Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[Ghosty]

If the Tome is used for arguing Papal Infallibility then the people arguing either don’t understand Papal Infallibility or haven’t read the Tome. It was clearly not an ex cathedra work, but a theological exchange between Leo of Rome and Flavian of Constantinople.

Leo was very adamant about Papal authority and Divine guidance, and had he intended the Tome as a clear unilateral ruling he would have just said so. He wasn’t above using Papal fiat, and he was quite open about that prerogative.

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.

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi, Shiranui117,

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.

And the common rebuttal to this is John 20:23, and Matthew 18:18. Along with that, it’s quite clear that defending the faith and carrying the power to forgive sin is and always has been tasked to ALL those of Apostolic Succession, not just the three successors of Peter. Also see Galatians 2:9, where James, Peter and John are all three identified as pillars of the Church.

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.

 

[steve_b]

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.

I wasn’t thinking he was making this an example of papal infallibility. Only that the ECF’s weren’t infallible. otoh, Peter DID give a ruling. James being the bishop of Jerusalem, implemented what Peter said.

1. 
   *]*Peter ended the debate by standing and saying God made him the voice to the gentiles. *
   *]Peter then condemned those who were tempting God, and putting this yoke (following Mosaic laws) on the necks of the gentiles as a condition of conversion.
   
   James, the bishop of Jerusalem, ratified what Peter said by eliminating the yoke on the gentiles. Remember, it was those judaizers from James diocese, who were causing all the problems. However, for what ever reason known to James, James added some judaizing elements regarding prohibition of strangled meat and eating blood. Those additions didn’t last long. Paul eliminated them in 1 Cor 8. But what Peter said was made the law of the Church.

 

[Shiranui117]

I wasn’t thinking he was making this an example of papal infallibility. Only that the ECF’s weren’t infallible. otoh, Peter DID give a ruling. James being the bishop of Jerusalem, implemented what Peter said.

1. 
   *]*Peter ended the debate by standing and saying God made him the voice to the gentiles. *
   *]Peter then condemned those who were tempting God, and putting this yoke (following Mosaic laws) on the necks of the gentiles as a condition of conversion.
   
   James, the bishop of Jerusalem, ratified what Peter said by eliminating the yoke on the gentiles. Remember, it was those judaizers from James diocese, who were causing all the problems. However, for what ever reason known to James, James added some judaizing elements regarding prohibition of strangled meat and eating blood. Those additions didn’t last long. Paul eliminated them in 1 Cor 8. But what Peter said was made the law of the Church.

1. 
   Food offered to idols does not necessarily =strangled meat or drinking blood. The latter two were not overturned in 1 Corinthians 8.

 

[Ghosty]

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?

If you mean a difference in how it’s applied, i.e. Latins must believe it but Eastern Catholics don’t have to, or that some things are infallible for Latins but not Easterns, then no. Papal Infallibility is a Catholic, not merely Latin, belief, and it would be absurd to propose that it’s only binding on Latins.

There is a range in how this teaching is understood and applied in our thinking, however, and this range extends through both East and West. I have noticed that Latins tend to put more emphasis on Papal Infallibility and tend to see it “operating” in a lot more instances than Easterns tend to, but there is plenty of overlap among both groups. Many Latins would not regard the Council of Jerusalem as an example of Papal Infallibility, for example, but many will as we can see on this thread. Eastern Catholics would seem to be more likely to have a conservative view of when and how Papal Infallibility has come into play, though again their are some that have a liberal view of its application.

Remember, though, that Latins have the Pope as their regular “Patriarch”, and therefore his role for them is a bit more nebulous because although he is always Pope, sometimes he’s acting through his “Patriarchal” role over the Latin Church. This can color the perception of Latins about how far Papal authority extends; his role in the appointment of Bishops is much, much different in the Latin Church than in the Melkite Church, but many Latins may assume that what they see in their Church is “the norm” for the whole Catholic Communion. These things don’t apply to Papal Infallibility per se, but it can give a different nuance to the understanding.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Rdunbar123]

A couple simple points made by a simple man:

Who does the non-Christian world view as the world leader of Christianity? Without reservation it is the Bishop of Rome and has been for a very very long time (look at the muslim reaction against non-Catholic Christians after the Pope’s Regensburg speech for recent proof of this!). If the Pope is not the leader of the Christian world, then isn’t Jesus a liar becasue he stated that Satan will never prevail over his Church, and there a “false leader” posing as the leader of world Christianity and the world believes him?

Ask an Orthodox or a Protestant what the Church’s teaching on birth control is and see what kind of responses you get. If you are Orthodox, then some Bishops say condoms and other means are totatlly accpetable, and others will say that even Catholic NFP is totally un-acceptable! (Protestants seem perfectly fine aborting thier children every month with oral contraceptives) What a simple question that impacts every family in the world, yet the Orthodox faith with all its spendor and claims to the be “true faith,” is incapable of coming up with a universal truth that applies to everyone! How could the Church of Jesus Christ be so divided on such a simple issue that impacts EVERYONE? (This also begs the question why haven’t they had a ecumenical counsel in a 1000 years if they are a functioning church, and why there are numerous “Orthodox” bishops with jurisdiction over the same cities throughout the world)

Why does the secular God-hating media target the Catholic Church so heavily for priest sex abuse when it is statistiaclaly the exact same for Catholic priests as it is for clergy of other religions to include Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judism and Islam?

Why have Patriarchs of Moscow converted to Catholocism and Patriarchs of Constantinople fallen into heresy? Why has a Pope of Rome NEVER become apostate to the Catholic Faith nor fallen into heresy? Why is the Catholic Church growing in numbers in the world when every other major Christian Church is dwindling? You don’t need to be a canon lawyer or theologian to answer these questions. As Christ said, you’ll know the true Church by its fruits, and no Church anywhere, at any point in history, can even come close to the fruits of the Catholic Church.

During the great western Schism you would have to ask Which Pope?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And, as far as the pope becoming apostate and falling into heresy, that depends on who you ask. As other have pointed out, Honorius did, but then I would also argue that every pope since about the year 1000 AD has as well.

I think when the phrase ‘fall into heresy’ in reference to a pope means when he speaks from the Chair of Peter. Are you aware of any pope who made an heretical statement ex cathedra?

Your remark dismissing muslims recognizing the pope as the leader of world Christianity misses the point. The recognition comes from those who have no stake in the matter and have no axe to grind. An Orthodox saying the pope is not the leader of world Christianity can hardly be considered an objective opinion.

 

[steve_b]

1. 
   *]Corinthians 8 only talks about refraining from food offered to idols as being simply advised, not commanded, unless we confuse some other Christians. Nowhere in there does he revoke or tolerate those other things which James added (fornication, strangling, drinking blood,)

1. 
   I referred specifically to the dietary issues 1 Cor 8 covers some of it, and 1 Cor 10:25… gives an expanded understandig.
   
   For example, whatever meat one buys in the meat market, go ahead and eat it (1 Cor 10:25…) As for the issue of blood, that’s refering to meat that hasn’t been bled out completely before cooking and eating. Even today, that’s a kosher law issue, back in the day, it was a judaizer issue, but it certainly doesn’t apply to Christians then or today, that’s Paul’s point. For another’s conscience who might be weak in faith, Paul’s point is, don’t be a bad example to them and eat meat that was from a sacrifice to an idol. As Paul said, it really means nothing to the one who knows, but to the weak in faith it could be a scandle.
   
   I didn’t make mention of fornication because that’s part of the commandments which no one is going to change…

 

[Ghosty]

During the great western Schism you would have to ask Which Pope?

Although it was certainly a confusing time, the Western Schism doesn’t really compare to doctrinal disputes and really isn’t a thorny knot to sort out historically (though obviously it was a thorny political situation, and the man on the street wouldn’t have had the information necessary to sort it out).

What’s more, the problem was caused by the Cardinals, not the Pope, because they elected one man, installed him, then changed their minds and elected another. Obviously their second election would be uncanonical by any reasonable analysis, but the difficult politics and the obnoxious behavior of the first one elected made it more difficult in actual practice to settle the matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think when the phrase ‘fall into heresy’ in reference to a pope means when he speaks from the Chair of Peter. Are you aware of any pope who made an heretical statement ex cathedra?

Your remark dismissing muslims recognizing the pope as the leader of world Christianity misses the point. The recognition comes from those who have no stake in the matter and have no axe to grind. An Orthodox saying the pope is not the leader of world Christianity can hardly be considered an objective opinion.

What is world Christianity?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No…please read it again. It does not say that James agrees with Peter’s judgement. It does not say that James and Peter make the judgement.

St James says: For which cause I judge…

This is an old, tired argument, Mickey. The text is clear. First, James presided because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. It’s that way today. When the pope is on the road, it’s always the local bishop who presides. Second, it’s Peter who speaks to the issue, not James. All James did was ratify what Peter had already said. The words “I judge.” are irrelevant to the facts and simply make official what Peter has judged. That and James’ need to cover his turf in the presence of his constituency. His imposition of the dietary laws was nothing but a bone he threw to them. They were an ornery bunch.

 

[Mickey]

This is an old, tired argument, Mickey.

Why do you call Sacred Scripture old and tired? Why do you call St John’s reiteration of what happened old and tired? St James had the cheif rule.

The text is clear.

Crystal!

 

[Mickey]

The words “I judge.” are irrelevant to the facts .

Really?!? Where did you acquire this knowledge?

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.

---

---

 

[Mickey]

They were an ornery bunch.

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.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What is world Christianity?

Christianity as opposed to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Why do you call Sacred Scripture old and tired? Why do you call St John’s reiteration of what happened old and tired? St James had the cheif rule.
Crystal!

Please don’t misrepresent what I said, Mickey. When you start doing that, you’re conceding you have no argument.

It’s your argument that’s old and tired. And Protestant. St. John, like the rest of us, had his good days and his bad days. Your last begs the question.

BTW, what happened to James go after the Council?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Really?!? Where did you acquire this knowledge?

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.

---

---

Similarly your quote is irrelevant. What does St. John say there except that James was a nice guy? As I’ve already pointed out, James presided at the council because he was the local bishop. No other reason than that. If you’re right, tell me what of Peter’s remarks James altered.

 

[Mickey]

Please don’t misrepresent what I said, Mickey.

I have not.

When you start doing that, you’re conceding you have no argument.

Unlikely…since what I have been presenting is the truth as stated in Sacred Scripture and the Holy Fathers.

It’s your argument that’s old and tired.

It is not my argument. It is the truth that is stated in Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. I am sorry you cannot accept it.

St. John, like the rest of us, had his good days and his bad days.

I think he had a lot more good days than you or I.

 

[Mickey]

Similarly your quote is irrelevant.

Wrong.

St John’s quote is exactly what happened in Acts 15. Read it again.

You offer only your personal interpretation.

 

[dcointin]

If you mean a difference in how it’s applied, i.e. Latins must believe it but Eastern Catholics don’t have to, or that some things are infallible for Latins but not Easterns, then no. Papal Infallibility is a Catholic, not merely Latin, belief, and it would be absurd to propose that it’s only binding on Latins.

There is a range in how this teaching is understood and applied in our thinking, however, and this range extends through both East and West. I have noticed that Latins tend to put more emphasis on Papal Infallibility and tend to see it “operating” in a lot more instances than Easterns tend to, but there is plenty of overlap among both groups. Many Latins would not regard the Council of Jerusalem as an example of Papal Infallibility, for example, but many will as we can see on this thread. Eastern Catholics would seem to be more likely to have a conservative view of when and how Papal Infallibility has come into play, though again their are some that have a liberal view of its application.

Remember, though, that Latins have the Pope as their regular “Patriarch”, and therefore his role for them is a bit more nebulous because although he is always Pope, sometimes he’s acting through his “Patriarchal” role over the Latin Church. This can color the perception of Latins about how far Papal authority extends; his role in the appointment of Bishops is much, much different in the Latin Church than in the Melkite Church, but many Latins may assume that what they see in their Church is “the norm” for the whole Catholic Communion. These things don’t apply to Papal Infallibility per se, but it can give a different nuance to the understanding.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

Thank you! I certainly wasn’t suggesting that papal infallibility doesn’t apply to Eastern Catholics, they just seem to have their own way of understanding most dogmas, and I was curious if that was the case with this as well.