Would it be Possible to "Roll Back" or "Develop" V1's Papal Infallibility or is it Part of the Unchanging "Deposit of Faith"?

[Vonsalza]

Actually, we are not. You are fishing for cube critters so your tv dinners can be presented as square meals (thought I throw in more muck into the exchange).

Um. ok…

The deduction is only required to put together Scriptures and what I’ve stated–which runs counter to your claims.

Not really. I’m not the one claiming to need deduction in order to construe scripture into supporting the power enjoyed by the papacy since, roughly, the 13th century.

You are. You need deduction. I don’t.

Scripture doesn’t name Peter as immediate, infallible nor supreme. So per the eastern interpretation, he simply isn’t. *shrug.

Let’s try “piece work:”
I can’t explain it any clearer!

The first two EC’s both condemned Arianism - and the latter was Constantinople I which occurred after the death of Sylvester (which might be the council your text is referring to? If not, then it’s not referring to an ecumenical council, which makes it less than useful).
This means the majority of the bishops of the Church condemned it in both instances.

On this point, sorry Jcrichton. That’s “check and mate”. The majority of bishops never affirmed it. Quite the contrary, actually.

Exactly because you (you, the East and the non-Catholics) seek autonomy.

No “we” don’t. We seek rule by the Christ’s Church and not one man. And as the modern view of the papacy didn’t really get underway by most secular accounts until the 13th century, the eastern view sure seems to have some pretty solid ground to stand on. It doesn’t require “development” and “deriving” in the same way the Catholic interpretation requires.

Yes, the biased understanding that I Follow Christ not man nor any “feel good” theology.

Simply put, Christ never gave Peter the power you want to give him. By your own word, you must derive those powers upon him.

Reminds me of the snake deriving unto Eve why she should eat the fruit, right?

Jesus made this clear when He stated that the tree is known by its fruit!

Yes. And in 2000 years, the fruit consistently yielded time and time again by the Roman papacy is division. As such, the supreme, infallible and immediate interpretation of it cannot be Christ’s. It’s man’s. Or the devil’s.

 

[jcrichton]

Not really. I’m not the one claiming to need deduction in order to construe scripture into supporting the power enjoyed by the papacy since, roughly, the 13th century.

You are. You need deduction. I don’t.

Scripture doesn’t name Peter as immediate, infallible nor supreme. So per the eastern interpretation, he simply isn’t. *shrug.

Actually, you are the one showing up with “deductive abilities:”

Because you almost never directly answer the objection, you typically redirect with a counter-point-Which is fine, but when you do that, the objection still remains for those smart enough to follow along…

You’ve deduced that since I come to a different understanding of Scriptures and what the Primacy of Peter is, I must not be “smart enough” since I must agree with you to be “smart enough” as the rest of the people who agree with you are.

Alas!, just like eisegesis… it does not make it right to feel you are “smart enough”/smarter than those who disagree with your tenet; it only means that you “deduced” what your preconception gifted you: ‘me right, you not right.’

No “we” don’t. We seek rule by the Christ’s Church and not one man. And as the modern view of the papacy didn’t really get underway by most secular accounts until the 13th century, the eastern view sure seems to have some pretty solid ground to stand on. It doesn’t require “development” and “deriving” in the same way the Catholic interpretation requires.

Again, whose deducing?

The first infallible Teaching came right at Pentecost:

19 19But Peter and John replied, "Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! (Acts 4)

You confuse vocabulary with the actual act/action it defines; it was not till St. Paul’s Missionary beginnings at Antioch that those of the Way became known as Christians… were they not Christians prior to the term defined by vocabulary as “Christians?”

…it was not till the forth century that the Canon of Scriptures was created/authorized… were Christians without Sacred Scriptures for nearly four century?

…I can go on with vocabulary and the actual act/activity/practice that it defines… but being “smart enough” you probably do not need additional examples.

Yes. And in 2000 years, the fruit consistently yielded time and time again by the Roman papacy is division

Right, it was the Papacy that forced you to reject the Holy Trinity and it is the Papacy that continues to hold that each body in the east act according to its own patriarch (term which even the Jews do not employ), and it is the Pope that continues to hold the breach in the Body of Christ by not voting himself out of office and offering the world for the East to convert (oh, wait, the East does not want to shepherd anyone other than those from the east, my bad).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Dovekin]

the chancellor’s concerns seem to be a bit over the top

I am not so sure. As Vatican I came to an end, Garribaldi’s armies took possession of the Papal states for Italy. I am sure the deliberations in the Council were often presented as a defense of Papal sovereignty over the Papal states. That barely figures into our considerations now when we discuss infallibility, but it was a real concern at the time.

The sovereign independence of the Pope is indicated in the discussion at V1, but it is influenced by political factors. At V2 that is less of a concern, and the role of bishops is developed better.

 

[Dovekin]

sessions 1-4 of VAT I

in particular may I suggest reading all 4 chapters of session 4, not just ch 4 only
Intratext Vat I session 4 ch’s 1-4

Good advice.

If you do it again, I recommend ch 3 particularly.

 

[po18guy]

Revealed truth cannot be compromised in a search for unity. An extreme example of 100% unity is a lynch mob. It is also a demonstration of pure democracy in action.

Rather, allow the work toward unity to continue - it must not be absolutely successful in God’s eyes - only that we work toward it with charity and within the truth.

 

[tafan2]

I am late to this thread, but would suggest the start of answering the OP question could come from St John Paul II encyclical, Ut Unim Sint, paragraphs 88 through 96 in particular:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

 

[Vonsalza]

You’ve deduced that since I come to a different understanding of Scriptures and what the Primacy of Peter is, I must not be “smart enough” since I must agree with you to be “smart enough” as the rest of the people who agree with you are.

If you don’t have anything constructive to add, I’d refrain from responding. When folks try to poison wells, draft strawmen or otherwise attempt to assassinate their opponent’s character, they absolutely hemorrhage credibility.

Alas!, just like eisegesis… it does not make it right to feel you are “smart enough”/smarter than those who disagree with your tenet; it only means that you “deduced” what your preconception gifted you: ‘me right, you not right.’

No. What I want you to understand is “Me possible. Only ‘impossible’ by raw fiat rather than reason”.

I’m sorry that your innate reaction seems to be to attack that reality.

The first infallible Teaching came right at Pentecost:

19 19But Peter and John replied, "Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! (Acts 4)

Right. “Peter and John”. Seems to fit the Orthodox view pretty well…

…it was not till the forth century that the Canon of Scriptures was created/authorized… were Christians without Sacred Scriptures for nearly four century?

Of course not. They had the bishops - heirs of the apostles.

Bishops. Note the plural form.

Right, it was the Papacy that forced you to reject the Holy Trinity…

When did I reject the Trinity?

If you’re referring to Orthodoxy, then you’re probably referring to Oriental Orthodoxy that “rejected the trinity” because the warring parties were too busy talking past each other since the Orientals don’t actually reject the trinity, by and large.

and it is the Papacy that continues to hold that each body in the east act according to its own patriarch

Reminds me of the crusader capture of Jerusalem where the Latin crusaders ignored the Christian Patriarch that was already there. He was Greek, you see.

---

I suggest taking a few deep breaths before replying further. You’re getting a bit vitriolic in the face of what is otherwise rational discussion.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

sessions 1-4 of VAT I

in particular may I suggest reading all 4 chapters of session 4, not just ch 4 only
Intratext Vat I session 4 ch’s 1-4

Good advice.

If you do it again, I recommend ch 3 particularly.

It’s all building up to what is said in ch 4

__"What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:__

_ The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled._"57

Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:

"The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church."58

Point being, the Greeks also agreed, that this authority for the Roman Pontiff, goes back to Jesus and Peter. How often do we here the complete denial of this from opponents to this here on these forums

 

[Vonsalza]

the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:

The 2nd council of Lyon was attended “by the east” through only the Catholic ambassador to the Byzantine Emperor and a handful of Greek clergy, with not even the Patriarch of Constantinople being in attendance.

Your assumption that the Byzantine ambassador from Aragon and a few Greek priests can speak for all of Orthodoxy is proof positive that you genuinely don’t understand Orthodox ecclesiology, Steve. For starters, you understand only part of it is Greek, right?

Right?

Frankly, you’ve shown time and again that you just don’t want to understand it. The Ecumenical Patriarch isn’t “the Greek pope”. If you want to forge an agreement binding upon, say, the Serbian Orthodox Church, then guess who you need to invite to council?
(I’ll give you a hint: They’re not Greek.)

How often do we here the complete denial of this from opponents to this here on these forums

QED

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:

The 2nd council of Lyon was attended “by the east” through only the Catholic ambassador to the Byzantine Emperor and a handful of Greek clergy, with not even the Patriarch of Constantinople being in attendance.

Your assumption that the Byzantine ambassador from Aragon and a few Greek priests can speak for all of Orthodoxy is proof positive that you genuinely don’t understand Orthodox ecclesiology, Steve. For starters, you understand only part of it is Greek, right?

Right?

Frankly, you’ve shown time and again that you just don’t want to understand it. The Ecumenical Patriarch isn’t “the Greek pope”. If you want to forge an agreement binding upon, say, the Serbian Orthodox Church, then guess who you need to invite to council?
(I’ll give you a hint: They’re not Greek.)

How often do we here the complete denial of this from opponents to this here on these forums

QED

Vonsalza,

as you can see, (if you’d open links) I didn’t give my opinion. I quoted, and gave my source properly referenced. Where’s YOUR source?

In addition

From Florence

Session 13 (1444)
Session 14 (1445)

you’ll see how various single Eastern Churches were negotiated with. While the followers of Mark of Ephesus rescinded their agreement at Florence being coerced by Mark after they returned home . Other churches as you can see, remained to their promise, and remained reunited with Rome.

This policy of the Catholic Church negotiating with individual Orthodox churches has been going on ever since, because as you know the Orthodox are all independent churches. NO ONE speaks for all of them. They speak for themselves individually.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

In one understanding, the Pope on his own can issue teachings that are binding on everyone. “If the rest of the Church catholic disagrees, tough! per Vatican 1”

What mischaracterization? My next sentence says this is not what V1 intended, ie that the position I posted does not properly characterize what V1 said. Rather, I directly quoted an understanding of another post here. Are you saying I mischaracterized him? My apologies if that is so.

How would you properly charaterize the last part of V1’s definition of infallibility? (emphasis added by you)

such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza,

as you can see, (if you’d open links) I didn’t give my opinion. I quoted, and gave my source properly referenced. Where’s YOUR source?

You need me to source that Lyon II’s eastern delegation was only the Byzantine ambassador from Aragon and some Greek clergy? Did you read your own citation from Lyon II?

Also, you need me to source that Greek clergy can’t authoritatively speak for, as examples, the Serbian or Bulgarian Orthodox Churches? This is fine, I guess. But if that’s the case, you genuinely don’t know enough about Orthodoxy to intelligently critique it - offered honestly and with no malintent.

While the followers of Mark of Ephesus rescinded their agreement at Florence being coerced by Mark after they returned home

Mark of Ephesus didn’t sign the agreement.

Other churches as you can see, remained to their promise, and remained reunited with Rome.

The capitulation of the clergy around Constantinople (excepting Mark of Ephesus) was coerced by the Byzantine Emperor in exchange for western military support since the Byzantine Empire, at that point, was pretty much the city of Constantinople and not much else. The Turks were at the door.
At the bargaining table, the east was finally out of “chips”.

But the support didn’t materialize. The Turks captured the city 4 years after the council ended.

For the Greeks, it was yet more Latin betrayal and reneging on perennially empty Latin promises.

This policy of the Catholic Church negotiating with individual Orthodox churches has been going on ever since, because as you know the Orthodox are all independent churches. NO ONE speaks for all of them. They speak for themselves individually.

If you knew this, makes me wonder why you even mentioned Lyon II. At any rate, it’s good you know this.

 

[steve-b]

Dovekin:

In one understanding, the Pope on his own can issue teachings that are binding on everyone. “If the rest of the Church catholic disagrees, tough! per Vatican 1”

Dovekin:

What mischaracterization? My next sentence says this is not what V1 intended, ie that the position I posted does not properly characterize what V1 said. Rather, I directly quoted an understanding of another post here. Are you saying I mischaracterized him? My apologies if that is so.

How would you properly charaterize the last part of V1’s definition of infallibility? (emphasis added by you)

“such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable”

Isn’t that last quote. self explanatory?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Vonsalza,

as you can see, (if you’d open links) I didn’t give my opinion. I quoted, and gave my source properly referenced. Where’s YOUR source?

You need me to source that Lyon II’s eastern delegation was only the Byzantine ambassador from Aragon and some Greek clergy? Did you read your own citation from Lyon II?

Also, you need me to source that Greek clergy can’t authoritatively speak for, as examples, the Serbian or Bulgarian Orthodox Churches? This is fine, I guess. But if that’s the case, you genuinely don’t know enough about Orthodoxy to intelligently critique it - offered honestly and with no malintent.

While the followers of Mark of Ephesus rescinded their agreement at Florence being coerced by Mark after they returned home

Mark of Ephesus didn’t sign the agreement.

Other churches as you can see, remained to their promise, and remained reunited with Rome.

Vonsalza:

The capitulation of the clergy around Constantinople (excepting Mark of Ephesus) was coerced by the Byzantine Emperor in exchange for western military support since the Byzantine Empire, at that point, was pretty much the city of Constantinople and not much else. The Turks were at the door.
At the bargaining table, the east was finally out of “chips”.

But the support didn’t materialize. The Turks captured the city 4 years after the council ended.

For the Greeks, it was yet more Latin betrayal and reneging on perennially empty Latin promises.

This policy of the Catholic Church negotiating with individual Orthodox churches has been going on ever since, because as you know the Orthodox are all independent churches. NO ONE speaks for all of them. They speak for themselves individually.

Vonsalza:

If you knew this, makes me wonder why you even mentioned Lyon II. At any rate, it’s good you know this.

Vat 1 & Vat II were quoted. If you opened links you wouldn’t keep making the same mistake over and over again

 

[Dovekin]

“such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable ”

Apparently not, if it can be mischaracterized.

Try it this way. How does “not by the consent of the Church” differ from “if the rest of the Church catholic disagrees, tough!”?

I would rather you say what you think its obvious meaning is, but if you can say what you think is mischaracterized, that would be okay.

 

[Randolph]

Your comment was probably the most accurate comment on this forum in quite awhile… The “spiritors” of the time have now become the dictators.

 

[steve-b]

“such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable ”

Re: not by consent of the Church, explained

"Finally, we do not separate the pope actively teaching from the Church passively consenting to his doctrine, provided we do make this consent a condition for papal infallibility, either before or after a definition is made. So that juridically, the pope’s decision does not require approval from the bishops or the body of the faithful in order to take effect. Actually, however, this consent of the Church can never be withheld. As we believe that the pope is objectively infallible by divine assistance, we thereby believe also that the subjective assent of the Church can never be wanting to these definitions. For it is impossible that the whole body of bishops can be separated from their head or that the universal Church can fail.
Is Papal Infallibility Absolute? Since absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, it cannot be predicated of the pope, as may be gathered from the limitations set forth in the Vatican definition. But there was another concept of “absolute” which the opposition claimed would be verified if the pope were declared infallible independently of the bishops. They urged that the help of the Church or its assent, that is, the witness and counsel of the bishops cannot be excluded from the definition of infallibility. This opinion was proposed not by an appeal to the Scriptures but to certain axioms. In resolving these axioms, the correct notion of infallibility will also be clarified.
The first axiom is: “The members should be joined to the head and the head to the members.” And another: “As the bishops can do nothing in making dogmas of faith without the pope, similarly the pope can do nothing without them.” In both axioms the first part is true, because decrees of faith even made by a general council are not infallible unless confirmed by the pope; although the reason is not because the Church’s infallibility resides only in the pope and from him is derived and communicated to the Church. The true reason is that this infallibility was given by Christ to the whole magisterium, i.e., to the apostles along with Peter. But conversely, can the pope do nothing without the bishops? Not so, for Christ said to Peter alone, “Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church,” and “I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail…. Do thou strengthen thy brethren.”
A third axiom says:

[snip for space]

Whoever contends that the pope, either for information, or for an infallible judgment on faith or morals, depends wholly on the manifested consent of the bishops, or on their help, professes the false principle of Gallicanism,

[snip for space]
From Fr John Hardon Fr. Hardon Archives - Christ to Catholicism - Chapter IX. Papal Infallibility

 

[Dovekin]

we do not separate the pope actively teaching from the Church passively consenting to his doctrine… For it is impossible that the whole body of bishops can be separated from their head or that the universal Church can fail

IOW, Papal infallibility is limited to teaching what the universal Church believes.

 

[steve-b]

we do not separate the pope actively teaching from the Church passively consenting to his doctrine… For it is impossible that the whole body of bishops can be separated from their head

But many can be separate.

Dovekin:

or that the universal Church can fail**

The Catholic Church built on Peter, won’t fail. That’s true as Fr Hardon wrote.

Dovekin:

IOW, Papal infallibility is limited to teaching what the universal Church believes.

From: Gallicanism | Catholic Answers

…. “When the Vatican Council opened, in 1869, it had in France only timid defenders. When that council declared that the pope has in the Church the plenitude of jurisdiction in matters of faith, morals, discipline, and administration, that his decisions ex cathedra are of themselves, and without the assent of the Church, infallible and irreformable, it dealt Gallicanism a mortal blow. Three of the four articles were directly condemned”….

Look up the 4 articles that were condemned

AND

Re: the previous link to Fr Hardon, Who gave us papal infallibility?

 

[Dovekin]

So you agree with me?

Papal infallibility is limited to teaching what the universal Church believes.