The Papal Claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter Esran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear SedesDomi,
SedesDomi said:
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.
Click to expand...
First of all, may I ask if you are a Christian? From your profile, I am not sure if you are a Baptist or a Buddhist. I would like to address you as “brother” if it is appropriate.

Actually, even with your mitigations, the EO complaint would still be inconsistent because:
  1. Bishops (who take the place of God on earth) are supreme in their own jurisdiction, and, along with the Pope, are together regarded as the supreme authority in the Church.
  2. Individual bishops, when they teach on a matter of faith or morals in unison with the rest of the Church, share in the one infallibility of God.
When EO polemicists look at conditional clauses like “along with the Pope,” they automatically (for a reason that I personally cannot fathom) assume that the Pope is “above” his brother bishops. The fact is, when such conditional clauses are added, the Pope is regarded not as being above his brother bishops, but is to be considered ALONG WITH his brother bishops.

The key to - or perhaps the source of - the problem lies in the EO polemic conception that the head bishop is not a necessary, divinely instituted element of the Church hierarchy. To Catholics (and the Oriental Orthodox) the head bishop is an INDISPENSABLE feature of the hierarchy. Unlike the EO polemic understanding, we take the FULLNESS of Apostolic Canon 34, and automatically involve the head bishop in every decision of the episcopal college. There is no dichotomy (to the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox mind) between the head bishop and his brother bishops as full deliberative members in the decision-making body of the Church.

NOTE: I have used the term “EO polemic” deliberately to distinguish it from other EO perspectives that DO accept the apostolic consitution that any body of bishops must necessarily (not just expediently) have a head bishop.

At this point, permit me to lay out the several perspectives regarding the head bishop and his relationship to his brother bishops:
  1. The head bishop is not necessary. This is a perspective that I have ONLY found in the Eastern Orthodox Church and simply violates Apostolic canon 34:
  2. The head bishop is necessary but has a merely administrative and honorary prerogative. This seems to accept the full provisions of Apostolic Canon 34, but from my perspective it is no better than the first option.
  3. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. The body of bishops can judge the head bishop separate from him.
  4. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his territory. If the head bishop is to be judged, it is a collegial deliberation that must involve the head bishop himself, and never apart from him.
  5. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his jurisdiction. The head bishop cannot be judged by any person or group of persons, but can be incriminated by virtue of the law itself (i.e., Sacred Tradition).
  6. The head bishop is necessary and has actual juridic authority over his brother bishops within his jurisdiction. The head bishop cannot be judged by any one or any thing on earth.
I believe the only Catholic options are #4 and #5. Some non-Latins might accept #3. Some real hard-liners might include #6 (certainly, #6 is the preferred perspective of anti-Catholics in their judgment of the Catholic Church). Personally, I accept #4.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to post this list as a poll. :hmmm: What do all of you think? I don’t have time right now, but if you feel it is worthwhile, maybe you can do some cut and paste.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Peter,

I would be interested to know your exact perspectives on the matter. I’m sure it will become evident as the conversation progresses, so no need to respond.

Thanks for your replies. They are appreciated.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear SedesDomi,
SedesDomi said:
Handbook of Catholic Theology. Wolfgang Beinert and Francis Schuessler Fiorenza, editors. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2000, 537.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what the purpose of your quote is. I suspect it has something to do with the “problem” that the quote gives. Are you saying “hey, even Catholics admit that the papacy is a development?”

To respond, I think you need to distinguish between the ESTABLISHMENT of the papacy, on the one hand, and its development on the other. A lot of people confuse the two, IMHO. It is as if the papacy did not exist until Vatican I, in their eyes.:rolleyes: The headship, the authority and the infallibility were divinely established in the time of Jesus by Jesus Himself. What has developed are the ways in which the headship and authority has been exercised and realized.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
SedesDomi said:
Handbook of Catholic Theology. Wolfgang Beinert and Francis Schuessler Fiorenza, editors. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2000, 537.
Click to expand...
Sedes, I actually like that quote because I could accept the papal authority if it was recognized that it was only an aspect of the Church at a specific time in history. Maybe the west needed an ultimate authority to keep it from straying and consequently God acted through the pope. But the east never needed a single universal authority other than that of God. If the west recognized that the authority of the pope was simply one way in which the Church could express authority and that the ecclesiology of the east is another, just as valid way for the Church to operate, it would help clear things up.
 
Esran said:
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.
Click to expand...
The CHURCH must be infallible, because she is the Body of Christ, who is Truth. The papal claim is subordinate to that.

The reservation of papal infallibility to the Pope “alone” is extremely narrow, residing in Christ’s promise of the Keys it is not a bully-card to be wielded, as it were, independently and “above” the rest of the Church.
 
mercygate said:
The CHURCH must be infallible, because she is the Body of Christ, who is Truth.
Click to expand...
What then, constitutes church? There have been different noises about that over time.
mercygate said:
The papal claim is subordinate to that.
Click to expand...
How otherwise can this particular quality be manifest?

Was it actually restricted to the Popes before anyone actually knew it was restricted to the Popes?
mercygate said:
The reservation of papal infallibility to the Pope “alone” is extremely narrow, residing in Christ’s promise of the Keys it is not a bully-card to be wielded, as it were, independently and “above” the rest of the Church.
Click to expand...
What if there is a part of the church that does not recognize that interpretation. Suppose the definition of church can be so broad as to include a hierarchy and laity that does not recognize this monopoly of the Popes.

Can infallibility of the church be manifest in another way, a broader way?

Or is that out of the question, in your opinion?
 
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.

**Unfortunately, yes.

Pope Honorius publicly taught and embraced Monothelitism.

I will admit this this is the unique doctrinal lapse on the part of the Papcy.**
 
jimmy said:
Sedes, I actually like that quote because I could accept the papal authority if it was recognized that it was only an aspect of the Church at a specific time in history. Maybe the west needed an ultimate authority to keep it from straying and consequently God acted through the pope. But the east never needed a single universal authority other than that of God. If the west recognized that the authority of the pope was simply one way in which the Church could express authority and that the ecclesiology of the east is another, just as valid way for the Church to operate, it would help clear things up.
Click to expand...
I have actually been thinking about that possibility in my mind for a while now. The litmus test would be whether the EO would at least recognize the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils in the first millenium - i.e., giving the bishop of Rome the right of appeal for bishops in any jurisdiction East and West, and accepting that the bishop of Rome is the confirmer of even their own faith and Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear bpbasilphx,
bpbasilphx said:
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.

**Unfortunately, yes.

Pope Honorius publicly taught and embraced Monothelitism.

I will admit this this is the unique doctrinal lapse on the part of the Papcy.**
Click to expand...
Actually (and I don’t want to discuss it further in this thread, perhaps a new one), Pope Honorius did not publicly teach Monothelitism, nor enjoin ANYONE to believe it. You can get that from the documents of the Sixth Council itself.

Did you know that the Fathers of the Council were not even aware of Honorius’ views until Sergius brought up the letters the Pope gave him (I think it was at the third Session)? Obviously, whatever the Pope gave to Sergius was NOT PUBLIC knowledge before that specific instance. And I think a good amount of time (several years or many months - I forget) had already passed between the time Honorius gave Sergius the letters and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Obviously, the orthodox Catholic world had NO idea that Honorius “supported” monothelitism - thus it cannot be the case that Honorius’ beliefs (whatever they were) on the matter were ever publicly taught or publicly enjoined by Honorius. Would you agree with these facts and interpretation (keep in mind, we are not discussing the heretic issue, but whether or not Honorius publicly taught it, or even merely publicly expressed it).

I would appreciate your comments on a new thread I will be starting on the issue (Did Honorius teach monothelitism publicly?).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Hesychios said:
What then, constitutes church? There have been different noises about that over time.
Click to expand...
Those in the Apostolic lines – at the least, if we want an Apostolic faith.
How otherwise can this particular quality be manifest?
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand the question.
Was it actually restricted to the Popes before anyone actually knew it was restricted to the Popes?
Click to expand...
The indefectibility and infallibility of the Church inheres in the entire Church insofar as the Church holds unity of faith.
What if there is a part of the church that does not recognize that interpretation. Suppose the definition of church can be so broad as to include a hierarchy and laity that does not recognize this monopoly of the Popes.

Can infallibility of the church be manifest in another way, a broader way?

Or is that out of the question, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Just trying to coordinate these questions, and this is ME talking not Mother Church: I see the successors Peter as holding a particularity of doctrinal and discernment and of discipline that does not inhere *in the same way *among the other apostles simply because Our Lord makes it clear (as others are posting here): all that “keys”, “strengthen,” “feed/tend/feed” stuff in addition to the name change.

A definition of Church that rejects Peter by definition is defective. As a convert to the Catholic Church, I see the Petrine role NOT as one of willful, personal domination but as the beacon point for the Unity Christ prayed for on his last night on earth, and the feature sine qua non ecclesial unity cannot exist as Our Lord intends it.

As the *Catechism *indicates, the church is wider than the Catholic Church but for my :twocents: , an “ecclesial corporation” that rejects the particular distinction of the Apostolic See is rejecting “The Church” that Christ Himself began to build upon Peter and Peter’s confession.

I choose not to go beyond this statement in deciding who is “in” and who is “out.” As I see it, that is Our Lord’s job and secondarily the job of those He has placed in positions of discerning those things: men like B-16 and the Bishops in Communion with him.
 
Dear brother Michael,
Hesychios said:
Can infallibility of the church be manifest in another way, a broader way?

Or is that out of the question, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Actually, the Catholic Church recognizes three ways that infallibility is manifest in the Church:
  1. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra.
  2. In an Ecumenical Council.
  3. When the bishops even when dispersed throughout the world speak with one voice on an issue of faith or morals.
How do the EO believe infallibility is manifested?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mercygate said:
A definition of Church that rejects Peter by definition is defective. As a convert to the Catholic Church, I see the Petrine role NOT as one of willful, personal domination but as the beacon point for the Unity Christ prayed for on his last night on earth, and the feature sine qua non ecclesial unity cannot exist as Our Lord intends it.

As the *Catechism *indicates, the church is wider than the Catholic Church but for my :twocents: , an “ecclesial corporation” that rejects the particular distinction of the Apostolic See is rejecting “The Church” that Christ Himself began to build upon Peter and Peter’s confession.

I choose not to go beyond this statement in deciding who is “in” and who is “out.” As I see it, that is Our Lord’s job and secondarily the job of those He has placed in positions of discerning those things: men like B-16 and the Bishops in Communion with him.
Click to expand...
I am not picking a fight here, but I would like to point out that there are some who consider the Petrine role to be shared by all bishops.

Therefore, they would not per se, be rejecting the Petrine role.

In fact, in that opinion there is not one Apostolic See, but several, or many. Does this make the authority less absolute? Well no, although it would be more of a consensus model.

But then, it would resemble point #3 by mardukm. How then is such a consensus reached? By a gathering of these august church leaders.

I just thought I’d toss that out there.
 
Dear brother Michael,
Hesychios said:
I am not picking a fight here, but I would like to point out that there are some who consider the Petrine role to be shared by all bishops.

Therefore, they would not per se, be rejecting the Petrine role.

In fact, in that opinion there is not one Apostolic See, but several, or many. Does this make the authority less absolute? Well no, although it would be more of a consensus model.

But then, it would resemble point #3 by mardukm. How then is such a consensus reached? By a gathering of these august church leaders.

I just thought I’d toss that out there.
Click to expand...
I do love dialoguing with you (even when it gets heated) because you exude a lot of peace.

I think the Orthodox Churches accept #2 and #3. Do you think that there is any way for the Eastern Orthodox Churches do accept that under certain unique circumstances, the head bishop of the Church can exercise infallibility (and trust me, Catholics will readily admit that the exercise of papal infallibility is few and far between). I would appeal to two biblical incidents - the incident of Korah’s rebellion, and the fact that it was through Peter’s mouth that God instructed the Church to let the Gentiles into the Church. In both instances, the people of God were in unique circumstances, and required a singular authority to lead the people. Do you think the EO Churches would ever consider the possibility that such unique circumstances have or could still exist for the Church? Obviously, in the early Church, that was the case, since the decisions of Sardica were accepted by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Look at the situation at Sardica - that was certainly a unique circumstance when everyone East, West, and Orient looked to the bishop of Rome for doctrinal succor. Can EO admit the possibility that such a unique circumstance will visit the Church again? Certainly, the Lord predicted that the Church will experience times that would test the Church during the Endtimes. Could it possibly be worse than what occurred during Arian times that prompted the Council of Sardica (which, by the way, was INTENDED by the emperor and the Church to be an Ecumenical Council - it ended up not becoming one ONLY because most of the Eastern bishops who were heretics left the Council) to adjudge that even bishops East and West can look to the Pope as judge between them? According to Jesus, it is not even a mere possibility, but a foregone conclusion. At that point, will the EO be able to recall how the early Church handled it and accept he rightful place of the Pope?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mercygate said:
The reservation of papal infallibility to the Pope “alone” is extremely narrow, residing in Christ’s promise of the Keys it is not a bully-card to be wielded, as it were, independently and “above” the rest of the Church.
Click to expand...
Hesychios said:
Was it actually restricted to the Popes before anyone actually knew it was restricted to the Popes?
Click to expand...
Mercygate and Hesychios,

The restriction of infallibility to the pope is not a Catholic teaching – indeed, I wouldn’t even call it a Catholic idea. Catholics acknowledge that e.g. St. Paul exercised infallibility when he wrote Galatians, etc.
 
Dear mercygate,
mercygate said:
The reservation of papal infallibility to the Pope “alone” is extremely narrow, residing in Christ’s promise of the Keys it is not a bully-card to be wielded, as it were, independently and “above” the rest of the Church.
Click to expand...
I was not aware that the Church uses the rhetoric that papal infallibility is based on the singular giving of the keys to St. Peter. Can you please cite a source? I thought the giving of the keys is normally used to prove papal primacy and authority, NOT infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Hesychios said:
I am not picking a fight here, but I would like to point out that there are some who consider the Petrine role to be shared by all bishops.

Therefore, they would not per se, be rejecting the Petrine role.

In fact, in that opinion there is not one Apostolic See, but several, or many. Does this make the authority less absolute? Well no, although it would be more of a consensus model.

But then, it would resemble point #3 by mardukm. How then is such a consensus reached? By a gathering of these august church leaders.

I just thought I’d toss that out there.
Click to expand...
Quite. It is my understanding that the development of the later discernment of the Petrine role did not develop full blown out of the head of any single Pope. Much consensus is taken in any “papal” decision.

Although peole tend to howl over it, Humanae vitae seems to be the only decision in recent times that was taken by a Pope against the consensus of the bishops he consulted. Of course, as a teaching on morals, Paul VI did absolutely NOTHING with Humanae vitae except reiterate the constant teaching of the entire Church, both East and West but in a more sensitive and nuanced form than previously.

Perhaps this thread is not a good place to bring up such a specific example, and I am sure that someone will take the opportunity to strike a blow at my knees on this one, since the Christian world has largely abandoned the once universally held view on this subject.
 
mardukm said:
Dear mercygate,

I was not aware that the Church uses the rhetoric that papal infallibility is based on the singular giving of the keys to St. Peter. Can you please cite a source? I thought the giving of the keys is normally used to prove papal primacy and authority, NOT infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Perhaps my powers of discernment are insufficient since I fail to distinguish properly how the infallibility of the Pope, the power of the keys, and the infallibility of the Church are separable. You could probably do better to instruct me on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top