Papal Infallibility

[Rion]

According to my Catholic friend, the Pope is only prevented from permanently altering doctrine in a way that would endanger souls. For him to speak something that is utter truth, he must sit on the seat of Peter, which is a rather draining process.

 

[Trento]

EmperorConstantine,

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.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times]...they dare even to set sail...to the chair of Peter and the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source...whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [errors or perversion of faith] to have entrance." (Epistle 59:14) AD 250[/FONT]​

Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?" St. Cyprian of Carthage AD 251​

Additional telling pieces of early Christian evidence for the Catholic argument are from the writings of St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (d. c. AD 202). I'll quote from his book AGAINST HERESIES (c. AD 180). The extracts below are from Fr. Jurgens, THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS, Vol. 1, p. 90.
[AH 3, 3, 2] But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self satisfaction or vain glory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
It is difficult not to conclude that St. Irenaeus was testifying to belief that the Church in Rome holds a unique authority only she can hold. And, that's not the only passage from St. Irenaeus affirming such a doctrine!
[AH 3, 3, 3] The blessed Apostles [Peter & Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus [or Anacletus]; and after him in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and bthe popes have a special and unique authority only they can hold.y The teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the
preaching of the truth has come down to us.

 

[Rightglory]

Trento,

St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy
"...they dare even to set sail...to the chair of Peter and the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source...whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [errors or perversion of faith] to have entrance." (Epistle 59:14) AD 250

It is always this single text that Roman Catholic refer to hoping that it might give some kind of support for a papacy. The context of this whole reference is that every single bishop sits on the chair of St Peter. Peter had primacy, even among the apostles. The Pope, the heirachical See of Rome was given the seat of Primacy as well. As I explained, not because Peter was there, but because it was the capital of the Empire at the Time. If you really want your view to stick, why did not Rome argue for Jerusalem, which is the very first Church, then as Second, Antioch, which Peter did actually establish.
There is no historical record of any Papacy existing in the early Church as we know of it today. Even Roman Catholic scholars no longer use the text of St Cyprian as it has no support for a papacy, let alone a Supreme papacy. If you want to argue primacy, then we can and will agree.
The whole concept of the catholicity of the Church was very early established. The consiliar and epicapal form of organization was established right from the start and there is no indication that the Church ever departed from that principle. The fact that the Eastern Church still abides by these principles speaks volumes against the practice and establishment of a Papacy only after they split from the Church. Even then, it was not really until the Council of Trent, that the Roman Pope was able to consolidate that authority in Rome. Even the bishops of the See of Rome did not agree fully with the concept and finally most gave in. The very same thing happened in several of the other innovations into the Church. Most notibly the Infallibility of the Pope only 140 years ago. Doesn't sound much like it was early Church History.

 

[a_ntv]

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. .

Some Emperartors became popes themself ?
The State of the Church was part of the Holy Roman Empire ?
The Vatican State survived to the Italian Unification?

No...History is history.
No emperators ever became pope.
The State of the Church in Italy were NEVER part of the Holy Roman Empire, but a little area to guarantee to the pope the freedom from the Holy Roman Empire.
In 1870 (Italian Unification) the State of the Church disappeared for ever.
Present Vatican town (that is simply St Peter Church with a few palaces near) is NOT at all the rebuilting of the previous State of the Church, but angreement made in 1929 between Italy and the pope.

 

[JasonV]

Im rather amused by the RCC claim that a Pope is infallible in matters of "faith and morals".

When was a proclamation of a Pope limited to just faith and morals? What is the first RCC document that lists faith and morals as alone being within the bounds of a Papal decree?

 

[prodromos]

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.

Actually, there have been many, many ex-cathedra statements, mostly from the previous pope as during his reign he declared many people to be saints.

John

 

[Trento]

Im rather amused by the RCC claim that a Pope is infallible in matters of "faith and morals".

When was a proclamation of a Pope limited to just faith and morals? What is the first RCC document that lists faith and morals as alone being within the bounds of a Papal decree?

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching. It is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church so the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16

 

[Rightglory]

a_ntv,

Sorry, not to have gotten back immediately, but....

It is interesting that the Roman See separated, finally from the Church, when Emporer Henry III installed a relative of His as Pope Leo IX. What led to this event was a rivalry between three different popes.
His successor, Hildabrand sought ecclessiastical reforms which included the lay investure of the Popes by the emporer. Hildabrand is recognized as one of the best Popes, yet it is also his strong belief that the Pope was supreme over ecclessiastical affairs but also over secular affairs. Then we can speak of the Crusades, wars for sure, but campaigns built by, controlled, by the Popes. After this for quite some time the Popes crowned Emporers, Emporers desposed and excommunicated Popes. The Papacy actually went to war more than a couple of occassions just to enforce the Popes right of secular authority over the princes of the realm. The actual existance of a strong Empire never actually existed all during this time. This actually never happened until modern times which included the unification of Italy and Germany. Nevertheless, the Pope held political power, had authority over large lands intermittantly as long as they could keep control. It was centuries of bitter battles and wars over control of secular lands. It was not so much a problem of secular rulers wanting ecclessiastical control but the other way around.
About and around 1450 when the struggle of the unification of Itally begins, the Popes sought to consolidate their secular control over parts of Italy, mostly in the central around Rome. Both Nicholas V and Pius II began the reconquest of papal lands. They succeeded in preventing the unification of Italy by controlling the central part, thus dividing the other two factions. The fact that you agree that the Vatican is still also a secular as well as a ecclessiastical entity. It is most magnanomous of Italy to permit such a small kingdom within itself. But it is a fact, and they do exchange Ambassadors as does any other secular state. Does any other religious entity, outside of Moslem rule have this kind of authority?
There is little or no ecclessiatical or Biblical support for a papacy. There is no historical support prior to the schism of 1054. Several instances, the longest and most recent to the schism is the Photian schism, which ended when the Pope acceded that he was wrong.
It actually sounds much more like a secular governing entity, than the Body of Christ.

 

[Rightglory]

Trento,

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching. It is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time.

Well, maybe not so sudden, but if one really checked, it might be somewhere in the Enlightenment or in the Scholastic Movement. That adds just a couple of centuies. But to say it is even implicit in the early Church is purely Roman Scholasticism. There is absolutely nothing in the Early Church Fathers about any bishop having infallibility. Especially when so many became heretics.
It is simply a retroactive development, a rationalization, a scholastic argument to support an errant doctrine.

This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman.

But what of a bishop who removes himself from that church. What of a bishop who then leads a large number of other faithful out of the Church. Are they still Church? Can you be outside of Christ and still be considered IN Christ. Is Christ divided?

this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church so the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true.

But is the Pope the Church? Does the Pope even represent the Church? Is not Christ the Head of the Church, is not the Holy Spirit who abides in believers who are the Body of Christ, the Church. So were does a Pope fit in?

 

[Rick Otto]

therefore the liberty of appointing a single man to represent him & execise His authority for Him, because He can't or won't, has been taken for everyones benefit. Jesus is the head, but without a pope the church is decapitated - a mental picture any Muslim could appreciate.

 

[a_ntv]

a_ntv,

Sorry, not to have gotten back immediately, but....

It is interesting that the Roman See separated, finally from the Church, when Emporer Henry III installed a relative of His as Pope Leo IX. What led to this event was a rivalry between three different popes.
His successor, Hildabrand sought ecclessiastical reforms which included the lay investure of the Popes by the emporer. Hildabrand is recognized as one of the best Popes, yet it is also his strong belief that the Pope was supreme over ecclessiastical affairs but also over secular affairs. Then we can speak of the Crusades, wars for sure, but campaigns built by, controlled, by the Popes. After this for quite some time the Popes crowned Emporers, Emporers desposed and excommunicated Popes. The Papacy actually went to war more than a couple of occassions just to enforce the Popes right of secular authority over the princes of the realm. The actual existance of a strong Empire never actually existed all during this time. This actually never happened until modern times which included the unification of Italy and Germany. Nevertheless, the Pope held political power, had authority over large lands intermittantly as long as they could keep control. It was centuries of bitter battles and wars over control of secular lands. It was not so much a problem of secular rulers wanting ecclessiastical control but the other way around.
About and around 1450 when the struggle of the unification of Itally begins, the Popes sought to consolidate their secular control over parts of Italy, mostly in the central around Rome. Both Nicholas V and Pius II began the reconquest of papal lands. They succeeded in preventing the unification of Italy by controlling the central part, thus dividing the other two factions. The fact that you agree that the Vatican is still also a secular as well as a ecclessiastical entity. It is most magnanomous of Italy to permit such a small kingdom within itself. But it is a fact, and they do exchange Ambassadors as does any other secular state. Does any other religious entity, outside of Moslem rule have this kind of authority?
There is little or no ecclessiatical or Biblical support for a papacy. There is no historical support prior to the schism of 1054. Several instances, the longest and most recent to the schism is the Photian schism, which ended when the Pope acceded that he was wrong.
It actually sounds much more like a secular governing entity, than the Body of Christ.

Central Italy (with Rome) was governed by the pope with continuity from the end of the Roman Empire (because the lack of any other power).
Please believe to me (I'm Italian): up to the XIX century no one ever considered the unity of Italy. To speak of a 'struggle of the unification of Italy' in 1450 is completely un-historical.
The State of the Church (a very litlle territory) was, the way during the middle age, the way for the pope to be indipendent form the huge powers of the Western Empire (Germany), France, the Bizantine Empire (up to the XII century) and form the XVcentury also Spain.

The State of the Church had the purpose to try to keep the pope free: think to the political power of Mont Athos in Greece.

about the influece of Politica States on the Papacy we have:
- up to the VIII century a certain freedom (but from some heavy constrictions by some Bizantine Emperators)
- from the VIII to the XI century contrictions by the FrancsWest Empire (seen by Orthodoxes as a betrayal because the Western Empire had the positive advantage to free the West and Italy from the foreign Bizantine invasions and constrictions)
- XI-XIII century a fight of the papacy for freedom from the West Empire
- XIV-XV century: a overhempling influence of France (the main reason of the polical success of the Reformation in Germany)

PS Hildabrand (pope Gregory VII) was famous for his fight AGAINST the German Emperator, to have the right to appoint himselfthe bishops, and not the Emperator (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_VII)

 

[Rightglory]

a_ntv,

[quote](because the lack of any other power).[/quote] Yes, and that is the beginning of this errant assumption, that because the Pope had absolute secular power over territory, he also assumed it was the same as a bishop over the Church. One just does not follow from the other.

PS Hildabrand (pope Gregory VII) was famous for his fight AGAINST the German Emperator, to have the right to appoint himselfthe bishops, and not the Emperator (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_VII)

and that pretty much sums up what I have been saying all along. You have a continual conflict between the secular, political power and the ecclessiatical. My question, why would the bishop and later any Pope care about the political power, UNLESS, it is something they desired. That has been the whole issue from the very beginning. It is the whole reason for the split and the emphasis on supremacy over the Church. The Scriptures, history itself, and more importantly, theologcially, the way the Early Church saw herself ecclessiatically does not support a Supreme Pope. A single supreme jurisdictional Bishop. The Papacy has very little to do with ecclessiastical or theological position. It is wholly a developement from entirely outside issues and forces. The Pope is as political today and he was then.
What business has a bishop is declaring war, raising funds to consolidate or to regain lost territory. Was this the means to an earthly Kingdom?
I'm sure if any Pope actually had been successful at it, they would have won much larger territories, but then also would need to defend that territory.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

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?"

It can be because it's a promise made by Jesus in the Bible. Because Jesus is God in the flesh, He does not make any mistakes.

1) Jesus founded His Church with Peter (the keys) as the leader of that Church and told Peter to tend to Jesus' flock.

2) Jesus gave all of His authority to Peter. Jesus said to Peter, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven."

3) Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to always lead the Church in all truth.

4) Jesus said he would be with His Church to the end of time.

5) The Apostle's appointed successors and added to their numbers. They then began to call themselves bishops.

6) The writings of the Early Church fathers all unanimously confirm that the essential teachings of the early Church are the same essential teachings of the Catholic Church today.

 

[Rick Otto]

Why did it take until the mid 1800's to define?
And why wasn't the office of the Papacy explicitly defined in the scripture as was bishop, elder, and deacon? Why do we see those terms, but not "Pope" or it's equivalent? With all the special attention to Peter, why leave it ambiguous, & undefined for 1800+ yrs?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why did it take until the mid 1800's to define?
And why wasn't the office of the Papacy explicitly defined in the scripture as was bishop, elder, and deacon? Why do we see those terms, but not "Pope" or it's equivalent? With all the special attention to Peter, why leave it ambiguous, & undefined for 1800+ yrs?

One could also ask why didn't the New Testament become 'defined' until the 17th century even though all the books had been chosen by the 4th century.

Seems like semantics to me.

 

[JasonV]

It can be because it's a promise made by Jesus in the Bible. Because Jesus is God in the flesh, He does not make any mistakes.

1) Jesus founded His Church with Peter (the keys) as the leader of that Church and told Peter to tend to Jesus' flock.

2) Jesus gave all of His authority to Peter. Jesus said to Peter, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven."

I don't have much disagreement with this.

3) Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to always lead the Church in all truth.

Agreed.

4) Jesus said he would be with His Church to the end of time.

Technically it was the end of the "age," not "time". Some scholars believe that the age ended by the end of the first century.

5) The Apostle's appointed successors and added to their numbers. They then began to call themselves bishops.

Ok.

6) The writings of the Early Church fathers all unanimously confirm that the essential teachings of the early Church are the same essential teachings of the Catholic Church today.

Here I find a lot of room for disagreement. The essential teachings might be similar, but the RCC has added so many other teachings which she has declared part of the essential body of truth that I cannot see how you can draw this similarity.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What is a "Liberal Catholic Church"???

 

[karen freeinchristman]

What is a "Liberal Catholic Church"???

Don't you know how to wiki?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Don't you know how to wiki?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church

Thanks!

It said it's roots are from the Anglican church.