Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[Xeno.of.athens]

Do you mean RCC (as in Roman Catholic Church) or ROC (Russian Orthodox Church)?

Just say CC ;-)

 

[eleos1954]

That claim is incorrect.

The church is the body of Christ. And as such, it may speak on behalf of Christ, as the Holy Spirit leads. The church does not replace Christ. See these absurd to claim that it does. It is even more absurd to claim that somehow the church usurps the divinity of Christ. These notions expressed in your post are simply the result of somebody's imagination. They will not be found in Catholic documents. It is unpleasant to read such calumnies against the Catholic Church in Christian forums.

The Catholic Church does not claim that anybody is infallible, God alone excepted. Papal infallibility relates only to statesman on doctrine and morals. It is the statements that are infallible, not the pope.

Both, Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and the Catholic Church is the teacher of the faithful. Both are authorities. I don't see why anybody would have difficulty with that concept.

According to this theological position, sacred tradition is the foundation of the doctrinal and spiritual authority of Christianity and of the Bible. Thus, the Bible must be interpreted within the context of sacred tradition and within the community of the denomination.

The Roman Catholic view of authority concerning the interpretation of Scripture is that no individual believer is able (or permitted) to interpret the Scriptures, but must rely entirely upon the official interpretation of the Church.

Matthew 28:18

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

ALL authority belongs to Jesus ... there is no "both"

 

[Philip_B]

I'm not so sure that at the time, that is to say at 1054 AD, that the area of dispute was papal authority. A good number of things were in dispute. But jurisdiction was certainly one of them.

The Pope wanted the East to acknowledge the Universal Sovereignty of the Pope - a position not held by the Eastern Churches, who had readily acknowledged a primacy of honour in the canons of the 1st Council of Constantinople. So this is about the nature of Primacy.

The East had strongly objected to the insertion of the Filioque Clause in the Nicene Symbol, which in Rome seems to date from the 14th of February 1054. Up until that time the Church in Rome had not done so, in accord with the Councils and the anathemas of Ephesus. So this is about the Procession or the Holy Spirit which has a bearing on our understanding of the nature of the Trinity.

The third thing that is bound up in this is the matter of who has the authority to change the Creed. In the East, the argument was that it was a matter for the Councils whereas the Pope argued that he held the Keys and it was in his purview to determine the Creed. So this is about the Procedure required to change the fundamental universal declaration of the faith that unites us.

 

[Philip_B]

Just say CC ;-)

I could, of course, however, then I might get confused. When I say I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church I mean something other than that the church on the other side of the roundabout (or whatever in position is) there is a church is somehow the true church and mine is just flakey.

 

[dzheremi]

The point is that there are differences between, the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Catholic Church.

From my perspective, the Orthodox Church is in schism, some more than others. The Oriental Orthodox Church is just an entirely different matter, whether it is in schism or not is to be decided. I prefer to deal with people as they present themselves and as they present their point of view. In CF some of the Orthodox present their point of view with hostile terminology, I do not particularly like dealing with them.

But the point of this thread is to discuss the RC concept of the infallible authority of the Church, correct? So it's not about how in schism this or that other body is from your church, or whether or not you like dealing with EO (or OO, or any other) posters. This just seems like a distraction from the point, to no good end. What do you gain by mentioning OO or how we and the EO do not agree on some things that are completely unrelated to the Roman ecclesiology that neither of us agree with (and that is the actual topic of this thread)?

I don't understand. Are you just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks? Or do you think that we OO are somehow closer to you ecclesiologically than the EO? Because I don't think that's the case. My Armenian brother Tigran has already shared in this thread how we do not have this idea of one overarching authority that all the other churches must assent to, so the RC ecclesiological model absolutely does not work for us.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you mean RCC (as in Roman Catholic Church) or ROC (Russian Orthodox Church)?

Yeah thanks, I don’t know why I was typing ROC.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But we do not need to determine which side was at fault and which was not at fault. That is a mug's game. History is history, plays itself out in a context, but we. do not have full access to. It is better to be content with the facts and leave the interpretations to historians who seem to enjoy that kind of thing.

That is comparable to just flipping a coin in order to decide which church we’re going to believe. I decided to study the early church writings and early church history to find out what actually happened to the apostolic Church of God and where I could find them in this day and age because I believe that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus is actually telling us that His Church will remain throughout the ages. So I thought it was worth taking the time to find His Church. The reason I did this was because I had just recently discovered that reformed theology was incorrect and was in the process of reevaluating my theology. When Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits” that had an influence on my conclusions.

I'm not so sure that at the time, that is to say at 1054 AD, that the area of dispute was papal authority. A good number of things were in dispute. But jurisdiction was certainly one of them.

The schism happened as a direct result of the correspondence between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople on the topic of papal authority over all the churches.

I don't know why you believed that you would be getting non biassed information from Britannica and from Wikipedia.

Because they’re a secular source of information with a very good reputation for presenting facts. Why would secular sources be biased towards or against either side of the debate if they’re not influenced by religion?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why would secular sources be biased towards or against either side of the debate if they’re not influenced by religion?

Because they are influenced by religion. Religion influences almost everything. Britannica in particular would be influenced by British religion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I could, of course, however, then I might get confused. When I say I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church I mean something other than that the church on the other side of the roundabout (or whatever in position is) there is a church is somehow the true church and mine is just flakey.

On the global stage, I do think your church is a little bit flaky.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Pope wanted the East to acknowledge the Universal Sovereignty of the Pope - a position not held by the Eastern Churches, who had readily acknowledged a primacy of honour in the canons of the 1st Council of Constantinople. So this is about the nature of Primacy.

The East had strongly objected to the insertion of the Filioque Clause in the Nicene Symbol, which in Rome seems to date from the 14th of February 1054. Up until that time the Church in Rome had not done so, in accord with the Councils and the anathemas of Ephesus. So this is about the Procession or the Holy Spirit which has a bearing on our understanding of the nature of the Trinity.

The third thing that is bound up in this is the matter of who has the authority to change the Creed. In the East, the argument was that it was a matter for the Councils whereas the Pope argued that he held the Keys and it was in his purview to determine the Creed. So this is about the Procedure required to change the fundamental universal declaration of the faith that unites us.

Primacy procession and procedure. OK, fair enough, that's not a bad summary of the issues. The Council of Florence managed to reach a solution for procession at any rate. Seemingly it reached a solution for primacy too. Rome of course, pretty much always held that without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, no cannons from any council could be regarded as binding on the Universal Church.

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.​

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.​

​

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.​

​

Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church. Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.""" [Council of Florence]​

Procession is presented above.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Primacy has a look-in here

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he 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 the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.​

​

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights. [Council of Florence]​

 

[Philip_B]

On the global stage, I do think your church is a little bit flaky.

And I think yours is fallible, however, I believe that the whole church is essentially indefectible, and I think that says more about God than it says about we who serve him in our respective traditions.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because they are influenced by religion. Religion influences almost everything. Britannica in particular would be influenced by British religion.

And you just pulled that out of thin air with nothing to support your claim.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Primacy has a look-in here

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he 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 the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.​

​

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights. [Council of Florence]​

Yes and everyone who knows anything about church history knows that the councils of Florence and Trent were rejected by all of the apostolic churches.

 

[Philip_B]

Sourced from Wikipedia.

One of the problems with the period is that there was a great deal of politics, both secular and ecclesiastical, and of course pandemics, and a number of contenders and some confusion as to who had the keys. There was indeed too much politics and not enough piety.

I note with interest that your presumption is that a council is œcumenical if the Pope says it is, is not a presumption that others would accept. Referring to Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II as œcumenical is not something readily accepted in the East nor so much in the non CC west.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And you just pulled that out of thin air with nothing to support your claim.

And, of course, your claim was pulled out of what?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes and everyone who knows anything about church history knows that the councils of Florence and Trent were rejected by all of the apostolic churches.

Yeah, that's a convenient piece of rewritten history The Catholic Church accepts both councils.

 

[prodromos]

View attachment 342215

Sourced from Wikipedia.

One of the problems with the period is that there was a great deal of politics, both secular and ecclesiastical, and of course pandemics, and a number of contenders and some confusion as to who had the keys. There was indeed too much politics and not enough piety.

I note with interest that your presumption is that a council is œcumenical if the Pope says it is, is not a presumption that others would accept. Referring to Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II as œcumenical is not something readily accepted in the East nor so much in the non CC west.

When the Eastern delegation arrived in Basel at the end of 1431, there was a great deal of confusion as to who was actually the Pope, and it was years before Pope Eugene IV finally won them over. A new council was convoked in Ferrara in 1438 but was relocated to Florence the following year due to the plague.
The council in Florence then dragged on for another 10 years. All the while, the Eastern delegation were there at the Pope's pleasure as most did not have the funds to return home without Rome's financial assistance. Those that did have the means left long before the council's conclusion. So the Eastern Bishops were literally held there for almost two decades until the Latins got what they wanted. There was also the political pressure to come to an agreement so that Constantinople could secure military aid.
Compare that to the seven Ecumenical Councils which, with the exception of the 6th Council that took 11 months, were all finished in 2 or 3 months.

 

[dzheremi]

With regard to the attempted reunion at Florence, the article in the standard academic reference work on the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Coptic Encyclopedia (8 vols., ed. Aziz S. Attiya, published posthumously in 1988), has this to say in its closing paragraph, which I think sums up the reality of the situation quite well: "This one-sided union had no roots and was doomed to failure, for theological formulas were interpreted differently by both parties. The Romans understood it as a true submission of the Copts and Ethiopians to the Roman church, whereas the Copts and Ethiopians at first understood it as a reunion of equal partners and in the course of time rejected it along with its Latin interpretation." (Petro B. T. Bilaniuk, CE:1118b-1119b; vol. 4 in print; URL to digital version: Florence, Copts at the Council of)

It is important to remember this when the apologists of the RCC point to this as though we have actually been in agreement with them for centuries now, and it is only stubbornness that prevents us from seeing what our forefathers clearly saw as the truth. In reality, what actually happened there is that the RCC treated us as unequal partners from whom the assent of one Eastern church (say, the Greeks, who had signed on before the arrival of the representatives of the Copts and the Ethiopians) was used to exert pressure upon others to do the same, with no regard to who they were actually even talking to. Hence, Andreas, the representative selected from the Coptic Orthodox Monastery of St. Anthony on the Red Sea to represent the Copts, was made to sign a document "in the name of the Jacobites and his patriarch" (suspicious wording then as now, as "Jacobite" was/is a name affixed to the Syriac Orthodox in particular by their Chalcedonian enemies, in reference to the Syriac Orthodox bishop Jacob Baradaeus; it is not a name that any Coptic person would use to refer to their own Church), which affirmed union between the RCC and the Copts while simultaneously warning against 'errors' of the Copts and Ethiopians, which included things that were not only not controversial from the Coptic or Ethiopian perspective (venerating St. Dioscorus as a saint), but also things that are somewhat baffling more generally (supposedly not knowing about confirmation; omitting the filioque clause from the Creed, which wasn't even a thing in Latin Christianity until the late 6th century via Latin councils in Toledo that originally affirmed it, long after the Chalcedonian schism had been finalized). This being the case, can it be any wonder that the understandings of the respective parties as to what they were even doing there were different enough from the outset that the signed documents never really carried any weight in the non-RC churches in question? To me, this is the most obvious conclusion in the world, and the fact that so many RC apologists point to this council as though it is some sort of bright spot in RCC/non-RC relations is very telling. (Not in a good way.)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

With regard to the attempted reunion at Florence, the article in the standard academic reference work on the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Coptic Encyclopedia (8 vols., ed. Aziz S. Attiya, published posthumously in 1988), has this to say in its closing paragraph, which I think sums up the reality of the situation quite well: "This one-sided union had no roots and was doomed to failure, for theological formulas were interpreted differently by both parties. The Romans understood it as a true submission of the Copts and Ethiopians to the Roman church, whereas the Copts and Ethiopians at first understood it as a reunion of equal partners and in the course of time rejected it along with its Latin interpretation." (Petro B. T. Bilaniuk, CE:1118b-1119b; vol. 4 in print; URL to digital version: Florence, Copts at the Council of)

It is important to remember this when the apologists of the RCC point to this as though we have actually been in agreement with them for centuries now, and it is only stubbornness that prevents us from seeing what our forefathers clearly saw as the truth. In reality, what actually happened there is that the RCC treated us as unequal partners from whom the assent of one Eastern church (say, the Greeks, who had signed on before the arrival of the representatives of the Copts and the Ethiopians) was used to exert pressure upon others to do the same, with no regard to who they were actually even talking to. Hence, Andreas, the representative selected from the Coptic Orthodox Monastery of St. Anthony on the Red Sea to represent the Copts, was made to sign a document "in the name of the Jacobites and his patriarch" (suspicious wording then as now, as "Jacobite" was/is a name affixed to the Syriac Orthodox in particular by their Chalcedonian enemies, in reference to the Syriac Orthodox bishop Jacob Baradaeus; it is not a name that any Coptic person would use to refer to their own Church), which affirmed union between the RCC and the Copts while simultaneously warning against 'errors' of the Copts and Ethiopians, which included things that were not only not controversial from the Coptic or Ethiopian perspective (venerating St. Dioscorus as a saint), but also things that are somewhat baffling more generally (supposedly not knowing about confirmation; omitting the filioque clause from the Creed, which wasn't even a thing in Latin Christianity until the late 6th century via Latin councils in Toledo that originally affirmed it, long after the Chalcedonian schism had been finalized). This being the case, can it be any wonder that the understandings of the respective parties as to what they were even doing there were different enough from the outset that the signed documents never really carried any weight in the non-RC churches in question? To me, this is the most obvious conclusion in the world, and the fact that so many RC apologists point to this council as though it is some sort of bright spot in RCC/non-RC relations is very telling. (Not in a good way.)

Oh dear more tiresome partisan revisionism.