
     Did Honorius teach OR define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church? Nope!
     
     Therefore, no pope (bishop of Rome successor to Peter) Honorius included, has EVER taught heresy to the Church. NO one has ever shown a pope has taught error to the Church and then the Church had to correct the pope’s teaching to the Church. You know that as soon as that doctrine of infallibility was defined and proclaimed, every anti Catholic on the planet couldn’t wait to take the challenge to find the error from some pope of Rome. They looked, over the 2000 years of the papacy, using that definition, and didn’t find the smoking gun. That’s pretty remarkable don’t you think?
     
     Re: Honorius, as an aside, Sergius was asked to keep their conversations to themselves. No intent THEIR to teach error by Honorius. Surgius otoh didn’t honor the agreement. Had he kept the agreement, NOBODY would even know this story.
     
     ***Re: ***your use of Catholic as (universal) or some other blurring of the name, as if it is NOT the proper name of the Church, the moderators have already ruled on this
     http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
     http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30

1. • 
     You certainly have no idea what Catholic means if you think by my using the term Universal to remind people what the definition of Catholic is as “blurring of the name”. The english word Catholic comes from the greek word Katholiki, which literally means “Universal”. And, I in fact believe that it is the proper name of the church, as it is the name of the church given in the Nicene-constantinopolitan creed. I do not, however, believe that its original meaning is synonymous with your own church just because that’s how it identifies itself. Thanks for getting us off topic here though. The moderators have also mentioned that!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OrthodoxJosh,

Bear with me - my knowledge of the Eastern Orthodox is so vast … that you could put it in a thimble with room to spare!

When you read Matt 16:18 where is it that you do not see the authority being vested in “…one bishop”?

There is this line - and the ECF confirm it - where this “…one bishop…” resides in Rome - yet this is obviously disputed.

I am just trying to see where you are coming from using a historic perspective.

God bless

What you are saying here isn’t too foreign from what I have been taught in Orthodoxy. What I have been taught is that the Church is infallible, through the grace of the Holy Spirit acting through the consensus of an eccumenical council which makes the common belief of the whole body of the faithful official teaching of the Church. But this authority is vested in the Church, and not in one bishop. This, I would say, is a difference between our churches.

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

 

[dcointin]

While I’m not an expert on the subject, I’ve read that the reasons for its rejection were complicated, but for the sake of discussion I’ll say it was based on their monophysitism. The concern of the monophysites was that the decree of Chalcedon separated Christ into two persons by, which is how they understood the term “two natures”, with nature and person seeming synonomous. Against this they emphasized the unity of Christ as God and man in one person. In the modern discussions the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have had, it’s been acknowledged that the difference was primarily one of terminology, not faith. I personally had a conversation with a Coptic Orthodox online once where we discussed Christology, and after an hour of going back and forth realized we were saying the same thing in different words. Would I say they should have accepted Chalcedon? Yes I would. Would I say their rejection implied a different faith? Not necessarily.

I get the impression that for Catholics the truth cannot be known without a conciliar or papal decree, as though prior to that there is no way to judge orthodoxy from heresy. Again I think this is a fundamental difference between our churches as we believe truth can be known apart from these mechanisms and it is the responsibility of the whole Church to maintain orthodoy, not just the bishops or pope.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

Hi, OrthodoxJosh,

Bear with me - my knowledge of the Eastern Orthodox is so vast … that you could put it in a thimble with room to spare!

When you read Matt 16:18 where is it that you do not see the authority being vested in “…one bishop”?

There is this line - and the ECF confirm it - where this “…one bishop…” resides in Rome - yet this is obviously disputed.

I am just trying to see where you are coming from using a historic perspective.

God bless

Let’s take a look at a few verses up to Matthew 16:18: 16:13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I, and most other Orthodox read this as Christ saying that it is Peter’s statement in verse 16 that is the rock upon which Christ built His Church. At the same time, I believe that Peter himself had a very specific and special mission among the Apostles, but that it was Peter’s mission only, and was not communicated to any other bishop after him. If it was, then why wouldn’t the Patriarch of Antioch hold the same Petrine office as you believe the Pope of Rome does, since Peter was a bishop in Antioch before coming to Rome. At the same time, I don’t think that the humble fisherman from palestine who denied Christ, and then went on to preach him throughout the mediteranean would have ever accepted the status that the bishop of rome accepts as his due today. The confusion comes because some read that Christ is calling Peter the “rock”, since in greek “Petros” literally means rock, and is also translated as “Peter”. Remember, his name was Cephas, and that also meant stone. But again, we believe that it was his confession of Christ as the Son of God that is the rock on which the Church was built, because that is the center of our faith, not Peter. If Christ is not the Son of God then we are lost, but the same cannot be said if Peter were not the rock. Hope that helps!

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

 

[steve_b]

You certainly have no idea what Catholic means if you think by my using the term Universal to remind people what the definition of Catholic is as “blurring of the name”. The english word Catholic comes from the greek word Katholiki, which literally means “Universal”.

This is a Catholic web site. Not a “Universal” website. It’s not called Universal Answers, It’s Catholic Answers for a reason. Besides, I think Catholics know what is meant by Catholic on a Catholic website. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means
OJ:

And, I in fact believe that it is the proper name of the church, as it is the name of the church given in the Nicene-constantinopolitan creed.

Good
OJ:

I do not, however, believe that its original meaning is synonymous with your own church just because that’s how it identifies itself.

I can make my case, however, what does that say about “Orthodox” then?
OJ:

Thanks for getting us off topic here though. The moderators have also mentioned that!

I merely made a comment to a point, you obviously thought was important to make. That’s all it was.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mro,

Never? How can that be? From Peter on - the Bishop of Rome was in charge - not the Primates of the other churches.

God bless

The Coptic pope has been independent always… They are not schismatic because they never were in communion with Rome…

 

[steve_b]

Let’s take a look at a few verses up to Matthew 16:18: 16:13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I, and most other Orthodox read this as Christ saying that it is Peter’s statement in verse 16 that is the rock upon which Christ built His Church.

If it was Simon’s statement alone there, that triggered Jesus response to him, renaming him to Rock, giving him the keys to the kingdom, binding and loosing etc, why didn’t Jesus do the same earlier for all the apostles, when THEY said pretty much the same thing Simon did ?

Matthew 14:32-33: "And when they [Jesus and Peter] got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.****’”

Did Jesus say at this point to the apostles…STOP the presses!!! Do you guys realize what you just said? From now on guys, I’m changing all your names to… etc etc etc. But Jesus didn’t do that did He? No.
OJ:

At the same time, I believe that Peter himself had a very specific and special mission among the Apostles, but that it was Peter’s mission only, and was *not communicated to any other bishop after him. *

Didn’t you talk about “sacred Tradition” earlier? Are you NOW going to toss “sacred Tradition” overboard?
OJ:

If it was, then why wouldn’t the Patriarch of Antioch hold the same Petrine office as you believe the Pope of Rome does, since Peter was a bishop in Antioch before coming to Rome.

Good question. Antioch was always counted either 3rd or 4th down the list of sees from Rome. Why no special understanding for Antioch even among the Orthodox? The answer is, Antioch didn’t hold Peter. He went to Rome. Also, popes ordain bishops in their pontificates. That doesn’t make the ones they ordain a pope, or make them his successor.

Historically, the earliest listing of sees went like this

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   When Constantinople came along in the 4th century the numbering changed
   1. 
      *]Rome
      *]Constantinople
      *]Alexandria
      *]Antioch
      *]Jerusalem
      OJ:
      

      At the same time, I don’t think that the humble fisherman from palestine who denied Christ, and then went on to preach him throughout the mediteranean would have ever accepted the status that the bishop of rome accepts as his due today. The confusion comes because some read that Christ is calling Peter the “rock”, since in greek "Petros" literally means rock, and is also translated as “Peter”. Remember, his name was Cephas, and that also meant stone.

      Petros is Greek Cephas is Aramaic. Cephas is Rock.
      OJ:
      

      But again, we believe that it was his confession of Christ as the Son of God that is the rock on which the Church was built, because that is the center of our faith, not Peter. If Christ is not the Son of God then we are lost, but the same cannot be said if Peter were not the rock. Hope that helps!
      
      The sinner,
      Josh
      Most Holy Mother of God save us!

      It had to be more than his confession. And since God selected him to be the leader of the apostles ergo the Church, this is an article of faith ALSO to believe what God did and is doing through this office HE established, 1st held by Peter.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Let me first say that I never said you claimed that we couldn’t know what Councils taught. I’m not sure what I said that gave you this impression.

To the first part, we don’t know who the orthodox Christians are without the definitions of the Councils, however, as Fr. Hopko says that the dogmas of the Councils are the essential source of the Orthodox Faith. So Fr. Hopko can’t mean what you are suggesting I’m afraid.

Cavaradossi: You don’t know what truth is without the Councils, and that is the failure of circular arguments; a circular argument isn’t an argument at all, not even a weak one, it is simply false.

God promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us to Truth. Where is the Holy Spirit, and how do we know? God obviously wasn’t lying, so there must be an answer to this question.

Peace and God bless!

How do we know that God exists or that there is even any truth? You cannot produce a set of criteria for making a council true any more than you can prove that God exists using reason alone, at least not without making a set of assumptions which may not be true.

 

[steve_b]

No*. I’m not viewing consensus as a formal authority*, and I think that’s the main difference between us. Whether it is a bishop, council, consensus, etc. I do not posit that there is any formal authority by which we can be absolutely certain of the truth except for the Holy Spirit. I think this need for a formal authority is a major distinguishing principle between the Catholic and Orthodox.

Wow!

 

[steve_b]

The only certainty that Christ left us was that he had trampled down death by death.

I’m sure you can come up with a few other “certainties” if you think about it.
C:

Nowhere did He guarantee that*** we*** would not fall into heresy if we followed some magic formula to invoke the protection of the Holy Spirit.

True. “We” is too general, and “magic formula” is too irreverant.
C:

St. Maximus the Confessor’s certainty in the orthodoxy of dyothelitism certainly came from no infallible council or pontiff.

I don’t understand the point. The Catholic Church already taught 2 wills and 2 natures in Jesus. Maximus took the Catholic Church view vs the monothelite view.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dcointin,

I have been reading this exchange with serious interest - but, really, this response does not make any sense.

The Holy Spirit has yet to write one word to establish His position on any topic. So, if you claim that there is no formal authority by which we can be absolutely certain - then we are centain about nothing. And we can trace this total uncertainty you claim exists from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican II.

If you disagree with the Council of Chalcedon, is this the same as saying that Christ had one nature?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

No. I’m not viewing consensus as a formal authority, and I think that’s the main difference between us. Whether it is a bishop, council, consensus, etc. I do not posit that there is any formal authority by which we can be absolutely certain of the truth except for the Holy Spirit. I think this need for a formal authority is a major distinguishing principle between the Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

… From Peter on - the Bishop of Rome was in charge - not the Primates of the other churches.

I should like to know what you mean by “in charge”. If it means what I think you probably mean, with respect I should point out that this is revisionist history, and you have been mislead by it.

I am not going to agree with MRO that the Coptic Pope was never in communion with the bishop of Rome, of course they were in communion. The bishop of Alexandria was never under the control of the bishop of Rome, however. The authorities were quite independent of one another and had responsibilty in their own spheres of influence. Relations between them were characterized by mutual respect.