Is the Papacy True?

[SingularityOne]

The early Church was conciliar.

 

[buzuxi02]

The papacy is a heresy not a church.

 

[buzuxi02]

Agreed, though as one RC pointed out to me, this is an argumentum ad populum. So, just because more (or the vast preponderance of) saints believed in the Orthodox ecclesiology, that does not make it correct. Granted, I think that this argumentum ad populum is justified given the writings of St Vincent de Lerins and the comments of the Apostles in Acts 11 and 15 on discerning doctrinal matters, but it does show RCs and EOs have logical ecclesiologies with differing presuppositions.

Perhaps the strongest feather in the RC cap is the Formula of Hormisidas (sp?) which explicitly taught papism, and eastern churches signed onto it. However, even then, as evidenced by the qualification the Constantinopolitan Bishop gave, the Papal claims to authority were thought to be shared by the other Bishops--sort of like Cyprian writing that every Bishop is Peter. Ultimately, if we seek the mind of the fathers, we have to be Orthodox--unless the only fathers we listen to are Popes.

The formula of Pope Horsmidas is not what the Latins make it out to be. The last article in the Horsmidas formula says the pope must also agree with Constantinople and have unanimity as the two sees are one. Thirty five years later Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical council for defending the three chapters heresy, so much for this formula.

 

[buzuxi02]

Ah, forgive me. I assumed that you were referring to Rome and Antioch as the two Petrine sees, as those were the two traditionally recognized on the Roman calendar itself (January 18th and February 22nd, respectively), dating back to before the Great Schism (see the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, c. 8th century), whereas as far as I know Alexandria never had such an honor.

In 382 after Constantinople was elevated to the 2nd rank on the diptychs, Rome invented the "Petrine Theory" under Pope Damasus. Basically the three thrones of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are all recognized by the canons of Nicea due to their Petrine origin. Alexandria being found by the disciple of Peter and who wrote his gospel while in Rome. This was played up for about 100-150 years by Rome to counter Constantinople's growing influence. It was Pope Damasus who coined the phrase "Apostolic See" for Rome to give it added importance over "new rome".

 

[abacabb3]

The formula of Pope Horsmidas is not what the Latins make it out to be. The last article in the Horsmidas formula says the pope must also agree with Constantinople and have unanimity as the two sees are one. Thirty five years later Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical council for defending the three chapters heresy, so much for this formula.

Well, "the last article" as you put it was not added by the Pope but by the Bishop of Constantinople, for obvious reasons. Further, Vigilius ultimately relented if memory serves me right. Prison does that sometimes.

 

[buzuxi02]

Well, "the last article" as you put it was not added by the Pope but by the Bishop of Constantinople, for obvious reasons. Further, Vigilius ultimately relented if memory serves me right. Prison does that sometimes.

Yes and not only did the emperor allow it Justinian codified it into law in Justinians novella 131. The fact that Rome does not mention that the formula of Horsmidas actually endorses canon 28 of Chalcedon is bizarre (not to mention it was for political purposes not an ecclesiastical canon.) But it's still irrelevant because the Church catholic has never viewed neither Rome nor canon 28 nor this formula as normative for the Church.

 

[Basil the Great]

I have never understood the need to call the very first Ecumenical Council at Nicea, if Papal Infallibility was an accepted doctrine in the early 300's. After all, there were no cars back then and travel to Nicea from many parts of the Christian world would have taken considerable time and effort. It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if an infallible Pope could have simply declared a decision on the issues of the day. Hence, it would seem that Papal Infallibility was not a universally accepted doctrine at the time of Nicea.

Now, OP, I want you to consider something else. It is my understanding and I am open to correction, that the Catholic Church has the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, in addition to regular ex cathedra Papal Infallibility. Basically, this doctrine is suppose to cover Church teachings which have never been decreed in infallible ex cathedra documents, but have been consistently taught by the Church over the centuries. For the most part, this doctrine seems to have worked fairly well. However, there are a few exceptions or so it would seem.

(1) For many centuries the Church taught by word and deed that freedom of worship was not a right to be protected. Then Vatican II came along and the RCC reversed itself on this matter and this is one of the disagreements that the SSPX has with Vatican II. (2) The EENS salvation doctrine was taught in a very strict manner for centuries, especially in the ex cathedra Papal Bulls of the Middle Ages, but also through teachings by saints, Popes and others in a non-infallible teaching manner. Once again, Vatican II came along and the RCC suddenly said that due to "invincible ignorance", non-Catholics had a chance to attain salvation. (3) My #1 disagreement with the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium doctrine is that in 1252 the Church first authorized the use of physical force, aka torture, in order to secure confessions from heretics. While some may claim that this act was not done in the manner of a specific teaching document, are we really going to split hairs over this? The Pope's act in 1252 to authorize the use of torture could have been reversed by any number of scores of Popes over the centuries, but not one of them could see fit to declare torture as an evil and to put an end to it as part of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. The Inquisition finally ended in the 1800's. While Vatican II issued a teaching document protecting freedom of worship, the use of torture was probably not refuted until the 1900's, if it ever has actually been specifically repudiated. The bottom line is that by word and deed, the Popes protected the right of torture to be used as part of the Inquisition for about 550-600 years. Unless someone wants to contend that torture is in accord with the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, then how do we accept the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium?

Now, to be fair to our Catholic brethren, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility seems to have evolved over time and a case can be made that at some point after Nicea, when disagreements between bishops were tossed to Rome for a ruling, that perhaps then there was some understanding of Papal Infallibility. Yes, I know that many will claim that this only represented primacy of honor and perhaps so, but I think our Catholic friends can at least make a case for Papal Infallibility once appeals starting going to the Pope for a decision.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Google the Keenan Catechism....

You make a good point. If popes are a council unto themselves and are the entirety of the Church itself, why summon councils? I think all ex-Catholics like myself ask that at least once on our journey to the East...

I have never understood the need to call the very first Ecumenical Council at Nicea, if Papal Infallibility was an accepted doctrine in the early 300's. After all, there were no cars back then and travel to Nicea from many parts of the Christian world would have taken considerable time and effort. It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if an infallible Pope could have simply declared a decision on the issues of the day. Hence, it would seem that Papal Infallibility was not a universally accepted doctrine at the time of Nicea.

Now, OP, I want you to consider something else. It is my understanding and I am open to correction, that the Catholic Church has the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, in addition to regular ex cathedra Papal Infallibility. Basically, this doctrine is suppose to cover Church teachings which have never been decreed in infallible ex cathedra documents, but have been consistently taught by the Church over the centuries. For the most part, this doctrine seems to have worked fairly well. However, there are a few exceptions or so it would seem.

(1) For many centuries the Church taught by word and deed that freedom of worship was not a right to be protected. Then Vatican II came along and the RCC reversed itself on this matter and this is one of the disagreements that the SSPX has with Vatican II. (2) The EENS salvation doctrine was taught in a very strict manner for centuries, especially in the ex cathedra Papal Bulls of the Middle Ages, but also through teachings by saints, Popes and others in a non-infallible teaching manner. Once again, Vatican II came along and the RCC suddenly said that due to "invincible ignorance", non-Catholics had a chance to attain salvation. (3) My #1 disagreement with the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium doctrine is that in 1252 the Church first authorized the use of physical force, aka torture, in order to secure confessions from heretics. While some may claim that this act was not done in the manner of a specific teaching document, are we really going to split hairs over this? The Pope's act in 1252 to authorize the use of torture could have been reversed by any number of scores of Popes over the centuries, but not one of them could see fit to declare torture as an evil and to put an end to it as part of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. The Inquisition finally ended in the 1800's. While Vatican II issued a teaching document protecting freedom of worship, the use of torture was probably not refuted until the 1900's, if it ever has actually been specifically repudiated. The bottom line is that by word and deed, the Popes protected the right of torture to be used as part of the Inquisition for about 550-600 years. Unless someone wants to contend that torture is in accord with the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, then how do we accept the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium?

Now, to be fair to our Catholic brethren, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility seems to have evolved over time and a case can be made that at some point after Nicea, when disagreements between bishops were tossed to Rome for a ruling, that perhaps then there was some understanding of Papal Infallibility. Yes, I know that many will claim that this only represented primacy of honor and perhaps so, but I think our Catholic friends can at least make a case for Papal Infallibility once appeals starting going to the Pope for a decision.

 

[Markie Boy]

The simple fact that they can't make a list of infallible statements shows nobody is really comfortable with it or understands it. There should be a simple rule like "all papal bulls are infallible" or something like that.

At that, in 1302 Unam Sanctam which said: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

That would have excluded the Orthodoxy and Coptics at this time - which makes it false.

I can't help but wonder if the doctrine of Infallibility - it's mentality of power - hasn't led to some of the meltdown in the Catholic Church today.

 

[Erik Nelson]

If Papal Infallibility is true, than why did it only become a thing after the Papal States were absorbed into the Kingdom of Italy in 1870? If Papal Infallibility were true, than why is there zero support from it for the previous 1,800 or so years of Christianity before this?

Don't Orthodox claim that the Church as a "confederacy of bishops" is collectively infallible ?

So, the RCC is similar, save that it "concentrates" the infallibility in the Roman see, whereas Orthodox "distribute" the infallibility more uniformly throughout the Church

 

[ArmyMatt]

Don't Orthodox claim that the Church as a "confederacy of bishops" is collectively infallible ?

So, the RCC is similar, save that it "concentrates" the infallibility in the Roman see, whereas Orthodox "distribute" the infallibility more uniformly throughout the Church

no, because even the statements of the bishops must be fully ratified by the priests, deacons, and the laity. the Church as a whole is where the infallible Holy Spirit works.

 

[Erik Nelson]

yes, because Christ is above any bishop as our Great High Priest. within the Episcopacy, Rome being first among equals did mean he was head, but ONLY in terms of honor. as such, Rome did have certain prerogatives that other bishops didn't have (i.e. ranked first on the dyptics, arbiter between other bishops, etc), but none of them actually gave him any authority over his brother bishops.

So Orthodox have a "direct line" to Christ in heaven, one which "bypasses" the papal head of the Church hierarchy? I understand Protestants "whittle down" and reject Church hierarchy even further, denying the authority of other bishops & leaders as well.

This thread discussion gives me the impression, that this is the singular central issue. The Roman see asserts a "superior rank", and all non-Catholics reject papal superior authority, on the grounds of having a "direct line" to Christ in heaven... one which bypasses some-to-all of the traditional Church hierarchy.

 

[Erik Nelson]

no, because even the statements of the bishops must be fully ratified by the priests, deacons, and the laity. the Church as a whole is where the infallible Holy Spirit works.

I had no idea -- i'm not disputing your statement, just seeking clarification, on how laity could ratify the statements of bishops? Ultimately, the Orthodox Church is "bottom up", with only the most popular statements achieving ratification ? Sort of a "direct democracy" ?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So Orthodox have a "direct line" to Christ in heaven, one which "bypasses" the papal head of the Church hierarchy? I understand Protestants "whittle down" and reject Church hierarchy even further, denying the authority of other bishops & leaders as well.

This thread discussion gives me the impression, that this is the singular central issue. The Roman see asserts a "superior rank", and all non-Catholics reject papal superior authority, on the grounds of having a "direct line" to Christ in heaven... one which bypasses some-to-all of the traditional Church hierarchy.

well, not exactly. Councils are still called for bishops, they are the ones who deliberate. but there is still the final check of the Church as THE Body of Christ.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I had no idea -- i'm not disputing your statement, just seeking clarification, on how laity could ratify the statements of bishops? Ultimately, the Orthodox Church is "bottom up", with only the most popular statements achieving ratification ? Sort of a "direct democracy" ?

the bishops make a statement on something, and then that statement is sent to all the Churches. then if there are errors or questionable things, somebody will start talking and it will be addressed again by the bishops.

 

[Erik Nelson]

In 382 after Constantinople was elevated to the 2nd rank on the diptychs, Rome invented the "Petrine Theory" under Pope Damasus. Basically the three thrones of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are all recognized by the canons of Nicea due to their Petrine origin. Alexandria being found by the disciple of Peter and who wrote his gospel while in Rome. This was played up for about 100-150 years by Rome to counter Constantinople's growing influence. It was Pope Damasus who coined the phrase "Apostolic See" for Rome to give it added importance over "new rome".

well, without aiming to antagonize your position, perhaps another way of phrasing your statement, would be to say, that Rome began using the phrase "Apostolic See" to maintain its previous status over Byzantium-cum-Constantinople-the-new-Rome

you would agree, that historically, prior to Constantine, the city of Byzantium had no august rank, status or authority in the Church ?

 

[Erik Nelson]

well, not exactly. Councils are still called for bishops, they are the ones who deliberate. but there is still the final check of the Church as THE Body of Christ.

so Church infallibility resides in the Councils? The collective ruling of a Council becomes binding on the Church... with perhaps some room for wider questioning & discussion & defense of the ruling?

 

[Erik Nelson]

The formula of Pope Horsmidas is not what the Latins make it out to be. The last article in the Horsmidas formula says the pope must also agree with Constantinople and have unanimity as the two sees are one. Thirty five years later Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical council for defending the three chapters heresy, so much for this formula.

the "three chapters" which emperor Justinian condemned had been previously upheld by the Council of Chalcedon, yes?

so "defending the 3 chapters" = "defending Chalcedon"... one of the most important Councils to which you yourself attribute so much value & authority?

 

[ArmyMatt]

so Church infallibility resides in the Councils? The collective ruling of a Council becomes binding on the Church... with perhaps some room for wider questioning & discussion & defense of the ruling?

it resides in those councils which the Church as a whole has said are dogmatic and infallible, because they articulate Who the infallible Christ is, by the infallible Spirit.

 

[buzuxi02]

well, without aiming to antagonize your position, perhaps another way of phrasing your statement, would be to say, that Rome began using the phrase "Apostolic See" to maintain its previous status over Byzantium-cum-Constantinople-the-new-Rome

you would agree, that historically, prior to Constantine, the city of Byzantium had no august rank, status or authority in the Church ?

This is Correct. But in no way were any of these cities ever based on whether apostles found them. There are canons before during and after the 4-5th centuries spelling this out.