True - infallibility pertains to public teaching, not to private behaviour. In Acts Peter’s teaching (that Gentiles were equal and didn’t need to follow Jewish customs) was always correct, it was his private behaviour in refusing to eat with them that was wrong, and St Paul had every right to call him out on that.
Most responses are extremes. That’s what centuries of polemics will do for you.For me, St. Cyprian is a very interesting subject. I’ve talked with a few Orthodox about Cyprian and I must admit; they have had some interesting things to say. Also, I’ve observed all too many Catholic that would jump at the chance to prove Cyprian’s unquestioned loyalty to the papacy. Both, to me, seem like extremes. Perhaps we can start a new thread on St. Cyprian
I hope you do start a new thread on St. Cyprian. I’m sure it would be interesting.That’s a rather esoteric question. It’s like asking whether St. Paul was coincidently chosen or could some other apostle have been the Apostle to the Gentiles. I don’t know how to answer your question. God has his own callings and he fulfills them. That’s all I know.
St. Peter was the servant of the apostles’ unity. The Fathers state that Peter fulfilled this by being both the representative of their unity in his person (by being singled out by our Lord to show forth the oneness of grace among the apostles) and also by leading the apostles and coordinating their mission in charity. This latter act of leading and coordinating would be more that simply a representation of unity, but it would fall short of being the highest “source of unity.” Christ is the ultimate source of apostolic unity as he called, formed, empowered and sent the apostolic choir apart from St. Peter. St. Peter’s role was to safeguard the unity and mission of the apostles, not create it. Due to his important role of safeguarding this unity, one might say that he was a relative “source” of unity. However, I steer away from this phrase, as it tends to change the nature of primacy from one of service to that of secular power.
You want to hear the Orthodox opinion on something without wanting an argument? Surely you jest!
But seriously, we see the Tome of St. Leo as a great confession of Faith by a very worthy Bishop of Rome. In fact, St. Leo was fulfilling the work of any good Orthodox bishop by teaching the true Faith with such clarity and force.He did furthermore one must remember that Popes are only Infallible when speaking in line with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. A Pope cannot contradict Tradition, if he does than he is not speaking Infallibly.
Rather funny how this is the Catholic belief to this day.
There is an example of Papal Infallibility. Pope St. Hormisdas later enforced that Tome over the entire Church. That is a Pope formulating a doctrine and then teaching it to the Church as something that they must believe.You want to hear the Orthodox opinion on something without wanting an argument? Surely you jest!
When we state that the apostles are equal, we mean equal in grace. And since grace is the only “power” in the Church, there can be no superior power over the Church. However, one of these equal apostles can have a role of service, in which they use their common apostolic grace/power in the service of safeguarding the unity of their brother apostles. This is how we understand the ministry of St. Peter among the apostles and that of the Pope of Rome among his fellow bishops.
I admit, the argument that Galatians proves that St. Peter doctrinally erred is very weak and presents more problems for the apostolic foundation of the Church than it does for the Western doctrine of the Papacy. If any of the apostles could err when they were establishing the Church, it calls into question the solidity of the Church’s foundation. That’s why I believe that all the apostles were protected from doctrinal error when they were founding the Church (including, but not limited to, when they were writing their portions of Holy Scripture).
That is basically the Roman Catholic view.
Glory to Jesus Christ! I hope this is the teaching of the Western Church.Rather funny how this is the Catholic belief to this day.
I believe it is. I hope no one will argue just for the sake of arguing.Glory to Jesus Christ! I hope this is the teaching of the Western Church.
I thought Pope St. Hormisdas only “endorsed and approved” the tome of St. Leo. This is not the same as making the tome a dogmatic definition that doesn’t need the approval of the Church to be accepted. In fact, Leo’s tome was debated at Chalcedon and before and after the formula of Hormisdas, we remember the proclamation of Chalcedon to be dogmatic, while the majority opinion of even the Western Church is that Leo’s tome is a great, orthodox confession only.
However the original Eastern Bishops that did not approve of St. Leo’s Tome were excommunicated upon not receiving it. This was before the Council, so it was official before that because of the Excommunication proposed. Regardless St. Hormisdas endorsing it before the Council is an example of a Pope teaching the faith alone without a council and then it being excepted by the Church, regardless of the fact that it was done via council.
I’m not convinced that this is true. Doesn’t Catholicism teach that only St. Peter received the keys to the kingdom? This is not an affirmation of the equality of grace/power among the apostles. And, by extension, this view of Peter’s relation to the other apostles colors the inequality that is believed to exist between Peter’s analogous successor, the Pope, and the other bishops.
You’re forgetting that the Church has the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which enables her to be mindful of and faithful to Holy Tradition. The Fathers don’t advocate fidelity to Holy Tradition as the final judge of orthodoxy and heterodoxy for nothing.
However, according to Catholicism the Pope can only teach infallibly when he binds a teaching of the true faith on the faithful. In order to infallibly bind a true teaching on the faithful (make a dogma), it is essential for one to be teaching the true Faith. Ergo, even when the Pope teaches infallibly, Holy Tradition is where the emphasis lies. And, as you pointed out on another thread, no Pope automatically teaches Tradition, but must cooperate with his episcopal grace in order to form a dogma. I’m not sure how the Church is in trouble if she lacks such a conditional power to form dogmas, which derives its origin for the always-professed Tradition of the Church. Given this, I would think Holy Tradition would be what is essential for the Church to possess, not instruments, which conditionally depend on this Tradition.
There were two types of “excommunication” in the ancient Church (and still is in Holy Orthodoxy). The first type of “excommunication” is prohibition from receiving the Holy Eucharist. Any bishop can enforce this. Actually, even spiritual fathers can impose such a canon of excommunication. The other type of “excommunication” is the anathema, which is a practical measure that legally enforces the full consequences of heresy. Do you have evidence that an anathema (and not only exclusion from celebrating/receiving the Eucharist) was enforced before the Council of Chalcedon?
No I don’t, however do you know what type of Excommunication it was? I don’t however I believe it was Anathema, because it caused a short schism I believe. I don’t know however.
I don’t know the nature of the excommunication either. However, I doubt that it was a strict anathema as St. Leo’s tome was debated during Chalcedon - something that would have hardly been tolerated had it already carried infallible weight, itself.No I don’t, however do you know what type of Excommunication it was? I don’t however I believe it was Anathema, because it caused a short schism I believe. I don’t know however.
Yes, however I believe that was merely because, I believe the current Patriarch of Constantinople was in for secular political reasons. I believe the debate was because of that. Regardless he was excommunicated, thus showing at least that the Bishop of Rome could formulate doctrines that the Church later found to be Infallible.
I was being jovial. Hence, the emoicons.
Are you Catholic. You didn’t say on your profile.
Oui Oui, I felt un-inclined to say Catholic in the profile, but it has come up on the forum before - even in this thread…a while ago.