Where is "Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop" explicitly stated?

[dnu]

I’ve been reading some Eastern Orthodox material, and I have come across some legitimate concerns that they have. For example, in the following Early Church Fathers citations found here at Catholic.com, where do any of these Fathers specifically state that the Bishop of Rome is the “infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop of all Christendom?”

Here are the links:

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

Again, I’m not looking for “well, if we interpret a,b,c, and look at verses x,y,z.” I’m just looking for an *explicit * and incontrovertable-declaration of Infallibility and Supremacy.

Their (the E.O.) case for Infallibility not being declared explicitly until around the time of Charlemagne seems pretty good to me, because I don’t see it in the quotes above. We have to “dig deeper” to find it and interpret it. It seems to me that something of such great importance and universal understanding ever since a.d. 33 shouldn’t need the apologetic tap-dance to find.

Help

 

[Pilgrimage]

I’ve been reading some Eastern Orthodox material, and I have come across some legitimate concerns that they have. For example, in the following Early Church Fathers citations found here at Catholic.com, where do any of these Fathers specifically state that the Bishop of Rome is the “infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop of all Christendom?”

Jesus taught Peter that he didn’t know his own mind. Jesus and Satan both singled Peter out for his weakness of faith, and because of this Jesus felt Peter was in need of special prayer. Later, after Peter had discovered who he truely was against Christ’s greater glory, Jesus gave him a job to do.

Has the nature of Peter changed to such a degree that he is now so infallible that he has forgotten the humility of this teaching ? Can he no longer be cleansed ?

Water that quenches a flock’s thirst can also drown it if a shepherd loses his way.

God bless

 

[stuart12]

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches…Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).

''For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420).

“The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?” Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).

“Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

“Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity.” Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430).

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated … by bishops … as you have done, the example of ancient tradition … For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived … that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)…you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

Those good enough…?

 

[dnu]

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches…Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).

''For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420).

“The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?” Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).

“Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

“Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity.” Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430).

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated … by bishops … as you have done, the example of ancient tradition … For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived … that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)…you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

Those good enough…?

The quote by Pope Innocent I and the quote by Pope Boniface are very close. Pope Boniface’ comment concerns me though. “What has been settled,” not declared

Forgive me, perhaps I’m just being a little thick today, but I still do not see “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff” in those quotes. First among equals absolutely, but Infallibilty isn’t explicitly and incontrovertably mentioned in any of those, we still have to pretty much just make an inference.

I’m aware as anyone else on this forum that Papal Infallibility is on the top ten list of things the Catholic Church stands or falls upon. That is why I am asking.

 

[stuart12]

The quote by Pope Innocent I and the quote by Pope Boniface are very close. Pope Boniface’ comment concerns me though. “What has been settled,” not declared

Forgive me, perhaps I’m just being a little thick today, but I still do not see “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff” in those quotes. First among equals absolutely, but Infallibilty isn’t explicitly and incontrovertably mentioned in any of those, we still have to pretty much just make an inference.

I’m aware as anyone else on this forum that Papal Infallibility is on the top ten list of things the Catholic Church stands or falls upon. That is why I am asking.

Settled means decided upon. In other words, the case is closed. If anyone goes against the Church at Rome, they will not be proclaiming the truth.

 

[dnu]

Also, why would other four Apostolic Sees (80%) back-out and say “no, thats not true” once the west wanted to put this into writing and official practice?

If it had been understood, practiced and preached since a.d. 33, it is my humble opinion that there shouldn’t have been any problem accepting something that was already accepted.

Where are the writings from the Eastern Fathers? For instance, where are the letters from the Patriach of Antioch writing to a bishop in Syria, or the Patriarch of Alexandria writing to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, etc.etc. that discuss and/or *clearly and explicitly *identify the Infallible Supremecy of the Patriarch of Rome?

I’m not a professional historian, and I’m not a Theologian. I’m but a humble Sociology undergrad with a hobby of studying the ancient Church in my free time, so I appreciate any and all anwers.

David

 

[stuart12]

Also, why would other four Apostolic Sees (80%) back-out and say “no, thats not true” once the west wanted to put this into writing and official practice?

If it had been understood, practiced and preached since a.d. 33, it is my humble opinion that there shouldn’t have been any problem accepting something that was already accepted.

Where are the writings from the Eastern Fathers? For instance, where are the letters from the Patriach of Antioch writing to a bishop in Syria, or the Patriarch of Alexandria writing to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, etc.etc. that discuss and/or *clearly and explicitly *identify the Infallible Supremecy of the Patriarch of Rome?

I’m not a professional historian, and I’m not a Theologian. I’m but a humble Sociology undergrad with a hobby of studying the ancient Church in my free time, so I appreciate any and all anwers.

David

Alexandria and Antioch fell into heresy. Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Pride corrupted Constantinople. Rome remained.

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:
Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Athanasius (362)

Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35)

The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424)

He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word ‘petra’ (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch.

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

 

[stuart12]

oh and…

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649)

Writing to Pope Theodore:
O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

 

[dnu]

Those are a little more convincing

 

[stuart12]

Those are a little more convincing

Thanks for bringing the topic up. I did a little search on Catholic sites and loads of those sort appeared. Its amazing to see how we are still in conformity with the original Christians and their successors.

 

[Pilgrimage]

Settled means decided upon. In other words, the case is closed. If anyone goes against the Church at Rome, they will not be proclaiming the truth.

So, when Jesus teaches Peter that the true nature of himself is to not know himself, Jesus is wrong?

If you say Jesus is wrong, then there is not truth in His Word

If you say Jesus is right, then what you have said here is wrong. The Church Of Rome cannot be infallible, even if matters can be settled. Making a decision is not a proclamation of infallibility.

We prayed over a matter and decided whatever was decided on the basis of that prayer that we would act on it, therefore we had settled the matter ‘before’ the prayer. This decision does not mean that it is an infallible decision, it was however decisive and because of this decisiveness brought peace to our souls. You see, the decision we reached in prayer was not the solution really, the solution was that we had agreed to settle the matter.

Peter denied that he would deny Jesus, and in this denial of himself Jesus teaches Peter that he is not infallible. Why would any man believe different today against our Lord’s teachings?

Make a decision to be decisive on matters by all means, but don’t claim infallibility for anyone, it’s contrary to Christ’s teachings.

God bless

 

[stuart12]

So, when Jesus teaches Peter that the true nature of himself is to not know himself, Jesus is wrong?

If you say Jesus is wrong, then there is not truth in His Word

If you say Jesus is right, then what you have said here is wrong. The Church Of Rome cannot be infallible, even if matters can be settled. Making a decision is not a proclamation of infallibility.

We prayed over a matter and decided whatever was decided on the basis of that prayer that we would act on it, therefore we had settled the matter ‘before’ the prayer. This decision does not mean that it is an infallible decision, it was however decisive and because of this decisiveness brought peace to our souls. You see, the decision we reached in prayer was not the solution really, the solution was that we had agreed to settle the matter.

Peter denied that he would deny Jesus, and in this denial of himself Jesus teaches Peter that he is not infallible. Why would any man believe different today against our Lord’s teachings?

Make a decision to be decisive on matters by all means, but don’t claim infallibility for anyone, it’s contrary to Christ’s teachings.

God bless

The Church was not founded before Pentecost. Peter denied our Lord before Pentecost. Anyway, infallibility does not mean that someone’s conduct will be spotless. Papal infallibility is to do with the teaching on faith and morals, when it is declared on his Apostolic authority. Peter was a coward, he was not declaring something on his authority to be binding upon others. The comparison fails.
What is the purpose of being decisive on matters, if you will never know you are right? We are not dealing with trivial matters, but with the revelation of God, and the salvation of souls. If the Holy Spirit does not guide and protect the Church, the incarnation of the Word would have been in vain. His message and His purpose would have become so obscured and molded to the mind of man, that it would be worthless.

 

[Erich]

From The Authority of the Pope: Part II

Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], 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!*’” (ibid., session 2).

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve been reading some Eastern Orthodox material, and I have come across some legitimate concerns that they have. For example, in the following Early Church Fathers citations found here at Catholic.com, where do any of these Fathers specifically state that the Bishop of Rome is the “infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop of all Christendom?”

Here are the links:

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

Again, I’m not looking for “well, if we interpret a,b,c, and look at verses x,y,z.” I’m just looking for an *explicit * and incontrovertable-declaration of Infallibility and Supremacy.

Their (the E.O.) case for Infallibility not being declared explicitly until around the time of Charlemagne seems pretty good to me, because I don’t see it in the quotes above. We have to “dig deeper” to find it and interpret it. It seems to me that something of such great importance and universal understanding ever since a.d. 33 shouldn’t need the apologetic tap-dance to find.

Help

None of the Church Fathers taught that the Pope was infallible. It was not declared around the time of Charlemagne.

 

[stuart12]

None of the Church Fathers taught that the Pope was infallible. It was not declared around the time of Charlemagne.

Really?

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

So the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church of Rome (therefore not against its bishop either), and she holds the orthodox faith and will never fail in this. Is the term papal infallibility used? No, but the basics of the doctrine are clear from St. Maximus and the others quoted earlier.

 

[diggerdomer]

Really?

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

So the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church of Rome (therefore not against its bishop either), and she holds the orthodox faith and will never fail in this. Is the term papal infallibility used? No, but the basics of the doctrine are clear from St. Maximus and the others quoted earlier.

Yes, really.

Where in your post do you show anyone teaching that the Pope is infallible? Or where in your post does it claim that such was taught at the time of Charlemagne?

Thanks.

 

[stuart12]

Yes, really.

Where in your post do you show anyone teaching that the Pope is infallible? Or where in your post does it claim that such was taught at the time of Charlemagne?

Thanks.

St. Maximus in that quote clearly states that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church of Rome. She fights against heresy and she confirms the true Faith. Plus, its the bishop that leads the Church, therefore that bishop (the Pope) must be infallible in matters of faith and morals or the Church of Rome would collapse.

 

[diggerdomer]

St. Maximus in that quote clearly states that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church of Rome. She fights against heresy and she confirms the true Faith. Plus, its the bishop that leads the Church, therefore that bishop (the Pope) must be infallible in matters of faith and morals or the Church of Rome would collapse.

That’s your interpretation of what St. Maximus wrote. That’s different than what St. Maximus wrote or any other early Church father taught.

 

[Non_Serviam]

It’s interesting that these folks trying to defend these papal perogatives can’t advance anything even somewhat close to what they are claiming until 400 yrs after Christ’s death. (Clement makes no claims like this in his letter and it is written from one church to another, not from a “pope”)

When pressed for more evidence they provide it from people 600 years after Christ, who had some potential self-interest in the expansion of papal power.

Someone posted this document in another thread today-it has some very interesting conclusions on the later development of papal power and the basis upon which it rests. (check out paragraphs 15-20 especially).

 

[stuart12]

It’s interesting that these folks trying to defend these papal perogatives can’t advance anything even somewhat close to what they are claiming until 400 yrs after Christ’s death. (Clement makes no claims like this in his letter and it is written from one church to another, not from a “pope”)

When pressed for more evidence they provide it from people 600 years after Christ, who had some potential self-interest in the expansion of papal power.

Someone posted this document in another thread today-it has some very interesting conclusions on the later development of papal power and the basis upon which it rests. (check out paragraphs 15-20 especially).

Why would those in Constantinople (a rival to Rome) wish to exalt the position of Rome?

If the Church of Rome is the foundation that all Churches must look to and agree with (from St. Maximus and St. Irenaeus), the rest of the Churches will fall into heresy if the first is not guarded from it.