Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[BobRyan]

Well, as I wrote I am generally uninterested in having this debate, but one thing that you wrote at the end I would like to ask for your opinion on. Other than Sacred Scripture, what are the texts that you would say are inspired by God?

1 Cor 12 says that the gift of prophecy is given to the church ... that results in "inspired texts" but as 1 John 4:1-5 points out - everyone must be tested sola scriptura.

1 Cor 14 - as noted before shows that "when you come together each one has a revelation" -- resulting in a lot of inspired text but not in scripture. Scripture is a special form of inspired text meant for all and is meant as the core / basis for testing everything else.

Isaiah 8:20 points this out "to the Law and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to this world - they have no light" - sola scriptura testing has been around for a while. Isaiah 8 was not claiming that no more inspired text would be produced and it did not stop Christ in Mark 7 from applying the sola-scriptura test to see IF the things taught by the magisterium of His day - were contradicting the Word of God.

And what is interests is that I find several cases where your own Catholic documents show that they know what it is and how it is used in the sola scriptura model of scripture.

Have you read Mark 7:7-12?? What do you think of Christ's own demonstration showing how it is used to test doctrine, tradition, teaching?

 

[dzheremi]

Semantics. I don’t care what you call it, if you think your church teaches no error that is infallibility.

How is that infallibility by any stretch of the imagination? It's something that literally anyone could do. You just have to be serious about it and want to. Draw a doctrinal line in the sand, so to speak. For us, it's the first three ecumenical councils (325, 381, 431). We admit nothing outside of those.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And the west had no Arians or Iconoclasts?

The Catholic Church never taught Arianism but the Orthodox see of Constantinople did and Constantinople also taught Iconoclasm for decades on end. Other errors also arose with bad patriarchs in Constantinople, Nestorianism being one, Photianism is another, and in the latter case the Orthodox still count Photius a saint, which helps to explain why they cling fast to his heresy to this day.

The truth is that the Holy See of Rome has never taught as Church dogma or Church doctrine any heresy ever. That is not so of the other Patriarchal sees of the east.

 

[BobRyan]

I would say that Scripture is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. Protestants have all had the same Bible for 500 years and cannot come to an agreement on baptism and the real presence.

Jews had the same Bible for centuries and differed with each other at the time of Christ. That did not stop Christ from using the Mark 7 - sola scriptura test - to show that their tradition was in error.

The point remains.

 

[IcyChain]

How is that infallibility by any stretch of the imagination? It's something that literally anyone could do. You just have to be serious about it and want to. Draw a doctrinal line in the sand, so to speak. For us, it's the first three ecumenical councils (325, 381, 431). We admit nothing outside of those.

A declaration that your church teaches no error, it having been in existence for nearly 2000 years, is tantamount to a belief that your church is incapable of doing so, you just refuse to admit it.

You think that your particular church has the correct doctrine, and that anyone else on the Earth who disagrees with that doctrine is incorrect.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Nope. We do not credit it to anyone being infallible

Neither do we; we do not count any pope as innately infallible, all popes sin, all have confessors, all need to be forgiven, yet no pope has ever taught as Catholic dogma any error and papal infallibility means only that a pope, when speaking ex cathedra, has the chrism of infallibility for the statement he makes ex cathedra.

It seems that you've claimed something similar for your Church, it is according to you without error, and as such must have had the chrism of infallibility in it to maintain error free teaching for two thousand years. Take a moment to consider how this thread started:

The Church has authority from God to teach regarding faith and morals, and in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost.​

The prerogative of infallibility is clearly deduced from the attributes of the Church: the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Preaching the same creed everywhere and at all times; teaching holiness and truth, she is, of course, essentially unerring in her doctrine; for what is one, holy or unchangeable must be infallibly true.​

This is what the thread is about. It is not specifically about papal infallibility.

 

[BobRyan]

No doubt God is fully capable of the 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy and in 1 Cor 14 when they meet "each one has a revelation" that is from God as the chapter says.

But they are still all tested "sola scriptura" including Paul himself in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" - (the very thing - so many refuse to do)

A practice Paul approves of in Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should come to you bringing a different doctrine - let him be accursed" -- so then "rank" in the church means nothing if the one with rank teaches contrary to scripture.

The "protesting Catholics" of Luther's day made some of these same arguments.

====================== Jesus makes the sola scriptura testing process very very obvious and easy to follow in Mark 7

Mark 7:
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

I like how that now ends --


Mark 7:
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

=======================

And of course Catholic sources themselves admit to knowing when they are violating that rule

 

[dzheremi]

The Catholic Church never taught Arianism but the Orthodox see of Constantinople did and Constantinople also taught Iconoclasm for decades on end. Other errors also arose with bad patriarchs in Constantinople, Nestorianism being one, Photianism is another, and in the latter case the Orthodox still count Photius a saint, which helps to explain why they cling fast to his heresy to this day.

The truth is that the Holy See of Rome has never taught as Church dogma or Church doctrine any heresy ever. That is not so of the other Patriarchal sees of the east.

I'm not going to touch anything having to do with the Eastern Orthodox in particular, since I'm not one, but your view of history is absolutely crazy. Do you just close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and hum really loudly when anyone brings us, say, Pope Honorius, who was condemned for heresy in Pope Leo II's letter to the Third Council of Constantinople (681)? Here's the 'money quote', in case anyone is curious:

"We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."​

So who should we believe -- the Pope of your Church in the seventh century writing to an ecumenical council that your Church affirms, or you, right now, teaching something other than what your own father wrote concerning the supposed 'infallibility' of the Popes of Rome?

 

[IcyChain]

Jews had the same Bible for centuries and differed with each other at the time of Christ. That did not stop Christ from using the Mark 7 - sola scriptura test - to show that their tradition was in error.

The point remains.

The Bible can certainly be used to show that certain traditions are false. The best example of that is the false tradition of sola scriptura and sola fide that must Protestants hold. Search the scriptures my friend and you will find the truth.

 

[dzheremi]

A declaration that your church teaches no error, it having been in existence for nearly 2000 years, is tantamount to a belief that your church is incapable of doing so, you just refuse to admit it.

No it isn't. You asked me if I thought we did, not if we could. Of course anyone could. That's the point. That's why we don't have this idea of infallibility in the first place. Because no one in the Church is infallible, anyone could start going off on an erroneous path. We've had more than enough people thrown out of the Church over the centuries to prove this. I gave the most recent, highest-profile example I know of in my first post in this thread, so I don't know why you are insisting that our ecclesiology is somehow just RCC ecclesiology, but in disguise. That's just silly and incorrect.

You think that your particular church has the correct doctrine, and that anyone else on the Earth who disagrees with that doctrine is incorrect.

What on earth are you talking about? You asked me if I thought that my Church had any particular erroneous doctrines and I said no. The rest of this appears to be you getting worked up about things I never said. What a strange way to approach a conversation with someone you've never conversed with before!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."​

So who should we believe -- the Pope of your Church in the seventh century writing to an ecumenical council that your Church affirms, or you, right now, teaching something other than what your own father wrote concerning the supposed 'infallibility' of the Popes of Rome?

Here is something to think about

Pope Honorius I was the bishop of Rome from 27 October 625 to his death on 12 October 638 1. He is chiefly remembered for his correspondence with Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople over the latter’s monothelite teachings 1. Honorius was posthumously anathematized, initially for subscribing to monothelitism, and later only for failing to end it 1. The anathema against Honorius I became one of the central arguments against the doctrine of papal infallibility 1.​

​

According to one source, Honorius’s words were used by the Monothelites in defence of their doctrine, but the words were in another context. Honorius meant to deny that Christ’s will was opposed to the Father’s, not to assert that Christ only had a divine will. Honorius was no heretic, and did not teach heresy 2. However, some sources claim that Pope Honorius I supported the heretical doctrine of those who promoted Monotheletism, thereby helping to spread this heresy 3. Opponents of infallibility said that his case demolished any pretension of papal infallibility, for he was not only a heretic but was condemned as such by an ecumenical council, Constantinople III, in 680, which declared, 42 years after the Pope’s death, that Honorius be “expelled from the Church and anathematized” 4.​

​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm not going to touch anything having to do with the Eastern Orthodox in particular, since I'm not one, but your view of history is absolutely crazy. Do you just close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and hum really loudly when anyone brings us, say, Pope Honorius, who was condemned for heresy in Pope Leo II's letter to the Third Council of Constantinople (681)? Here's the 'money quote', in case anyone is curious:

"We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."​

So who should we believe -- the Pope of your Church in the seventh century writing to an ecumenical council that your Church affirms, or you, right now, teaching something other than what your own father wrote concerning the supposed 'infallibility' of the Popes of Rome?

By the way, does your own church condemn Monothelitism?

And why are you quoting a canon from a council that your church does not recognise as oecumenical? Surely it has no more significance for Coptic Christians than does the council of the Lateran III.

XI. THIRD LATERAN COUNCIL
Year: 1179
Summary: The Third Lateran Council took place under Pope Alexander III, Frederick I being emperor. There were 302 bishops present. It condemned the Albigenses and Waldenses and issued numerous decrees for the reformation of morals.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09017b.htm

 

[dzheremi]

Here is something to think about

Pope Honorius I was the bishop of Rome from 27 October 625 to his death on 12 October 638 1. He is chiefly remembered for his correspondence with Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople over the latter’s monothelite teachings 1. Honorius was posthumously anathematized, initially for subscribing to monothelitism, and later only for failing to end it 1. The anathema against Honorius I became one of the central arguments against the doctrine of papal infallibility 1.​

​

According to one source, Honorius’s words were used by the Monothelites in defence of their doctrine, but the words were in another context. Honorius meant to deny that Christ’s will was opposed to the Father’s, not to assert that Christ only had a divine will. Honorius was no heretic, and did not teach heresy 2. However, some sources claim that Pope Honorius I supported the heretical doctrine of those who promoted Monotheletism, thereby helping to spread this heresy 3. Opponents of infallibility said that his case demolished any pretension of papal infallibility, for he was not only a heretic but was condemned as such by an ecumenical council, Constantinople III, in 680, which declared, 42 years after the Pope’s death, that Honorius be “expelled from the Church and anathematized” 4.​

​

Gee...it almost seems like you're saying that then-Pope Leo II erred in condemning his predecessor, then. I guess it's a good thing for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility that it clearly wasn't over a matter concerning faith and morals, right?

 

[AlightSeeker]

"You're saying my faith is false." No, I think that what was said amounts to "Your doctrines are just made up as you go along, you read and passage and invent a doctrine. Some of the doctrines you invent are correct or nearly correct and some are just wrong."

My friend, I need to share something. Last night when I was talking I felt foolish. I repented as you saw. I felt like I failed the Lord. But I humbled myself and apologized to you folks. I woke up today and realized the problem. I did indeed fail him. Now if this isn't proof of the Lord leading me then I don't what is. I share this for our benefit. To edify us all. You can think me a fool or you can heed this warning from the Lord. We must love and care for our own flesh. This is being a child of God. We need to examine ourselves here and see if we truly walk in the faith..This I feel is like a test. We must walk in wisdom here. Let's not walk around stumbling in the dark not seeing what we do. The light of the lord shines in the darkness here. Let's walk in the light as children of God and prove ourselves worthy to be called Gods own children. It's a high calling and God demands holiness and love.


Ephesians 51Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved [a]you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.

3 But sexual immorality [c]or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among [d]saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness [e]or foolish talk, or vulgar joking, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no sexually immoral or [f]impure or greedy person, which [g]amounts to an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

6 See that no one deceives you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the [h]sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 as you try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Do not participate in the useless deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. 14 For this reason [j]it says,

“Awake, sleeper,

And arise from the dead,

And Christ will shine on you.”

15 So then, [k]be careful how you walk, not as unwise people but as wise, 16 [l]making the most of your time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, [m]in which there is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to [n]one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father; 21 [o]and subject yourselves to one another in the [p]fear of Christ.

Marriage like Christ and the Church

22 Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are parts of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, as for you individually, each husband is to love his own wife the same as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No it isn't. You asked me if I thought we did, not if we could. Of course anyone could. That's the point. That's why we don't have this idea of infallibility in the first place.

I see, what do you make of Jesus words to the apostles then?

And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.​

(Matthew 16:17-20 DRB)
And Saint Paul's words

Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.​

(1 Thessalonians 2:13 DRB)
Were they wrong? Is the Church susceptible of error and being overcome by the gates of hell, as falling into error would be?

And what do you make of these words?

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.​

(Luke 10:13-16 KJV)
Does the Coptic Church reject them? Surely they imply a certain infallibility regarding what the Church teaches.

 

[dzheremi]

By the way, does your own church condemn Monothelitism?

Monothelitism was too late in the historical timeline for the vast majority of Coptic people to know what it is, so I would be surprised if there were anything addressing it in particular, though we do know that it is against what is taught about Christ in our churches, as we are not big fans of mono-anything. (*cough*)

And why are you quoting a canon from a council that your church does not recognise as oecumenical?

Because your church does recognize it as being ecumenical. Duh. This thread is about Rome, so I am making the point that Rome's present ecclesiology is not in keeping with its historical ecclesiological stance.

Surely it has no more significance for Coptic Christians than does the council of the Lateran III.

Until very recently, virtually nothing Rome had done since the 15th century or so even involved any Coptic Orthodox people, so sure. Again, that's not the point. My Church is not the topic of the thread.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Gee...it almost seems like you're saying that then-Pope Leo II erred in condemning his predecessor, then. I guess it's a good thing for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility that it clearly wasn't over a matter concerning faith and morals, right?

It would be better if your reply dealt with what I wrote rather than entering into a bit of sarcasm with no substance.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My Church is not the topic of the thread.

I see, so you think of your church as being outside of and separated from the Catholic Church.

 

[dzheremi]

I see, what do you make of Jesus words to the apostles then?

And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.​

(Matthew 16:17-20 DRB)
And Saint Paul's words

Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.​

(1 Thessalonians 2:13 DRB)
Were they wrong? Is the Church susceptible of error and being overcome by the gates of hell, as falling into error would be?

And what do you make of these words?

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.​

(Luke 10:13-16 KJV)
Does the Coptic Church reject them? Surely they imply a certain infallibility regarding what the Church teaches.

First of all, we are in conformity with the more general Orthodox opinion (I believe also shared by the Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonians, even) that the 'rock' spoken of by Christ was a description of St. Peter's faith, not a promise made to St. Peter himself. I have heard my own priest talk about this over the Agape meal, on a few different occasions.

Second of all, nothing that you have presented above implies infallibility to anyone who doesn't have to defend the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the first place, so don't try to drag my Church into your Church's mess, thank you. We do not share in your ecclesiology, as I just explained a little bit ago to the other guy who asked about the Coptic Orthodox Church. Saying "We do not believe that we teach anything erroneous" is not the same as claiming "We are divinely protected from having any errant leadership." Consider this: the same St. Peter to whom Christ addressed the words in your first quote would famously go on to deny Jesus three times before His crucifixion. Where was his 'infallibility' then? Or is denying Christ somehow not a matter of faith and morals?

 

[BobRyan]

Neither do we; we do not count any pope as innately infallible, all popes sin, all have confessors, all need to be forgiven, yet no pope has ever taught as Catholic dogma any error

Lateran IV - ecumenical council calling for "The extermination of heretics" -- clearly that was error. Thousands of Christians put to death over the following centuries because of what "Pope Innocent III" did at that time.

Also - the Pope "Forever" abolished the Jesuit order "by all the powers and full authority" of his chair/office - - only to have it return.