J
josephdaniel29
Guest
I didn’t expect you would.
- Status
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Then why not just condemn Cyprian for opposing the pope instead of excusing him because a plenary council had not decided the issue? He did clearly oppose St Stephen on this issue.
C
clmowry
Guest
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
C
clmowry
Guest
T
TinaG
Guest
Well, that was enlightening.
-Tina “And it was very interesting as well as entertaining” G
-Tina “And it was very interesting as well as entertaining” G
I
inkaneer
Guest
No, Augustine does not clearly state that but that is what you would like to read into it. First of all he speaks of “those bishops” as meaning those on the tribunal and not specifically to the Universal Bishop. Others here have commented on the fact that this matter does not meet the criteria of infallibility. Furthermore Augustine himself states that the Church of rome has supreme authority when he writes in the very same letter you cited in Capter 3 para 7 the following:
“Africa. Carthage was also near to the countries beyond the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard even a number of enemies conspiring against him, because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel, and was prepared to defend himself before these Churches if his adversaries attempted to cause an alienation of them from him.”
So this idea of the Bishop of Rome occupying a position, not of primacy as the Orthodox claim, but rather one of supremacy has, as Augustine writes, “always flourished”.
By the way in order for a ecumenical council’s decision to be infallible the Pope must be in agreement with the council or else it is no infallible. That is the meaning of the binding and loosening power granted by Christ in Matthew 18:18. They must all act together and that includes Peter. But notice the same power is granted to Peter in Matthew 16 without the other Apostles being mentioned. Isaiah 22:22 and the Davidic Kingdom’s chief steward is the OT typological model.
T
TinaG
Guest
Hi!
I thought this was interesting, so I looked:
This is Schaff’s footnote, which the New Advent website deleted:
1632 “In qua semper apostolicæ cathedræ viguit principatus.” The use in the translalion of the indefinite article, “an apostolic chair,” is vindicated by the language of Augustin in sec. 26 of this letter regarding Carthage, and by the words in Letter CCXXXII. sec. 3: “Christianæ societatis quæ per sedes apostolorum et successiones episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur.”
See ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.XLIII.html.
The footnote states then that the church at Rome was one apostolic church, not the only apostolic church. This passage cannot be taken to imply an universal jurisdiction for the Roman cathedra.
I tend to agree that the sphere of doctrine, where Catholics claim infallibility is applicable, is miles away from the presently discussed case, which is one of discipline. To my thinking infallibility is not claimed for any case of discipline. I could be wrong.
-Tina “Doing A Little Homework Here” G
I
inkaneer
Guest
I agree, as you said, that “the church at Rome was one apostolic church, not the only apostolic church”. But Augustine said more. He said, " the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" So this one apostolic chair is supreme over the other apostolic chairs and he says more. He says this supremacy, “…has always flourished.” In other words this was not something made up in time but was always there and we see the evidence of that in the scriptures.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Yet again infallibility is not the issue. “Those bishops” included the Bishop of Rome as its president, and St Augustine clearly says the Donatist could have appeal the decision of that tribunal, a tribunal headed by the pope.
Contrast that with Pastor Aeternus.
The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon.
So unless you are going to make the case that the sentence of a tribunal headed by the pope doesn’t qualify as a sentence by the Apostolic See then St Augustine is clearly contradicting modern Catholic teaching.
The supremacy of “an” apostolic chair. There were many apostolic chairs. Heck, even Pope Gregory I says that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch all comprise one Petrine See.
Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors…For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra…Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.
Here is the link to the entire quote. I also can’t help but point out that if you look at the same quote here on CAF they use and incredibly truncated version that cuts out all of the talk of three bishops sharing one Petrine See and the rest.
Along with the supremacy of the other apostolic chairs. Of course you are begging the question by assuming that when St Augustine wrote this he meant exactly the same thing the modern Catholic Church does.
In Christ
Joe
I
inkaneer
Guest
Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges. The problem here is the same problem protestants make in that they apply their own definition to papal infallibility. Please review the doctrine as formally defined by the church. If you do so you will see that papal infallibility is very limited. Not everything the pope says is infallible. After all the pope can speak as a man, as a bishop, as a head of a sovereign state or as pope. He can speak to one person, or to an audience as in his Wednesday weekly audience, or to the members of the diocese of Rome, to a country, or to a region or to the entire church. In doing all of this he can intend to teach or not teach. In the case of the tribunal in question the pope is acting as a judge not speaking as pope. He is not addressing the whole church and is not teaching anything. He is rendering a decision on a specific case limited to one region of the church and not to the whole church. So your position is based on an erroneous assumption of what infallibility means as as a result your argument fails.
As for what pastor Aeternus says it does not apply because the decision of the Judges is not a “sentence of the Apostolic See”. The pope when he acts as pope does not need to form a tribunal with two other bishops. He can and does do it all by himself. That is the meaning of Mt 16:18-19.
Yes, that is because all of the bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria trace their Apostolic Succession from Peter. Peter was the first bishop of Jerusalem before giving it to James. He then went to Antioch where he was the first bishop there. He then made Elvodius a bishop to succeed him there and Peter went on to Rome as its first bishop. Linus succeeded him there. While in Rome Peter made Mark a bishop and sent him to Alexandria. So all of these trace their Apostolic Succession to Peter. That is why they share in the Petrine line of authority. In fact the original Patriarchal system comprised the Three locations mentioned, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch where Peter’s line of succession existed [and still does] along with Jerusalem whose first leader was again Peter. Constantinople at this time was a nondescript fishing village bypassed by the Apostles which only later was raised to a patriachial status because of Constantine making it the capital of his empire. And that is the same reason that today the capitals of every country are raised to archdiocese status rather than mere dioceses.The supremacy of “an” apostolic chair. There were many apostolic chairs. Heck, even Pope Gregory I says that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch all comprise one Petrine See.
Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors…For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra…Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.
Here is the link to the entire quote. I also can’t help but point out that if you look at the same quote here on CAF they use and incredibly truncated version that cuts out all of the talk of three bishops sharing one Petrine See and the rest.
Along with the supremacy of the other apostolic chairs. Of course you are begging the question by assuming that when St Augustine wrote this he meant exactly the same thing the modern Catholic Church does.
In Christ
Joe
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
You make infallibility sound narrow and infrequent but consider Lumen Gentium 25:
*This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, **even when he does not speak ex cathedra ***in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him
*This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, **even when he does not speak ex cathedra ***in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him
I
inkaneer
Guest
But let us not take the words of Lumen Gentium out of context. Nor should we chop quoted Pope Paul VI to arrive at something he did not write. Here is the text from Lumen Gentium cut and pasted with no change in the wording. Notice the difference between what Pope Paul VI wrote and what you quoted, or rather did not quote.
"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra: that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
Obviously the context of the statement is “matters of faith and morals”
This not to say that when bishops speak on matters of faith and morals that their teaching is to be accepted as true. I will remind you that a famous bishop’ s teaching was declared by a general council to be heresy. That bishop was the bishop of Constantinople and his name was Nestorius.
By the way the above quote that was pasted here came from this site:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
It’s unfortunate that you assume the worst here about my brevity. I didn’t quote the entire thing because I, quite frankly, am tired of posters posting ten-page quotes that go on forever. I myself usually don’t bother to read posts by people in here with quotes that go on for fifteen miles. No subterfuge or strategy was implied here. The full context doesn’t change anything. We are to submit our minds and wills completely. That’s what it says. The “faith and morals” part is a no-brainer anyway even if I did quote that part. It’s obvious that the context is not that we must submit to the pope’s view on major league baseball. If he is a Red Sox fan and demands that I pull for Big Papi in the next season, I don’t have to obviously. Nobody thought the papacy was anything but a faith and morals authority. If he told me to drink antifreeze, obviously that wouldn’t apply. We all know the context anyway.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Well we agree that it has to be about faith and morals but that is not what the poster josephdaniel29 is saying. He is arguing that a tribunal of three bishops [of which the pope was one] decided an issue regarding who was the proper bishop of Carthage falls under the dogma of papal infallibility. I pointed out that not everything a pope says is an infallible statement as you apparently agree according to your baseball analogy. Who the proper bishop of Carthage should be is hardly a faith and morals question and the fact the bishop of Rome is on a tribunal with two other bishops implys that his envolvement is not as pope but as a bishop. Whatever decision is rendered thus is not protected by the papal infallibility doctrine and our Orthodox brother is wrong in his assumption that it is.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I would agree with everything you’ve said here. A tribunal deciding an issue with a couple of other bishops in that situation it would not be infallible. It’s not an official declaration of faith and morals with an issue that is binding on the faithful. Infallibility is about faith and morals, dogma, the essentials, not small judicial matters and judgments.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
And I agree with that as well, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. Again, the situation in question has nothing to do with infallibility. Let’s approach this from a different angle. I have a couple questions for inkaneer. First, if a pope deposes a bishop, does that bishop have the right to appeal that deposition to an ecumenical council? Why or why not?
Number two, can you please interpret this passage from Pastor aeternus for me?
Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
In Christ
Joe
T
TinaG
Guest
" G
I
inkaneer
Guest
I don’t know. First of all, I am not a canon lawyer and I am not sure a pope can depose a lawful bishop. As I understand the situation in Carthage the “bishop” was not the lawful bishop or at least a question existed as to who was the lawful bishop. . Also note something else. Although Augustine is a great Saint and Doctor of theChurch Augustine is not infallible. I will remind you that St. Thomas Aquinas, another great saint and Doctor of the Church was proven quite wrong on when life in utero began.
It means that a council’s decision is not infallible unless the pope agrees with it. The binding and loosening powers in Mt 18:18 were given to the apostles as a group. That is the basis for authority of the council’s. Note that group included Peter. The binding and loosening powers in Mt 16:18-19 were given to Peter individulaly and singularly. So The pope can individually bind and loose but councils can only do so when in communion with the pope.
I still think this matter revovles on whether the bishop of Rome was acting in the Tribunal as pope or as Bishop. If acting as bishop then I would think some recourse to an appeal would seem reasonable. I also think that this question requires the (name removed by moderator)ut of a canon lawyer…
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I agree with your statement that this is definitely beyond our pay grade here as amateurs and that brother Joseph should put this in the Q and A part of Catholic Answers and ask someone with canon law ability.
- Status