What do I do? I don't have a spiritual home anymore.

[jinc1019]

I would guess that because the Church doesn’t use Matthew 18 as the sole basis of Apostolic Succession. No paragraph is an island.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the reasoning I laid out earlier explains the interpretation of those sorts of passages fairly well: Apostles had infallibility, infallibility is necessary to run the Church, so the Church must still have infallibility in some form (since Christ made the Church to last). If the method by which the Church still has everything that it needs to survive involves intrusting such things to its leaders through ordination, which appears to be the case since, than infallibility and the rest must rest, in some form, in those ordained. But it is still a property of the Church, so to speak, because it exists to preserve the Church. And the Church is where Rome is. Thus: infallibility exists within the Roman Church.

And each assertion above does not rely merely on what I think makes sense, but is supported by scripture, councils, and/or Early Church Fathers, not to mention the constant belief of the Catholic Church itself.

I appreciate your time and efforts here. Thank you for posting.

 

[jinc1019]

catharina:
I never said apostolic succession rests solely on Mathew 18…the misquoting continues…

 

[jinc1019]

I never said apostolic succession rests solely on Mathew 18…the misquoting continues…

That post is in reference to this post:
"Originally Posted by Iron Donkey
I would guess that because the Church doesn’t use Matthew 18 as the sole basis of Apostolic Succession. No paragraph is an island.

Exactly. Within the Church we rely on Scripture and Tradition.
I can think of nothing that rests solely on Matthew 18. Why would it?

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the reasoning I laid out earlier explains the interpretation of those sorts of passages fairly well: Apostles had infallibility, infallibility is necessary to run the Church, so the Church must still have infallibility in some form (since Christ made the Church to last). If the method by which the Church still has everything that it needs to survive involves intrusting such things to its leaders through ordination, which appears to be the case since, than infallibility and the rest must rest, in some form, in those ordained. But it is still a property of the Church, so to speak, because it exists to preserve the Church. And the Church is where Rome is. Thus: infallibility exists within the Roman Church.

And each assertion above does not rely merely on what I think makes sense, but is supported by scripture, councils, and/or Early Church Fathers, not to mention the constant belief of the Catholic Church itself."

 

[jinc1019]

The Church doesn’t interpret the passage that way because her Tradition, as passed down since those words were spoken and later written, does not include that interpretation of Jesus’ words. No Christian writer argues that the specific sees the Twelve initially founded, or those they occupied at their deaths (if different), possess an infallibility common to them all but denied to all other sees. They are among the oldest and most honored sees in the world, and I’m sure a bishop is proud to be the newest occupant of a see founded by one of the Twelve, but historically they are not recognized as having special powers. Even the Patriarchates largely sidestep the sees of the Twelve. Rome and Antioch are both credited to Peter, but Alexandria is Mark’s (an evangelist but not of the Twelve), Jerusalem is James the Just’s (sometimes equated with James the Less, but more likely a different guy from either Apostle James), and Constantinople only became “the new Rome” long after the apostolic era. Meanwhile, John’s Ephesus doesn’t get that honor, and Thomas’ successors in India were forgotten by the rest of the Church for ages.

The Church’s notion of apostolic succession, in the sense of the passing down of episcopal power, relies not on who sits in what city, but on the passing on of Holy Orders by the laying on of hands. That’s why every bishop is equal in the dignity of his ordination, whether he’s chosen to lead a diocese with roots in the first century or one that was created yesterday. The role of the magisterium and the conditional infallibility that goes with it come with ordination to the episcopate, not with assignment to any particular historic see.

As you will note, the papacy is something of an exception. It is an office tied to the see of Rome, and passed on by election to that chair, with no connection to the chain of ordination. And yet we in the Catholic Church do believe that the papacy carries with it special powers not granted to every bishop, and specifically tied to the office’s connection to Peter. All I can say is, whereas we have no historic Tradition of special powers tied to the other apostolic chairs, nor even to Peter’s earlier see at Antioch, we do have quite a strong one (though not a perfect one, since the Orthodox dispute it vigorously and much of the evidence can be read their way) stating that Rome is special.

When interpreting the words of Jesus, the Church is always going to go with the reading that matches the historical understanding and practice of Christians as far back as we can get, and not one that seems obvious to a modern reader but would make the entire history of the Church seem ludicrous.

Usagi

I understand this concept, but what so many Roman Catholics fail to recognize is that literally hundreds of millions of people in the Eastern Orthodox Church disagree with you and say that their traditions dating back to apostles say Rome doesn’t have the very claim of infallibility you say exists through Church tradition. For 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were the same thing…so they share the same ancient tradition and they disagree with you. To make it sound like there is one ancient tradition and it all leans in one direction on Papal infallibility is completely false.

 

[jinc1019]

It would appear to me that sufficient proof has been presented to you in this thread that your issue should be resolved.

Since you sound so much St. Thomas, I would hope that at this point your response would be the same as his.

All I have asked for from the very beginning of the part of this thread where the topic suddenly and radically shifted to something other than what this thread started about is for someone to show me where the Church gets the idea that the infallibility promised to the apostles in Mathew 18 is limited to when the seat of Peter (the Pope) agrees…and so far, not a single person has posted a Biblical reference refuting that claim and all anyone can do is point to this loose concept of, “Well this is our Catholic tradition on the issue.” Which would be fine, it really would, IF there weren’t hundreds of millions of people across multiple continents in the Eastern Orthodox Church saying their traditions, which date back to the same time period, say there is no such thing as modern Church infallibility.

 

[jinc1019]

Firstly - God made Himself personally present to the Israelites many times and in many ways - the burning bush, the pillars of cloud and fire, the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy of Holies. In being personally present, of course He gave them the most infallible of sources.

Finally, God loved them enough to send Jesus, THE infallible source, to save them. Scripture indicates that He preached to those ‘in prison’ (ie limbo, where the souls of those who lived before Christ were awaiting salvation) after His death and before His resurrection. In doing so He gave them exactly the same infallible teaching He gives to us.

So to say He gave them no infallible source is completely wrong.

You know what I meant. I meant no person was readily available to act as an infallible representative of God in the way the Pope does now…That’s what I meant and it was clear.

 

[jinc1019]

As LilyM has pointed out, you need to read the Old Testament more carefully.

I am not judging God at all. I am merely pointing out that His all-loving nature means He wouldn’t love us enough to give us one part of our salvation without loving us enough to give us certainty about the other part. You already agreed God is all-loving, or have you changed your mind about that? Do you think He left us orphans, despite His promise not to do so?

***Are you actually claiming He doesn’t provide a means for us to have certainty about what we need to do to be saved? ***This is a yes/no question, so please answer either yes or no.

No. I think he does provide a certain way in that God sent Jesus who clearly outlined what we need to know and that is evident from the oral tradition turned into the Bible that exists today and the oral traditions existing outside of the Bible in Church tradition. Neither needs infalliility.

 

[jinc1019]

Yes, and your pride does not seem to end. I say this with all charity. You are not open to arguments, you have demonstrated that countless times. No proof will satisfy you. You ask for a proof analogouse to 2+2=4 or the grass being green. Do you have that type of proof for Christ’s resurrection? For the existence of God? For days you would only focus on two bible passages, if those two passages did not provide the proof, it did not exist. You need to take a step back, a deep breadth, and consider your approach to the question.

I appreciate your concern but FAR more evidence exists proving the resurrection or the existence of God than proving papal infallibility.

I have presented a valid disagreement, looking for it to be refuted, and you say it has been but when? When everyone seemed to argue it is in Church tradition? Is that the only proof you have? That the Church claims to be infallible and has a tradition of claiming that? That’s it? The Eastern Orthodox Church, which has been around as long as Peter’s seat in Rome says their tradition contradicts yours! If that is the only evidence you have, that and a bunch of announcements from the Church, then you haven’t refuted my very specific argument at all.

It’s not prideful to believe something…if that’s prideful than everyone here refuting me is prideful too.

 

[jinc1019]

I think I am done on this thread. I appreciate everyone who participated, but at this point, I am spending hours just constantly defending myself, constantly repeating what has already been said, and costantly having to say that I am beging misquoted. Many of you are not reading the thread from beginning to end so I am getting the same arguments over and over and having to say the same things again and again. I appreciate everyone taking the time to discuss this with me, especially those of you who did it cordially and with kindness. Thank you so much again and God bless.

P.S. I will meet with a priest shortly to discuss the matter.

 

[Ecoclimber]

My understanding and correct me if I am wrong is that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra in the magestrium aspect as “from the chair”. I’m not talking about council statements on doctrine of faith and morals like the Council of Trent but actual Papal statements.

Protestants are under the assumption that every time the Pope speaks, he is infallible.

There has only been seven papal ex cathedra statements

1. 
   *]“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
   *]Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
   *]Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
   *]Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
   *]Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
   *]Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
   *]Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.
   
   In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”
   
   His predecessor Pope John XXIII once remarked: “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.”%between%
   
   Blessings to all

 

[Iron_Donkey]

First, I did not mean to imply that you said that Matt 18 is the sole source. But you asked how it was that Matt 18 could be interpreted as it was (Specifically, you said “but what doesn’t make sense to me is why the Church chooses to interpret it [Matt 18] this way. Why don’t they interpret it to mean those apostolic/bishop seats will be protected with infallibility?”).

That is what I was addressing: It is not that we say Matt 18 says exactly what we believe, but that Matt 18 says part of what we believe and does not conflict with anything that we believe and that the rest of what we believe comes from somewhere else.

Or, if the Church had interpreted it as you said, that the bishops would inherit infallibility whether together with Peter or not, it’d be wrong. First by contradicting what actually happened, and second by contradicting all these other sources.

This is what I meant by no paragraph is an island. Not just that this isn’t the sole source, but that it is almost never possible for one short passage to not be missing something.

I understand this concept, but what so many Roman Catholics fail to recognize is that literally hundreds of millions of people in the Eastern Orthodox Church disagree with you and say that their traditions dating back to apostles say Rome doesn’t have the very claim of infallibility you say exists through Church tradition. For 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were the same thing…so they share the same ancient tradition and they disagree with you. To make it sound like there is one ancient tradition and it all leans in one direction on Papal infallibility is completely false.

The thing is, there was one ancient tradition. Then at some point some Christians deviated from it. The fact that those Christians say they didn’t deviate isn’t terribly relevant - what is relevant are the sources we keep presented to you showing that they did. (And yes, I know they would say the exact same thing, that’s why I worded it this way. But they’re wrong. Check the evidence.)

Both groups say they have the same origins and same ancient tradition. Check. This is correct. Both groups do have the same ancient tradition. But we don’t agree on what that is. So the mere fact that they claim to be upholding the ancient tradition is fairly irrelevant. Lots of Christian groups claim to be upholding the most ancient traditions better than Catholics do, and they’re also wrong (those people who claim there was a Celtic Church founded by Joseph of Arimethea that just happened to conveniently believe what it is currently fashionable for people to believe, for example).

But there is one ancient tradition. And if you study it, it does lean towards Papal infallibility. That is why we keep linking you sources. Here’s another one: americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm. And here’s one small sample of this small sample of the stuff out there supporting this view:

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Now again, this doesn’t clearly state everything. And it is also not an infallible source, but it is a fairly trustworthy one, taken together with the plethora of other things which say the same thing. But it is enough to get started on the path that leads to exactly the beliefs the Catholic Church holds. (After all, in what sense would the Church be the Church if it could teach things which were so wrong as what you claim? And etc.)

 

[Trebor135]

Iron Donkey: I have read that “the chair of Peter” as used by St. Cyprian and other Early Church Fathers referred to a unified group of patriarchal sees made up not only of Rome but also of Antioch and Alexandria. Yet, the Catholic Church held for many centuries that Alexandria went into heresy after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and a Catholic-affiliated patriarch began to oversee a flock in this city only within the past few centuries, when the Coptic Catholic Church was formed.

Thus,

(1) the historical understanding of “the chair of Peter” in the see of Rome did not include a belief in the infallibility of the three sees held in the first millennium to comprise “the chair of Peter”; and

(2) the see of Rome, its own bishop historically believed, could fall into error just as Alexandria was for–about a millennium and a half–thought to have done.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Iron Donkey: I have read that “the chair of Peter” as used by St. Cyprian and other Early Church Fathers referred to a unified group of patriarchal sees made up not only of Rome but also of Antioch and Alexandria. Yet, the Catholic Church held for many centuries that Alexandria went into heresy after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and a Catholic-affiliated patriarch began to oversee a flock in this city only within the past few centuries, when the Coptic Catholic Church was formed.

Thus,

(1) the historical understanding of “the chair of Peter” in the see of Rome did not include a belief in the infallibility of the three sees held in the first millennium to comprise “the chair of Peter”; and

(2) the see of Rome, its own bishop historically believed, could fall into error just as Alexandria was for–about a millennium and a half–thought to have done.

I have never heard this before - which, I freely admit, doesn’t mean much - but I have to say that it sounds suspicious to me. That is, the rule of the specific bishop of Rome is said to be fairly important fairly often. For example:
that site I linked above:

Council of Sardica

“*f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).*

I find it hard to believe that the Chair of Peter can be referenced as a multitude of sees when 1) Peter was clearly one person, and it is hard to believe that given that Peter was put in charge of the group of Apostles as a single person that this would not have been maintained, since Christ could just as easily have made a small group the head if He wanted things to be that way, and

1. it is appealed to solve all disagreements, which would include disagreements between those sees which are claimed to have made up the chair of Peter.

Now again, this is just my initial reaction, having never heard this before, I will have to do some googling to refine (possibly with a sledge hammer) my understanding.

 

[Church_Militant]

All I have asked for from the very beginning of the part of this thread where the topic suddenly and radically shifted to something other than what this thread started about is for someone to show me where the Church gets the idea that the infallibility promised to the apostles in Mathew 18 is limited to when the seat of Peter (the Pope) agrees…and so far, not a single person has posted a Biblical reference refuting that claim and all anyone can do is point to this loose concept of, “Well this is our Catholic tradition on the issue.” Which would be fine, it really would, IF there weren’t hundreds of millions of people across multiple continents in the Eastern Orthodox Church saying their traditions, which date back to the same time period, say there is no such thing as modern Church infallibility.

Yet even this is not true Jinc. I know that I personally have supplied you with other scriptures that clarify the context of this issue and I have seen a number of other members do so as well.

You cannot base the apologetics for this issue on a single verse as you have insisted any more than you can do that same thing with any Biblical aspect of Christianity, but must take all topical scriptures together to understand them in proper context, else you will err.

Rest assured that I and many others here are praying for you even now. May the Holy Spirit shed His light on all your discussions with your priest and guide you into all truth.

 

[Trebor135]

Iron Donkey: I’ll reply to your points shortly. I edited my post while you were replying and would like to ask you to modify your post to include the newest revision of my comments.

 

[Trebor135]

I have never heard this before - which, I freely admit, doesn’t mean much - but I have to say that it sounds suspicious to me. That is, the rule of the specific bishop of Rome is said to be fairly important fairly often.

Here are a couple ECF quotes substantiating my tentative statement earlier about what “the chair of Peter” was held to mean in the Early Church:

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

Dioscurus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the see of he blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochean metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was the teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphaeus of he apostles"

Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

I’ve seen Cavaradossi–a prominent Eastern Orthodox participant in CAF discussions on these matters–concede that the pope rightly played such a role, bestowed in council on the bishop of Rome, in the Early Church.

The other two quotes you give seem to constitute strong evidence in favour of the modern papacy, though the citations I gave above seem to lessen their weight.

I’m interested to see what you find during your research into the meaning of “the chair of Peter”.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I have just re-read this thread. It seems to me that everyone has legitimately answered jinc 1019’s original question. (Edited)

 

[LilyM]

I understand this concept, but what so many Roman Catholics fail to recognize is that literally hundreds of millions of people in the Eastern Orthodox Church disagree with you and say that their traditions dating back to apostles say Rome doesn’t have the very claim of infallibility you say exists through Church tradition. For 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were the same thing…so they share the same ancient tradition and they disagree with you. To make it sound like there is one ancient tradition and it all leans in one direction on Papal infallibility is completely false.

Oh I see, so the Magisterium is a democracy and if enough people disagree with something then it can’t be true? Do some research, find out how many people, including bishops, all ‘sharing that same tradition’ in your words, subscribed to the Arian heresy or versions thereof (hint - at one point it was a lot) and then come back and tell me exactly why Catholics are correct in regards Arianism and not infallibility.

 

[Kay_Cee]

No. I think he does provide a certain way in that God sent Jesus who clearly outlined what we need to know and that is evident from the oral tradition turned into the Bible that exists today and the oral traditions existing outside of the Bible in Church tradition. Neither needs infalliility.

If Jesus so “clearly outlined what we need to know” why are there conflicting viewpoints on what we need to do to be saved? OSAS comes to mind as just one example. The division in Christianity over the need (or lack of it) to be baptized is another.

The continual splintering of Protestanism refutes that idea totally and completely. And if Protestanism isn’t an example of what happens when you don’t have an infallible guide, I don’t know what is.

So your answer does not provide a solution to the problem of how we can have certain doctrine if everyone is fallible. What you don’t seem to understand is that fallibility *inevitably *leads to uncertainty.

You, therefore, need to demonstrate how it is possible for us to know something for certain when, since we are all fallible, there is always the chance we could be wrong.

 

[JNdoum]

I appreciate your thoughts on infallibility…but once again, I feel uncomfortable getting into the whole “What makes sense for God to do” thing.

As for your contraception information…This thread has nothing to do with that and is not really relevant, but I appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks for taking the time.

I’m sorry, i was just looking at your original post, and trying to clarify on the original question there. I didn’t mean to waste space. Anyway, I suppose there is nothing that anyone can to to logically convince you about infallibility, so I just pray that you and God will find a way to reconcile the tenet of the faith. God bless.