Papal Infallibility?

[commenter]

It was never a belief of the original church, or in other words the modern day Orthodox Church (the RCC Latin Rite did not acknowledge the infallibility of the Nicene Creed, and added to it even though it was declared that nothing should be changed in the creed developed at the ecumenical councils, so it cannot be claimed that the RCC is the original church). It (papal infallibility doctrine) is the main problem the Orthodox Church has with the RCC at this point, actually. If it was a belief of the early church surely it would be a point of commonality between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

Actually there are many Christians who claim that much current teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches was not believed by early Christians. They would deny ancient Christians believed the authority of early, or any, ecumenical councils outside Scripture, deny that early Christians accepted the authority of Tradition itself.

They would argue ecumenical councils, and patriarchs (East or West), and ancient sees, and things like creeds and sacraments (mysteries) were all later innovations, contrary to the early accepted Christian faith of early followers of Christ.

Just pointing that out, you are bringing in lots of assumptions, or lots of “development”, here.

 

[Vico]

…the RCC Latin Rite did not acknowledge the infallibility of the Nicene Creed, and added to it even though it was declared that nothing should be changed in the creed developed at the ecumenical councils, so it cannot be claimed that the RCC is the original church…

Interestingly Constantinople changed The Creed of 325 in 381 without agreement of Rome at the local council. See below for when Rome accepted the Creed of 381, after dogmatically confessing filioque.

Catechism

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [76] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

[76] Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): Sources of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger-Schonmetzer 284.

 

[Vico]

So essentially the pope is infallible whenever he happens to be right? That is, by definition, not infallibility

Homework before I give any personal opinion: did you read Gasser and the Vatican I Chapter 4?

Bishop Gasser (at Vatican I) noted that Papal authority:

 

[LoveJoyPeace]

I don’t see how protestant objections are relevant, honestly. The Orthodox Church holds to the theology collectively defined across the ecumenical councils. Papal Infallibility was not a part of this equation. There is no infallibility of an individual, nor was there ever. In fact, until the schism, there were Patriarchs. There was no supreme individual over the entire Church (except Christ)

 

[Vonsalza]

What if the pope said “ex cathedra” that the pope is never infallible?

-Orthodox (Love you )

Ah. The"what if" game.

We’d respond by saying that the pope would be prevented from such a thing by the power of the Spirit.

In reply to this devilishly fun game, what if the Patriarch of Russia was declared Primus?

 

[ANewBeginning]

The history of Papal Infallibility and how it came to be declared is a long and messy one.

You won’t get much out of this discussion except the standard proof texts (quote mines from the Early Fathers, et al.) Context is everything, and you can go around in circles. Even if you get an admission that it isn’t explicitly believed in the Early Church, because of the Catholic doctrine of development you will hear it argued that the “seed” of that teaching is there and that there are “hints” of it over the centuries as the Church “matures.”

Of course we view this with a raised eyebrow at best. It is a rabbit hole that provides forum fodder but your mileage my vary.

 

[LoveJoyPeace]

At the local council? I thought the Council of Constantinople was a world wide council.

 

[LoveJoyPeace]

Primus is “First among equals”. No individual is believed to be “infallible”.

Also, on the Pentecost the Holy Spirit fell on 130 people as Tongues of Fire. He did not fall on Peter more than He did on anyone else.

Of course Peter did mist of the talking immediately after. He was one of the 12 chosen, AND was the oldest of the 12. It would have been respectful on the part of the others, therefore, to allow Him to speak. This information also explains why Christ entrusted the care of the other disciples to him. I mean, if you were leaving your children home, wouldn’t you entrust the oldest one to care for the younger ones? Again, this does not make Peter infallible.

 

[Vonsalza]

Primus is “First among equals”. No individual is believed to be “infallible”.

Yes, I know exactly what it means. I was an Orthodox catechumen for a few years before finally swimming the Tiber.

Also, on the Pentecost the Holy Spirit fell on 130 people as Tongues of Fire. He did not fall on Peter more than He did on anyone else.

Amen! That’s also not a particular scripture cited in support of the office of the papacy though…

Of course Peter did mist of the talking immediately after. He was one of the 12 chosen, AND was the oldest of the 12.

I thought Peter’s brother Andrew was older? Traditionally the founder of the Church in Byzantium, interestingly.

Again, this does not make Peter infallible.

I’d agree. But I don’t know any Catholic theologians who claim Peter in infallible on the basis that he’s older.

 

[LoveJoyPeace]

According to this site, Andrew mentioned after Peter in most instances indicates that Peter was older. http://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-...stle-11-things-to-know-and-share#.Wd99bHMpC7M

But I didn’t mean to cite his being older as a reason given by the RCC for his infallibity. I meant to point to the two points that The Holy Spirit speaks through him (and that he did most of the talking on Pentecost) and that he was asked to care for tbe other disciples. I was trying to say that the Holy Spirit fell on many people, and not more so on Peter, so this is not an indicator of Peter’s supremacy. And the fact that He did more speaking and was asked to care for the others did not have anything to do with supremacy or infallibility, but we’re rather due to his status as the oldest of the 12.

 

[Vonsalza]

According to this site, Andrew mentioned after Peter in most instances indicates that Peter was older. http://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-...stle-11-things-to-know-and-share#.Wd99bHMpC7M

Oh you can always find some scholar taking some alternative position. Fact remains, most scholars on the topic think Andrew was older. As to whether they’re right, “who cares?”.

But I didn’t mean to cite his being older as a reason given by the RCC for his infallibity. I meant to point to the two points that The Holy Spirit speaks through him (and that he did most of the talking on Pentecost) and that he was asked to care for tbe other disciples. I was trying to say that the Holy Spirit fell on many people, and not more so on Peter, so this is not an indicator of Peter’s supremacy. And the fact that He did more speaking and was asked to care for the others did not have anything to do with supremacy or infallibility, but we’re rather due to his status as the oldest of the 12.

Interesting.

I think I’ve read most of the scriptural arguments for the Petrine Seat and this is the first time I’ve encountered an argument concerning Pentecost.

I’ll look into it a bit further. Thanks!

 

[LoveJoyPeace]

Mainly was referring to all the arguments saying “The Holy Spirit” would stop him. I’ve also heard the argument in the past that the Holy Spirit speaks through Him and the Holy Spirit can’t be wrong. I was the one who brought up the Pentecost because logically that would make all priests infallible since Peter was not the only one of the disciples to receive the Holy Spirit, nor did he receive any more than anyone else.

 

[Vico]

At the local council? I thought the Council of Constantinople was a world wide council.

First Council of Constantinople in 381 was a local council and Pope Damascus I was not invited. It is also called the unecumenical council. Some of the decisions were accepted at Council of Chalcedon in 451, and certainly not Canon 3 that he Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

 

[joeybaggz]

Than you Friend,

By your comments, I take because it was not yet defined?

Sacred Tradition stems from BELIEFS, that normally are not defined until seriously challenged.

God Bless you,
Patrick [love your POST-name]

PJM hit the nail on the head. It wasn’t a recorded belief of the early church, because Christ’s word in the Gospel of John in which He said he wouold send the Advocate (Holy Spirit) were never questioned as to veracity. The early church simply believed without formal doctrine that the Holy Spirit would never lead the Church into error, or allow anyone else to do so. When challenged, a more formal declaration of the infallible nature of the church was established.

For example, no one ever questioned the Real Presence in the Eucharist until I believe the 10th or 11th century, and then it was only an argument between two monks. A more formal doctrine/teaching was then established.

 

[LoveJoyPeace]

That’s the infallibity of the church. Not an individual. The pope is not by himself the Church. And sometimes humans to not teach according to the direction of the Holy Spirit. Because humans are fallible. All humans.

 

[commenter]

That’s the infallibity of the church. Not an individual. The pope is not by himself the Church. And sometimes humans to not teach according to the direction of the Holy Spirit. Because humans are fallible. All humans.

When you refer to the “infallibility of the church”, keep in mind the ancient church included many groups with wildly different Christianities from what we are familiar with today. Were the Gnostic Christians infallible? You can’t say “they don’t count because they were heretics” because that is circular reasoning. They did not claim to be heretics, they identified as Christians. Their theologians, their NT canon, their patriarchs, their ecumenical councils, their Sacred Tradition labelled as heretics many who Catholics and Orthodox regard as faithful Christians.

So, the Church as a whole was not infallible. There must have been some one visible person, in each decade, to determine:

• This book is in the NT, that book is not;
• This tradition is part of Tradition, that tradition is not;
• These scholars are mostly reliable, as Early Church Fathers. Those other scholars are heretics.
• We will designate certain entities as "ecumenical councils. We say they will be authoritative. Certain other processes will not be designated as authoritative.
• These people will be invited to an ecumenical council. Those others are excluded.

This authority was infallible, and was part of, and in ministry to, the Church as a whole - which was not infallible.

 

[LoveJoyPeace]

joeybaggz said,

joeybaggz:
the infallible nature of the church was established.
To which I said

LoveJoyPeace:
That’s the infallibity of the church. Not an individual. The pope is not by himself the Church. And sometimes humans to not teach according to the direction of the Holy Spirit. Because humans are fallible. All humans.

It didn’t have to be one individual person who was infallible. That’s what the ecumenical councils are. The decisions of these councils are considered infallible in the Orthodox Tradition, but never an individual.

 

[Joe_73]

joeybaggz said,

joeybaggz:
the infallible nature of the church was established.
To which I said

LoveJoyPeace:
That’s the infallibity of the church. Not an individual. The pope is not by himself the Church. And sometimes humans to not teach according to the direction of the Holy Spirit. Because humans are fallible. All humans.

It didn’t have to be one individual person who was infallible. That’s what the ecumenical councils are. The decisions of these councils are considered infallible in the Orthodox Tradition, but never an individual.

But how do you determine which council is infallible? I’ve heard it explained that if it is accepted by the church layity then it is infallible. But its very unspecific, and difficult to measure, and it implies that it could be found to be wrong over time(fallibility). All I can see is a shaky kind of “majority rules”, At the time of the schism, the 4 patriarchs were against the Bishop of Rome. so they were infallible. The system is a big issue when the church is divided on something, as in the case of the east west schism, It ends up splitting, and there isn’t a good way tell which of the two split haves remains the true church. They both have bishops, and they both have councils, accepted by their church body, but which should you listen to?

 

[LoveJoyPeace]

Even Better, I’m Oriental Orthodox. We did not accept Chalcedon (This was largely due to what now we realize as a misunderstanding with semantics-- we interpreted what was being said as being too close to Nestorianism, and we were interpreted as being too close to Eutyces… but we were rest saying the same thing, and are still working on mending the divide here), and thus were not present at any of the consecutive Ecuminical counsils, so while we believe in the theology declared at the 7 ecmenical counsils the doccuments are not formally “accepted” by us. As I said, it is a point of division we are working to mend, though the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox bishops have largely agreed at this point that we hold to the same theology.

But it is the decisions reached at the primary Ecuminical Councils that are infallible. Later developments such as Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception, Mary as Co-Redemptrix, the Filioque…are not infallible teachings. In fact, not even the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church uses the Filioque.

Peter never considered himself “supreme” over the other disciples nor did he consider himself infallible.

 

[commenter]

But how do you determine which council is infallible? I’ve heard it explained that if it is accepted by the church layity then it is infallible. But its very unspecific, and difficult to measure, and it implies that it could be found to be wrong over time(fallibility). All I can see is a shaky kind of “majority rules”, At the time of the schism, the 4 patriarchs were against the Bishop of Rome. so they were infallible. The system is a big issue when the church is divided on something, as in the case of the east west schism, It ends up splitting, and there isn’t a good way tell which of the two split haves remains the true church. They both have bishops, and they both have councils, accepted by their church body, but which should you listen to?

True.
People make reference to “Ecumenical Councils” as if it were obvious that they are authoritative and obvious which councils are true Councils, and which ones are just councils. It is not obvious at all!

There must have been a prior authority to designate that Ecumenical Councils have authority, in the first place. “Acceptance” by the laity is hard to measure.

I suppose the Gnostic Christians had their own ecumenical councils, which were accepted by the Gnostic Christian laity, and maybe many Christian laity and churches who were not officially gnostic. So what? You might argue the Gnostics were heretics, so their church-accepted ecumenical councils don’t count. Of course, the Gnostics and other groups would say the same thing about the other Christians. Including us.

The problem is similar to the NT canon. People today say, of course, is obvious authoritative, and, of course, it would have to include these books. But no, the NT is not obviously authoritative, some prior authority designated it as such.

Furthermore, widespread “acceptance” is not authoritative in itself. Lots of questionable practices and beliefs have lingered among Christians and non Christians, either from inertia or absorbed from the secular society. If 50% of Christians believe abortion should be legal, that makes it accepted, but not at all acceptable. If legal abortion is popular (i. e. accepted) for 50 years, or 500, that does not make it any more acceptable.