michaelgazin:
So do you believe in papal infallibility? While John did indeed have apostolic authority, we also know that whoever was the successor to Peter was infallible, and authority follows infalliblity. I suppose the term “head of the Church” needs to be defined because both the pope and John were infallible. The theology of the two were certainly the same, however the pope, by virtue of his office, is labeled the head of the Church, as it was Peter whose faith was prayed for by Jesus, and Peter who was commanded to feed the sheep.
So both are infallible, it seems as though the pope would simply wear the title “head of the Church,” however what that would amount to in comparison with other apostles I am not sure. I never thought of that really. Fortunately it doesn’t really cause conflict because John and the pope never conflicted theologically, however I cannot think of any extra authoritative attributes that the pope would have over John the apostle. The pope was certainly not less authoritative though either. Interesting thought.
The concept of a single pope and papal infallibility weren’t even considered at the time. You’re way ahead of yourself historically. I think it’s you who should read some good history books on the subject.
A single leader of the Church, the pope, was something that didn’t actually occur until Bishop of Rome Nicolas I decided to assert that authority sometime around 860 or so. But he had to use a series of forged documents to base his claims on. Here’s a succinct explanation from an eminent Catholic historian, Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, written in 1870, that explains:
"In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals…
About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s
Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers…and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional"
(Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger,
The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).
Today, this attempt to revise history, which ultimately split the east from the west, is nearly forgotten by Catholics. You’ve bought into the concept of a papal authority established from the beginning, and it’s just not true. This is not even a matter of belief. It’s an historical fact.
David
