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

[FantomScholar]

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.

Only because you are reading the term “Bishop” anachronistically and assuming that the modern definition of a Roman Catholic bishop is the same definition that operated in 1st century Rome.

Such, however, is not the case. The term bishop in Scripture (episkopoi) is synonymous with elder (presbuteros). There were multiple elders/bishops in congregations throughout the Christian world at this point in time. A monarchical episcopate had not yet developed in the church. We see this in Philippians 1:1: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers (episkopos, plural) and deacons.” So there were multiple “bishops” in the church at Philippi. There were multiple “bishops” in the church at Rome.

 

[FantomScholar]

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.

This form of argumentation is contradicted by the dogmatic pronouncements of Rome itself. Does the Catholic Church allow for the possibility that the papacy gradually and slowly developed over time? The First Vatican Council claimed (emphasis mine):

“We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord…”

“That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church…”

Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church - that is to say, the faithful throughout the world - should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the greater authority of the princedom which this has received…"

Obviously, the First Vatican Council doesn’t allow for the papacy or its understanding to have developed over time in the way that you suggest. According to the First Vatican Council, a papacy with universal jurisdiction existed and was universally recognized as such since the time of Peter. And is this denial of development only a teaching of this one council? No, even the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches (834, emphasis mine):

"Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.”

 

[FantomScholar]

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

Erich, this is simply not true. Peter did not have the last word at the council…

“The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will”…And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles."

Peter is not making any decision here whatsoever. He is interjecting himself into what is, I am sure, a cacophonous room filled with men arguing and debating each other. He is, in essence, shutting them all up. However, after Paul and Barnabas relate their witness to signs and wonders among the Gentiles, the passage continues…

"After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Among the elders gathered in Jerusalem, James has the greatest authority because he is not only one of the elders of Jerusalem immediately, he is also an Apostle. Therefore, his authority outweighs the other elders in Jerusalem. Why doesn’t Peter make the judgment? Because he is a bishop in Antioch, not Jerusalem. Of course, if papal infallibility were true, then he wasn’t only the bishop of Rome…I mean, Antioch, but of the whole world and should have made the decision.

 

[Josh128]

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

Going back even further than anyone else has yet mentioned, Tertullian clearly demonstrates, albeit sarcastically, that at least as far back as his time in A.D 220 or so, the notion of the bishop of Rome being the supreme pontiff and bishop of bishops of the Christian Church was alive and well. Tertullian, being the heretic he was, did not accept Apostolic succession or episcopal authority at the time, yet demonstrated by his own writings that Pope Callistus claimed to exercise the power of the keys of Peter and mockingly referred to him as the pontifex maximus and bishop of bishops. Though infallibility is not mentioned, authority is, and it was also proved-- because the decree by Pope Callistus that had Tertullian up at arms back in 220 (requirement of confession after committing fornication or adultery) still stands today!

Tertullian wrote:
*

“In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The ‘Pontifex Maximus,’ that is the ‘bishop of bishops,’ issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’ O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, ‘Good deed!’ ...Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!"* (_On Modesty_ 1.1, ANF IV:74).

and
* "I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church ...[Matt 16-19]' that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to that of Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? 'On you,' He says, 'I will build my Church; and I give to you the Keys'...."* (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

 

[diggerdomer]

Only because you are reading the term “Bishop” anachronistically and assuming that the modern definition of a Roman Catholic bishop is the same definition that operated in 1st century Rome.

Such, however, is not the case. The term bishop in Scripture (episkopoi) is synonymous with elder (presbuteros). There were multiple elders/bishops in congregations throughout the Christian world at this point in time. A monarchical episcopate had not yet developed in the church. We see this in Philippians 1:1: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers (episkopos, plural) and deacons.” So there were multiple “bishops” in the church at Philippi. There were multiple “bishops” in the church at Rome.

You’re right about anachronism, but whether episkopoi and presbuteros are synonymous is not so clear. “Overseer” and “elder” may indicate similar ministries/offices, or may not. It would seem that the two are perceived as distinct if they appear in the same letter.

 

[diggerdomer]

Going back even further than anyone else has yet mentioned, Tertullian clearly demonstrates, albeit sarcastically, that at least as far back as his time in A.D 220 or so, the notion of the bishop of Rome being the supreme pontiff and bishop of bishops of the Christian Church was alive and well. )

Nope, Tertullian’s writings do not support that claim.

The fact that in his later years he adhered to a heretical movement is beside the point.

 

[FantomScholar]

You’re right about anachronism, but whether episkopoi and presbuteros are synonymous is not so clear. “Overseer” and “elder” may indicate similar ministries/offices, or may not. It would seem that the two are perceived as distinct if they appear in the same letter.

The only time they appear together is Titus 1. Paul uses elder and overseer interchangeably in this passage. It seems to be a different word for the same office. Similar to saying minister or pastor. Same office, different title. In 1 Timothy 3, there are two offices laid out, overseer and deacon. If elder were a separate office, we would expect Paul to lay out the offices of elder, overseer and deacon.

 

[diggerdomer]

The only time they appear together is Titus 1. Paul uses elder and overseer interchangeably in this passage. It seems to be a different word for the same office. Similar to saying minister or pastor. Same office, different title. In 1 Timothy 3, there are two offices laid out, overseer and deacon. If elder were a separate office, we would expect Paul to lay out the offices of elder, overseer and deacon.

Which introduces the question of whether or not Paul was actually the author of these letters, which most Catholic scholars reject.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Nope, Tertullian’s writings do not support that claim.

The fact that in his later years he adhered to a heretical movement is beside the point.

Precisely. The term used by Tertullian is not the same as “Supreme Pontiff”. It was still in use as part of the Roman pagan religions. In fact, Tertullian is mocking the bishop of Rome in the same way that would occur today if Benedict XVI were to be called a 33rd degree Freemason or Grand Wizard of the KKK by another bishop. If the later Popes hadn’t chosen to use the pagan titles, there would be no connection, unless it was Tertullian’s usage that persuaded them to take them for themselves.

Next if you want to claim this statement about Callistus is true from Tertullian’s account, you have to put the whole account in evidence, and not just cherrypick.

Finally, as noted, Tertullian here is definitely not suggesting that the Pope is infallible, but rather that he has departed from the true faith. He specifically says that the perogatives claimed by later popes are not the Apostolic tradition.

Somewhat of a hostile witness.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Which introduces the question of whether or not Paul was actually the author of these letters, which most Catholic scholars reject.

Let’s take a quick peek at Trent on the subject:
4th session:

Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

Approved by the Council, confirmed by the pope and considered to be Infallible by the church since the Council.

So are you going to protect the idea of the Pope as infallible by contradicting an infallible teaching of the Council and the Pope? That’s like destroying the Infallible village to save it.

Or if you are claiming that this decree at Trent wasn’t infallible, please let all the other Catholics know who keep prattering on about how the church infallibly determined the canon and that’s why Catholicism is better.

Or the argument above isn’t available to you.

 

[Josh128]

Nope, Tertullian’s writings do not support that claim.

The fact that in his later years he adhered to a heretical movement is beside the point.

Yes, they do. Callistus is making an apparently binding decree, and Tertullian is mocking/heckling him for it. Callistus is 1.) Assuming he has the authority to make such a decree, and 2.) Basing this authority on the idea that the keys/authority of Peter have been transferred to him. How can you deny this when Tertullian himself says it? He says this is what Callistus is doing, but then says he is wrong in thinking that the keys transfer from Peter to himself. Its not cherry picking anything, its what the man wrote.

To Non-Serviam–Pontifex Maximus most definitely = Supreme Pontiff. Its a direct Latin to English translation. The fact that the title was given to pre-Christianity era Roman Emperors and pagan high priests is the entire point. Tertullian is not saying Callistus is a pagan (as Non-Serviam seems to be suggesting), Tertullian is comparing Callistus assumed authority to the Christian equivalent of the Roman Emperor or pagan high priest. That is to say, he thinks Callistus is acting as though he has ultimate authority in the Church, even if he (Tertullian) doesnt believe he has that authority. How does this not support the claim that even as far back as 220 the idea of the authority of the Roman See and the idea of the Keys of the Kingdom being transferred to that See were already in place and being excercised? If you insist on latching on to “Pontifex Maximus” being a pagan title thus meaning Callistus is somehow being labeled a pagan, what about “bishop of bishops”? How in the world does that not mean Callistus is assuming authority over all bishops?

Also, about Tertullian being a heretic later having nothing to do with this, how do you figure? He didnt just adhere to heretical views in “later years”, as you put it, him writing this very letter is him being a heretic, because he is not deferring to the Bishops authority here. It wasnt only the Roman bishops authority that he denied, he denied the authority of all bishops in the Church, did he not?

 

[diggerdomer]

Let’s take a quick peek at Trent on the subject:

Approved by the Council, confirmed by the pope and considered to be Infallible by the church since the Council.

So are you going to protect the idea of the Pope as infallible by contradicting an infallible teaching of the Council and the Pope? That’s like destroying the Infallible village to save it.

Or if you are claiming that this decree at Trent wasn’t infallible, please let all the other Catholics know who keep prattering on about how the church infallibly determined the canon and that’s why Catholicism is better.

Or the argument above isn’t available to you.

Ok, but the Church did not stop teaching at Trent. You need to consider all the Church and Catholic scholars have learned and taught since then.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, they do. Callistus is making an apparently binding decree, and Tertullian is mocking/heckling him for it. Callistus is 1.) Assuming he has the authority to make such a decree, and 2.) Basing this authority on the idea that the keys/authority of Peter have been transferred to him. How can you deny this when Tertullian himself says it? He says this is what Callistus is doing, but then says he is wrong in thinking that the keys transfer from Peter to himself. Its not cherry picking anything, its what the man wrote.

To Non-Serviam–Pontifex Maximus most definitely = Supreme Pontiff. Its a direct Latin to English translation. The fact that the title was given to pre-Christianity era Roman Emperors and pagan high priests is the entire point. Tertullian is not saying Callistus is a pagan (as Non-Serviam seems to be suggesting), Tertullian is comparing Callistus assumed authority to the Christian equivalent of the Roman Emperor or pagan high priest. That is to say, he thinks Callistus is acting as though he has ultimate authority in the Church, even if he (Tertullian) doesnt believe he has that authority. How does this not support the claim that even as far back as 220 the idea of the authority of the Roman See and the idea of the Keys of the Kingdom being transferred to that See were already in place and being excercised? If you insist on latching on to “Pontifex Maximus” being a pagan title thus meaning Callistus is somehow being labeled a pagan, what about “bishop of bishops”? How in the world does that not mean Callistus is assuming authority over all bishops?

Also, about Tertullian being a heretic later having nothing to do with this, how do you figure? He didnt just adhere to heretical views in “later years”, as you put it, him writing this very letter is him being a heretic, because he is not deferring to the Bishops authority here. It wasnt only the Roman bishops authority that he denied, he denied the authority of all bishops in the Church, did he not?

This is an ahistorical view.

At the time of Tertullian, the Church had not developed the idea of papal authority and primacy as we currently experience it. Even later in the mid 3rd century, the conflict between St. Cyprian (bishop) and St. Stephen (bishop of Rome) attest to this fact.

We can’t read back into history our contemporary understandings of the Pope, authority, etc.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Yes, they do. Callistus is making an apparently binding decree, and Tertullian is mocking/heckling him for it.

Tertullian is mocking him for thinking he has the authority to do it. That was the point of my Freemason/KKK analogy. Tertullian took an example of unChristlike, pagan worldly authority over everyone else to show Callistus that his attempted fiat wasn’t something tha squared with the church Christ founded. To use a Pauline metaphor he was saying Callistus’ “fruit” was worldly and selfish rather than of the Holy Spirit.

To Non-Serviam–Pontifex Maximus most definitely = Supreme Pontiff. Its a direct Latin to English translation.

The title found in the offical list of papal titles is summus pontifex which is most commonly translated Supreme Pontiff. While some Popes have taken pontifex maximus for themselves (for unknown reasons given its associations) it never made it onto the official list.

Ok, but the Church did not stop teaching at Trent. You need to consider all the Church and Catholic scholars have learned and taught since then.

Actually, for this discussion I don’t unless you are taking the position that the decree at Trent wasn’t an exercise of infallibility. How about a clear yes or no on that?

 

[Josh128]

This is an ahistorical view.

At the time of Tertullian, the Church had not developed the idea of papal authority and primacy as we currently experience it. Even later in the mid 3rd century, the conflict between St. Cyprian (bishop) and St. Stephen (bishop of Rome) attest to this fact.

We can’t read back into history our contemporary understandings of the Pope, authority, etc.

I have to disagree with you here. While the understanding of the authority and primacy may not have been as developed and understood back then as it is today, the idea of the Pope being the successor of Peter and thus exercising authority over other Sees was definitely in place and in full effect as far as the Pope was concerned. Are you saying that Rome, and only Rome, knew this? It is clear from Tertullians writings that Callistus was assuming that authority, and basing it on the fact that he was the successor of Peter and the Keys had transferred to him. One need only read Tertullians writings to see this. While Tertullian may not have agreed with it, Callistus was certainly aware of it and exercising it here. Theres no need to read back anything into history-- regardless of what Tertullian thought about it, its very clear to see the Pope was aware of his authority and the theology of how it was that he came to have it.

As far as the conflict between St. Cyprian and St. Stephen, it is a storied one, but from what I have read it is clear that Cyprian was also aware of it (pope being the successor of Peter and of special authority), even if he at times disagreed with it and the Pope himself. Ive found some really good articles about their conflict which I will post later, when I get more time. Again of interest is the subject of their disagreement-- like what happened with Callistus and Tertullian, the decision made about whether to re-baptize or not, made by the Pope, still stands to this day, in both Eastern and Western Churches, as well as even most Protestant Churches, I believe.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have to disagree with you here. While the understanding of the authority and primacy may not have been as developed and understood back then as it is today, the idea of the Pope being the successor of Peter and thus exercising authority over other Sees was definitely in place and in full effect as far as the Pope was concerned.

Any evidence for this? All the history I’ve read suggests otherwise. To my knowledge, the first evidence we have for the Pope claiming authority as an individual in his role as “Pope” and successor to Peter is St. Stephen in the mid 3rd century.

 

[Erich]

Erich, this is simply not true. Peter did not have the last word at the council…

Read Acts 15 again and you’ll see that not one but two councils are recorded.

“The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said…And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.”

And what was the “this matter” that Acts 15:6 refers to? Why, the claim in Acts 15:1 that one must be circumcised to be saved.

the passage continues…

"After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me…Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

This decree deals mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws, and has nothing to do with the question of circumcision.

If these two passages described the same council, then why would Paul, in Acts 21:25 (“As for the Gentiles who have come to believe, we sent them our decision that they abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage”), be learning of the second decree – seemingly for the first time?

 

[Erich]

Obviously, the First Vatican Council doesn’t allow for the papacy or its understanding to have developed over time in the way that you suggest.

When I refer to “a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today” I am referring to a Church which exhibited from its very earliest stages (c.f. the dictionary definition for ‘rudiment’) a papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority. These things were not “grafted on” later, as some incorrectly claim… they are part of the Church’s “DNA” so to speak).

Mustard seeds do not grow up to be oak trees. A human fetus is a separate person, not a “blob of tissue.”

 

[Josh128]

Any evidence for this? All the history I’ve read suggests otherwise. To my knowledge, the first evidence we have for the Pope claiming authority as an individual in his role as “Pope” and successor to Peter is St. Stephen in the mid 3rd century.

I talked about St. Stephen two posts back. I’m not sure what your asking here. Evidence of the Bishop of Rome exercising authority over other Sees? Clement settling a dispute for Corinth, Polycarp traveling to Rome to discuss with Anicetus when to celebrate Easter where Anicetus’ method won out (why discuss with Anicetus in the first place?), Victor threatening to excommunicate some in the Eastern church for not celebrating Easter as Rome did, Callistus’ decree for all Christians (in which Tertullian attacked his authority, and mocked him for presuming Peters keys transferred to him ), and Stephen vs. Cyprian on the subject of re-baptism (again with the Popes decision being upheld).

All of the above has already been discussed on this thread. Or are you asking where Cyprian talks about Rome/ the Pope?

Cyprian, in his letter to Cornelius, refers to the bishop of Rome as the “throne of Peter”, and the church of Rome as the “the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source”.

All this is evidence of the Church of Rome headed by the bishop of Rome exercising its authority over other Sees. If you still disagree then by all means tell me why.

 

[diggerdomer]

I talked about St. Stephen two posts back. I’m not sure what your asking here. Evidence of the Bishop of Rome exercising authority over other Sees? Clement settling a dispute for Corinth, Polycarp traveling to Rome to discuss with Anicetus when to celebrate Easter where Anicetus’ method won out (why discuss with Anicetus in the first place?), Victor threatening to excommunicate some in the Eastern church for not celebrating Easter as Rome did, Callistus’ decree for all Christians (in which Tertullian attacked his authority, and mocked him for presuming Peters keys transferred to him ), and Stephen vs. Cyprian on the subject of re-baptism (again with the Popes decision being upheld).

All of the above has already been discussed on this thread. Or are you asking where Cyprian talks about Rome/ the Pope?

Cyprian, in his letter to Cornelius, refers to the bishop of Rome as the “throne of Peter”, and the church of Rome as the “the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source”.

All this is evidence of the Church of Rome headed by the bishop of Rome exercising its authority over other Sees. If you still disagree then by all means tell me why.

Clement’s exercise of “authority” over Corinth is nowhere near as clear as later Popes would exercise authority. His letter was a pastoral one, addressed from a group (not an individual), urging not commanding.

The debate over the date of Easter was not resolved according to the Bishop of Rome’s dictates. Polycarp convinced Anicetus to let diversity of practices continue. Victor seemingly “excommunicated” those who disagreed with him, but we have no evidence that there was any practical consequence (as the Council of Nicea, some 150 years later or so, still had to decree what the correct date was).

Yes, very early on (though not initially of course) the Church at Rome was recognized as having a certain pride of place, as St. Irenaeus most notably perhaps witnesses to late in the second century. But this was the Church of Rome…not one individual.