Papal Infallibility

Over on OBOB, one of our Catholic friends stated this:

"Yes, the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church and is guaranteed to be able to teach the Church infallibly. Therefore, no pope can teach the Church infallibly."

http://www.christianforums.com/t4769952

I replied: "but how can that be when this was not a doctrine of the early church?"

I was told I couldn't debate this issue. So I said I'd start a thread over here.

Of the major heresies in the first few hundred years of the church (various Gnostic sects, Arianism, Monothelitites) at no point did the Church ever ask the Bishop of Rome to make a definitive statement and issue the will of God ex cathedra. In fact, nobody asked the Bishop of Rome about much of anything.

If anyone even had the slightest notion that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church, then why didn't Constantine just ask him to clarify the doctrine of the Church, rather than call a council at Nicea?

Good question!

Will a mod move this thread to General Theology, so everyone can play?

Don't underestimate Rome's importance in the early Church, however. Rome was a strong fortress that withstood many of the early heresies, and the Bishop of Rome's word carried a lot of weight.

Infallible though....no way. Not by a long shot.

Inner,

Sure, and I don't have a problem with that really.

Consider the following with regard to the infallibility of the Papacy:

Pope Honorius, who taught the heresy of one will of Christ. Or Pope Sixtus V who's declared his own personal re-write of the Bible was the only authentic version of the Church forevermore, but was scrapped upon his death? Or even Pope Urban VIII who taught that the earth was the center of the Universe, and any deviation from that was heresy and contrary to the Catholic Faith?

I'm not trying to play Vatican's advocate, but technically, the fact that one or more Popes espoused heresy doesn't actually conflict with the correct Catholic understanding of papal infallibility.

Not that the doctrine is correct, but correct from their point of view.

To disprove it you need only look to the councils and no further.

InnerPhyre said:

I'm not trying to play Vatican's advocate, but technically, the fact that one or more Popes espoused heresy doesn't actually conflict with the correct Catholic understanding of papal infallibility.

Not that the doctrine is correct, but correct from their point of view.

To disprove it you need only look to the councils and no further.

Click to expand...

Please elaborate. My understanding is that a Pope cannot err when teaching ex cathedra on all matters of faith and morals (a convenient qualifier to help with a host of other false teachings).

Good afternoon friends,

When I was a member of the Roman church, the infalibility of the Pope was one of the things I believed whole heartedly as a child, but found impossible to believe as an adult. Once i was no longer under the authority of Rome, I had the ability to think about this question in a more objective fashion.

Our Roman brothers and sisters do not say that every word out of the Pope's mouth is infallible. For example: if the Pope said that he disliked coffee and that herb tea was much better, they would not be writing footnotes to the catechism, They do however consider him to be the final arbiter in matters of faith and doctrine.

As an Anglican, I am indifferent to the Pope's arbitration of faith and doctrine. Our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters can consider him infallible if they like, and even switch to herb tea.

YMMV

JasonV I will contact a mod over on GT and let them know we wznt to transfer this over. As soon as I get an affirmative response I'll move it for you.
It's a manners thing, you know.

NP bro. I'd like our RCC friends to chime in, and STR really isn't the place for that.

Agreed, I've sent a Pm hopefully we'll hear soon.

JasonV said:

Please elaborate. My understanding is that a Pope cannot err when teaching ex cathedra on all matters of faith and morals (a convenient qualifier to help with a host of other false teachings).

Click to expand...

Ex Cathedra doesn't mean "whatever he teaches while he is the Pope." To say something ex cathedra, he pretty much has to say "The following is an infallible statement."

So Catholics say that even if the Pope is a heretic, the Holy Spirit won't allow him to make such a statement if it isn't true.

InnerPhyre said:

Ex Cathedra doesn't mean "whatever he teaches while he is the Pope." To say something ex cathedra, he pretty much has to say "The following is an infallible statement."

Click to expand...

Ex Cathedra means "from the Chair" presumably from the Chair of St. Peter.

And if the Pope had to do as you suggest, we would have nothing from the Popes which could be ex cathedra.

So Catholics say that even if the Pope is a heretic, the Holy Spirit won't allow him to make such a statement if it isn't true.

Click to expand...

But history shows us that this is not the case.

it clearly states"...whatever you bind on earth will be bind in heaven..."
so this will mean in spiritual matters the pope can't make a mistake because he is guided by the holy spirit.
and if we like to know who realy is JESUS follower, it's also in the bible when JESUS told peter you are the rock and on this....
the catholic church had lot's of problem in the past and very "human" pope, but we can see now they went through all this bad things and stand up today again.
just my thoughts on this,
your brother in CHRIST norbie

As per the OP's request and with the approval of Theology team this thread is being moved the Church History thread on the Theology forum.

Great, now our RCC friends can join in and enlighten us.

If you're going to argue against a doctrinal point, you have to argue against as those who hold it understand it. Otherwise the whole conversation is pointless because you're essentially arguing against a doctrine of your own making.

In this specific case, while I don't agree with papal infallability, the Catholics themselves understand it basicly along the lines that Innerphyre stated. General statements, or beliefs of the pope are not held to be infallible. Only when the Pope deliberately, officially, states that he is setting forth a dogmatic statement is it considered to be ex cathedera.

Thus even within the Catholic church, out of all the things popes have said in the last 2000 years, only about 3 statements are commonly held to be ex cathedera, and thus infallible.

Again, while I don't agree with papal infallability, the importance of Rome in the early church is pretty clear. There are at least a few times from the era of Augustine or before that issues were appealed to Rome, and Rome's decision appears to have been regarded as the final word on the issue.

However, as has been pointed out, the idea of supremacy, and infallability are pretty hard to read in given the councils etc.

JasonV said:

If anyone even had the slightest notion that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church, then why didn't Constantine just ask him to clarify the doctrine of the Church, rather than call a council at Nicea?

Click to expand...

Excellent question!

However, there are those that believe Constantine did found the Roman Catholic Church and even had those that were not part of this church executed. This is false. Constantine legalized Christianity, thus ending the persecution, called the first Council of Nicea and sent his mother, Helena, to Israel to find the True Cross and have a church built there as well as having a few other churches built in what we now call Israel. And don't forget he also founded the city Constantinople on what was Byzantium.

One of the early father (I believe it was Ignatius) had said something along the lines of "where the bishop is, is where the church is" and when you have a bishop in Rome who is isolated from the others, this can, will and did lead to problems.

EmperorConstantine,

One of the early father (I believe it was Ignatius) had said something along the lines of "where the bishop is, is where the church is" and when you have a bishop in Rome who is isolated from the others, this can, will and did lead to problems.

Click to expand...

I believe that this is a very accurate depiction of what actually happened historically. The Papacy as it is understood today was an outgrowth from the economic, geographic, political and cultural separation and isolation that occurred after the fall of Rome.
The Church, the See of Rome became the stablizing center of existance in the west. All things centered on the Church which was the only thing not actually destroyed by the Huns. It became the starting point of a new culture, it became almost mandatory that the Bishop also have secular or political authority over the chaos of that time. Thus it was an assumption, that having primacy, first among equals elevated to being supreme, at least in Rome first, then the western part of the empire. Then Rome began to foist Supremacy on the East.
You can follow this very clearly as history evolves when Rome finally separtes from the Church. The establish the Roman Catholic Church and by that time the Middle Ages is beginning to evolve out of the Dark Ages. The Holy Roman Empire evolves from the beginnings of organized states out of the chaos of the Dark Ages. The Roman Church battles with Emporers of the New states, in some cases they were Emporers themselves, and some Emporers became Popes.
Going all the way down to modern history as the Holy Roman Empire dissolved into independent States, all that was left was known as the Papal States in Central Italy. With the Unification of Italian states in 1870 the only island was the Vatican. The last remnant of the Holy Roman Empire which still exists today. The Pope is head of the Church but also the political head of the Vatican. It is an officially recognized country with the exchange of Ambassadors.
The development of the Papacy has very little to do with ecclessiastical or theological issues.
As many have already pointed out, Rome was never the seat of authority in the Church even in the first 500 years of Church History. That Rome had Primacy, which itself is a political description rather than theological. Rome was considered Prime only because at the time it was the center, the capital of the Empire. If relevance was going to be placed on historical grounds and/or biblcial grounds then Jeruselem would have been Primary. Antioch would have been second and Rome much further down the line.
The Roman Catholic Church simply made theology retroactive to rationalize their efforts and position.
If one needs to follow the early Church theolgically, the whole concept of the papacy, or a central organization entity is antithetical to the Christological understanding of the Church then as now.
If a Supreme Head, a central Official jurisdictional Head was understood as necessary, then when Rome did separate, why did not Constantinople become the Papacy of the East. Would it not have been logical to establish a new Head, since the former was no longer a member?
This is a very simplistic and short explanation but I challenge any to check this out for themselves.
On the issue of the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope, is also antithetical to the understanding of the Church and the purity and governance and preservation of the Gospel through the Body of Christ with Christ as Head. This doctrine is very modern. Established only in 1870 as official Church dogma hardly makes it Apostolic.