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

[Non_Serviam]

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.

Perhaps you didn’t read closely-that was from a joint committee (Catholic and Orthodox, not “Constantinople”.

Likewise, Irenaeus’ report that the doctrine of the church in Rome was sound in his day isn’t a guarantee for the future. Like a weather report in last week’s newspaper, it in no way affects the current situation. (In addition, he says nothing about an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop”) The point about Maximus was already answered on the thread.

 

[stuart12]

Perhaps you didn’t read closely-that was from a joint committee (Caholic and Orthodox, not “Constantinople”.

Likewise, Irenaeus’ report that the doctrine of the church in Rome was sound in his day isn’t a guarantee for the future. Like a weather report in last week’s newspaper, it in no way affects the current situation. The point about Maximus was already answered on the thread.

I mentioned Constantinople as a few of my quotes came from Constantinople which supported the papacy.

The incarnation was therefore worthless if the teaching of Christ can easily be tossed aside or molded to the liking of man by the Church He founded. Christ made a mistake then. Did the Holy Spirit fall asleep or did He lose interest.

Is God’s revelation then subject to change? Do we have to ‘watch this space’ in case He changes His mind?

 

[Non_Serviam]

I mentioned Constantinople as a few of my quotes came from Constantinople which supported the papacy.

The incarnation was therefore worthless if the teaching of Christ can easily be tossed aside or molded to the liking of man by the Church He founded. Christ made a mistake then. Did the Holy Spirit fall asleep or did He lose interest.

Is God’s revelation then subject to change? Do we have to ‘watch this space’ in case He changes His mind?

Should I understand the switch to rhetoric to mean that you’ve given up on the possibility of there being an explicit statement of the claimed perogatives for the Bishop of Rome that is Ante-Nicean?

 

[Erich]

Clement makes no claims like this in his letter and it is written from one church to another, not from a “pope”

From The Authority of the Pope: Part 1:

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (*Letter to the Corinthians *1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
…
Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]).

The title “Pope” is from the Latin (and for that matter, Greek) word for “Father”

 

[Non_Serviam]

From The Authority of the Pope: Part 1:

The title “Pope” is from the Latin (and for that matter, Greek) word for “Father”

OK, let’s review: the purpose of the thread is to find explicit mention of the Pope as “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop” Some people have contributed material 400 or 600 years later that starts to move in that direction. What you’ve cited here is by no means explicit, and not even particularly implicit.

Your highlighted portions of Clement (writing on behalf of the entire church of Rome let’s not forget) suggests that those in Corinth who have ejected their leaders from the assembly would do well to listen to him, and he states that he believes the Holy Spirit has provided the words he is writing to them so they should oby them. If you look at a number of Epistles by the ECF’s you’ll see them make similar statements about their writings and that those engaged in wrongdoing should heed their words. There is nothing more here than the fact that Clement is a bishop (one of a collective of bishops in Rome at the time) and he has the normal authority and pastoral inclination that went with it at that time, not “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop”.

With regard to Ignatius, you need to keep in mind that the words used for Pope (latin “papa”, Greek “pappas”) are different from the words normally used for God the Father (Latin “Pater”, Greek “Pateras”). If you look through Ignatius’ epistles, you’ll see that he is very fond of using binitarian (“God the Father and Son” or “the Son and the Father”) openings and the passage you cite is likely another of these.

You’ll also note that he is sending an epistle to the church in Rome, and makes no mention of an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop” or even any Roman leadership for that matter-his praise is all for the church as a whole, because of its association with Peter and Paul.

So this also isn’t proof of an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop”.

 

[Just_Lurking]

For one scholar’s view on this, read D’Avray, D. L. “A letter of Innocent III and the idea of infallibility” The Catholic Historical Review 66 (1980) 417-421.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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).

to understand why the Church must declare something, you must understand why. throught the ages, the Church had and has to address issues brought out by heretics who doubts who God is and what God wants man to learn. from time to time the devil shows up and turn man against God and the Church must defend against it.
remember this, the Church of the Living God is the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth. do you understand what this means?

 

[Non_Serviam]

For one scholar’s view on this, read D’Avray, D. L. “A letter of Innocent III and the idea of infallibility” The Catholic Historical Review 66 (1980) 417-421.

I’ve tried to find a copy of this online as I can’t go to the university at the moment to look it up-could you summarize the argument, or provide the quotes that show an explicit statement describing an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop”? If Innocent III said it, that would be a statement, albeit 1100 years after the fact. Does he cite some earlier quotation?

to understand why the Church must declare something, you must understand why. throught the ages, the Church had and has to address issues brought out by heretics who doubts who God is and what God wants man to learn. from time to time the devil shows up and turn man against God and the Church must defend against it.
remember this, the Church of the Living God is the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth. do you understand what this means?

I understand what it means-why do you undrstand it to require an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop”? Do you have an explicit statement from Scriptures or from the Ante-Nicene Fathers to support your understanding?

 

[dnu]

I see a great deal of quotes from the early Church that talk of a bottom-up system where the Bishop of Rome plays the role of final arbitrator. In many of these instances, there seems to have been some concern brewing at the lower levels of the Church which eventually made their way to the top to Rome.

What I still have a difficult time seeing is the top-down system we have today where the Pope makes a declaration and then everyone else follows.

Few, if any quotes from the first or second century lend any credence to the notion of a unilateral-infallibility understood universally throughout all of Christendom.

Of course, even if the Eastern Orthodox are right, that still means the Protestants are wrong, so it is still a good day.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’ve tried to find a copy of this online as I can’t go to the university at the moment to look it up-could you summarize the argument, or provide the quotes that show an explicit statement describing an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop”? If Innocent III said it, that would be a statement, albeit 1100 years after the fact. Does he cite some earlier quotation?

I understand what it means-why do you undrstand it to require an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop”? Do you have an explicit statement from Scriptures or from the Ante-Nicene Fathers to support your understanding?

the Church of the Living God is the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth. do you understand what this means?
well, tell me what this means.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Of course, even if the Eastern Orthodox are right, that still means the Protestants are wrong, so it is still a good day.

I can heartily respect someone who has their priorities in order.

 

[Non_Serviam]

the Church of the Living God is the Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth. do you understand what this means?
well, tell me what this means.

I’m sorry, but a discussion on ecclesiology is off-topic for the thread-if you’d like to start a thread on that topic, I may stop in and comment. Do you have anything to add that responds to the topic on this thread-an explicit statement about an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop” ?

 

[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, he notes the faith of the Church at Rome. Nothing about the Pope individually, nothing about infallibility.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m sorry, but a discussion on ecclesiology is off-topic for the thread-if you’d like to start a thread on that topic, I may stop in and comment. Do you have anything to add that responds to the topic on this thread-an explicit statement about an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop” ?

this is relevant to the topic. this is not off topic. to understand infallibility, you have to understand the Church. or you cannot make a connection? do you think that Church and the pope are separated from each other?

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’ve tried to find a copy of this online as I can’t go to the university at the moment to look it up-could you summarize the argument, or provide the quotes that show an explicit statement describing an “Infallible, Supreme Pontiff and Universal Bishop”? If Innocent III said it, that would be a statement, albeit 1100 years after the fact. Does he cite some earlier quotation?

The mainstream view in modern scholarly Church history is that of Brian Tierney’s The Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350:

Of course modern theology does not deny that a pope can err. But when Catholic theologians have to take note of errors promulgated by popes as heads of the church they discriminate between official infallible pronouncements and official non-infallible pronouncements. The medieval canonists knew nothing of such distinctions. They were content to distinguish between the pope would could err – and err in any of his pronouncement so far as they knew – and the universal church whose faith could never fail. Ideas akin to the modern doctrine of papal infallibility simply never occurred to them.

D’Avray argues against Tierney’s historical analysis, but only seeks to push the origins of the concept of papal infallibility earlier in the second millenium. I’m not aware of any serious modern historical research, Catholic or otherwise, that still tries to find the concept of the individual infallibility of the pope in the first millenium of the Church.

See here for another thread with more discussion on Tierney’s book.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The mainstream view in modern scholarly Church history is that of Brian Tierney’s The Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350:

Of course modern theology does not deny that a pope can err. But when Catholic theologians have to take note of errors promulgated by popes as heads of the church they discriminate between official infallible pronouncements and official non-infallible pronouncements. The medieval canonists knew nothing of such distinctions. They were content to distinguish between the pope would could err – and err in any of his pronouncement so far as they knew – and the universal church whose faith could never fail. Ideas akin to the modern doctrine of papal infallibility simply never occurred to them.

D’Avray argues against Tierney’s historical analysis, but only seeks to push the origins of the concept of papal infallibility earlier in the second millenium. I’m not aware of any serious modern historical research, Catholic or otherwise, that still tries to find the concept of the individual infallibility of the pope in the first millenium of the Church.

See here for another thread with more discussion on Tierney’s book.

Fair enough. Not everyone on CAF are modern historians apparently.

What I don’t understand is why, if there are no explicit statements for these conclusions about the Pope, and Catholics rely on later interpretations of Scripture and the ECF’s for the textual basis of this belief, why can’t they just say so? And at the same time, why can’t they admit that without using these interpretations as presuppositions, people are able to come to different interpretations of the same texts and thus to different conclusions about the Pope and his role?

It is difficult to carry on an “ecumenical” conversation when the conclusions are presented as explicit “facts” and the impression is given that anyone who hasn’t accepted them 100% ought to be riding the short bus.

Having spent agreat deal of time researching Catholicism’s claims about itself and the Pope, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence:

1. There were bishops in the early church
2. Peter does receive a special role from Christ
3. Rome does take on a prominent role as a see early in the history of the church
4. Later tradition does suggest special leadership for the bishop of Rome

At the same time, there is also some evidence that appears to contradict the claims:

1. Acts 15:7 seems to suggest that Peter’s special role wasn’t one of supreme leadership
2. Neither the writings of Peter nor Clement appear to point to this understanding of their role.
3. Rome appears to have had a plurality of bishops at the time of Clement
4. Later tradition also provides voices that disagree with a supreme pontiff.

So from Peter to the modern papacy there is a “chasm of faith” where the evidence is circumstantial-many have leapt that chasm and embraced the papacy wholeheartedly-hopefully they can understand why, in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not everyone is comfortable trying to do so.

 

[Erich]

1. Acts 15:7 seems to suggest that Peter’s special role wasn’t one of supreme leadership

In Acts 15:12, “the whole assembly fell silent” after Peter – not James – had the last word.

The NAB’s footnote to Acts 15:13-35 says the following:

Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem “Council” that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).

Origen in the beginning of the 3rd century placed the latter council in Antioch: “Wherefore, as there is some obscurity about this matter [food], without some explanation is given, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders assembled together at Antioch, and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy Spirit, to write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake of those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain, namely, “things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood.”” [Contra Celsus 8.29]

 

[Erich]

1. Rome appears to have had a plurality of bishops at the time of Clement

How do you get from “Clement (writing on behalf of the entire church of Rome let’s not forget)” to “Clement is a bishop (one of a collective of bishops in Rome at the time)”?

If there were a collective of bishops in Rome at the time, then by definition there would be a collective of Churches in Rome at the time. But Eusebius says nothing of the sort:

It is impossible to read the testimony borne by Eusebius, and other most ancient writers, to the character and circumstances of Clement, without feeling a deep interest in whatever production of his pen may have escaped the ravages of time. “Third from the Apostles,” says Eusebius, “Clement obtained the bishopric of Rome; one who had seen the Apostles and conversed with them, and had still the sound of their preaching in his ears, and their tradition before his eyes;and not he alone, for many others at that time were still living, who had been taught by the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small schism having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a most important letter to the Corinthians, urging them to return to peace, renewing their faith, and [reminding them of] the tradition which had been so lately received from the Apostles.” [Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. c. 6.]

“the bishopric of Rome” not “one of the bishoprics of Rome”

“the Church in Rome” not “one of the Churches in Rome”

 

[Erich]

I see a great deal of quotes from the early Church that talk of a bottom-up system where the Bishop of Rome plays the role of final arbitrator. In many of these instances, there seems to have been some concern brewing at the lower levels of the Church which eventually made their way to the top to Rome.

What I still have a difficult time seeing is the top-down system we have today where the Pope makes a declaration and then everyone else follows.

The Pope doesn’t just “make a declaration” any more than the justices of the Supreme Court “make a declaration” on some point of the law that wasn’t first appealed to them.

For example, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary wasn’t dogmatically and infallibly defined until November 1, 1950 … but that doesn’t mean that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglicans didn’t believe it prior to then (they did, of course), it just means that the Church, in its office as teacher (see Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11), thought that the faithful could be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief.

 

[Erich]

So from Peter to the modern papacy there is a “chasm of faith” where the evidence is circumstantial-many have leapt that chasm and embraced the papacy wholeheartedly

Does a mustard seed, “smaller than all other seeds,” look anything at all like a tree that is “large enough for birds to nest in its branches”? Does an acorn look anything at all like an oak tree? And yet, does anyone seriously think that a mustard seed will grow into anything other than a mustard tree, or that an acorn will grow into anything other than an oak tree?

Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority. And, like a mustard seed grows into the only thing it can grow into, so do did the early Church grow into the Catholic Church of today.