Papal Problems...:(

[Alexius]

I’m kind of at the end of the road here. I’ve searched endlessly for proof that the Pope has all the authority he claims, but I have yet to find it in the Early Church (pre-schism). Most of the claims come post schism and seem to be based on broad statements. The other arguments are mostly from silence…

For instance, even after the schism, there are Ecumenical Councils. With the declaration of Papal Infallibility, it seems there is no need for councils anymore. On top of that, there is no way of questioning the Pope after such a decision.

Further, there are such declarations like the one which states that only the Pope may canonize saints. On a side note, where does beatification come from?

I would not have such problems if there were evidence of a Pope who spoke an infallible doctrine in the early church, but it seems on the other hand that Popes often made errors.

Lastly, where was the Pope at so many of the Ecumenical Councils? Even more importantly, where was his sticker of approval? It seems that the only binding authority for a council was the decision of the bishops as a whole. Where has that gone?

In summary, here are my questions again:

1. Where is the proof for Papal Infallibility?
2. Where and when did a Pope speak ex cathedra?
3. What statements in the early Church were ex cathedra and which were not?
4. Why did the Pope seemingly reserve the authority to declare saints to himself when it was traditionally left to synods?
5. Where was the Pope during the first Ecumenical Councils and where was his approval?

Thank you for all your help!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[PaulDupre]

Alexius, you are proceeding from a very flawed understanding of the Pope’s role and authority. The magisterial authority of the Church is held by the College of Bishops with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) at its head. The ecumenical councils are the full exercise of that shared magisterial authority.

Paul

 

[Alexius]

Alexius, you are proceeding from a very flawed understanding of the Pope’s role and authority. The magisterial authority of the Church is held by the College of Bishops with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) at its head. The ecumenical councils are the full exercise of that shared magisterial authority.

Paul

Perhaps that is the problem…Why then is the Pope allowed a separate infallibility–something unique to his office–rather than the infallibility of the Church as a whole speaking through its Ecumenical Councils?

From Vatican II:

“And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.”

 

[VARC]

I know what you mean Alexius

Last Sunday,I attended liturgy for the first time at the local Orthodox Church (Greek Archdiocese).

What was troubling for me was the complete lack of support for papal authority in the pre-schism Ecumenical Councils. If the pope’s conscent was required for all conciliar decrees, why was that not mentioned in any of of canons and decrees of the Councils. The answer is obvious. Because the Early Church Fathers didn’t believe in the modern idea of the papacy and that is why the concept is absent from the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is what St Ireneaus in 180 AD said in Against Heresies Bk3:Ch3:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul ; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles … [rest of Popes listed]
This is explicit evidence from one of the earliest Church Fathers of Rome’s primacy. This cant be ignored, it cant be brushed off.

In contrasts, the highest office in Orthodoxy is Constantinople, yet there is zero Church Father evidence that it was established by an Apostle. In fact history is explicit that it was built up due to its political position in the empire, in fact this political influence helped push Constantinople to a higher ranking than the other more historical Sees (Alexandria and Antioch).

 

[Alexius]

I know what you mean Alexius

Last Sunday,I attended liturgy for the first time at the local Orthodox Church (Greek Archdiocese).

What was troubling for me was the complete lack of support for papal authority in the pre-schism Ecumenical Councils. If the pope’s conscent was required for all conciliar decrees, why was that not mentioned in any of of canons and decrees of the Councils. The answer is obvious. Because the Early Church Fathers didn’t believe in the modern idea of the papacy and that is why the concept is absent from the Ecumenical Councils.

I hope that going to the Liturgy was a good experience for you… I have been to so many Divine Liturgies (both Catholic and Orthodox) in all different dioceses. Churches from all the Orthodox dioceses arong me–Greek, Antiochian, OCA, ROCOR–each time I was embraced like I was one of their own.

I sympathize with all who have to make the decision between Rome and Orthodoxy. Whether one admits it or not, both have strong cases to support themselves (imagine if the thousands of other denominations and religions did ). Many nights I stay up wishing they would just reunite so the decision would be easier. For me, it really does come down to the Pope. Everything else stands or falls on the Papacy. I can accept primacy and maybe even supremacy, but when it comes to infallibility, I am stuck…I wish you well on your journey to the East!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

Here is what St Ireneaus in 180 AD said in Against Heresies Bk3:Ch3:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating **that tradition derived from the **apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul ; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles … [rest of Popes listed]
This is explicit evidence from one of the earliest Church Fathers of Rome’s primacy. This cant be ignored, it cant be brushed off.

In contrasts, the highest office in Orthodoxy is Constantinople, yet there is zero Church Father evidence that it was established by an Apostle. In fact history is explicit that it was built up due to its political position in the empire, in fact this political influence helped push Constantinople to a higher ranking than the other more historical Sees (Alexandria and Antioch).

Thank you very much for this quote.

It is apparent that Constantinople is elevated as such mainly because of its political influence, but it reserves neither supremacy nor infallibility. The later of the two is what I struggle with in regards to the Pope. If he were supreme, yet not infallible or had Christendom dependant upon him for councils, I would feel more confident. That is not the case, however. Is there evidence that every Ecumenical Council required his signature or declaration? It seems at the moment that he was bound to the council and not the other way around…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[VARC]

Here is what St Ireneaus in 180 AD said in Against Heresies Bk3:Ch3:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating **that tradition derived from the **apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul ; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles … [rest of Popes listed]
This is explicit evidence from one of the earliest Church Fathers of Rome’s primacy. This cant be ignored, it cant be brushed off.

In contrasts, the highest office in Orthodoxy is Constantinople, yet there is zero Church Father evidence that it was established by an Apostle. In fact history is explicit that it was built up due to its political position in the empire, in fact this political influence helped push Constantinople to a higher ranking than the other more historical Sees (Alexandria and Antioch).

Nobody is ignoring Irenaus. This has been argued many times. I believe you have a slanted translation of this text as well.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,

“pre-eminent authority” should actually be translated “superior origin” according to William Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers, a catholic volume.

St Irenaeus is speaking is speaking to the churches of the werstern patriarchate. Rome being the most ancient church in the area is said to be the church to be appealed to. That is all he is saying. Notice that he himself opposed Pope Victor over the easter dating controversy with the east (not something to be done if the pope is the absolute monarch of the Church). You are taking one quote and trying to make it fit the modern papal model.

Is there any clear and undeniable support for the papacy in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

 

[Genesis315]

The reason for councils is that Popes are not omniscient–they don’t necessarily know the specific needs to the whole Church–that way, the best formulation can be given.

Get Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma and you’ll see plenty of pre-schism examples of Popes giving irreformable rulings on doctrinal issues.

St. Ireaneaus said all Church’s must agree with Rome–this necessitates infallibility.

St. Cyprians said the chair of Peter is the source of unity and the source can never beak unity (he also said faithlessness cannot enter Rome)–this necessitates infallibility.

The fact that the Roman Pope could make binding decisions necessitates infallibility.

Likewise, just because the authority wasn’t always exercised, doesn’t make it non-existent. As St. John Chrysostom explained given Peter choosing not to exercise his authority in a couple situations, sometimes it is more prudent to do things in common so as not to be accused of favoritism.

Rome is called the “Font of Orthodoxy” by many Fathers and other saints–this is infallibility.

“Ex Cathedra” just means he is addressing the entire Church–the phrase was new (like transubstantiation), but the meaning was always there.

 

[Genesis315]

St Irenaeus is speaking is speaking to the churches of the werstern patriarchate. Rome being the most ancient church in the area is said to be the church to be appealed to. That is all he is saying. Notice that he himself opposed Pope Victor over the easter dating controversy with the east (not something to be done if the pope is the absolute monarch of the Church).

He disagreed with the decision, but he never questioned the authority for him to do it.

Is there any clear and undeniable support for the papacy in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

Why would there be? It wasn’t disputed. But in the acts of the Councils, there were plenty of unchallenged speeches made that affirmed such authority–especially in relations to Sts. Celestine, Leo, and Agatho.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Thank you very much for this quote.

It is apparent that Constantinople is elevated as such mainly because of its political influence, but it reserves neither supremacy nor infallibility. The later of the two is what I struggle with in regards to the Pope. If he were supreme, yet not infallible or had Christendom dependant upon him for councils, I would feel more confident. That is not the case, however. Is there evidence that every Ecumenical Council required his signature or declaration? It seems at the moment that he was bound to the council and not the other way around…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Constantinople was a heavy influence on other Bishops, its own Patriarch was the leader in going after Rome. For anyone to think Constantinople was just another Bishop is a big mistake given the strong influence it held.
There does appear to be evidence that Pope Sylvester was behind Councils like Nicea, here are two pages which a Catholic Apologist made and he quotes Protestant historians who state that the Pope was elderly at that time and sent people as representatives:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/pope-silvester-and-council-of-nicaea.html
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/04/reply-to-james-white-on-council-of.html

A Bishop named Hosius of Cordova was one of the main leaders at the Council of Nicea, and according to these historians he was acting as the Pope’s representative. On top of that here is an interesting quote from that article above:

• Here is a quotation from Gelasius [of Cyzicus] the Eastern priest-historian writing about A.D. 475, stating explicitly that Hosius the bishop of Cordova was in effect a papal legate at the council of Nicea. So much for the notion that the popes did not preside at the earliest councils. The translation is mine; it’s fairly literal but functional, I hope:

Hosius himself, the famous Beacon of the Spaniards, held the place of Sylvester, bishop of great Rome, along with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincent, as they held council with the many [bishops].

• {Patrologia Graece 85:1229}

Im pretty sure “Patrologia Graece” is the collection of Greek Church Father writings…

Nobody is ignoring Irenaus. This has been argued many times. I believe you have a slanted translation of this text as well.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,

“pre-eminent authority” should actually be translated “superior origin” according to William Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers, a catholic volume.

The Church is superior because of its founders, the two most glorious Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul. St Irenaeus was very clear on that, and you can bet the house that if Constantinople was founded by the two most glorious Apostles (or even any Apostle for that matter) that FACT would be trumpeted from the rooftops.

St Irenaeus is speaking is speaking to the churches of the werstern patriarchate. Rome being the most ancient church in the area is said to be the church to be appealed to. That is all he is saying. Notice that he himself opposed Pope Victor over the easter dating controversy with the east (not something to be done if the pope is the absolute monarch of the Church). You are taking one quote and trying to make it fit the modern papal model.

I disagree he is speaking of only the western region, for St Peter and Paul founded this Church and its Bishops was the only line of succession worthy of listing.

Is there any clear and undeniable support for the papacy in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

You can read the two articles I posted above, but yes there is support in council documents and other historical source that the Pope held the high authority. Even in canon 6 of Nicea which both sides appeal to, a fair look at the wording reveals that Rome was seen as the head. There was a huge thread on this Canon Six topic but I cant find it and I think it might have been wiped out when the forums were undergoing work, it linked to many good articles, but this article is all I could find at the moment.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Why is it so hard to think Christ left us a leader? When a group of people get together they always have a leader, one leader.

 

[Hesychios]

What was troubling for me was the complete lack of support for papal authority in the pre-schism Ecumenical Councils. If the pope’s conscent was required for all conciliar decrees, why was that not mentioned in any of of canons and decrees of the Councils. The answer is obvious. Because the Early Church Fathers didn’t believe in the modern idea of the papacy and that is why the concept is absent from the Ecumenical Councils.

This was my conclusion as well.

There is a good reason why the ecclesiology of the Latin church is different from all eastern churches, it is new. The modern Papacy is not a continuation of the ancient and venerable form of church organization, but quite an invention.

Any Papal monopoly I can think of has it’s origins subsequent to the great East-West schism in the eleventh century. Including but not limited to…

• Control of the calendar churchwide…
• Canonization of Saints…
• Appointment of bishops…
• Codification (consolidation, editing, deletion and composing) of Canons…
• Calling of Councils…
• Regulation of liturgical norms…
• Representation to civil governments and Concordats, and
• within the last 137 years the ability to declare dogma, dispensing with the need of church Council to deliberate on it.
  The abuses of that newer system of church governance in the past (the sale of church offices…including Cardinals hats, and the dispensation to hold multiple Sees concurrently, for example) had a great deal to do with the jadedness and skepticism of many western European Catholics by midway through the second milennium, and eventually helped open the way for the Protestant reformation.

Michael

On the false decretals.

On the Vatican dogmas.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

but quite an invention.

].

Wrong

 

[Sword_Brethren]

The modern Papacy is not a continuation of the ancient and venerable form of church organization, but quite an invention.

Wrong

 

[AgnosTheist]

In summary, here are my questions again:

1. Where is the proof for Papal Infallibility?

from certain interpretations of a particular bible verse?

1. Where and when did a Pope speak ex cathedra?
2. What statements in the early Church were ex cathedra and which were not?

cant anyone answer these simple questions? i’d like to know myself.

 

[Harpazo]

The abuses of that newer system of church governance in the past (the sale of church offices…including Cardinals hats, and the dispensation to hold multiple Sees concurrently, for example) had a great deal to do with the jadedness and skepticism of many western European Catholics by midway through the second milennium, and eventually helped open the way for the Protestant reformation.

This is ridiculous, polemical and false… and you know it. To blame the actions of a few on the office altogether is pure ignorance. At no time did the Church approve of these things and say they were allowed whatsoever. Could I blame the Orthodox as a whole for the actions of those that approved the act of selling Indulgences in the 1700s? No, that would be wrong for me to do that because all the Orthodox Churches did not approve of it, no?

We could also discuss how Constantinople allowed itself to manipulated by secular authorities and caused many mini schisms before the 11th century, but to base those mistakes on a dogma? Come on, now.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

When ever in doubt I refer back to what the Master revealed to us, Matthew 16:18 “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock** I will build my church**, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It.** I will give you the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (singular), What ever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and what ever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”**

Now the present Papacy can be traced all the way back to St.Peter. The early church fathers not to mention the new testament attest to Peter’s authority, agreeing with the Master.

I believe what we see in todays world, among free thinkers, is that it becomes easy to question what was, what is , and what can it be, at the same time asking why can it be this way?

The Roman Catholic Church has the authenticity of the Chair of Peter, to what our Master referred to in his discourse. As time aged, new questions get asked, thus we have the church councils, to answer and settle the questions, and clarify doctrine. As recorded in the councils of the new testament. All participated, debated, argued their points, all concluded, then Peter Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, gives the final say. And if a consensus does not reach a majority, we can depend on Peter, to give us the answer from the Lord. The Pope has the keys handed down to him from the Chair of Peter, to bind and loose.

So we ask new questions? “I have a problem with the Pope’s infallability?”, " I dont know why the Pope needs such an office? Maybe in our time we cant see it, but in times past, and in times in the future when the gates of hell come against the Church, Know this, Peter will be there, and so will Jesus, as he promised his church to be with her always.

 

[ralphinal]

You know, I think that we are all missing an important point. The Church does not define a dogma until there is a confilt over it. There is no need until it becomes an issue. If the early Church all followed the lead of the bishops working together with Rome, there is no need to define the role of the pope. Even with the divison of the east and west, there was not enough conflict. It was only after the Protestant reformation that you saw the need for more clearly defined authority. Take for example the Assumption of Mary. For centuries, Christians had no issue with it. Both the east and west hold the teaching in some way. Suddenly, there was a new thought that said that the Blessed Virgin was never assumed into heaven. Some even said that she could be in hell!!! The church had to respond.

The more I study it, the more certain I am that Rome is correct. Why? There seems to be too much other evidence, not related to the early church per se. For example, take the Protestant Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox had a hard time refuting the claims. Why? The way they understand the faith is different in mindset. How could the universal church not deal with a problem within its people? Posters on this board have said as much. They simply could not understand the way the Protestants thought or the conclusions they came to, even though they were similar to earlier heresies in many cases. SO many of the early heresies started in the east and ended at Rome, unable to pass. It just seems right to me.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Interesting thread.

For those who disagree with the papacy as it currently exists, are there any special privileges/authority you would permit the pope/bishop of Rome?

Thanks