Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[steve_b]

I’ll let you try and explain exactly what Paul meant when he said Peter compelled Gentiles to live as Jews, and that he was to blame.

Where did Paul say Peter compelled gentiles to live like Jews? Where did Peter compel gentiles to live like Jews? That would completely contradict what Peter said in council, Acts 15.

Peter is accused of acting hypocritically. To act hypocritically is to say one thing and then act contrary to it. The passage implies that while Peter’s actions were wrong, his teachings were all the while correct.
S:

And so he deferred to James and the Judaizers, and as Paul put it, “fear[ed] those who were of the circumcision”?

Deferred? I think not.

Besides, I gave Jerome’s explanation of this.
S:

Paul also quite literally said that Peter was to be blamed. Peter didn’t only do these things himself, but his example caused others, such as Barnabas who was mentioned, to be “carried away with their hypocrisy.”

hypocrisy is to say one thing and do something else. Peter isn’t being criticised for teaching incorrectly, just acting incorrectly. And as we see later, Paul the accuser, does MUCH worse. Be sure to read what I gave you.

 

[jwinch2]

The Haydock commentary on Acts 15, 19 states the following:
Haydock:

Wherefore I judge, and join my judgment with Peter. St. Chrysostom thinks that James had a special authority in the Council, as bishop of Jerusalem, and because of the great veneration, which those zealous for the Jewish law had for him: but his power was certainly inferior to that of St. Peter, who was head of all, as St. Chrysostom teacheth, hom. iii. on the Acts.

I did a quick search on hom. iii on the Acts but did not find a text to reference on St. John Chrysostom and the primacy of Peter. If anyone happens to have that passage, I would be interested in seeing it.

The Navarre Bible Commentary does not really discuss verse 19 but the Ignatius Study Bible does. According to the Ignatius, Peters statement “We Believe…” is intended to be doctrinal while Jame’s statements are intended to be a pastoral plan of implementation. This would seem to correctly represent the manner in which Papal authority is often manifested, i.e. the Pope makes a decision and then it is up to the local Bishop to implement the plan as he sees fit. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary does not discuss the question either way.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

The Haydock commentary on Acts 15, 19 states the following:

I did a quick search on hom. iii on the Acts but did not find a text to reference on St. John Chrysostom and the primacy of Peter. If anyone happens to have that passage, I would be interested in seeing it.

I did end up finding what I was looking for:

philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.iii.html

 

[Ghosty]

dcointin:

  	 		 	 	 What I'm attempting to convey is that the only absolute certainty  we can have regarding Christian doctrine comes from the inner certitude  of faith which comes through the Holy Spirit.

Of course the problem with this is that it gives no basis for believing the Orthodox Faith over, say, Calvinism or even Mormonism. In fact this “inner certitude” is precisely what Mormons say shows that Mormonism is true. Orthodoxy, then, is merely a matter of feeling, not objective truth, and such a stance can’t hold up against arguments from the outside.

The Fathers certainly did not follow such a model of “inner certitude”; they argued using logic and authority.

The sources of doctrine such as the rule of faith, scripture, tradition, liturgy, councils, fathers, etc. are normative for us, and is is through these that we answer controversies in doctrine and practice. What I mean by the phrase that there “is no formal authority” is that there is no external mechanism through which we can be absolutely guaranteed of the truth, in contrast to what I see as the Catholic belief that there is and must be. For example, we might say that the decrees of the Council of Nicea are authoritative, but why? Because they have been accepted by the Church as orthodox, i.e. in full agreement with apostolic tradition.

The Arians did not accept the Council of Nicea precisely because it did not match with Scripture, tradition, or the Fathers as they understood it. You accept Nicea merely because you follow those who accepted Nicea, not because of any objective power of Nicea’s argument, and that means you have no ground against the Arians who denied Nicea on the same basis you accept it. What this amounts to is that the Nicean Christians simply shouted longer and harder than the Arians, not that they proved themselves to hold the Truth.

I think this is a significant difference between our churches which is relevant to the discussion on papal infallibility. As another example, take the reception of the Tome of Leo by the Council of Chalcedon. Orthodox would say it was accepted because it agreed with the apostolic tradition, while Catholics would say it was orthodox because it was promulgated by the Pope. Do you see the difference?

The Tome of Leo is not accepted by Catholics on the basis you contend. Did you know that the Tome of Leo was not an exercise of Papal Infallibility, and in fact only carries infallibility because it was accepted at Chalcedon? The Tome of Leo doesn’t even come close to the definition of Papal Infallibility, and Papal Infallibility itself is merely an extension of the general infallibility of the Church.

The real difference it seems, at least in your description of things, is that Catholics believe in objectively infallible pronouncements and you believe it is merely a subjective certitude, which I would argue is no certitude at all.

Remember, the Pope does not write to an Ecumenical Council and tell it what to accept; this has never been done in the history of the Catholic Church, and really can’t happen according the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The Pope is part of an Ecumenical Council, not outside of it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

No, I’ve been very clear that we argue for the orthodox faith on the basis of authorities such as the scriptures, fathers, councils, etc., and I believe that the truth is discernible to those that look for it with an open mind. If this weren’t the case why would Catholics waste their time telling people to read these sources? It was my study of church history that led me from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, and I know of many others that have made similar journeys, some of whom chose Catholicism. That some people chose one or the other (or neither) doesn’t mean that the truth is therefore impossible to determine, anymore than someone choosing to believe any falsehood would. Following that logic, I wonder how you would believe anything at all not promulgated ex cathedra by a pope.

The inner certitude I spoke of is faith, and it’s very different from Mormonism which teaches a “burning in the bosom”, an emotional response that you are encouraged to accept as a sign of the Holy Spirit.

I was using the Tome of Leo as an example of our difference in approach to truth, you can feel free to debate its status as ex cathedra or not. Even if I were to accept the dogma of papal infallibility, it’s defined so narrowly that only two decrees are unanimously accepted as meeting the criteria if I remember correctly, and many are debated. So that’s two (or possibly several more) dogmas we can know with certainty, but for the others it would seem we’re on our own, at least until the next pronouncement.

The fathers did not argue on the basis of the opinion of the pope alone, but on the basis of the authorities I mentioned, so I wonder why we should be expected to do otherwise.

I think at this point we’re just going to keep repeating our positions, so I’ll rest my contribution to this thread there.

 

[Ghosty]

No, I’ve been very clear that we argue for the orthodox faith on the basis of authorities such as the scriptures, fathers, councils, etc., and I believe that the truth is discernible to those that look for it with an open mind. If this weren’t the case why would Catholics waste their time telling people to read these sources? It was my study of church history that led me from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, and I know of many others that have made similar journeys, some of whom chose Catholicism. That some people chose one or the other (or neither) doesn’t mean that the truth is therefore impossible to determine, anymore than someone choosing to believe any falsehood would. Following that logic, I wonder how you would believe anything at all not promulgated ex cathedra by a pope.

You don’t seem to believe that the Truth is an objectively set thing, however. Remember, there was a time when Origen was a leading Father, he was cited as holding closely to the teaching of the Apostles, held up as an example of orthodox theology, the Cappadocian Fathers followed his teachings, and then much of his theology was condemned by a Church Council. We give the Cappadocian Fathers a pass on following Origen, and we still revere some of Origen’s work, but the fact is that at one time he was “the norm”, followed by great Saints, and now he is the father of heresies. This is because of the “formal authority” of a Council, and it’s a condemnation that you recognize as an Orthodox Christian.

My point is that in the early Church there were folks like Origen who lived very close to the Apostles, and were very pious people, and they were revered and followed in their time. Their views were later condemned, not because their views were “outside” of Apostolic Tradition and Scripture, and they were (and are, in some sence) Church Fathers, but because errors developed from their “Apostolic and Scriptural” teachings. Without a formal authority of some sort to condemn these things we would be left following Origen in his errors, just as the Cappadocian Fathers did prior to the condemnations.

As for why I would believe anything that isn’t promulgated ex cathedra by the Pope, that is because I don’t believe formal authority for interpreting Apostolic Tradition and Scripture rests only with the Pope, and Catholic teaching is very clear on this point. Papal Infallibility is merely the “least” of the formal authorities of the Catholic Faith, and it is really only recognized by logical reduction. It is not the normal magisterium of the Church (which is the consensus of Faith, yes we believe in it, and it’s what 90% of our beliefs come from), it’s not even the normal “extraordinary” magisterium of the Church (which would be Ecumenical Councils, of which the Pope is part), it’s the “extraordinary extraordinary magisterium”, so to speak.

I do believe in formal authority, however, and I believe it has been exercised since the time of Acts. This discussion of the Council of Jerusalem, regardless of how one interprets Peter’s role, is a clear example of formal interpretive authority. We Catholics simply believe that this formal authority didn’t end with the Apostles, but was passed on to their successors the Bishops.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jwinch2]

As for why I would believe anything that isn’t promulgated ex cathedra by the Pope, that is because I don’t believe formal authority for interpreting Apostolic Tradition and Scripture rests only with the Pope, and Catholic teaching is very clear on this point. Papal Infallibility is merely the “least” of the formal authorities of the Catholic Faith, and it is really only recognized by logical reduction. It is not the normal magisterium of the Church (which is the consensus of Faith, yes we believe in it, and it’s what 90% of our beliefs come from), it’s not even the normal “extraordinary” magisterium of the Church (which would be Ecumenical Councils, of which the Pope is part), it’s the “extraordinary extraordinary magisterium”, so to speak.

I do believe in formal authority, however, and I believe it has been exercised since the time of Acts. This discussion of the Council of Jerusalem, regardless of how one interprets Peter’s role, is a clear example of formal interpretive authority. We Catholics simply believe that this formal authority didn’t end with the Apostles, but was passed on to their successors the Bishops.

Peace and God bless!

That was nicely put. Thank you for that.

Peace,

 

[Sepp]

Ghosty’s argument in this thread is the heart of the matter for me.

Eastern Orthodox apologists often say that we know an Ecumenical Council from a robber council because it teaches the truth and is accepted by the Church as a whole. But then, whole regions and patriarchates rejected the decisions of councils which are considered Ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox. Some of these led to lasting schisms, with both sides claiming to be the one, true Church. How does a layman know which of these groups is the Church, if not by determining the truth of the argument for himself?

I have personally spent several months researching the Filioque…and I have only just begun to feel comfortable that I even understand the basics. It is certainly important for the Church to understand and teach clearly on these matters…but I am troubled by the idea that such extensive knowledge is necessary for an individual to find and remain in the Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shiranui117,

Thank you for the clarification.

And, in your enthusiasm for assuming that Peter is the Rock - think also that he is the Key Man, too. Now, hang onto that thought…

While on Earth, one of the things that Christ did not give to Peter or to the Apostles - nor did the Holy Spirit give on Petecost - was a 'blue print of what the Catholic Church would look like along with a Policy and Procedure Manual. This ‘omissions’ are significant for those who want to see the Chruch of the 1st Century refected in the Church of the 4th or 16th or 21st Centuries.

Where Peter once was is truly of historic importance - but, it should not be seen as any type of limitation. The Ancient Sees are truly blessed and I do not think anyone is arguing with that. But there are two snags that must be addressed"

1.) Peter was a sinful man that God chose to be the special vessel to carry the message of Christ as the leader of the Apostles. Other Apostles, including Paul, were also special vessels and they had their roles to perform - but, not as leader of the Church. Only Peter received the Keys - no duplicate sets were issued then or later.

2.) The human/physical organization of the Catholc Church was different when it was under active persecution of the Roman Empire contrasted with after the Edict of Milan and contrasted with what we see with the Council of Nicea. This is still a very young Church - but look at all of the changes. All of the Ancient Sees were in much closer relationships then than they are today. Yet the Successor of Peter has continued on with the mission given by Christ.

God bless

Alright, let’s assume for a moment that Peter is truly the Rock Christ spoke of, and Peter alone. Even then, Rome is not the only Petrine See, as it were. Just see what St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, says about the Chair of Peter:
"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. . .
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one1722 (footnote right below here)”

1722 As to the view here expressed of the unity of the three Sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, see Prolegom., p. xii.

“He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxvi.html

St. Gregory is clearly affirming that the See of Peter is at once the sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, all three sees forming one See of Peter. Rome does not hold this position any more than Alexandria and Antioch, and Gregory himself says that three bishops now preside over the See of Peter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Steve b,

One of the most illuminating things about Scripture is that it is not a transcript or a word-for-word account of what happened. We have the inspired Word of God written with a human hand.

It certainly appears that there were different points of view at the Council of Jerusalem - there was probably a lot of ‘lobbying’ for particular positions. People were arguing and in active debate - and, it did not look like anything was getting accomplished in James’ See. And, then Peter speaks and decided the matter.

As I stated previously this is not only the written account, but the chronology of who spoke when and what was said - per St. Luke, the author of Acts.

It is good that James was in agreement - but, he moved to Peter’s position (there is no official account of what James’ position was … but given his Jewish sympathies one can only guess that Pete;s resposne was probably a surprise to James - in my opinion). What made it noteworthy is that not only did the Holy Spirit insprie Peter to make the decision, but also inspried James to immediately endorse it. While it is hard to image that something like division immediately went away - nothing is heard of it in terms of being a major division any more.

This is where Faith comes in. Either read what is there and understand, or come up with something after the fact. Someone used the term ‘revisionist’ - but, the proof of that pudding lies in the writings of the ECF - and the Successors of Peter are the acknowledged leaders of the Universal Church. This does not take away anthing from the Ancient Sees - but, does acknowledge the hirearchy that was present from the very beginning - with Peter being the leader of the Apostles, per the authority of Christ.

God bless

James listened to and named the one he listened to. He was the one who said God made him the voice to the gentiles. He was the one who condemned those who were tempting God, and putting this yoke on the necks of the gentiles? Who was that ONE person, that led up to James ratifying his decision? It was Peter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sepp,

Welcome to CAF!

You have brought out an excellent point. Ultimately, we are all judged on the lights we are given and how we cooperated with the Grace of God in working with those lights - that He gave us in the first place. I think the dialogue with the different posters - all having different views and insights - can be a very helpful process in making up one’s mind.

In my opinion, there are three aspects that have to be taken as a whole to arrive at the correct answer.

1,) the Words of Scripture that identify that Peter had a leadership role prior to Matt 16, then the selection of Peter by God the Father to give Peter the anwer to Christ’s question, then Christ’s selection of Peter as both the Rock and to having the Keys

2.) Sacred Tradition where the role of Peter (and Peter’s Successors) is that of leader and acknowledged by the ECF

3.) the preponderandce of evidence in not only what we find coming from the West - but of the errors and heresies that came from the East: Monophysitism, Arianism and Nestorianism). In my opinion, given this track record, if there was an opportunity for a false doctrine to be established in the early Church, the odds it would come from the East were great. What kept the Church for self-destructing with such heresies was the great Eastern saints who worked to remove these errors.

Please do not view this third point as an ad hominem attack - just a statement of historical fact.

I hope this helps.

God bless

Ghosty’s argument in this thread is the heart of the matter for me.

Eastern Orthodox apologists often say that we know an Ecumenical Council from a robber council because it teaches the truth and is accepted by the Church as a whole. But then, whole regions and patriarchates rejected the decisions of councils which are considered Ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox. Some of these led to lasting schisms, with both sides claiming to be the one, true Church. How does a layman know which of these groups is the Church, if not by determining the truth of the argument for himself?

I have personally spent several months researching the Filioque…and I have only just begun to feel comfortable that I even understand the basics. It is certainly important for the Church to understand and teach clearly on these matters…but I am troubled by the idea that such extensive knowledge is necessary for an individual to find and remain in the Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, Steve b,

One of the most illuminating things about Scripture is that it is not a transcript or a word-for-word account of what happened. We have the inspired Word of God written with a human hand.

It certainly appears that there were different points of view at the Council of Jerusalem - there was probably a lot of ‘lobbying’ for particular positions. People were arguing and in active debate - and, it did not look like anything was getting accomplished in James’ See. And, then Peter speaks and decided the matter.

As I stated previously this is not only the written account, but the chronology of who spoke when and what was said - per St. Luke, the author of Acts.

It is good that James was in agreement - but, he moved to Peter’s position (there is no official account of what James’ position was … but given his Jewish sympathies one can only guess that Pete;s resposne was probably a surprise to James - in my opinion). What made it noteworthy is that not only did the Holy Spirit insprie Peter to make the decision, but also inspried James to immediately endorse it. While it is hard to image that something like division immediately went away - nothing is heard of it in terms of being a major division any more.

This is where Faith comes in. Either read what is there and understand, or come up with something after the fact. Someone used the term ‘revisionist’ - but, the proof of that pudding lies in the writings of the ECF - and the Successors of Peter are the acknowledged leaders of the Universal Church. This does not take away anthing from the Ancient Sees - but, does acknowledge the hirearchy that was present from the very beginning - with Peter being the leader of the Apostles, per the authority of Christ.

God bless

I think maybe you would benefit from reading St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis which was provided by Mickey a while back before you declare that the fathers clearly support your interpretation of acts 15.

All had a say in it…St James, St Peter, St Barnabas, St Paul. It was a council. St James made the final judgement.

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.

---

I say that what is being put forth here by some Catholics is revisionist because they are claiming that St. Peter’s actions in Acts 15 are indicative of papal infallibility when you could have found very few serious theologians before 1870 who believed in such a thing (not to mention the Melkite Patriarch Gregory who initially voted non placet at Vatican I, and later reluctantly accepted Vatican I with the qualifying clause “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs”).

 

[Mickey]

I think maybe you would benefit from reading St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis which was provided by Mickey a while back before you declare that the fathers clearly support your interpretation of acts 15.

Yes. That seems to be largely ignored. I wonder why?

I say that what is being put forth here by some Catholics is revisionist because they are claiming that St. Peter’s actions in Acts 15 are indicative of papal infallibility when you could have found very few serious theologians before 1870 who believed in such a thing (not to mention the Melkite Patriarch Gregory who initially voted non placet at Vatican I, and later reluctantly accepted Vatican I with the qualifying clause “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs”).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

Allow me to offer an answer.

None of the Early Church Father were infallible. Some men that were held in high regard seem to have gonet off of the deep end like Origen and Tertullian.

Rather where does the preponderance of evidence lie - that Christ did or did not set up a hierarchy within the Church He founded. While we could go on and on about the ‘Rock vs Pebble’ item … only Peter got the Keys. No one is arguing this - and for a good reason. It shows Peter’s authority.

There was some argument that Christ never said that Peer would have a Successor - that when Peter died that would be the end of it. But, note, Christ gave Peter the power to do everything he thought necessary for this brand new Church built on him with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. “WHATEVER you bind on earth…” covers everything - and that would include that Peter actually had a successor. While not recorded in Scripture - it is obvious by the simple facts of history that the leader of the Catholic Church was the Successor of Peter.

In no way does this take away from the saintly work and writings of St. John Chrysostom - but, we need to keep a perspective. St. Augustine was not only familiar with the tensions between the East and West - but consistently looked to Rome for final authority. And, I think the majority of ECF look to Rome for the authorative and definitive statements on matters of Faith and Morals.

God bless

Yes. That seems to be largely ignored. I wonder why?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, Mickey,

Allow me to offer an answer.

None of the Early Church Father were infallible. Some men that were held in high regard seem to have gonet off of the deep end like Origen and Tertullian.

Rather where does the preponderance of evidence lie - that Christ did or did not set up a hierarchy within the Church He founded. While we could go on and on about the ‘Rock vs Pebble’ item … only Peter got the Keys. No one is arguing this - and for a good reason. It shows Peter’s authority.

There was some argument that Christ never said that Peer would have a Successor - that when Peter died that would be the end of it. But, note, Christ gave Peter the power to do everything he thought necessary for this brand new Church built on him with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. “WHATEVER you bind on earth…” covers everything - and that would include that Peter actually had a successor. While not recorded in Scripture - it is obvious by the simple facts of history that the leader of the Catholic Church was the Successor of Peter.

In no way does this take away from the saintly work and writings of St. John Chrysostom - but, we need to keep a perspective. St. Augustine was not only familiar with the tensions between the East and West - but consistently looked to Rome for final authority. And, I think the majority of ECF look to Rome for the authorative and definitive statements on matters of Faith and Morals.

God bless

So you deny any possibility that St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis might be correct because it disagrees with your use of Acts 15 as a proof text for papal infallibility? That seems like a rather unsound exegetical principle, does it not? Essentially then there is no argument which is acceptable, because even if faced with ten or twenty fathers who said the same thing as St. John Chrysostom, you would be able to dismiss all of them as simply being wrong.

 

[Ghosty]

Let me just say that I agree with those who say that Acts 15 does not demonstrate Papal Infallibility. Peter’s actions there are more in line with the Tome of Leo, which also was not an act of Papal Infallibility. I think it is quite a stretch to get Papal Infallibility from this text, and I say this as someone who believes in Papal Infallibility.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

I’d like to as a question regarding this (not state my opinion): is there any difference with Eastern Catholics on the issue of papal infallibility compared to Roman Catholics?

 

[Elijahmaria]

I’d like to as a question regarding this (not state my opinion): is there any difference with Eastern Catholics on the issue of papal infallibility compared to Roman Catholics?

In practical terms one might see the existence of two separate codes of canons to indicate that there is some difference in reality.

 

[Mickey]

None of the Early Church Father were infallible.

I expected this answer. It is always the “go to” response…the protestants like to use that response.

But the facts remain…Sacred Scripture is very clear on the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and St John Chrysostom merely reiterates what is happening in that passage. There is no way that you can spin it otherwise. In fact, most Eastern Catholics and many Latins will also agree.

It is a mystery as to why you feel it is somehow necessary to make this passage an example of papal infallibility.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Let me just say that I agree with those who say that Acts 15 does not demonstrate Papal Infallibility. Peter’s actions there are more in line with the Tome of Leo, which also was not an act of Papal Infallibility. I think it is quite a stretch to get Papal Infallibility from this text, and I say this as someone who believes in Papal Infallibility.

Peace and God bless!

A well reasoned response. I agree. It is interesting that you mention the tome of Leo, since the tome is often argued to be a manifestation of infallibility as well.