Why is Papal Infallibility such a big deal?

[MelanieAnne]

I’m very aware of your beliefs in this regard. The problem is none of it is true. Even the Jesus of scripture never promulgated the papacy. It was obviously a Roman power grab (pretty neat scam if I do say so myself).

Please read my signature and religious preference … NONE! Not that I hate religion or anything like that (nor am I foolish enough to think religion is the cause of all wars or any such nonsense). I simply don’t believe in the intangible or unseen. I allow logic, not nonsense, to rule my behavior and decisions.

It is scriptural and I believe that the pertinent passage has already been cited.

And you actually DO, mostly likely, believe in things intangible/unseen. You just call them names like “technology” or “electricity”, etc. You cannot make such a statement unless it is inclusive. Lacking that, the statement has no coherent meaning.

The Catholic faith, correctly understood, is perfectly logical. Perhaps what you lack is proper catechism.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

It is scriptural and I believe that the pertinent passage has already been cited.

And you actually DO, mostly likely, believe in things intangible/unseen. You just call them names like “technology” or “electricity”, etc. You cannot make such a statement unless it is inclusive. Lacking that, the statement has no coherent meaning.

such an absurd statement might work on an idiot … but of course since I understand physics you’re not selling that baloney to me.

Electricity is energy (energy & matter are two forms of the same thing, like space and time). Better try that one on your child … perhaps he or she will believe you (like Santa Clause). I’m all grown up …

The Catholic faith, correctly understood, is perfectly logical. Perhaps what you lack is proper catechism.

Christianity (or any religion for that matter) logical? That’s an absurd statement. Catholics feed you scripture mixed with philosophy (that’s mostly pre-Christian in origin) to explain the cosmos and the many conflicting ideas in scripture. At least Calvinists are intellectually honest, though of course they’re still foolish enough to believe in an invisible God? I guess most people need an invisible friend

 

[LutheranDK]

such an absurd statement might work on an idiot … but of course since I understand physics you’re not selling that baloney to me.

Electricity is energy (energy & matter are two forms of the same thing, like space and time). Better try that one on your child … perhaps he or she will believe you (like Santa Clause). I’m all grown up …

Christianity (or any religion for that matter) logical? That’s an absurd statement. Catholics feed you scripture mixed with philosophy (that’s mostly pre-Christian in origin) to explain the cosmos and the many conflicting ideas in scripture. At least Calvinists are intellectually honest, though of course they’re still foolish enough to believe in an invisible God? I guess most people need an invisible friend

sighs

Another Richard Dawkins-wannabe… Your hysterical post belies your statement “I’m all grown up”…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is a matter of authority. Those that “Protest”. ie. protestants are mostly against Papal Infallibilty in this regard, they are not able to be their own authority. In other words they disregard the fact that Jesus established a Church with a Head, Peter and his successors and a teaching authority.

Hi Mike Dye I disagree with you about protestants not being able to be their own authority, but agree with you on the rest of your comment.

Protestants in seperating themselves from the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church and Peter present day Pope, deliberately set out to make themselves isolated from the body of Jesus Christ and the successors to the Apostles. In essence making their own protestant communities isolated and individual authority over their body of believers or communities.

Although they profess no faith in the protection or infallibility of the Holy Spirit among their teachings as does the Roman Catholic church, The protestant communities and non catholic church’s isolate themselves and make themselves “the church” with their man or woman founder as their leader of doctrine to follow and believe, when it was Jesus Christ himself who built his church upon Peter and the Apostles present day Catholic church in the Pope successor of Peter and all the Catholic Bishops united to the Pope (Peter) successors to the apostles.

Those who do not believe in God, make themselves a god isolated from the creator, when their souls yearn for the true God, thus making their knowledge of creation and matter or logic of things seen as their false god. Although they pretend to not believe in the Creator God, they invent their own god from knowledge which lacks the faith the soul yearns for, so as the unbeliever fills this yearning with learning being their enlightenment to be their false god, without them realizing it. Because they have no knowledge of the revelation of God and the yearning of the soul of which they are blind to knowing, because of lack of faith.

Paul speaks most elegantly about such faith;

Hebrews 11:1
1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen.
2
Because of it the ancients were well attested.
3
By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

Peace be with you

 

[MelanieAnne]

such an absurd statement might work on an idiot … but of course since I understand physics you’re not selling that baloney to me.

Electricity is energy (energy & matter are two forms of the same thing, like space and time). Better try that one on your child … perhaps he or she will believe you (like Santa Clause). I’m all grown up …

I gave birth to a physicist and I am all grown up too. It’s not an absurd statement, but it does require some thought. There are still things about electricity that can’t be explained. Does that mean you’re going to stop believing in it?

Christianity (or any religion for that matter) logical? That’s an absurd statement. Catholics feed you scripture mixed with philosophy (that’s mostly pre-Christian in origin) to explain the cosmos and the many conflicting ideas in scripture. At least Calvinists are intellectually honest, though of course they’re still foolish enough to believe in an invisible God? I guess most people need an invisible friend

Yes, the many doctrines of the Church are completely logical if properly understood. Not everyone has the same understanding and sometimes there is confusion. When the confusion is remedied, it all falls into place. No amount of your insults will make this any less true.

You believe in it too, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. You may effect some hostility, but some part of you wants to find something here and it’s not atheism.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I gave birth to a physicist and I am all grown up too. It’s not an absurd statement, but it does require some thought. There are still things about electricity that can’t be explained. Does that mean you’re going to stop believing in it?

Yes, the many doctrines of the Church are completely logical if properly understood. Not everyone has the same understanding and sometimes there is confusion. When the confusion is remedied, it all falls into place. No amount of your insults will make this any less true.

You believe in it too, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. You may effect some hostility, but some part of you wants to find something here and it’s not atheism.

actually I’m here to understand why people like you would obstruct credible scientific research, prevent the distribution of lifesaving condoms in places like Africa, etc. in the name of a fairy tale. Has nothing to do with confusion or seeking something to fill my inner void (or any of the other silly ways you guys dupe people into your fantasy world).

 

[SSTeacher]

I was wondering why is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility such a big deal with Protestants when it has been used so seldom?

I only know of a very few instances: the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and the Crowning of Mary in Heaven [as Queen of the Angels].

It isn’t as if the Pope regularly issues new doctrine “out of the blue” abusing this infallibility.

Just wondering why is it so scary to non-Catholics?

Hi Sunflower,

Since papal infallibility is a uniquely Catholic doctrine that wasn’t promulgated until Vatican 1 in 1870 I would speculate that many Protestants in our times perceive it to be a latter–day superfluous variation that is not only dangerous but also rather silly.

If I understand the doctrine correctly, it is that when the pope “speaks from the chair on a matter of faith and morals“ there can be no mistake i.e. the pope’s teaching is infallible in that instance. Since it is the Catholic Church itself that proclaimed this doctrine, it can appear to the non–Catholic mindset as like somebody saying, “You can trust me because in my own estimation I’m trustworthy.”

Many non–Catholics doubtless feel prompted to look for what is wrong with the Catholic Church rather than what might be right about it and therefore tend to focus on the fact that the Catholic Church has in the past taught wrongly by example and by omission. The actions and inactions of Catholics past and present, both laity and clergy, are sometimes cited to endorse that line of thinking. So, from a non–Catholic perspective, it seems reasonable to conclude that since the Catholic Church has made errors in matters of behavior and in matters of administration and in matters of judgment and in matters of discipline there seems to be no logical reason for supposing that freedom from error in matters of “faith and morals” is a realistic proposition, either.

The historical record shows that the incumbent pope whose efforts brought about Vatican 1 was Pius IX. This was the same pope who in 1854 declared the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine that all Catholics must believe. My understanding is that this proclamation was very unusual because it was the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that a pope had taken it upon himself to proclaim a doctrine or dogma without first consulting a council. It’s relevant to note that Pius IX proclaimed the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception some sixteen years prior to Vatican 1 so I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for a non–Catholic to conclude that at the time he proclaimed the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX was in a sense, "anticipating his own infallibility.” Do you think some Protestants might see this sort of attitude as dangerous?

The doctrine also seems rather silly. If the Catholic Church is indeed the One True Church and contains the fullness of truth as it claims for itself then the Holy Spirit will guide you Catholics into all truth through your Church. Right? So we Protestants wonder why is it necessary additionally to claim this additional power for the papacy especially as the historical and biblical records both show that the Church has invariably pronounced on matters of doctrine or “what must be believed” through councils. Perhaps Catholics prior to 1870 were inclined to suppose that the arrangement should continue? Perhaps they were of the opinion that even a pope might make a mistake on a question of “faith and morals” if he were operating on his own? They’d have been right to think along those lines, wouldn’t you say, since there have been some immoral popes? What do Catholics perceive the category of “faith and morals” to encompass? Wasn’t it a pope who commissioned Johann Tetzel to wander around Germany selling indulgences in order to raise money for the ongoing construction of Saint Peter’s Basilica? Was there any “moral issue” involved in that controversy?

Some Catholics seem irritated that we Protestants don’t correctly understand the doctrine of papal infallibility. We are sometimes accused of failing to understand that the doctrine doesn’t preclude any incumbent pope from committing a sin. It is emphasized to us that it is only when the pope speaks ex cathedra that he has that power of not making mistake. Well, If I understand the doctrine correctly, it appears to me that I’m being asked to believe this theory: that a man may live an immoral life and set a scandalous example for everybody with whom he comes into contact yet if he is required to formally pronounce on a crucial matter involving morality (or faith) he cannot make a mistake.

Do you detect any silliness therein? I think Lord Acton might have done.

Well, perhaps I’ve been able give you some insight into the non–Catholic mindset, Sunflower. I appreciate you putting up the question, by the way. Do you begin to see why we Protestants sometimes see papal infallibility as a big deal?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[MelanieAnne]

actually I’m here to understand why people like you would obstruct credible scientific research, prevent the distribution of lifesaving condoms in places like Africa, etc. in the name of a fairy tale. Has nothing to do with confusion or seeking something to fill my inner void (or any of the other silly ways you guys dupe people into your fantasy world).

Well then, if you are actually concerned about facts and logic then consider that it is where condoms are NOT freely distributed in Africa that the incidence of HIV is DECLINING.

Of course, you don’t need to let something like facts and logic dupe you out of your fantasy world either.

 

[Sunflower15]

Hi Sunflower,

Since papal infallibility is a uniquely Catholic doctrine that wasn’t promulgated until Vatican 1 in 1870 I would speculate that many Protestants in our times perceive it to be a latter–day superfluous variation that is not only dangerous but also rather silly.

If I understand the doctrine correctly, it is that when the pope “speaks from the chair on a matter of faith and morals“ there can be no mistake i.e. the pope’s teaching is infallible in that instance. Since it is the Catholic Church itself that proclaimed this doctrine, it can appear to the non–Catholic mindset as like somebody saying, “You can trust me because in my own estimation I’m trustworthy.”

Many non–Catholics doubtless feel prompted to look for what is wrong with the Catholic Church rather than what might be right about it and therefore tend to focus on the fact that the Catholic Church has in the past taught wrongly by example and by omission. The actions and inactions of Catholics past and present, both laity and clergy, are sometimes cited to endorse that line of thinking. So, from a non–Catholic perspective, it seems reasonable to conclude that since the Catholic Church has made errors in matters of behavior and in matters of administration and in matters of judgment and in matters of discipline there seems to be no logical reason for supposing that freedom from error in matters of “faith and morals” is a realistic proposition, either.

The historical record shows that the incumbent pope whose efforts brought about Vatican 1 was Pius IX. This was the same pope who in 1854 declared the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine that all Catholics must believe. My understanding is that this proclamation was very unusual because it was the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that a pope had taken it upon himself to proclaim a doctrine or dogma without first consulting a council. It’s relevant to note that Pius IX proclaimed the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception some sixteen years prior to Vatican 1 so I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for a non–Catholic to conclude that at the time he proclaimed the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX was in a sense, "anticipating his own infallibility.” Do you think some Protestants might see this sort of attitude as dangerous?

The doctrine also seems rather silly. If the Catholic Church is indeed the One True Church and contains the fullness of truth as it claims for itself then the Holy Spirit will guide you Catholics into all truth through your Church. Right? So we Protestants wonder why is it necessary additionally to claim this additional power for the papacy especially as the historical and biblical records both show that the Church has invariably pronounced on matters of doctrine or “what must be believed” through councils. Perhaps Catholics prior to 1870 were inclined to suppose that the arrangement should continue? Perhaps they were of the opinion that even a pope might make a mistake on a question of “faith and morals” if he were operating on his own? They’d have been right to think along those lines, wouldn’t you say, since there have been some immoral popes? What do Catholics perceive the category of “faith and morals” to encompass? Wasn’t it a pope who commissioned Johann Tetzel to wander around Germany selling indulgences in order to raise money for the ongoing construction of Saint Peter’s Basilica? Was there any “moral issue” involved in that controversy?

Some Catholics seem irritated that we Protestants don’t correctly understand the doctrine of papal infallibility. We are sometimes accused of failing to understand that the doctrine doesn’t preclude any incumbent pope from committing a sin. It is emphasized to us that it is only when the pope speaks ex cathedra that he has that power of not making mistake. Well, If I understand the doctrine correctly, it appears to me that I’m being asked to believe this theory: that a man may live an immoral life and set a scandalous example for everybody with whom he comes into contact yet if he is required to formally pronounce on a crucial matter involving morality (or faith) he cannot make a mistake.

Do you detect any silliness therein? I think Lord Acton might have done.

Well, perhaps I’ve been able give you some insight into the non–Catholic mindset, Sunflower. I appreciate you putting up the question, by the way. Do you begin to see why we Protestants sometimes see papal infallibility as a big deal?

Curiously,
Mick

Yes, Mick.
To summarize, it’s a matter of:
1-hypothetical possibility of a horrible derailing of the entire Church by a single individual
2-simply not believing there is a need/reason/justification for this belief
3-not liking HOW it happened to be instituted

Can’t say much about the first 2 that hasn’t been said already or that you wouldn’t have heard already.
In regards to the 3rd… I do understand. One of my main problem with Protestantism, let’s say the closest one to Catholicism -Anglicanism- which is quite similar to the Roman Church really, is how it came about. I just can’t “swallow” King Henry VIII…truly…the man beheaded women because he wanted boys…as if they could do something to choose to produce them. He kept divorcing and killing, and marrying…to project himself into posterity…even corrupt Popes seem compassionate next to him… and for that [and other political reasons] he started a faith.

Well…not to say [before my Anglican friends get too excited here] that Anglicanism isn’t a great religion, AFTER the fact of how it started. I’m just explaining with an example of what prevents ME personally from ever converting to that religion [even if I were “faith-hunting” so to speak which I am not].

So, I do understand the Eastern [who seem to have “reservations” still - maybe I’m wrong], Orthodox, Protestants, and pretty much the rest of the world, when something prevents them just because of HOW it came about…even if it were OK really.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Well then, if you are actually concerned about facts and logic then consider that it is where condoms are NOT freely distributed in Africa that the incidence of HIV is DECLINING.

Of course, you don’t need to let something like facts and logic dupe you out of your fantasy world either.

sounds like Catholic propaganda to me (in other words baloney) … please provide a link to the authority you’re citing? The only fact you may be referring to is that there has been no link found between condom distribution and lower incidents of HIV in Africa. However, this is only because condoms are not culturally accepted in Africa (of course abstinence doesn’t work either). The fact is HIV is so prevalent in Africa that even monogamous marriage is no guarantee. We need to change the culture, which will take time. However, we can’t overcome their cultural taboos if we keep changing policy with every different administration. We need a sustained effort over time to get these folks to use condoms.

 

[MelanieAnne]

… please provide a link to the authority you’re citing?

I don’t collect links, but in any event, I viewed the information in a televised news report, for which there is no “link”. Although some may find the information startling, even counter-intuitive, perhaps it is their own pre-conceived bias that is the problem. But don’t let that bother you, facts can be such pesky little things at times.

Have a nice life. Bye. I won’t be responding to any more of your attacks.

 

[jastor]

I was wondering why is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility such a big deal with Protestants when it has been used so seldom?

I only know of a very few instances: the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and the Crowning of Mary in Heaven [as Queen of the Angels].

It isn’t as if the Pope regularly issues new doctrine “out of the blue” abusing this infallibility.

Just wondering why is it so scary to non-Catholics?

Where in the bible does it say a pope is infallible and godly in any way?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I was wondering why is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility such a big deal with Protestants when it has been used so seldom?

I only know of a very few instances: the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and the Crowning of Mary in Heaven [as Queen of the Angels].

It isn’t as if the Pope regularly issues new doctrine “out of the blue” abusing this infallibility.

Just wondering why is it so scary to non-Catholics?

To get back to the original question … I believe it’s largely a matter of principle and precedents set.

If the President announces that he has the ability to rewrite the Constitution at his discretion, it wouldn’t be much comfort if he uses this alleged ability seldom and arguably wisely. His successors might not; and anyway, a Constitution that a man can fiddle with as he pleases–even if theoretically–isn’t really a Constitution anymore. There are reasons why, in Catholic eyes, this parellel doesn’t really hold, but I’m telling you how it strikes Protestants.

Secondly, the “very few instances” you mention are precisely among the doctrines that Protestants tend to disagree with most vociferously. Again, the Protestant reflex here is to think, “if the Pope can unilaterally affirm the Immaculate Conception in one century, nothing’s stopping him from requiring [insert the questionable, overheated Catholic devotion of your choice] some time this century or the next.”

Again, there are reasonable Catholic responses to most of this, but I’m just letting you know what tends to go on in our heads & guts.

 

[Sunflower15]

Where in the bible does it say a pope is infallible and godly in any way?

Are you Catholic? Really? Why?

 

[Sunflower15]

To get back to the original question … I believe it’s largely a matter of principle and precedents set.

If the President announces that he has the ability to rewrite the Constitution at his discretion, it wouldn’t be much comfort if he uses this alleged ability seldom and arguably wisely. His successors might not; and anyway, a Constitution that a man can fiddle with as he pleases–even if theoretically–isn’t really a Constitution anymore. There are reasons why, in Catholic eyes, this parellel doesn’t really hold, but I’m telling you how it strikes Protestants.

Secondly, the “very few instances” you mention are precisely among the doctrines that Protestants tend to disagree with most vociferously. Again, the Protestant reflex here is to think, “if the Pope can unilaterally affirm the Immaculate Conception in one century, nothing’s stopping him from requiring [insert the questionable, overheated Catholic devotion of your choice] some time this century or the next.”

Again, there are reasonable Catholic responses to most of this, but I’m just letting you know what tends to go on in our heads & guts.

Well…this “president” cannot “rewrite the entire Constitution at will”…but yeah…I see now that precisely the points of contention are the few times this has been used…Being intellectually honest, I can understand that.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Well…this “president” cannot “rewrite the entire Constitution at will”…but yeah…I see now that precisely the points of contention are the few times this has been used…Being intellectually honest, I can understand that.

Sorry; I meant that “president” business as a hypothetical case for illustration, but I should have worded it a bit more clearly.

 

[Hesychios]

The real issue here is Papal Universal Jurisdiction.

As Vatican I so clearly stated:

1. …And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.
   7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.
   8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord’s flock.

And…

1. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

And…

1. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

And…

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

If there were no such claim, there would be no need to invest the natural infallibility of the church in one man’s work.

Logically, once we put the responsibility for the entire church in one man’s hands, the infallibility we expect of the church has to rest in that one man’s hand’s as well.

It makes perfect sense from that perspective, which is probably why the Council addressed the question of universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome before it tackled the issue of Papal infallibility.

However, history shows us that the Bishops of Rome did not have these kinds of responsibilities outside of his own Metropolitan See (central Italy) at all in the first Millennium, and only gradually accumulated this power in the west after the great schism. (Conveniently, the rest of the old church was not available to object to these new developments and put the brakes on.)

In the mean time, the primacy that would ordinarily be exercised in the early church fell to the Patriarch at Constantinople, where it rests today. Anyone studying what this entails can see that it was not much at all in the first millennium (and remains not very much), and never included the right to unilaterally declare doctrine for the church.

In Orthodox thinking, universal jurisdiction is a novelty. It did not exist while St Peter was alive, and not since. The infallibility of the church is invested in the consensus of the entire church, not monopolized by any one cleric. We have seen that all men, including the bishops at Rome, are fallible in themselves.

Only the Holy Trinity has Universal Jurisdiction. The Church as the Body of Christ is infallible only in that it is guided by the Paraclete. This is manifested through the whole church, not by any distinct individual.

 

[JonNC]

The real issue here is Papal Universal Jurisdiction.

As Vatican I so clearly stated:
If there were no such claim, there would be no need to invest the natural infallibility of the church in one man’s work.

Logically, once we put the responsibility for the entire church in one man’s hands, the infallibility we expect of the church has to rest in that one man’s hand’s as well.

It makes perfect sense from that perspective, which is probably why the Council addressed the question of universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome before it tackled the issue of Papal infallibility.

However, history shows us that the Bishops of Rome did not have these kinds of responsibilities outside of his own Metropolitan See (central Italy) at all in the first Millennium, and only gradually accumulated this power in the west after the great schism. (Conveniently, the rest of the old church was not available to object to these new developments and put the brakes on.)

In the mean time, the primacy that would ordinarily be exercised in the early church fell to the Patriarch at Constantinople, where it rests today. Anyone studying what this entails can see that it was not much at all in the first millennium (and remains not very much), and never included the right to unilaterally declare doctrine for the church.

In Orthodox thinking, universal jurisdiction is a novelty. It did not exist while St Peter was alive, and not since. The infallibility of the church is invested in the consensus of the entire church, not monopolized by any one cleric. We have seen that all men, including the bishops at Rome, are fallible in themselves.

Only the Holy Trinity has Universal Jurisdiction. The Church as the Body of Christ is infallible only in that it is guided by the Paraclete. This is manifested through the whole church, not by any distinct individual.

The Lutheran reformers also questioned universal jurisdiction. From:
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. **From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome. **

13] VII. Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several. 14] The same was observed [for a long time, not only in the East, but] also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance and apostolic practice, you must diligently keep and practice what is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordination properly, whatsoever bishops of the same province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one, which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the episcopate was conferred and hands laid on him.

15] Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

Since, therefore, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

16] Such superiority is impossible. For it is impossible for one bishop to be the overseer of the churches of the whole world, or for churches situated in the most distant lands to seek ordination [for all their ministers] from one. For it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ is scattered throughout the whole world; and to-day there are many churches in the East which do not seek ordination or confirmation from the Roman bishop [which have ministers ordained neither by the Pope nor his bishops]. Therefore, since such superiority [which the Pope, contrary to all Scripture, arrogates to himself] is impossible, and the churches in the greater part of the world have not acknowledged [nor made use of] it, it is sufficiently apparent that it was not instituted [by Christ, and does not spring from divine law].

17] VIII. Many ancient synods have been proclaimed and held in which the bishop of Rome did not preside; as that of Nice and most others. This, too, testifies that the Church did not then acknowledge the primacy or superiority of the bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[Sunflower15]

I have to say, that I’ve seen how other threads that begin with minor questions, end up aggressively disrespectful, angry, and even hateful…

I have begun a few threads with issues that are quite controversial, to say the least. And the replies have come from sources so diverse that I have to ask them, who are they…because I haven’t heard their tradition/religion/church before!

None of the replies have been disrespectful, hateful, distasteful, angry, or in any way “negative”…THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

I am learning very much. I am enjoying this forum. Hopefully, this is the intention of its existence. I just wanted to express my gratitude.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The real issue here is Papal Universal Jurisdiction.

As Vatican I so clearly stated:
If there were no such claim, there would be no need to invest the natural infallibility of the church in one man’s work.

Logically, once we put the responsibility for the entire church in one man’s hands, the infallibility we expect of the church has to rest in that one man’s hand’s as well.

It makes perfect sense from that perspective, which is probably why the Council addressed the question of universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome before it tackled the issue of Papal infallibility.

However, history shows us that the Bishops of Rome did not have these kinds of responsibilities outside of his own Metropolitan See (central Italy) at all in the first Millennium, and only gradually accumulated this power in the west after the great schism. (Conveniently, the rest of the old church was not available to object to these new developments and put the brakes on.)

In the mean time, the primacy that would ordinarily be exercised in the early church fell to the Patriarch at Constantinople, where it rests today. Anyone studying what this entails can see that it was not much at all in the first millennium (and remains not very much), and never included the right to unilaterally declare doctrine for the church.

In Orthodox thinking, universal jurisdiction is a novelty. It did not exist while St Peter was alive, and not since. The infallibility of the church is invested in the consensus of the entire church, not monopolized by any one cleric. We have seen that all men, including the bishops at Rome, are fallible in themselves.

Only the Holy Trinity has Universal Jurisdiction. The Church as the Body of Christ is infallible only in that it is guided by the Paraclete. This is manifested through the whole church, not by any distinct individual.

Gabriel of 12;

What we have here is a misunderstanding of what the Episcopal (Eucharist) of unity of Bishops and Peter. You dont have a Catholic church with out either one of these successors to the apostles, and you dont have the Catholic church Jesus built without Peter so says the Word of God. Trying to divide an authority that only Jesus himself reigns with only makes you in opposition to the living authority placed on earth by Jesus hijmself.

I think you carry your definition of infallibility too far with your personal opinion here. To be without this protection of infallibility of the paraclete from error, only leads one into more error.

Your observation of Peter from scripture falls short of “Truth” we know from scripture that Peter was first of the apostles, in fact Peter is recorded more times than any of the apostles, Peter is always mentioned before the apostles etc, etc. Your opinions here are very debatable from sacred scripture.

If one wants to reallly understand why Jesus built his church upon Peter, one has to have an understanding of what the Church is that Jesus built.

To be cont.