Sola Scriptura...

[Kliska]

Ummm, yeah, that’s what I said. Maybe you read it too fast.

It seems as though you said that if it was taught on earth, that is proof positive that it is already settled in Heaven. That’s a subtle but important difference than what I see in scripture. If that wasn’t what you meant, I may just be to dense to see the point you are making.

No need. Jesus promised that whatever St. Peter preached (under certain circumstances) WOULD line up with what was settled in Heaven.

Again, I see no such promise. It goes back to the main question; not if Peter preached wrongly, but if he could. I take it that it is a Catholic belief that somehow Peter lacked free will in certain teaching areas?

True, because St. Paul had already lined up what his preaching would consist of (which he recieved through personal revelation) with the teachings of St. Peter (cf. Gal 1:15ff).

We all agree here.

Now, when there arose an issue on which St. Peter, and all the Magisterium with him, hadn’t issued any teaching (circumcision required or not), he went to Jerusalem to get the answer from St. Peter and the Magisterium.

And here we have a totally different perspective on what happened; they returned to Jerusalem because that was the center of organizational Christianity, the first church and central “authority,” and James was the head. It was James that decreed the sentence. And, yes, I have studied the RCC view that it was really Peter that “lead” the council. I just disagree.

Already settled in Heaven. Sometimes not so settled on Earth.
For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the hypostatic union, etc., had certainly been settled in Heaven. So, when St. Peter’s successor, or the successors of the Apostles collectively, declares on these matters, they are guaranteed to be declarations in line with what is already settled in Heaven.

Pretty good description of the charism of infallibility.

This is where many that are reading see a difference in logic; your latter sentences do not necessarily follow from the preceding material.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It seems as though you said that if it was taught on earth, that is proof positive that it is already settled in Heaven. That’s a subtle but important difference than what I see in scripture. If that wasn’t what you meant, I may just be to dense to see the point you are making.

It’s a slight extention of what you said. With a few changes in what you wrote above:
If it was taught on earth by St. Peter or the Apostles (or their successors), that is proof positive that it is already settled in Heaven.

Why? Because Jesus said so.

Again, I see no such promise.

It’s right there in black & white.

It goes back to the main question; not if Peter preached wrongly, but if he could. I take it that it is a Catholic belief that somehow Peter lacked free will in certain teaching areas?

Yes, in a way.

Just like Balaam “lacked free will” in his prophesies.

With the difference that the popes don’t intend on teaching error, while Balaam did.

We all agree here.

And here we have a totally different perspective on what happened; they returned to Jerusalem because that was the center of organizational Christianity, the first church and central “authority,”

Up to here, ok.

and James was the head.

Not of the Universal Church, but he was the bishop in charge of the area at the time, yes.

It was James that decreed the sentence. And, yes, I have studied the RCC view that it was really Peter that “lead” the council. I just disagree.

You are free to disagree. I fully support your right to be wrong.
Even when you’re obviously wrong. :dts:

This is where many that are reading see a difference in logic; your latter sentences do not necessarily follow from the preceding material.

How so?
Asserting something doesn’t make it so.

 

[spina1953]

I guess what I would like to know is what Gospel did St. Paul preach? I ask this since we know that Paul preached a Gospel, yet, while his letters (Epistles) are about how one is to believe and also how to act. Paul’s theology is not all that easy to understand. It sounds to me that Paul went to see Peter first what he understood the Gospel was and to make sure that what he was preaching and teaching was the same Gospel the rest of the Apostles were also preaching and teaching. Yet, Paul as those who did write repeated what Jesus said about false teachers, and they were concerned about those who were then coming around and preaching a different gospel than what they and Paul were preaching. This I think was confusing those Paul and other Apostles had first preached and taught them. Paul sure wanted tem to understand that not everyone who came around preached the same things he was preaching and teaching and that they were not authorized by him or the other Apostles. All we really know about Paul preaching the Gospel is that Paul says that he did.

 

[Kliska]

It’s a slight extention of what you said. With a few changes in what you wrote above: If it was taught on earth by St. Peter or the Apostles (or their successors), that is proof positive that it is already settled in Heaven.

And that is what I mean, the way this is worded, the situation is flipped from my position. That’s fine, it just shows our different view.

Why? Because Jesus said so.

And that’s the underlying point; I don’t see Jesus as saying so in the manner argued, nor do I see Paul supporting that. Paul is clear he could potentially err.

Just like Balaam “lacked free will” in his prophesies.

With the difference that the popes don’t intend on teaching error, while Balaam did.

But I understand that even if the popes did intend it, God would stop him, according to Catholic doctrine?

Not of the Universal Church, but he was the bishop in charge of the area at the time, yes.

And this, I would assume, is part of the current split between East and West today. The church was apparently a trio at the time; James was to head up the Jews in the vicinity of Jerusalem, Peter was sent to the Jews abroad, and Paul to Gentiles. Peter did have the honor of preaching the gospel and witnessing that Jesus accepts all groups; Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. And here we have a splitting between what Christendom sees as the role of the Bishop of Rome.

You are free to disagree. I fully support your right to be wrong.
Even when you’re obviously wrong. :dts:

How so?
Asserting something doesn’t make it so.

It’s the main thrust of this part of the thread; lack of wrong teaching doesn’t necessitate “infallibility.” In the interest of returning to the topic of the thread; this is why scripture stands as a marker, or measuring stick. We all (Christians) can agree that scripture contains truth, and if something goes against that truth, it isn’t settled in heaven.

I guess what I would like to know is what Gospel did St. Paul preach? I ask this since we know that Paul preached a Gospel, yet, while his letters (Epistles) are about how one is to believe and also how to act. Paul’s theology is not all that easy to understand. It sounds to me that Paul went to see Peter first what he understood the Gospel was and to make sure that what he was preaching and teaching was the same Gospel the rest of the Apostles were also preaching and teaching. Yet, Paul as those who did write repeated what Jesus said about false teachers, and they were concerned about those who were then coming around and preaching a different gospel than what they and Paul were preaching. This I think was confusing those Paul and other Apostles had first preached and taught them. Paul sure wanted tem to understand that not everyone who came around preached the same things he was preaching and teaching and that they were not authorized by him or the other Apostles. All we really know about Paul preaching the Gospel is that Paul says that he did.

We have to be careful though, as Paul makes it a point to underscore that he was taught directly by God, not by man. Paul was not taught by Peter or any of the Apostles. This was one reason they had to check Paul out because he went from being an enemy of Christians, to claiming a conversion.

 

[spina1953]

FatherKnowsBest: I thought that I might point out from your debate with Kliska about James being the leader of the Jerusalem Church is something I agree with you, but wanted to say it might be the reason that James was the leader was due to the fact that Peter often went on numerous journeys and that being so it would have been hard for Peter to run the Church in Jerusalem. It seems from Acts that Peter was doing a lot of things and in charge of what was going on. Also ,After Peter escaped from jail he went elsewhere, maybe Antioch before coming back for the Council of Jerusalem. Think this might have been that way?

 

[Porknpie]

Again, you don’t order it in the proper sense; it isn’t that whatever is bound on earth is then bound in Heaven, but rather, whatever is properly preached is already settled in Heaven.

Kliska, it really does not make sense that Christ would give the power to bind and loose but in reality not mean what he said. What kind of promise is that? In addition, scripture says (RSVCE):

MT 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

MT 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Haydock Commentary reflects the Catholic thought

Ver. 18. Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. The power of binding and loosing, which in a more eminent manner was promised to St. Peter, is here promised to the other apostles and their successors, bishops and priests. (Witham) — The power of binding and loosing, conferred on St. Peter, excelled that granted to the other apostles, inasmuch as to St. Peter, who was head and pastor of the whole Church, was granted jurisdiction over the other apostles, while these received no power over each other, much less over St. Peter. (Tirinus) — Priests receive a power not only to loose, but also to bind, as St. Ambrose writeth against the Novatians, who allowed the latter, but denied the former power to priests. (Lib. i. de pœnit. chap. ii.) (Bristow)

As does St Hilary -
To hold out a great and terrible fear, by which all men should be reached in this
present life, He pronounces that the judgment of the Apostles should be ratified, so that whosoever they bound on earth, [p. 638] i.e. left entangled in the noose of sin, and whosoever they loosed, i.e. accorded the pardon of God’s mercy to their salvation, that these should be bound and loosed in heaven."

From that we can compare things that are already settled in Heaven with current teaching to see if they line up

Keep in mind that the power given to the apostles includes the power to forgive sins and to retain sins. Forgiveness occurs when the apostles (and today’s Priests) make it so.

That is why we have Paul laying out the gospel and then saying, if I come back and preach a different gospel, let me be damned. If an angel from Heaven itself shows up and preaches a different gospel, different than what has been settled, let them be damned.

Good reason to be Catholic and receive all seven sacraments that Christ established as a means to receive his grace for our salvation.

It is possible, as Jesus’ statement makes clear, that the true faith is in danger of disappearing, if not, Jesus would not have to make the statement He does.

The Truth faith can not disappear as Christ himself promised to be with his Church and to lead it to all truth, even if some turn from the One True Faith and believe in fables as scripture said would happen

Also, the warnings about teachings could be shrugged off if there was no danger of false teaching. We have to be clear that the idea of false teaching is applied to the leaders of the churches.

Arianism is an example of one false teaching. Yet Christ protected his bride from error and The Church overcame those who strayed. Christ kept and continues to protect his Church and lead it to all truth.

If someone presents a teaching opposed to what has already been settled, they are wrong.

Certainly, if one strays from the Deposit of Faith they are wrong.

And, here enters all the splits in Christendom; East from West, and the the fractures springing off from each. In short, the claims all settle in around, “you are now teaching something that is against what is already settled.” In the East vs. West split an prominent example is the infallibility doctrine itself as applied to “the chair of Peter.”

You’ll have to provide examples of where the Catholic Church has errored on faith and morals. If you believe that The Church can error on faith and morals, then you really don’t know if the bible you have is inspired and inerrant. It’s quite a problem.

PnP

 

[Kliska]

And then we arrive at the main issues; scriptural interpretation. The thing is, I believe each Christian truly needs to understand that the divisions do center around interpretational differences. The split between east and west, however, seems to be more based on application. All of us, depending on which view we take, are going to see our view in scripture, which is why we all must constantly be in prayer for one another whether we think we are right, or someone else is wrong.

As for the binding and loosing, the “argument” goes back to the Greek and the verb tenses contained in the verses under discussion.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And that is what I mean, the way this is worded, the situation is flipped from my position.

No, it’s NOT flipped. Yours is simply incomplete. That’s my point.

And that’s the underlying point; I don’t see Jesus as saying so in the manner argued,

There’s no logical alternative than the explaination I’ve presented. Nor do I see you presenting one.

Paul is clear he could potentially err.

True enough. As I pointed out, St. Paul did not hold the office of St. Peter.

But I understand that even if the popes did intend it, God would stop him, according to Catholic doctrine?

There’s an interesting case of Pope Sixtus V. He was arrogant, and had translated the Bible poorly so that it contained errors. He died while on the verge of releasing it formally.

From Papal Infallibility

If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching. But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it. Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, “Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him.” But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness. The Holy Spirit’s promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again. “Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church.” (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

It’s the main thrust of this part of the thread;

I was hoping you’d spell out your argument here. How is it that my “latter sentences do not necessarily follow from the preceding material.”?

lack of wrong teaching doesn’t necessitate “infallibility.”

I’m not arguing that they do.
I’m arguing that Jesus’ promises necessitate infallibility.
Lack of wrong teaching is certainly evidence, but that’s not the argument.

We all (Christians) can agree that scripture contains truth

Even IF you can’t infallibly determine what scripture is?
I guess something contains truth. According to protestants, we just can’t know for sure what that something is …

, and if something goes against that truth, it isn’t settled in heaven.

That I agree with. Truth can’t contradict truth.

But not everything is spelled out in scripture. Therefore, for something to be declared and decided which is already bound in Heaven, there must of necessity be a charism involved.

We have to be careful though, as Paul makes it a point to underscore that he was taught directly by God, not by man. Paul was not taught by Peter or any of the Apostles. This was one reason they had to check Paul out because he went from being an enemy of Christians, to claiming a conversion.

And St. Paul, even though he was taught directly by God, had to be sure that his understanding conformed to that of St. Peter, lest he be teaching error.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

As for the binding and loosing, the “argument” goes back to the Greek and the verb tenses contained in the verses under discussion.

Not at all.

Since Jesus told St. Peter that whatsoever you hold bound will have been held bound in Heaven, that means that St. Peter’s teaching (again, under strict circumstances, as when he INTENDED to bind all the faithful) HAS to be true, since it’s already been confirmed in Heaven.

There’s really no other way to logically parse Jesus’ words.

 

[Traverse]

Given that the binding and loosing is also applied to the other apostles later, this creates a problem. Unless I am mistaken, it is the catholic position only that peter was protected by infallibility and not all the apostles, yet they are given the authority to bind and loose as well. Can this mean that binding and loosing means something other than teaching authority? The second time binding and loosing is brought up it is in the context of church discipline, of putting the wicked man out from among you. That’s not about teaching with words but about shepherding the flock.

What do you think?

Or did I misread and the CC believes that all the apostles were gifted infallibly? And if so, does that contradict Paul’s statements that he could err?

One thing to consider, though, is that the disciples were also promised that they wouldn’t even have to think about what to say.

[Luk 12:11-12 NASB] 11 “When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

This was directed at all disciples and not at the apostles alone. To me this implies that Christ is talking about one of the gifts of the Spirit, such as prophecy or teaching. So would it be Peter that is infallible, or that he is gifted with the charism of teaching/prophecy, among other gifts? And we know that across the board, not all Christians received all the gifts, but some were given to teaching and some to prophecy and some to tongues, and so on. So I would argue that while Peter was certainly gifted and at no time was recorded as teaching error, He did so by the power of the Holy Spirit and in such a way that any Christian, even a layman, at the time could have been gifted to do. So I’m not sure you could say Peter was infallible because of having a certain position as head of the earthly church but because he, like other apostles and disciples throughout time, was gifted by the Holy Spirit to know what to say. And, as we read elsewhere, he could have rejected the Spirit if he wanted to. He just didn’t because he was a pretty cool guy.

 

[spina1953]

In understanding the keys given to Peter and then to the other Apostles, first in Matt. 16: 13-19 where Jesus gives peter the keys and to bind and to loose is the authority given to Peter as the rock on which Jesus will build His Church. Now in Jn.20:21-23 Jesus is breathing on the Apostles and saying that what is bond earth is bond in heaven, that is what sins are forgiven on earth will be forgiven in heaven, the keys are not given to the rest of the Apostles only the authority to forgive sins or not to forgive sins. There is nothing in John’s Gospel that states that Jesus gave any keys to all the Apostles, in fact so far as I see it is in Matthew’s Gospel account that Peter is given the keys, so the keys are the authority given to Peter by Jesus in a way that is not given to the other Apostles. it seems plain to me that any other interpretation other than the Catholic Church’s interpretation is bogus.
The keys can be seem in two ways. 1) is authority of Peter as head of the Church and 2) keys being that all the Apostles be in union with Peter and the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

And then we arrive at the main issues; scriptural interpretation.

And the question of authority.

From a recent post–truer words were never said on the CAFS, IMHO:

"Scripture, for all my love of it, is essentially the sacred Cliffs Notes of God’s covenants. They are fragmentary in nature. Without a catechism, man fills in the blanks with whatever his itching ears want to hear. Yet man, in all of his cunning, devised the concept of scripture as “sole rule”, “supreme authority” - which actually put man himself in charge of truth"–po18guy

When one applies Scriptural interpretation that conforms to one’s own views, then one is creating a theology after one’s own image.

That is just what the devil ordered. Truly.

 

[Novocastrian]

And the question of authority.

From a recent post–truer words were never said on the CAFS, IMHO:

"Scripture, for all my love of it, is essentially the sacred Cliffs Notes of God’s covenants. They are fragmentary in nature. Without a catechism, man fills in the blanks with whatever his itching ears want to hear. Yet man, in all of his cunning, devised the concept of scripture as “sole rule”, “supreme authority” - which actually put man himself in charge of truth"–po18guy

When one applies Scriptural interpretation that conforms to one’s own views, then one is creating a theology after one’s own image.

That is just what the devil ordered. Truly.

But this is the major Protestant objection to Rome, especially in the wake of the two Vatican Councils; it really looks as if the Pope, without reference to the other bishops even, can irrevocably and ‘infallibly’ define a dogma of the Faith, i.e. interpret Scripture and the tradition of the Church to mean whatever he wants it to mean. You will no doubt object that he is bound by the tradition, but his ability to change the texts of the mass or dogmatise something previously a theologoumenon, well, that seems to most of us to make it pretty clear that the Pope just gets to decide what is and isn’t the tradition that supposedly binds him!

 

[spina1953]

But this is the major Protestant objection to Rome, especially in the wake of the two Vatican Councils; it really looks as if the Pope, without reference to the other bishops even, can irrevocably and ‘infallibly’ define a dogma of the Faith, i.e. interpret Scripture and the tradition of the Church to mean whatever he wants it to mean. You will no doubt object that he is bound by the tradition, but his ability to change the texts of the mass or dogmatise something previously a theologoumenon, well, that seems to most of us to make it pretty clear that the Pope just gets to decide what is and isn’t the tradition that supposedly binds him!

This doesn’t make any sense as the Pope can not just decide to make something in Scripture mean whatever he wants it to mean. When the Pope decides it, it because it is from Scripture and a light has been given to it that has been not made clear before but believed because it follows the teaching of first Jesus and then the Apostles. What it sounds t me is that you think that the Pope can make some thing found in Scripture to mean something different that is not in Scripture to begin with. It is understanding something that was not clearly understood before and the Pope makes it clear to all.
Since it would have to do with faith and or morals, what the Pope says has to be clearly in that vein, otherwise the Pope is silent.

 

[RC_David333]

**the Catholic monk, brother Dimond, totally destroys the heretical arguments of the calvinist in this debate. Here is the link to that debate…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI

To learn more about brother Dimond, his Monastery and the true teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then please visit VaticanCatholic.com or MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com **

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11629063]

It is odd to me that according to the Lutheran church ‘there is no right of individual interpretation when it comes to doctrine’, because that is exactly the ‘right’ that Luther used to begin his Rebellion. Exactly. If you deny Luther’s PI, then you admitting that the ‘means’ that he used to Revolt against the Church was wrong.

I deny his was a revolt. I deny his was a rebellion. That said, I’m not sure it is helpful to shift the conversation to developing doctrine without the whole Church involved.

Now you can say that ‘we all have that sin to confess’, but that does not apply to those who are still in communion with the Church. It might apply to the EOC, but it does not apply to Roman Catholics.

Personal interpretation? The CCC says: *817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” *

Furthermore, there is also the degree to which the various schisms have departed from the Truth. I would suggest to you that the degree of departure from the Truth within various sects can be measured statistically and also that denominalization is a direct result of the lack of truth that was taken from the historic Church to use in the ‘new church’. After all, falsehoods only lead to more of the same. The less truth a schism starts with (Truth from the Church that Christ founded of course), then the faster denominilization will occur.

Yeah, and the question remains where does one find the True Church. Where there is word and sacrament? Yes. My guess is that you probably have a more triumphalist view.

As an example, in about a thousand years, the EOC has fractured into (I think) 17 different doctrinally autonomous communions. On the other hand, in less than 500 years, Protestantism has ruptured into an almost uncountable number of denominations. (I hesitate to offer a number because people always take the opportunity to challenge the number, thereby pretending to address the point.) I would suggest that the reason that the EOC is tremendously ‘fracture proof’ compared to Protestantism, is that it did NOT begin with Sola Scriptura or it’s evil twin, the Right to Private Interpretation (SS+PI), BOTH of which are creations of Martin Luther.

And I would suggest that the fracturing of the Church, and yes, Rome is one of those fractures, the central one to be sure, but one of the fractures, is founded in human sin, not in any means of norming doctrine, which is what sola scriptura is.
I frankly find the numbers irrelevant if it is more than one. Sadly the true Church is currently in a state of more than one.

You say that Jon, but I would suggest that, at this point, neither the EOC nor the Lutherans will follow an Ecumenical Council. You will not follow Trent, and you will not follow many of the pre-Reformation Ecumenical Councils.

There are 7 ecumenical councils, the tenants of which Lutheranism accepts. We do not accept Trent because it is not ecumenical.

Remember, in order for this to work, everyone who attends would have to leave their egos at the door, and agree to follow the decisions of the Council.

I would remind you that there are also some egos in the Vatican. A truly ecumenical council? I would follow, even if my communion were not involved, even if it did not sign on.

As with all Councils, the attendees would pray to the Holy Spirit to guide them such that they are precluded from teaching error. Of course this presumes that the Holy Spirit could and would provide such guidance. Do you think that the Spirit can and would provide this guidance for the Council?

The Holy Spirit always provides guidance, though sometimes human beings misunderstand that guidance. I think humans understood it in the 7 councils. I think it takes that kind of complete gathering of the patriarchs and bishops for that.

Do you think that Lutherans would agree to such a thing and be willing to attend? If not, do you think they should be willing to?

I indeed do, to answer both questions.

First of all, there will always be heresy because there will always be those who are unwilling to even consider the views of ‘the other’. Do you think ANY Protestant groups would be willing to attend?

I think it behooves us to listen to the views of the other. Lutherans and Catholics have been doing a pretty good job of that for some 50 years, with large credit going to Vatican II.
It also behooves us to share our views, and allow the other to share theirs. Sharing one’s own view does not require disparaging the views or the leaders of the other (yes, I find the use of the term “anti-Christ” unhelpful at best in these modern times). It behooves each side to listen to what the other teaches, and not try to tell the other what they teach.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Are you suggesting that the Lutheran’s should have more than 3 of the 100 votes?
Are you suggesting that the Catholics should have less than 51?

Did you see the smilie? I was jesting. Even as a Lutheran, I recognize the key players as the patriarchs and bishops. However, I also recognize the need for others to play a role and have a voice, and the necessity for consensus.

Jon, of course this is not a new idea. This in fact is an almost 2000 year old idea. This is the way that doctrinal disputes were settled for almost a thousand years. It breaks down when people refuse to attend or refuse to abide by the decisions of the Councils.

It also breaks down when singular parties endeavor to have councils without all the parties needed to make it ecumenical.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

And his blessing also with you.
Jon

 

[Kliska]

Again, FKB, you are attempting to reconcile something through the lens of the belief in papal infallibility instead of relying on the plain text in the original Greek, esp. the verb tenses and what logically flows from that. That is what most people do when trying to defend a point. The logical problem has been explained repeatedly in this thread already, some can see it and some can’t. It’s not a matter of IQ but rather one of perspective. and this is where it breaks down into; you see it from the Catholic perspective and I see it from a protestant perspective (and in this case an Orthodox perspective as well).

I’ll pray that all involved can see it as it is, and not through our biases.

Grace and peace to you,
K

 

[PRmerger]

Or did I misread and the CC believes that all the apostles were gifted infallibly?

You did not misread.

And if so, does that contradict Paul’s statements that he could err?

No more than it would contradict this from a pope:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

 

[Novocastrian]

It also breaks down when singular parties endeavor to have councils without all the parties needed to make it ecumenical.

I’m tempted to think that it will be impossible to hold an oecumenical council in the near future, because of how much the world as a whole has changed. We are now living in what is effectively a post-Christendom. There is no obvious oecumene. Certainly until Trent, and until Vatican I by some estimations, authority (used here in terms of auctoritas, in contrast to potestas) was added to councils by Christian kings, republics, orders, etc., which simply cannot exist today. The biggest absence felt, which will surely be stressed by the Orthodox, is the lack of an Emperor. Even in the dying days of the Empire, the Eastern Christians (Slavs, Greeks, et al.) at least paid lip-service to the notion of the Emperor as the head of a Christian commonwealth, and a Church bigger than its clergy!

There seems almost nobody who could even come close to filling this role any more. Republican governments are now almost entirely secular, or, a la Putin, deeply morally compromised; the Christian monarchs of Europe are altogether too insignificant. The only real exceptions would seem to be those of the UK and Spain, who still have roles which might broadly be understood as ‘oecumenical’ insofar as *the *Commonwealth still exists, and as the King of Spain is one of the relatively few factors holding that country together.