The Papal Claims

[mercygate]

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.

In a general sense, that may be so. But not until the Church established the canon of the New Testament could anybody KNOW that Paul had written a letter that could be accepted by the faithful with the certainty of faith.

 

[mercygate]

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.

Point of clarification. The term “The” Apostolic See always refers to Rome – at least it does in general parlance outside of Church circles. If I have trodden on any sensitive apostolic toes, I apologize.

 

[Peter_J]

Point of clarification. The term “The” Apostolic See always refers to Rome – at least it does in general parlance outside of Church circles. If I have trodden on any sensitive apostolic toes, I apologize.

I don’t know whether you’ve trodden on any sensitive apostolic toes, but the tone of that post does bother me just a smidgen. (Insert emoticon with two fingers held close together to indicate smidgen.)

 

[mardukm]

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.

Well, I’m just going by the proclamations of Vatican I. The giving of the keys (Matt 16:19) is specifically only mentioned in the section on the Primacy. The infallibility, on the other hand, is based on the assignment of Simon as the rock (Matt 16:18). I don’t think any special powers of discernment are necessary. It’s a straight read from the documents.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear mercygate,

In a general sense, that may be so. But not until the Church established the canon of the New Testament could anybody KNOW that Paul had written a letter that could be accepted by the faithful with the certainty of faith.

Brother Peter’s point remains. Whether or not the Church accepted Paul’s letters does not add (or detract) from the fact that St. Paul possessed the infallibility of God in the writing of Scripture.

The charism of infallibility in general does not depend on the consensus of the Church - it is a DIRECT charism from God.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I’m just going by the proclamations of Vatican I. The giving of the keys (Matt 16:19) is specifically only mentioned in the section on the Primacy. The infallibility, on the other hand, is based on the assignment of Simon as the rock (Matt 16:18). I don’t think any special powers of discernment are necessary. It’s a straight read from the documents.

Blessings,
Marduk

As I see it, mercygate presented his/her take on the matter. He/she didn’t say "Vatican I said … " or "There’s an official church document that says … "

 

[mardukm]

Point of clarification. The term “The” Apostolic See always refers to Rome – at least it does in general parlance outside of Church circles. If I have trodden on any sensitive apostolic toes, I apologize.

I don’t completely agree. In the setting of an ecumenical council, it is true that when the term “Apostolic See” is mentioned, it normally means the See of Peter in Rome. But it is also common parlance that within any Patriarchal jurisdiction, a reference to “The” Apostolic See would normally refer to the Patriarchal See, and not to Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

As I see it, mercygate presented his/her take on the matter. He/she didn’t say "Vatican I said … " or "There’s an official church document that says … "

I know. Which is why I asked where he/she is coming from.

Mercygate,
Can you please settle something for brother Peter and me. For the sake of the peace of the Church, could you please let us know whether we should address you as “he” or “she.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Mercygate,
Can you please settle something for brother Peter and me. For the sake of the peace of the Church, could you please let us know whether we should address you as “he” or “she.”

I would suggest using “Mercygate” when addressing him/her. It’s only when speaking about him/her in the third person that “he/she” becomes an issue.

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 

[mardukm]

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

I am interested because it is my normative practice to address someone as “brother” or “sister.” If I/me don’t, he/she might think that I/me am not acknoledging his/her Christianity, which might insult him/her. You/I don’t have a problem over this/it though.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Mercygate,

Point of clarification. The term “The” Apostolic See always refers to Rome – at least it does in general parlance outside of Church circles.

Perhaps it is just a force of habit

Just another point of clarification: There are many Apostolic Sees.

No “The”.

“The” Apostolic See might mean something like “the only one in Italy” perhaps, or “the only one west of the Adriatic” perhaps.

Or “the only one in the Latin Catholic church” even.

But in the east there is no shortage of Apostolic Sees. You might want to check out His Beatitude Gregorios III, for example. He has already publicly had a few words to say on this subject.

Michael

 

[mercygate]

Well, I’m just going by the proclamations of Vatican I. The giving of the keys (Matt 16:19) is specifically only mentioned in the section on the Primacy. The infallibility, on the other hand, is based on the assignment of Simon as the rock (Matt 16:18). I don’t think any special powers of discernment are necessary. It’s a straight read from the documents.

Blessings,
Marduk

I need to brush up on the distinctions. What you say makes sense. Thank you. :tiphat:

 

[mercygate]

I know. Which is why I asked where he/she is coming from.

Mercygate,
Can you please settle something for brother Peter and me. For the sake of the peace of the Church, could you please let us know whether we should address you as “he” or “she.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Click on my profile!

 

[mercygate]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Mercygate, Perhaps it is just a force of habit

Just another point of clarification: There are many Apostolic Sees.

No “The”.

“The” Apostolic See might mean something like “the only one in Italy” perhaps, or “the only one west of the Adriatic” perhaps.

Or “the only one in the Latin Catholic church” even.

But in the east there is no shortage of Apostolic Sees. You might want to check out His Beatitude Gregorios III, for example. He has already publicly had a few words to say on this subject.

Michael

Point taken. However, this is a thread about papal privileges. In common usage the term “the Apostolic See,” when unqualified and when used with the definite article means Rome. Other Apostolic Sees are Apostolic Sees but the convention of language as I used it is just that: a convention well understood by most.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

No need to reinvent the wheel. The Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman made these very same points with Gladstone in England right after Vatican I had approved the Pope’s infallibility. Gladstone argued that this was unhistorical and unprecedented. Newman’s reply can be found here: %between%

At least start with chapter 3; “The Papal Church” and go on from there, although starting from Chapter 2 would be better.

It’s an important, and at the same time difficult point to grasp easily, especially to an Eastern Catholic.

 

[SedesDomi]

Dear SedesDomi,

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.

Yes, I am Christian.

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.

1. 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…

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.

I think there’s a third option: the position of the head bishop is a necessary, divinely instituted element of the Church hierarchy; but (1) how that position of head bishop is defined and (2) what “power-for-service” it possesses; are both humanly instituted.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SedesDomi,

I think there’s a third option: the position of the head bishop is a necessary, divinely instituted element of the Church hierarchy; but (1) how that position of head bishop is defined and (2) what “power-for-service” it possesses; are both humanly instituted.

Your (1) is a bit vague for discussion, unless you can be more concise about it (if you want to discuss it further, that is).

With (2), as a Christian, I think you will agree that whatever “power-for-service” is possessed by ANYONE, is ultimately of divine origin. We cannot work on our own, but constantly need the divine help of God.

Now, just for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that God wants doctrinal unity for the Church (I know you know that is not really a theoretical possibility, but rather a reality). Would you agree that the ability or the “power-for-service” to realize this unity would be of divine institution, and not merely human?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SedesDomi]

Now, just for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that God wants doctrinal unity for the Church…

Greetings Mardukm,

It depends upon the type of unity you are referring to.

In Catholicism, the unity of the church is viewed in universal terms. That is, unity is visualized in terms of one body, “the whole and its parts”, with local churches being the parts of one greater Church:

"The Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the Body of Christ. The Church is thus conceived in terms of whole and parts. Each community, each local church is but a part, a member of this universal organism; and it participates in the Church only through its belonging to the “whole.” In the words of one of its best exponents, Roman theology seeks a definition of the Church in which “parts would receive within the whole, conceived really as a whole, that status of genuine parts.” (Footnote 15)

The important point here is for us to see that in the light of this doctrine the need for and the reality of a universal head, i.e., the Bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. It becomes not only acceptable but necessary. If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head, because Christ is her invisible head, is theological nonsense."

From: Alexander Schmemann. “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology”. 145-171. In The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church. Edited by John Meyendorff. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 150-151.

Footnote 15: J. Congar. Chretiens Desunis. (Paris, 1937), 241.

Whereas in Orthodoxy, church unity is viewed not in terms of a universal body, needing a universal head; but rather in terms of the eucharist: wherever the eucharist is, there is the whole Church:

"Through the eucharist, we have the whole Christ and not a “part” of him; and therefore the Church which is “actualized” in the eucharist is not a “part” of “member” of a whole, but the Church of God in her wholeness. For it is precisely the function of the eucharist to manifest the whole Church, her “catholicity.” Where there is the eucharist, there is the Church; and, conversely, only where the whole Church is (i.e., the people of God united in the bishop, the head, the shepherd), there is the eucharist…The local church as a sacramental organism, as the gift of God in Christ, is not part or member of a wider universal organism. She is the Church…

The essential corollary of this “eucharistic” ecclesiology is that it excludes the idea of a supreme power, understood as power over the local church and her bishop. The ministry of power, as all ministries and charisms, has its source in and is performed within the organic unity of the Church. It is rooted in the sacraments, whose aim is to fulfill the Church as the Body of Christ. This ministry of power belongs to the bishop and there is no ministry of any higher power. A supreme power would mean power over Christ himself. The bishop is vested with power, yet the root of this power is in the Church, in the eucharistic gathering, at which he presides as priest, pastor and teacher…

Does all this mean that Orthodox ecclesiology simply rejects the very notion of primacy? No. But it rejects the fatal error of universal ecclesiology which identifies primacy with power, transforming the latter from a ministry in the Church into power over the Church."

Ibid, 153-154.

Hey, I’m all for church unity, But, when we speak of church unity, are we speaking of a universal church unity, or a eucharistic church unity?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SedesDomi,

Greetings Mardukm,

It depends upon the type of unity you are referring to.

In Catholicism, the unity of the church is viewed in universal terms. That is, unity is visualized in terms of one body, “the whole and its parts”, with local churches being the parts of one greater Church:
Whereas in Orthodoxy, church unity is viewed not in terms of a universal body, needing a universal head; but rather in terms of the eucharist: wherever the eucharist is, there is the whole Church:

Hey, I’m all for church unity, But, when we speak of church unity, are we speaking of a universal church unity, or a eucharistic church unity?

I already specified what type of unity I was referring to - DOCTRINAL unity.

Your appeal to Eucharistic unity is worthwhile, but does not affect my argument. Eucharistic unity is simply the Orthodox viewpoint on what constitutes VISIBLE unity. The Catholic Church believes that what constitutes VISIBLE unity is BOTH Eucharistic unity AND ecclesiastical unity. However, the BASIS of BOTH viewpoints is DOCTRINAL unity.

From that understanding, can you please reassess my question and answer accordingly? To repeat,

If doctrinal unity is required by God (and we both know that is true), then would not the “power-of-service” that can realize this doctrinal unity necessarily be of divine origin, and not merely human?

Blessings,
Marduk