Tough argument on Papal Infallibility

[mardukm]

Marduk,
of course Jesus is the rock. i would assume that most Latins here don’t mention Jesus as also the rock because it is a given. the whole faith is based on Jesus!
but the topic of this thread deals with Peter as the visible rock of the earthly Church while Christ reigns from Heaven.
please don’t insult your Latin brothers by assuming they don’t believe Jesus is the rock of our faith!

Forgive me for any insult - unintentional I assure you. It’s just that whenever this argument arises, you don’t often hear Latins admit that Jesus is the Rock. In fact, I think Gandalf the White is the first who has made the admission in this thread.

If you will permit this suggestion from an Oriental Catholic in this Latin Forum - whenever you hear ANYONE claim Jesus is the Rock in opposition to Peter, the PROPER and IMMEDIATE response should ALWAYS be “Of course Jesus is the Rock…” and THEN move on to demonstrate why Peter is ALSO the Rock. Immediately jumping into a demonstration that Peter is the Rock causes more problems than it solves, serving only to steel the other side’s false dichotomy on the matter. The best method to counter the “Jesus is the Rock” argument is to demolish the false dichotomy inherent in the non-Catholic mindset. That’s just my opinion.

Forgive me, once again, for any insult to my Latin brethren.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

Forgive me for any insult - unintentional I assure you. It’s just that whenever this argument arises, you don’t often hear Latins admit that Jesus is the Rock. In fact, I think Gandalf the White is the first who has made the admission in this thread.

If you will permit this suggestion from an Oriental Catholic in this Latin Forum - whenever you hear ANYONE claim Jesus is the Rock in opposition to Peter, the PROPER and IMMEDIATE response should ALWAYS be “Of course Jesus is the Rock…” and THEN move on to demonstrate why Peter is ALSO the Rock. Immediately jumping into a demonstration that Peter is the Rock causes more problems than it solves, serving only to steel the other side’s false dichotomy on the matter. The best method to counter the “Jesus is the Rock” argument is to demolish the false dichotomy inherent in the non-Catholic mindset. That’s just my opinion.

Forgive me, once again, for any insult to my Latin brethren.

Humbly,
Marduk

excellent advice brother!
God bless!

 

[RyanL]

Archbishop Kenrick of Saint Louis…

Padre,

Are you going to keep trotting out that old horse? Haven’t you beaten him enough?

Council of Chalcedon, 451AD, Session III:

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him of the episcopate, and has alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

From Session II:

Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe.

…After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo.

From Session II:

Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name…

From Session V:

The most blessed bishops of Illyria said: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.

All of this and no recorded objections. YOU would have objected at some point, wouldn’t you? Only 17 Fathers thought that Peter was the Rock? It certainly doesn’t seem like it from the council…

RATHER, it appears that a multiplicity of interpretations were concurrently held, and none to the exclusion of the others. This is similar (identical?) to the position taken in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 552, 424, and 881.

Considering this, and remembering that the heresies the ECFs were dealing with were Christological in nature, which of these interpretations would one expect to dominate? Peter’s profession of faith in the nature of Christ, of course! What we see is precisely what we would expect to see.

Notably, you never seem to mention the good Archbishop’s brother’s work:
Kenrick, Francis P. The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated. Baltimore: ]. Murphy, 1855.

Think his brother might have had something to say about Peter Kenrick’s position in that work? Nah. No sense in either reading the work or even mentioning its existence for those with a mind to seek the truth of Archbishop Kenrick’s position. Better to cling, white-knuckled, to your utterly misleading proof-text.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[jemfinch]

Regarding the Church fathers who identify it with Peter’s confession of faith. (As I said, the two go together.) How many of those fathers say it is Peter’s faith - as a way of refuting the interpretation that it is Peter himself. In other words, do they say that the interpretation of it being Peter is a false interpretation and the correct one is that it refers to Peter’s faith only.

That’s the real issue when examining the Patristic evidence. If we adopt the either/or mindset of our opponents, they’ve already won; it’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

Jeremy

 

[RyanL]

There is a lot of hype about Papal Infallibility. There has only ever been two infallible statements. Both apertain to the BVM

So what is all the fuss about?

Actually, that’s not quite true.

All canonizations are infallible, and there have been a good number of those.

Moreover, you might consider the Bull Benedictus Deus, written in 1336. I’m pretty sure it’s infallible.

Finally, you’re neglecting our first Pope’s words in Matt 16 ( ) and Acts 15, in addition to his first two encyclicals - 1 and 2 Peter. I’m willing to bet those were infallible.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Ridgerunner]

It seems evident that the idea of Petrine supremacy can be readily derived from Jesus’ words as well as other passages in the Bible. As with nearly anything, though, one can use the Bible to support any number of inconsistent belief systems. I have even seen agnostic positions set up on a biblical foundation.

It’s difficult to believe that Jesus had no insight into the fact that the New Testament which would be assembled after his death, could be used in this way.

Jesus did not set up a detailed organizational chart, nor did any of the Gospel writers do so. It seems evident that Jesus intended that the Church that would come after Him would be organized, structurally, by men. It also seems fairly clear that Jesus charged a limited number of chosen men to carry out His will in that regard. That very fact seems to me an enrichment of the meaning of the Incarnation; a meaning that should not be lightly disregarded. It is very difficult to say that anything is “typically Protestant”, but if there is something very nearly typical, it is the notion that Jesus did not intend that men have any authority or governance in matters of religion. Certainly, Protestants have utilized biblical passages to support that belief.

But if one accepts it that Jesus did intend that men would have a role in sharing His authority and teaching power, then the real questions are: (a) What can we glean from scripture by way of guidence, and (b) What is most effective.

While scripture based arguments can be posed for or against any proposition respecting governance and teaching, scripture certainly does not directly say “Now don’t go having a Pope with any authority.” However one might argue against what seems a reasonable proposition regarding Petrine authority, it seems a lack of central authority can indisputably present problems. Among them being wide diversity of contradictory beliefs, some of which might be harmful. A glaring example can be found in Islam, which has no universally accepted authority capable of, e.g., condemning the oppression and murder that some Islamists visit upon anyone who disagrees with them.

As near as I can tell, Eastern Orthodoxy has no generally accepted ultimate authority other than ecumenical councils acceptable to them. My impression is that none have been acceptable for a thousand years or so, and might be impossible for what seem to be technical reasons inherent to EO itself. Authority, then, within EOEO is more of an exclusionary thing. If one group holds something different from another, both consider themselves the only valid formulation and consider the others outside the pale of true orthodoxy.

If, indeed, Jesus did intend to share his authority with men, and if He intended some to guide and teach others, and if He did not proscribe a Papacy but, at minimum, suggested it, then the remaining question is whether that form of governance is or is not effective.

All kinds of historical negatives can be conjured up against Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism. But it must be granted that, while some dissent, Catholicism does govern a huge segment of mankind and, for that reason if for no other, the effectiveness of that formulation, considered from the standpoint of governance alone, cannot reasonably be lightly rejected.

 

[Maryam]

I see you are quoting from an essay (?) on this Orthodox site:

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/guettee07.html

The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches IV Teachings of Various Church Fathers.

 I wish alot of these sites would site which translation is being used and site their sources. I tend **not to trust sites** that don't state where they got their quotes from **or at least have some footnotes.**

Below in your quotes I will reply in bold, blue and red…

Saint Augustine, as he grew mature in his faith and theological writings, personally rejected the idea that Peter is the rock.

Saint Augustine:

website sited the 69th Psalm for the excerpt below…which is wrong to me unless I can be shown otherwise]
“Peter, who a short time before had confessed that Christ was the Son of God, and who in return for that confession, had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built, etc.;” but he explains his meaning in several other works. Let us give a few specimens: “Peter received this name from the Lord to signify the Church; for it is Christ who is THE rock, and Peter is the CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. THE ROCK is the principal word; this is why Peter is derived from the Rock, and not the rock from Peter; precisely as the word Christ is not from Christian, but Christian from Christ. ‘Thou art therefore Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will build thee on myself-I will not be built on thee.’”

From what I can see… the writer of the essay confuses the 69th Psalm with “Tract 124”… In the New Advents site it is “Tract 124” that contains" “Peter, who a short time before had confessed that Christ was the Son of God, and who in return for that confession, had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built, etc.;” to which the essay used as a reference…I see nothing in the 69th Psalm about Peter’s confession… not even at the ccel.org “Church Fathers” website.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701124.htm (Tract 124 New Advent)
newadvent.org/fathers/1801069.htm (69th Psalm “LIX” New Advent)

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.toc.html (Scroll down for Psalm 69 in 2 parts…CCEL)

Complete translation of Tract 124 (with the Confession of Peter):
the Lord said, “On this rock will I build my Church,” because Peter had said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16-19 On this rock, therefore, He said, which you have confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; 1 Corinthians 10:4 and on this foundation was Peter himself also built.For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 3:11 The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church.

Perhaps my eyesight is going bad fast… and that is why I can’t find it. If you can find it for me I would greatly appreciate it.

This is why I say again that I don’t trust sites that don’t even have some footnotes that I can then check out for myself.

God bless

 

[Maryam]

Some good quotes on “Infallibility” by the Early Church Fathers:

**Irenaeus 130-202 A.D.
**Chapter X.—Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xi.html

1. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

…while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.

Against Heresies, Book 4:1
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.v.html

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?

**Pope Leo I **445 AD
Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne
(Source: The Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens, Vol. 3 page 269)

"Your Fraternities must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See-out of reverence for it, I mean,-has on countless ocassions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom.
God bless

St. Peter Chrysologus 449 AD
Letter to Eutyches 25:2
(Source: The Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens, Vol. 3 page 268)

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own See, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome.

God bless

 

[Cincinnatus]

I have heard it reasoned that the Keys to the Kingdom verse is not intelligent, because Jesus has build his Church on Peter’s profession of faith, and the “keys to the kingdom” is refernenced to the ability of the Church to discipine people.

What do you all think?

I think of Benedict IX.

 

[Nita]

Well, the Fathers of the Catholic Church were good at these gymnastics.

Let us look at a quick summary of the way that the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
**“Thou are Peter and upon this rock…” **

 

[cmdtenor]

Of course Christ is the rock, the cornerstone that the builders rejected. He is the living rock from Exodus. Yet he confers the status of rock upon Simon, the first of His apostles who would be relied upon to strenghten the rest of them. The true shepherd also confers His flock upon Peter as well (Jn 21:15-17).
Saint Augustine, while a great Saint, was not infallible. Jesus actually said “thou art Cephas” or ROCK in Aramaic. When the inspired writers later wrote the books in or translated to Greek, they used “Petros” to translate the word Cephas, “Peter” to us. It would have been offensive in Greek (like Spanish and other languages today) to use a feminine noun or adjective to describe a man, I would think most especially offensive to the man considered to be the visible head of Christ’s Kingdom on earth. Jesus said to Simon: “Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church”
Simon is the rock and was given the keys to the kingdom as a sign of his authority over the other apostles, as did all Davidic Kings entrust the keys to their kingdoms to their prime ministers. God Bless all of you. Please pray for Christian unity.
This is my first time on this forum, or any forum for that matter. It seems quite interesting

 

[Sixtus]

Originally Posted by Sixtus
There is a lot of hype about Papal Infallibility. There has only ever been two infallible statements. Both apertain to the BVM

So what is all the fuss about?

Actually, that’s not quite true.

All canonizations are infallible, and there have been a good number of those.

I am not disputing the infallibility of the teaching magisterium. But the fact there has only ever been two infallible pronouncements where infallibility has been cited. This is an absolute fact.

 

[Nita]

I am not disputing the infallibility of the teaching magisterium. But the fact there has only ever been two infallible pronouncements where infallibility has been cited. This is an absolute fact.

There have been many infallible dogmas/doctrines declared. Papal infallibility was a factor in them all - because, the Pope had to agree with the pronouncement also. The Pope has “veto power” over the magisterium.

Nita

 

[SPH1]

Saint Augustine, as he grew mature in his faith and theological writings, personally rejected the idea that Peter is the rock.

In his book of Retractations (where he corrects the errors of his younger writing days) Saint Augustine says:

"In that book, I said in one place, in speaking of St. Peter, that the Church had been built on him as on the rock. This thought is sung by many in the verses of the blessed Ambrose, who says of the cock, that "when it crew the Rock of the Church deplored his fault.’ But I know that subsequently I very frequently adopted this sense, that when the Lord said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ he meant by this rock, the one which Peter had confessed in saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son, of the living God;’ so that Peter, called by the name of this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon that rock, and which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

“In fact, it was not said to him, Thou art the rock; but thou art Peter. The rock was Christ. Peter having confessed him as all the Church confesses him, he was called Peter. Between these two sentiments, let the reader choose the most probable.”

Not accurate. All St. Augustine is doing is pointing out that over the course of his career he used the two senses.

Nobody is doubting that Christ is the ultimate “rock” of the Holy Catholic Church…that is the basis of the Church’s sanctity and infallibility. But Christ is the architect in Matt 16:18, not the foundation, and Peter is the rock at issue…the first rock after Christ.

In fact, it was not said to him, Thou art the rock; but thou art Peter.

I see the point re “the” rock. But Peter’s name means rock, and it would be ungainly to refer to Peter as Le Peter. Peter/Cephas/Rock is the same as “the Rock” in this case.

Whom did Christ give the keys to…himself? Surely Christ has the keys, but wasn’t referring to himself when handing the keys to Peter.

 

[Jon_S]

When you read the New testament you are hearing the inspired word of God, transmitted to the Apostles and committed to writing. Later, when all the posers were trying to add to the Gospels, it was the Holy Spirit again, who inspired the successors of the Apostles to know which books belonged in the canon of Scripture. So if the Holy Spirit was working with them then, and Jesus said he would not abandon the Church, then there is absolutely no reason at all that I should believe He has somehow “left the building.”

Papal infallibility is part of that same charism. The Holy Spirit protects.

Amen.

 

[fullofzeal]

Saint Augustine, as he grew mature in his faith and theological writings, personally rejected the idea that Peter is the rock.

Saint Augustine:

“Peter, who a short time before had confessed that Christ was the Son of God, and who in return for that confession, had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built, etc.;” but he explains his meaning in several other works. Let us give a few specimens: “Peter received this name from the Lord to signify the Church; for it is Christ who is THE rock, and Peter is the CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. THE ROCK is the principal word; this is why Peter is derived from the Rock, and not the rock from Peter; precisely as the word Christ is not from Christian, but Christian from Christ. ‘Thou art therefore Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will build thee on myself-I will not be built on thee.’”

“The Church,” he says again, “is built on the rock after which Peter was named. That rock was Christ, and it is on this foundation that Peter himself was to be raised.”

In his book of Retractations (where he corrects the errors of his younger writing days) Saint Augustine says:

"In that book, I said in one place, in speaking of St. Peter, that the Church had been built on him as on the rock. This thought is sung by many in the verses of the blessed Ambrose, who says of the cock, that "when it crew the Rock of the Church deplored his fault.’ But I know that subsequently I very frequently adopted this sense, that when the Lord said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ he meant by this rock, the one which Peter had confessed in saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son, of the living God;’ so that Peter, called by the name of this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon that rock, and which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

“In fact, it was not said to him, Thou art the rock; but thou art Peter. The rock was Christ. Peter having confessed him as all the Church confesses him, he was called Peter. Between these two sentiments, let the reader choose the most probable.”

 

[Sixtus]

here have been many infallible dogmas/doctrines declared. Papal infallibility was a factor in them all - because, the Pope had to agree with the pronouncement also. The Pope has “veto power” over the magisterium.

The fact remains 'there has only ever been two matters of doctrine which the pope has declared ‘infallible teaching’!

They BOTH apertain to the BVM and papal infallibility was a necessary pre-requisite to both

 

[Sixtus]

Two pontifical statements in over 120-years hardly amounts to a ‘tough arguement’ or a bar to ecumenism.

 

[beckmn1]

Here’s a lengthy piece I did a few years ago in response to all these various supposedly contradictory quotes from the Church fathers.

catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html

They really aren’t contradictory!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, the Fathers of the Catholic Church were good at these gymnastics.

Let us look at a quick summary of the way that the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
**“Thou are Peter and upon this rock…” **

Archbishop Kenrick of Saint Louis, who was one of
America’s extraordinary bishops was at the the
First Vatican Council in 1869 and he went to the
trouble of lining up the Church fatrhers and how
they interpreted “Thou art Peter and upon this rock…”

In his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the
Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870,
he declares that Catholics cannot establish
the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the
clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to
interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers.

And he adds that there are five different patristic
interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18

Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers

3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church **Fathers **

4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by **sixteen (16) Fathers **

5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

Archbishop Kendrick summarises

“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

You can look this up and check that I have
it accurately in Friedrich, *Docum ad illust. *
*Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246 *

As to who Archbishop Kenrick of Saint Louis was,
please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair if we think that
people who also do not accept it guilty of mental
gymnastics. Are the Church Fathers guilty?

A large majority of the Bishops of the Church succumbed to the heresy of Arianism for a time…but Athanasius won them all back over.

“Fr” Ambrose falls into the “either-or” trap. Of course the Fathers taught all these things…scripture is a rich goldmine that yields many treasures. However, what the Fathers did NOT teach is that Peter is NOT the rock (as his point #1 illustrates).

But there is more…

(cont.)