Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[CDB1718]

Well…I love the East too. And I am usually here debating against various aspects of the Latin Church. But…I do not think that protestanism is proof that the West is broken. And as far as opportunity for holiness and showcase of graces…there have been many martyrs East and West throughout Church history. And today, many Christians are still being martyred…especially in Islamic countries…the Chaldeans in Iraq…the Copts in Egypt…etc.

Peace and prayers to you and yours.

Thank you. To you and yours, too.

 

[Ghosty]

Could you give me some sources to read on this? Thanks!

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!

 

[Cavaradossi]

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!

It’s interesting how his tone changes between dealing with the bishops of Vienne, who rightfully were under his jurisdiction, and with the empress on the issue of Anatolius, who despite Leo’s declaration that his assent was not valid, continued to serve as the bishop of Constantinople for six more years until his death in 458. Interesting too is that in dealing with the bishops of Vienne, Leo makes much mention of his authority over them via Peter, but that in dealing with the Empress Pulcheria on the issue of Anatolius, he supports his argument against canon 28 of Chalcedon not with any special Petrine claim to authority, but with canon six of Nicaea, which he claims established an inviolable structure of Church governance.

I’m not so sure if it’s quite as simple as saying Leo claimed (or exercised) the prerogatives of papal supremacy as we conceive it in the modern era. It does lend some support to the idea that a model of union in which the pope is given supremacy over the Latin Church, but not over churches outside of his immediate jurisdiction would be more consistent with history (calling to mind the defiant Melkites who quoted Florence when forced to sign the declarations of Vatican I, approving of papal infallibility with the added clause “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs”). Of course, such a model is unrealistic, since it would probably be asking both sides for too many concessions.

 

[jmj1984]

Perhaps, jmj1984, you could explain to me how the passage from St. Clement is interpreted as you have stated? Perhaps it is just my being distracted with Finals, and thus not reading as well as I should, but I do not seem to find anything related to a ‘particular and unique authority on the behalf of the Roman Pontiff’ within the selection.

One should also note that I have heard the interpretation among some Eastern Christians that every valid bishop shares in St. Peter’s chair. Doubtless, the quote you provided is very striking for Western Christians unfamiliar with the above interpretation, but to those who hold such an interpretation would fully agree with the quote without coming to the same conclusion! I am not saying that is necessarily my view, but it is a view in existence.

Yes, the idea of Papal infallibility was one of the divisive issues around and after the 10th or 11th century, when such claims began to become more numerous.

Regarding commonly-held saint-popes, one must be careful of distinguishing a claim to supremacy and a claim to primacy. One must also be aware of exaggerations which are likely to occur in any historical document (I recall some of the stories about Alexander the Great, for example, as I say this).

Essentially the claim is that its an example of a pope claiming the holy spirit speaks through him. Its viewed that way by Denzinger to name one prominent example.

I’ve heard of the idea that all bishops share St Peters chair, that view is however not accepted by The Catholic Church. I should also add that the wording and the claims made by popes since the early church tend to exclude this view.

Explicit claims to papal primacy occur from the mid fourth century onwards and as I said were supported by councils, so it was hardly a contentious issue. Whilst I admit the most explicit claims occur from the 10th century onwards, the claims were first made much much earlier.

As for St Popes I believe Ghosty has backed up that claim, but when I get home (I’m at uni at the moment) I’ll have a look to see if I can find anymore relevant documents from Denzinger.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elijahmaria,

I would appreciate a clarification on your ending comment:

Patristic consensus…is a lovely myth……and we all know that myths and mysteries are the heart of revelation!!

It first must be identified that none of the ECF was infallible. They were good and holy men - and have provided us with some amazing inights into Christ and His Church. But there were a couple who demonstrated that fact in their lives - and for Origen and Tertullian this was very sad.

So, ‘consensus’ seems to me to be a most appropriate word, rather than something like: ‘Unanimity’ - what do you think? I think an examination of what the ECF wrote on topics like:
1.) Christ is true God and true man/2.)
2.) The Sacraents
3.) Mary, the Mother of God, and
4l) The Primacy of Peter

While other areas could have been mentioned, I think these would be a good model of ‘consensus’

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

I do not think that Protestantism is any more a sign that the West - and that would be Christ’s Church - is broken, then to say tht the Great Schism is a sign that the West is broken. The disunity we see is serious - but neither fatal or eternal.

Christ will bring all of His sheep together through the Sheep Gate. As long as men have free wills - they either chose separation or unity.

God bless

Well…I love the East too. And I am usually here debating against various aspects of the Latin Church. But…I do not think that protestanism is proof that the West is broken. And as far as opportunity for holiness and showcase of graces…there have been many martyrs East and West throughout Church history. And today, many Christians are still being martyred…especially in Islamic countries…the Chaldeans in Iraq…the Copts in Egypt…etc.

Peace and prayers to you and yours.

 

[ZDHayden]

Essentially the claim is that its an example of a pope claiming the holy spirit speaks through him. Its viewed that way by Denzinger to name one prominent example.

I’ve heard of the idea that all bishops share St Peters chair, that view is however not accepted by The Catholic Church. I should also add that the wording and the claims made by popes since the early church tend to exclude this view.

Explicit claims to papal primacy occur from the mid fourth century onwards and as I said were supported by councils, so it was hardly a contentious issue. Whilst I admit the most explicit claims occur from the 10th century onwards, the claims were first made much much earlier.

As for St Popes I believe Ghosty has backed up that claim, but when I get home (I’m at uni at the moment) I’ll have a look to see if I can find anymore relevant documents from Denzinger.

Thank you. Obviously the Catholic Church would not support the view of a communal sharing of St. Peter’s chair (that would contradict its position, right?).

Please note the word used: primacy. The councils supported Papal primacy due to a number of factors, such as the honor of being the resting place of St. Peter, being very orthodox against many heresies, and being the patriarch of the whole of Western Europe. It CAN BE read, especially if one is tinted towards such a reading, that these councils and that all the Churches agreed on Papal Supremacy. However, as I have stated before, the history is muddy; I believe Cavaradossi, for example, challenged the assumption of interpretation of the St. Leo documents based upon tone: such an analysis frequently reveals quite a bit about the intentions of the writer (I am not saying he is right or wrong, but that he made the argument).

My point is this: the Orthodox tend to read Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy as separate; texts supporting Papal Primacy tend to be read in the Catholic West as supporting Papal Supremacy. The Pope today claims both Primacy and Supremacy, if one follows the Orthodox definitions. Without Supremacy, Infallibility seems a stretch.

Think on this: the Pope of Alexandria has attached to his name many grandiose titles, just as the Pope of Rome. However, everyone reads the Alexandrian Pope’s titles as exaggerations but are expected to read the Roman Pope’s titles at face-value.

But enough of that, I have a question… what is the purpose of Papal Infallibility? It has been used only twice, once retroactively, and, in a way, neither was needed. Both sides seem to be squabbling over something that has no real purpose. Of course Mary was sinless and born such – (Immaculate Conception) – Original Sin in the West is based partly off a mistranslation of Romans v, 12, from the Greek into the Latin and then partly based off the theologies of St. Augustine and Anselm. Thus, Mary could easily be seen, if such mistranslation never occurred, as Immaculate (without sin) throughout her life as we do not inherit the sin of our parents (and so cannot have inherited the sin of Adam, the effects, yes we do inherit, but the sin itself?) and Mary had/has free will and such could easily have chosen, since she was chosen by God to bear the Son and thus favored by God, not to commit any personal sin. As for the Assumption, that is accepted without Papal pronouncement in the East since ancient times. Thus, a Papal statement claiming infallibility was unnecessary to determine or uphold its truth.

Thank you.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Think on this: the Pope of Alexandria has attached to his name many grandiose titles, just as the Pope of Rome. However, everyone reads the Alexandrian Pope’s titles as exaggerations but are expected to read the Roman Pope’s titles at face-value.

For those wondering, the Pope of Alexandria’s title is: Pope and Lord Archbishop of the Great City of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Throne of Saint Mark the Evangelist and Holy Apostle that is, in Egypt, Pentapolis, Libya, Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and all Africa.

He is also known by other titles, which include Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Hierarch of all Hierarchs, The Dean of the Great Catechetical School of Theology of Alexandria, The Pillar and Defender of the Holy Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Doctrine, The Thirteenth among the Holy Apostles, and The Ecumenical Judge of the Holy Apostolic and Orthodox Church of God. The last three titles in particular date back to antiquity (The Pillar title first being given to St. Cyril, the Thirteenth among the Apostles to St. Athanasius, and the Ecumenical Judge to St. Alexander of Alexandria)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Anthony V,

Yours was a very nice post. The tone, style and statements all provide for an atmosphere of reconciliation and mutual love. Down deep, I think this is an excellent position - but, as long as the East holds to its position of rejecting the Primacy of Peter, I just do not know how this will come to pass.

For a time, the ‘church’ founded by Henry VIII upon Henry VIII had Apostolic Succession - virtually everything was (during Henry’s lifetime) as before concerning the Sacraments - yet we know that Henry’s ‘creation’ was a murderous monster, an on-going heresy escalating to schim. The Church of England eventually freel chose to abandon the priesthood and any links with Rome and through gradual attrition, lost their claim to Aostolic Succession. This is not the path the East has taken - so, it somewhat of a mixed model: Rejecting Christ appointment of Peter as the foundation of His Church (like Henry) yet claiming to believe all that Bishop of Rome teaches (like Catholics).

I honestly do not have an answer for it… not in this life-time. Ultimately there will be one Flock united under Christ as the Divine Shepherd.

God bless

Perhaps we ought to lend ear and nod to the fact that Orthodox have apostolic succession. They are still part of the mystical body of Christ, regardless of their lack of communion with Rome. There are many many many Orthodox saints that are acknowledged by the Roman Church! With all due respect, yes the Roman Church is the safer choice in regards to doctrine, but the sacraments are the same across the board (within the respective communion). The goal is unity, not “proving to the Orthodox that they are wrong”. Orthodoxy isn’t a heresy like protestantism. It’s a snowballing of miscommunication, political boundaries, cultural differences, philisophical connotations and denotations, etc. Be fervent about being Catholic, by all means, but try and be tact about how you say things. We’re walking on eggshells as it is, and as far as relations with them go, we should be doing all we can to help them toward salvation. I suspect they just might do the same!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

Impressive titles for sure!

Now, I had thought the 13th Apostle title was previously claimed by St Matthias. If the ‘Pope of Alexandria’ claims this - isn’t there a conflict. (Now, I don’t think anyone has claimed the 14th Apostle title… ooops… yes, St. Paul did… so, is this just a typo and you really meant the 15th Apostle?)

God bless

For those wondering, the Pope of Alexandria’s title is: Pope and Lord Archbishop of the Great City of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Throne of Saint Mark the Evangelist and Holy Apostle that is, in Egypt, Pentapolis, Libya, Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and all Africa.

He is also known by other titles, which include Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Hierarch of all Hierarchs, The Dean of the Great Catechetical School of Theology of Alexandria, The Pillar and Defender of the Holy Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Doctrine, The Thirteenth among the Holy Apostles, and The Ecumenical Judge of the Holy Apostolic and Orthodox Church of God. The last three titles in particular date back to antiquity (The Pillar title first being given to St. Cyril, the Thirteenth among the Apostles to St. Athanasius, and the Ecumenical Judge to St. Alexander of Alexandria)

 

[ZDHayden]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

Impressive titles for sure!

Now, I had thought the 13th Apostle title was previously claimed by St Matthias. If the ‘Pope of Alexandria’ claims this - isn’t there a conflict. (Now, I don’t think anyone has claimed the 14th Apostle title… ooops… yes, St. Paul did… so, is this just a typo and you really meant the 15th Apostle?)

God bless

St. Matthias replaced Judas as the twelfth I thought. St. Paul claimed the thirteenth position. And, if Rome claims St. Peter, why cannot Alexandria claim St. Paul (though implicitly) or St. Matthias (if my above assumption is wrong)?

 

[Mickey]

Rejecting Christ appointment of Peter as the foundation of His Church

Correction: St Peter is part of the foundation of Christ’s Church…but not THE foundation.

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:

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m sure that will be God’s first question after we die: were you in union with Peter? His second question will be: does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father or the Father and the Son?

And the answer will be, ‘The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as taught by an Eastern Church long before the West adopted it.’ See Orthodox Wiki about this matter.

 

[Cavaradossi]

St. Matthias replaced Judas as the twelfth I thought. St. Paul claimed the thirteenth position. And, if Rome claims St. Peter, why cannot Alexandria claim St. Paul (though implicitly) or St. Matthias (if my above assumption is wrong)?

Alexandria actually claims to be the seat of Mark, who was taught by Peter. The idea of the sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome forming the one seat of Peter, because of their common Petrine lineage can also be found in some writings of the early Church. St. Gregory the Great, for example, puts forth this view in his letter to St. Eulogius of Alexandria.

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

 

[Cavaradossi]

And the answer will be, ‘The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as taught by an Eastern Church long before the West adopted it.’ See Orthodox Wiki about this matter.

Arianism was taught in the East before it spread to the West too (where it was later used as the justification for the addition of the filioque to the creed at the synod of Toledo). What is your point?

 

[ZDHayden]

Alexandria actually claims to be the seat of Mark, who was taught by Peter. The idea of the sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome forming the one seat of Peter, because of their common Petrine lineage can also be found in some writings of the early Church. St. Gregory the Great, for example, puts forth this view in his letter to St. Eulogius of Alexandria.

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

Thank you, but I was speaking of the implicit claim of “Thirteenth Apostle.” I recognize that the explicit claim is to the Seat of St. Mark.

I’ve come across the same argument concerning the three Sees making up the single seat of St. Peter. It seems to predate the Roman claims of sole Petrine authority, unless there is some other claim prior St. Gregory.

Of course, it is always possible that my analyses and reflections are a long way off!

Thank you.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thank you, but I was speaking of the implicit claim of “Thirteenth Apostle.” I recognize that the explicit claim is to the Seat of St. Mark.

I’ve come across the same argument concerning the three Sees making up the single seat of St. Peter. It seems to predate the Roman claims of sole Petrine authority, unless there is some other claim prior St. Gregory.

Of course, it is always possible that my analyses and reflections are a long way off!

Thank you.

Lol, I wouldn’t take the title Thirteenth Apostle too seriously. It’s just silly Roman honorifics. Far more worrisome would be that he is the Ecumenical Judge of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. Now that really would be something if the title were meant to be taken literally.

 

[ZDHayden]

Lol, I wouldn’t take the title Thirteenth Apostle too seriously. It’s just silly Roman honorifics. Far more worrisome would be that he is the Ecumenical Judge of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. Now that really would be something if the title were meant to be taken literally

Very, very true!

I was simply trying to make a point . . . and I failed. Isn’t the first time; won’t be the last .

 

[Cavaradossi]

Very, very true!

I was simply trying to make a point . . . and I failed. Isn’t the first time; won’t be the last .

Well, you made a great point in the first place, in bringing up the over-the-top titles held by the Pope of Alexandria. They are truly silly when read literally, which is why I feel that people who see this sort of silly honorific language being used with the popes and automatically think, “papal supremacy,” are neglecting the cultural context of such exchanges.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Arianism was taught in the East before it spread to the West too (where it was later used as the justification for the addition of the filioque to the creed at the synod of Toledo). What is your point?

Actually it was a little levity to your second question to be asked of us at the Gate of Heaven. However, in answer to your question, if you go to the Orthodox wiki site you will find the following:

“It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son.” Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.”

I don’t know the standing of the individual who posted that except that he is an Orthodox. It’s been on the site for years and there’s been no attempt to alter it.

In addition, St. Cyril of Alexandria and other Eastern bishops clearly taught the double procession. The filioque is, IMO, a tempest in a teapot. “Father and the Son” and “Father through the Son” is a distinction without a difference, so I don’t get what the fuss is all about except as an excuse to brawl. Infallibility and the primacy of Peter are far more important subjects.

You say you and the Orthodox generally recognize the primacy of Peter, but whenever I ask what that primacy consists of, I get a veritable blank stare. What are the implications to you of the primacy of Peter other than the drumstick on Thanksgiving and the plush chair? What is your understanding of papal infallibility and of the doctrine generally?

I enjoy reading your posts. You are an intelligent and charitable man.