The Papal Claims

[Esran]

Okay, in my faith journey, I’m a Maronite Catholic.

I’m trying to settle a burning question in my mind: do the papal claims have historical precedent?

I’m not nearly as concerned about the primacy of Rome as of the charism of infallibility that the Pope has.

What do the early fathers say? By early, I mean fifth century and before. In particular, what do they have to say about Matthew 16:18?

I’m honestly lost as to how the Pope’s infallibility, under certain circumstances, follows from Scripture and history.

 

[mardukm]

Hello brother,

May I ask why you place the fifth century as the cut-off point? Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit was just as active in the Church after that? I won’t stretch it too far (because I have a feeling many have a harder time believing the Holy Spirit was just as active leading the Church for the entire 2 millenia of its existence). Why not take the first 9 centuries? Would you object to that?

Historically, here is a proof by dialectic:

Can you name a single instance in the history of the Church when the bishop of Rome ever publicly enjoined the Church to believe in a heresy? No.

Have the bishops of other Patriarchates ever publicly enjoined the Church to believe in a heresy? Yes.

Is it only a coincidence that it is the See of the head bishop of the Church that has had this spotless record? No. We as Christians don’t believe in coincidence, but in Divine Providence.

Can you reasonably infer from this historical circumstance that the head bishop has been given a certain protection by God? Yes.

When could God have promised to give this special grace to the Church? He made the promise to St. Peter TWICE, as recorded in Matthew 16 (that due to St. Peter [simultaneously, his confession], the Gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church) and Luke 22 (Christ’s singular promise to pray for St. Peter in order to be able to cofirm his brother Apostles in the Faith).

So St. Peter had this special grace? Yes

If St. Peter had it, how do you know that it has been handed down? Because of the principle of Apostolic Succession. Every single thing that was given to the Apostles for the edification of the Church was handed down by the Apostles to the bishops of the Church. Unless one believes that the protections promised by Christ to St. Peter (alone, I might add) are no longer needed by the Church, then one has to believe that such graces as St. Peter possessed for the leadership of the Church of HIS day must also be possessed by him who is St. Peter’s successor in the headship of the Church in OUR day.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SedesDomi]

I’m honestly lost as to how the Pope’s infallibility, under certain circumstances, follows from Scripture and history.

\

Google “development of doctrine”.

 

[Esran]

I’m looking for Church Father sources. The reason I requested the earliest ones is a matter of historical principle. One must look to the earliest evidence, in order to judge if later events are developments or departures.

 

[SedesDomi]

I’m looking for Church Father sources. The reason I requested the earliest ones is a matter of historical principle. One must look to the earliest evidence, in order to judge if later events are developments or departures.

Well, even the Orthodox agree that Rome received some sort of honor in the earliest centuries. Where the Orthodox differ is when it comes the the idea of the development of doctrine.

If you’re looking for the Vatican One definition of papal infallibility and contemporary Catholic definitions of papal supremacy in the earliest Church Fathers, then both Orthodox and Catholics would agree you won’t find it there.

 

[mardukm]

Well, even the Orthodox agree that Rome received some sort of honor in the earliest centuries. Where the Orthodox differ is when it comes the the idea of the development of doctrine.

If you’re looking for the Vatican One definition of papal infallibility and contemporary Catholic definitions of papal supremacy in the earliest Church Fathers, then both Orthodox and Catholics would agree you won’t find it there.

SedesDomi,

Brother Esran has indicated that he wants to see if the doctrine is a legitimate development or departure, indicating that it does not matter if the doctrine is not EXPLICIT in the early centuries. It seems he is willing to look at the EVIDENCE. That is quite fair.

Brother Esran,

I wish I could be more helpful at this point regarding the patristic data (as I do not have a lot of time), though I’m sure others will join in to give the historical data.

It seems there are two issues here that you have brought up -

1. the biblical evidence
2. the patristic evidence.

As far as the biblical evidence is concerned, can you respond to my previous post utilizing Matthew 16 and Luke 22?

Let me lay it out to make it easier:

1. Do you believe that Jesus’ promise that the Gates of Hades will never prevail against the Church is a promise of infallibility?
2. How do you interpret the fact that the promise is based on the person of St. Peter (i.e., NOT the person of Simon bar Jonah, but Peter). At this point, I know there is debate about what/who “the Rock” refers to, but let’s assume the Catholic position for now that it DOES refer SIMULTANEOUSLY to the person of Peter, Jesus and Peter’s confession.

NOTE: I’m not talking about the assignment of the keys, but about the designation of “rock” to the person of Peter.

1. How do you interpret Jesus’ SINGULAR assignment to and SINGULAR prayer for St. Peter to be the confirmer of the brethren?

NOTE: I’m not talking about Peter coming back after his denial, which is a separate issue.

1. Do you believe that these special and singular graces given by Jesus to Peter is passed on in the Apostolic Succession?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Okay, in my faith journey, I’m a Maronite Catholic.

I’m trying to settle a burning question in my mind: do the papal claims have historical precedent?

I’m not nearly as concerned about the primacy of Rome as of the charism of infallibility that the Pope has.

What do the early fathers say? By early, I mean fifth century and before. In particular, what do they have to say about Matthew 16:18?

I’m honestly lost as to how the Pope’s infallibility, under certain circumstances, follows from Scripture and history.

Hello Esran, I am a Maronite Catholic as well with similar questions. I don’t see the modern papacy in history.

I have often seen Eastern Orthodox Christians post the fact that there were something like 8 of the fathers taught that Matt.16 refered to Peter as the rock while like 45 said that the rock was the faith of Peter and another 12 said the rock was Christ Himself.

The problem with the development of doctrine on this issue is that it changes the very mode of operation of the Church. Authority goes from being shared among the many local Churches to being the object of the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome then shares the authority with those who are in communion with it. The council is only a representation of papal infallibility because the pope has determined to call a council. Whereas, before, the council was the gathering of the local Churches to solve a problem. The bishops came together as representatives of their local Churches and they all had an equal voice. It was a matter of finding the common ground and how the Spirit guides each local Church. And if there was something that was cancerous that was not of the Spirit it was cut out.

Right now my conclusion is that papal infallibility is not a true doctrine. I think they have overstepped their bounds.

 

[Esran]

1. Do you believe that Jesus’ promise that the Gates of Hades will never prevail against the Church is a promise of infallibility?

Yes. But it appears to apply to the Church as a whole. Saying that it implies that the Pope can make infallible statements under certain conditions, seems a stretch. However, if the early Christians witness otherwise, then I’ll believe them, because they’d know better, being only a generation or so away from the apostles. The oral tradition, and other written sources can clarify this matter further.

1. How do you interpret the fact that the promise is based on the person of St. Peter (i.e., NOT the person of Simon bar Jonah, but Peter). At this point, I know there is debate about what/who “the Rock” refers to, but let’s assume the Catholic position for now that it DOES refer SIMULTANEOUSLY to the person of Peter, Jesus and Peter’s confession.

I’m not sure it is based on the person of Peter, per se, but on all apostles present. It seems ambiguous, and even if explicit (and I’m just not noticing it), then it only directly implies primacy, not infallibility or supremacy.

1. How do you interpret Jesus’ SINGULAR assignment to and SINGULAR prayer for St. Peter to be the confirmer of the brethren?

I’m not sure. I’d need to look at all the textual variants, and their dates. I’d also look at how the earliest fathers interpreted it, and any interpretations that are in line with them. Then, I’d form my interpretation.

NOTE: I’m not talking about Peter coming back after his denial, which is a separate issue.

That’s not relevant to the papal claims, even though many people use it as an example to counter them. I don’t agree with their use.

1. Do you believe that these special and singular graces given by Jesus to Peter is passed on in the Apostolic Succession?

Oh, most definitely! But all the apostles were given this grace, and pass it on to the bishops they apointed, if I’m not misunderstanding you.

I have often seen Eastern Orthodox Christians post the fact that there were something like 8 of the fathers taught that Matt.16 refered to Peter as the rock while like 45 said that the rock was the faith of Peter and another 12 said the rock was Christ Himself.

Yeah! Those kind of things, the original quotes and context, are what I’m looking for.

The problem with the development of doctrine on this issue is that it changes the very mode of operation of the Church. Authority goes from being shared among the many local Churches to being the object of the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome then shares the authority with those who are in communion with it. The council is only a representation of papal infallibility because the pope has determined to call a council. Whereas, before, the council was the gathering of the local Churches to solve a problem. The bishops came together as representatives of their local Churches and they all had an equal voice. It was a matter of finding the common ground and how the Spirit guides each local Church. And if there was something that was cancerous that was not of the Spirit it was cut out.

Agreed. What wasn’t there can’t develop. Development must be consistent, not contradictory, to what went before. Hence, this is an important issue.

Right now my conclusion is that papal infallibility is not a true doctrine. I think they have overstepped their bounds.

Then I implore you, for the sake of honesty, and for your own personal honor and integrity, join the Eastern Orthodox. If I come to the same conclusion as you, I will do likewise. We worship Christ, Who is Truth, and to even be in communion with Rome, if indeed it teaches an error so great as to radically alter the very way our Church operates, the very way Revelation itself is protected, is blasphemy against Christ the Truth.

Please don’t take those words too harshly. Like I said, if I reach your same conclusion, and I am duty-bound to investigate this if I really do worship the Truth, then I must likewise leave, no matter how hard it will be.

 

[gferrer]

Here is another way to approach the issue, in terms of the Fathers in the first five centuries.

Writings of a number of early Fathers (Irenaeus (2nd), Cyprian (3rd), Augustine (4th-5th), Pope Leo (5th), etc.) emphasize the importance of being in communion with the Church of Rome. Pope Leo’s writings have a particularly strong emphasis on the divine origin of the importance of the Roman Church because of the Petrine succession.

For the sake of argument, then, consider the following three premises:

1. The Church as a whole is infallible.
2. The primary teacher of doctrine of each local church is the bishop.
3. There is a divine mandate to be in communion with the Church of Rome.

Now, if one proposes that the bishop of Rome is not infallible when defining doctrines, but accepts that there is a divine mandate to be in communion with that bishop, it would follow that there is a divine mandate to be in communion with a church that could teach erroneously. Since it would be inconsistent of God to require communion with a heretic church, it follows that the Church of Rome will not define any doctrines that are heretical.

Remember also that this charism of infallibility is a function of his office, not of his person. Even the Vatican I definitions state that it is the doctrinal definitions made by the pope that are infallible, as opposed to the pope himself.

The above is one possible argument, sketched off the top of my head, that could show how papal infallibility is a doctrine that is consistent with, and follows from, the teachings of the Fathers, even though it is not directly present.

I hasten to emphasize that not all of the above Fathers would have necessarily drawn this conclusion. I think Pope Leo would have definitely agreed. Irenaeus might have agreed, in the sense that the above is a consistent elaboration of his statement that it is important for all of the churches to be in doctrinal agreement with the Church of Rome.

I think Cyprian would have disagreed with my argument above. I think part of his problem was that he did not get to live long enough in sufficiently peaceful times to work out the logical implications of his beliefs.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I have often seen Eastern Orthodox Christians post the fact that there were something like 8 of the fathers taught that Matt.16 refered to Peter as the rock while like 45 said that the rock was the faith of Peter and another 12 said the rock was Christ Himself.

The EO problem with this interpretation is that it is unbiblical. EO are trying to falsely dichotomize the person of Peter, the faith of Peter and Jesus Christ. Yet we know that Simon became Peter by a singular grace of Christ, and we know that God himself gave Peter the ability to make his profession. So what is the reason for the false dichotomies? I understand the Catholic position (which is shared by the Syrian Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches) much better, which states that the Rock is SIMULTANEOUSLY Jesus, Peter and the faith of Peter. It takes a real stretch of the imagination to falsely dichotomize them. Further, it is inconsistent to claim belief in a Sacramental theology, yet simultaneously make the false dichotomy that the Rock CANNOT be Jesus and the person of Peter AT THE SAME TIME. In all, the EO position is merely a polemic which does not make any sense at all.

The problem with the development of doctrine on this issue is that it changes the very mode of operation of the Church.

The model of the Church is the model of the heavenly hierarchy, which is a monarchy. Would you agree or disagree? Because of our human condition (i.e., the Church is both divine and human), the monarchical element is NOT ABSOLUTE, and there must be peaceful agreement between the bishops. But this in no way denies the monarchical element that exists in the Church. THAT is the way the Church operates. I do not find this model of shared authority ANYWHERE in Scripture. In Scripture, as in the early Church, there has ALWAYS been a focal point of authority (unless you can show me otherwise). Thus, the monarchical model has always been there - it is the heavenly reality, and it is likewise contained in Scripture, in the early Church, and in the Catholic Church.

Authority goes from being shared among the many local Churches to being the object of the Church of Rome.

This is an exaggeration of the hierarchical model of the Catholic Church. The sharing of power in the Catholic Church is the normative model. However, in certain unique circumstances, the monarchical element of the Church must predominate for the sake of the good order of the Church. Your understanding is that the monarchical model predominates at all times. That is simply false. If you believe that, then for the sake of your peace, perhaps it might be better for you to join Eastern Orthodoxy. But know that you will have left because of a false perception of the Catholic Church.

The Church of Rome then shares the authority with those who are in communion with it.

Here again is a misunderstanding of Catholic ecclesiology. Bishops, as the Catholic Church teaches, have power and authority IN AND OF THEMSELVES, by virtue of the grace of God, not by virtue of their agreement with Rome. If they do not agree with Rome on a matter of faith and morals (a standard that CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY existed from the earliest times), then those bishops have cut themselves off from Catholic orthodoxy. If they are disobedient (not merely disagree, which is acceptable) on a matter of discipline or practice, then they are in schism. This is the same underlying principle that exists in ALL apostolic Churches. If you can show me an apostolic Church which denies that you must be in doctrinal agreement with a focal point of authority, then your complaint does not seem to have any merit. Perhaps you meant to write something else?

The council is only a representation of papal infallibility because the pope has determined to call a council.

That the head bishop has the authority to call a council or synod is enshrined in the constitution of EVERY Church. It seems rather hypocritical to criticize the Catholic Church for something that the Orthodox themselves practice.

Whereas, before, the council was the gathering of the local Churches to solve a problem. The bishops came together as representatives of their local Churches and they all had an equal voice. It was a matter of finding the common ground and how the Spirit guides each local Church. And if there was something that was cancerous that was not of the Spirit it was cut out.

Can you please show us a time in history when the general councils of the Catholic Church did NOT operate in the same way?

Right now my conclusion is that papal infallibility is not a true doctrine. I think they have overstepped their bounds.

It doesn’t seem as if you discussed papal infallibility at all, but rather papal primacy. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Right now my conclusion is that papal infallibility is not a true doctrine. I think they have overstepped their bounds.

If St. Thomas Aquinas were here, the Doctor of the Church would tell you that you have no faith since you doubt the Church on one matter.

I will pray for you, and I hope you will pray for me as well.

 

[bobzills]

Regarding Papal claims, I read that the Pope holds on earth the place of God Almighty. This is according to Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894, as reported in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 304, Benziger Brothers (1903).
And the entire encyclical is online at:
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
and it reads:“But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Esran,

Yes. But it appears to apply to the Church as a whole. Saying that it implies that the Pope can make infallible statements under certain conditions, seems a stretch.

I think it must be understood first that the infallibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Pope are one and the same - i.e., it is the infallibility of God. Second, it must be even MORE perfectly understood that the conditions on the Pope’s infallibility are the same conditions that are imposed on the infallibility of the Church. In effect, the teaching is that only God is infallible IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. Any earthly body (be it the Church, a Council or the Pope) that has been graced by God with His infallibility are only so IN A VERY LIMITED WAY.

Let me pose this issue to you in another way: Are you saying that it is difficult for you to imagine that the Church or a Council can make infallible statements only under certain conditions? Whatever conditions those are, they are simply the same ones the Vatican Council has imposed on papal infallibility. The Vatican Council did not make these conditions out of the blue. The Vatican Fathers already knew that infallibility existed. It was only a matter of applying the conditions of its limited existence in the Church to the Petrine office. Now, can you explain to me why what I stated would be so hard to imagine?

I’m not sure it is based on the person of Peter, per se, but on all apostles present. It seems ambiguous, and even if explicit (and I’m just not noticing it), then it only directly implies primacy, not infallibility or supremacy.

Well, Jesus was speaking to Peter directly and not to the other Apostles when he gave Peter these special graces (i.e., 1) to be the rock upon whom the Church is built - a rock that cannot be falsely dichotomized from Jesus or Peter’s faith - and 2) to be the confirmer of the brethren in the Faith). I base my belief on that simple fact. May I ask the basis for your belief that Jesus was referring to the other Apostles? I mean, where is that in the text?

I’m not sure. I’d need to look at all the textual variants, and their dates. I’d also look at how the earliest fathers interpreted it, and any interpretations that are in line with them. Then, I’d form my interpretation.

Fair enough. I should comment that the prayer of Jesus is indeed directed specifically to and for Peter (and not the other Apostles). Of course, your acceptance of that will depend on your research.

Oh, most definitely! But all the apostles were given this grace, and pass it on to the bishops they apointed, if I’m not misunderstanding you.

As mentioned earlier, the graces (to be the rock upon whom the Church would be built, and to be the confirmer of the brethren in the faith) were given by Jesus singularly to Peter. True enough, the grace to bind and loose are given to ALL the Apostles, but I would ask once again where in the text do you find that the other Apostles were addressed in the assignment of these graces of which I have spoken.

Yeah! Those kind of things, the original quotes and context, are what I’m looking for.

I had a chance to investigate these claims during my translation to the Catholic Church. I found them to be somewhat deceptive. The fact is, many of the ones that mentioned that the rock was Jesus or Peter’s confession ALSO make the claim that Peter is ALSO the rock. The claim that there are only eight fathers who taught that Peter is specifically named the rock are from Fathers who ONLY mentioned Peter as the rock in their writings. So, once again, the tally is deceptive. Of course, I would not want you to take my word for it. Assuage your conscience with your own study. I would beg, however, that you understand that the Catholic apologetic on the matter asserts that the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 is SIMULTANEOUSLY Peter, Jesus, and Peter’s confession. Unlike some Orthodox polemicists, the Catholic Church does not falsely dichotomize these intrinsically connected
elements of the meaning of the “rock.”

]
Agreed. What wasn’t there can’t develop. Development must be consistent, not contradictory, to what went before. Hence, this is an important issue.

Indeed it is important! Please see my response to brother Jimmy.

Like I said, if I reach your same conclusion, and I am duty-bound to investigate this if I really do worship the Truth, then I must likewise leave, no matter how hard it will be.

I appreciate your desire for the truth. I hope you ponder my words carefully and give me an opportunity to address your concerns.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

Regarding Papal claims, I read that the Pope holds on earth the place of God Almighty. This is according to Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894, as reported in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 304, Benziger Brothers (1903).
And the entire encyclical is online at:
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
and it reads:“But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us.”

And St. Ignatius of Antioch often stated that one must accept the priest as Christ, and the bishop as God himself. Now, I KNOW for fact that ALL apostolic Christians accept THAT descriptive. Any apostolic Christian who would hold what the Pope stated against the Catholic Church is working off of a position of sheer hypocrisy, wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

Dear brother Bob,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch often stated that one must accept the priest as Christ, and the bishop as God himself. Now, I KNOW for fact that ALL apostolic Christians accept THAT descriptive. Any apostolic Christian who would hold what the Pope stated against the Catholic Church is working off of a position of sheer hypocrisy, wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

I suspect that an Eastern Orthodox Christian might object to the Pope’s claim to hold upon earth the place of Almight God.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

I suspect that an Eastern Orthodox Christian might object to the Pope’s claim to hold upon earth the place of Almight God.

That’s true enough. Would that same EO condemn St. Ignatius for claiming it for himself? Most likely not, which is why the EO complaint would not really hold any merit to the fair minded Christian.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SedesDomi]

Dear brother Bob,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch often stated that one must accept the priest as Christ, and the bishop as God himself. Now, I KNOW for fact that ALL apostolic Christians accept THAT descriptive. Any apostolic Christian who would hold what the Pope stated against the Catholic Church is working off of a position of sheer hypocrisy, wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

If the Pope merely repeated with St. Ignatius said, there wouldn’t be any problem. But bring in papal supremacy, jurisdiction, and infallibility; and then we have a problem.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Esran,

At first I wasn’t sure I wanted to jump into this conversation; but I feel I need to respond to:

Then I implore you, for the sake of honesty, and for your own personal honor and integrity, join the Eastern Orthodox. If I come to the same conclusion as you, I will do likewise. We worship Christ, Who is Truth, and to even be in communion with Rome, if indeed it teaches an error so great as to radically alter the very way our Church operates, the very way Revelation itself is protected, is blasphemy against Christ the Truth.

Please don’t take those words too harshly. Like I said, if I reach your same conclusion, and I am duty-bound to investigate this if I really do worship the Truth, then I must likewise leave, no matter how hard it will be.

First, I don’t agree with your dichotomy that Papal Infallibility must be either true or “an error so great as to radically alter the very way our Church operates”. If, in fact, Papal Infallibility were false, then it might be heretical but it might not.

Second, it seems to me that you’re defining Orthodoxy negatively or derivatively. That is to say, you’re defining Orthodoxy in terms of Catholicism.

To put it in perspective, imagine you overheard a conversation in which one Orthodox said “Orthodoxy teaches X (or Y)” and then another Orthodox responded “Oh really? I don’t think X (or Y) is true”, and then the first Orthodox said, “Well then, for the sake of honesty, you should leave the Orthodox Church and become Catholic”.

 

[Peter_J]

mardukm:

Can you name a single instance in the history of the Church when the bishop of Rome ever publicly enjoined the Church to believe in a heresy? No.

Have the bishops of other Patriarchates ever publicly enjoined the Church to believe in a heresy? Yes.

Is it only a coincidence that it is the See of the head bishop of the Church that has had this spotless record? No. We as Christians don’t believe in coincidence, but in Divine Providence.

Can you reasonably infer from this historical circumstance that the head bishop has been given a certain protection by God? Yes.

mardukm:

Let me lay it out to make it easier:

1. Do you believe that Jesus’ promise that the Gates of Hades will never prevail against the Church is a promise of infallibility?
2. How do you interpret the fact that the promise is based on the person of St. Peter (i.e., NOT the person of Simon bar Jonah, but Peter). At this point, I know there is debate about what/who “the Rock” refers to, but let’s assume the Catholic position for now that it DOES refer SIMULTANEOUSLY to the person of Peter, Jesus and Peter’s confession.

NOTE: I’m not talking about the assignment of the keys, but about the designation of “rock” to the person of Peter.

1. How do you interpret Jesus’ SINGULAR assignment to and SINGULAR prayer for St. Peter to be the confirmer of the brethren?

NOTE: I’m not talking about Peter coming back after his denial, which is a separate issue.

1. Do you believe that these special and singular graces given by Jesus to Peter is passed on in the Apostolic Succession?

mardukm:

The model of the Church is the model of the heavenly hierarchy, which is a monarchy. Would you agree or disagree?

mardukm:

Are you saying that it is difficult for you to imagine that the Church or a Council can make infallible statements only under certain conditions?

mardukm:

Any apostolic Christian who would hold what the Pope stated against the Catholic Church is working off of a position of sheer hypocrisy, wouldn’t you agree?

Hi mardukm,

If I may go off on a small tangent, I really enjoy learning about the Oriental (Coptic, Maronite, Chaldean, etc.) Catholic Churches and how their approach relates to and differs from the approach of the Byzantine-rite EC Churches.

However, after learning about the OC approach to Papal Infallibility (not only in the posts that I quoted, of course, but the whole thread) I am rather glad, for the sake of peace (to borrow your phrase), that I’m not OC. I prefer the Byzantine Catholic approach to this issue – which I find to be significantly different not only in terms of substance but also in terms of rhetoric.

Of course, ultimately what’s important is that there’s room for all of us, Oriental, Byzantine, Latin, in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Peter.

 

[SedesDomi]

(5) Systematic Reflections. The Roman Catholic Church regards the papal office as an essential element in the constitution of the church by “divine law” iuris divini] and not simply by “human law” iuris humani]). One problem the claim must answer is that the papacy took shape only in the course of the church’s history. In response it maybe be pointed out that on its journey through history the church produces from within itself the institutions it needs in order to be able to act according to its nature in the context of new situations. In order to protect its freedom and to manifest and preserve its unity, the church needed the papal office when emperor and empire were trying to immobilize the church and when the church’s growth and implantation in new cultural settings began to threaten its unity.

Handbook of Catholic Theology. Wolfgang Beinert and Francis Schuessler Fiorenza, editors. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2000, 537.