Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Standing Up]

Where does it show in the Bible Peter being "prince" and head of the Apostles

By 431-Council of Ephesus-it is way too late to argue about who was the boss (Scripture says that Jesus rebuked them when they did that anyway, but who cares what the Bible says?) 325ad the Churches all submitted and declared the only verifiable apostolic line heretical.

 

[Rick Otto]

Simply stated, the Archbishop is guilty of context switching for the simple reason that Paul was not rebuking Peter for *teaching* error, but rather for not *living out* the teaching of the Church.

I disagree. I think you make a false distinction because Peter was still teaching (by example) when not *living out* Jesus' teaching by not eating with Gentile believers in front of Jewish believers.




There are plenty of examples of Peter *teaching* the equality of the Gentiles, but in this case, he wasn't practicing what he was preaching. Therefore, Paul rebuked him. It has NOTHING to do with recognizing Peter's authority to teach or his authority over the other apostles or his absence of error when he taught. Can you provide one example from Scripture whereby Peter, or any other Apostle for that matter, taught falsely or bound the universal Church to error?

 

[NewMan99]

Mike,

I will try to be as brief as possible, but I fear that I will fail in that regard.

I want to respond to a few of your comments, and then conclude with a more generalized statement about the topics we are exploring.

If you could provide some of your sources to the original documents that would be great. As I said though, I couldn't even find evidence that one of those Greek 'Historians' was even a real person, and another died before the date mentioned for his supposed writings.

As promised I asked my friend Mark Bonocore about his sources. He replied that he got that information from Scott Butler, who is a co-author of the book "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys". Butler was doing further research for another book and shared that info with Mark. Unfortunately, Butler never finished the book and he and Mark have not had contact for a number of years. Mark said that he is certain Butler would be able to tell us the source of those original documents, but he (Mark) did not have them himself. This, of course, does not mean that anyone is fabricating anything, however, in fairness to you I cannot ask you to put full trust in information that cannot be easily verified. I suppose I could always track down Butler and ask him about it, but he doesn't know me from Adam (although he certainly knows Mark) and I have no clue how much effort will need to be expended to track this down. So that is where that sits.

As for the Greek historians themselves, I can tell you this...

Theodore the Lector's list of canons is not lost. It is preserved (among other places) in the writings of St. John Damascene, which is where Scott Butler is getting it. And, according to Butler, Theodore only lists 27 canons of Chalcedon.

John Scholastikos did exist and is pretty famous among canon lawyers. Also known as John III Nesteutes (I'm not sure why "Scholastikos" was mis-spelled with a "k" ...that's clearly a typo), he was the Bishop of Constantinople from 565 (or 566) to 577. He was a native of Antioch, and a VERY important Byzantine canon lawyer. His list of canons also ends at number 27. There is no Canon 28, and his list of canons is clearly based on the ones used at the time of Chalcedon itself. Here's an article on him: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: John Scholasticus

Note: There is another "John Scholastikos," who was a Chalcedonian theologian from Alexandria; and also Bishop John IV "the Faster" of Constantinople was, like John III Scholastikos, also known as Nesteutes. So, things can get confusing. But, we are interested in the canon lawyer who served as Bishop of Constantinople from from 565(66) to 577.

As for Dionysius Exiguus, you are incorrect about his date of birth. He was not born in 550, but c. 470, which was just 20 years after Chalcedon (451). We know that he arrived in Rome in 500 A.D., and was an accomplished scholar by that time. Though he is often called a "Scythian," that's merely because he came from present-day Romania (Dacia). He was probably really a Greek or a Daco-Roman. He was definitely a native Greek speaker and was part of the Eastern Church prior to moving to Rome, where he was secretary to several Roman Popes (some of them Greeks).
Like John Scholastikos (and independently from him), he had direct access to the established canons of his day, and Dionysius was the one who translated the Greek canons of Chalcedon into Latin.

So, consider the situation: In about 540, you have the Greek-speaking Dionysius Exiguus living in Rome and stating that there are only 27 canons of Chalcedon. And, at the same time, you have the Greek-speaking John Scholastikos living in Constantinople (by way of Antioch) saying that there are only 27 canons of Chalcedon. And, at the same time, you have Theodore the Lector living in Constantinople saying that there are only 27 canons of Chalcedon. This presents us with three independent witnesses to the fact that Pope Leo's rejection of the canon was accepted and implemented in ecclesial usage (even in the East ...indeed, in Constantinople itself!) at the time. Pope Leo's objection was not merely an impotent protest that was ignored ...and CERTAINLY NOT by faithful members of the Eastern CHURCH. The only ones who "ignored" it (sporadically at first) were the Byzantine imperial legalists who were pushing the "one Church, one Empire" agenda (I will write more on that topic later). Sadly, in my opinion, modern Eastern Orthodoxy is, in part, the product of this old imperial agenda, which is at the root of its schism with Rome. Of course, many EOs will disagree.

Regarding the Patriarch's letter to the Pope, again, I've never seen non-Catholic reference to it, but if it is authentic, a personal letter still doesn't carry the weight of an Ecumenical Council (in fact it really doesn't carry any weight). The Council of Chalcedon approved the Canons, noted the Roman legates' objections, and subsequent councils also recognized Canon 28 (despite Rome's objections).

Nobody is claiming that a personal letter carries ecclesial weight. It does, however, provide important HISTORICAL EVIDENCE and context to the situation. As to its authenticity...well...here is its source: Anatolius to St. Leo the Great. Ep. cxxxii, 4. PL. liv, 1084. Mansi vi, 278S. It is, of course, not surprising that EOs do not cite the letter, but that doesn't mean the letter does not exist.

Assuming, for argument's sake, that the letter is authentic (which it IS) you will note that not even the Bishop of Constantinople questioned the authority of the Pope to ratify the canons of the council. And if Bishop Anatolius was not a liar (or in error) when he said that confirmation of canon 28 was reserved for Pope Leo, then it therefore follows that the import of Anatolius' words DO carry the weight of this truth: papal authority was both real and binding. So either the letter is a fake, or the Bishop of Constantinople was a liar (or in error), or it is authentic, accurate, and truthful.

And yes, the council both passed the canon and noted the legate's objections, but that doesn't mean that the objections were without import. Why do you suppose they noted the objections? If the words of the letter from Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople to Leo tells us anything it means the objection was noted for the precise reason that canon 28's acceptance was still be reserved for Leo's ratification or rejection. It's like the council, real sneaky-like when the legates were not there, hurried up and passed something they knew would not fly if the legates had been present. Then the council noted that the legates did, in fact, object (AFTER THE FACT), and hoped that Leo would not veto it.

Here is the unvarnished truth...the Council of Chalcedon spoke of the Pope's real authority (and, by extension, to the papal legates) in several places throughout its sessions. Now you would have us believe that this same council would then contradict itself and act as if the Pope had no actual authority at all. Which is it?

For example (emphasis mine):

14....The delegates of the Roman pontiff took the first places among the bishops; they were named first, they spoke first, they signed the Acts first, and by virtue of their delegated authority, they confirmed or rejected the decisions of the others. For example, in the case of the condemnation of Dioscorus, the delegates ratified it in these words: 'The holy and blessed archbishop of great and ancient Rome, Leo, through us and through this holy synod, together with the blessed and praiseworthy Apostle Peter who is the rock and foundation of the Orthodox Faith, has deprived him (Dioscorus) of all episcopal dignity and removed him from every priestly office' (Mansi, Conc. Ampl. Coll. VI, 1047. [Act III]; Schwartz II, Vol. I, pars. altera p. 29 [225] [Act II]).

15. The papal delegates not only exercised the authority of presidents, but their right to this honor of presiding was recognized by all the fathers of the council, as was shown clearly by the letter sent by the synod to St. Leo 'For you', they wrote, 'showed us benevolence in presiding over us in the persons of those who held your place, as the head over the members' (synod of Chalcedon to St. Leo. Ep. xcviii, PL. liv, 951. Mansi vi, 147).

The above quote can be read here:

Sempiternus Rex Christus

Notice that the last quote was from a letter sent FROM the Council TO Leo whereby they refer to the papal legates as "PRESIDING OVER" them.

And then if you look closely at the first quote, it is not the Council itself that deposes the heretical Patriarch of Alexandria. Rather, it is the Bishop of Rome acting THROUGH the Council, which (because of the Bishop of Rome) acts with the authority of St. Peter.

As for Canon 28 itself, ... What it actually refers to is also of interest. For, while most modern Eastern Orthodox often interpret it as claiming that Constantinople should have equal authority or primacy with the See of Rome, that is not the historical reality; and such an interpretation fails to consider all of the other VERY "Papist" statements made by Chalcedon, which clearly recognize and trumpet Rome's universal primacy, and a universal primacy stemming from St. Peter as per the two examples cited above.

For another example ...

"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!...This is the true faith!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

So, these examples alone shows us (despite the common mis-interpretation) that the bishops at Chalcedon who drafted Canon 28 did not believe or assert that Rome's primacy or doctrinal teaching authority was due to its place as the original capital of the Empire, or that its privileges AS UNIVERSAL PRIMATE were granted by "the fathers" of old.

Rather, when Canon 28 says ...

"...we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Soveriegnty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...."

....all that is being referred to here is the "MANAGERIAL" position of "Old Rome," which managed all the churches of the Western Empire, not Rome's Petrine primacy or its doctrinal teaching authority. In other words, the Byzantines at Chalcedon ...who, again, were imposing a "one-Church, one-Empire agenda" ...merely wanted Constantinople to be the "hub" that managed all the affairs of the Eastern Church (the Empire's "state cult"). It was not trying to set Constantinople up as some kind of Chair of doctrinal authority or quasi-Traditional primate. Rather, it merely wanted to focus ecclesial organization (for the Eastern Church) at Constantinople (the imperial capital), just as Rome was the center of ecclesial organization for the West. And Constantinople was especially anxious to be recognized as the organizational focus for the Eastern Church because, for the previous 50 years, the Patriarchs of Alexandria were constantly kicking the Bishop of Constantinople in the pants (e.g. Patriarch Theophilus vs. St. John Chrysostom; Patriarch St. Cyril vs. Nestorius; Patriarch Dioscorus vs. Flavian and Anatolius), and it was crucial for the Eastern imperial agenda that its "state cult" not be dictated by "uncontrollable" Patriarchs of Alexandria in far-off Egypt.

And, as if it even needs to be pointed out, Rome did not reject Canon 28 of Chalcedon because it felt that its own authority was threatened, but because Rome was defending the Traditional status of Alexandria as primate in the East, just as it did in the days of Pope Damasus, who rejected Canon III of Constantinople I, maintaining that Alexandria (not Constantinople) is the 2nd See because of its tries of discipleship to St. Peter via St. Mark.

Continued...

 

[NewMan99]

...continued...

Okay...I am going to shift over for a moment to Trullo and then circle back...

Council of Trullo attempted to resurrect BOTH Canon 28 of Chalcedon AND Canon III of Constantinople I. But, the Council of Trullo tried to impose lots of things on the universal Church (e.g. it tried to prohibit priestly celibacy and permit married priests to continue to have relations with their wives, when Tradition forbad them to do so, etc.), and Trullo was never accepted by the West (although Pope John VII, A.D. 705-707, reluctantly issued some kind of concession to it for the East, because he needed Byzantine military help against the Lombards). But, all the other Roman Popes of this period --St. Sergius I (687-701), John VI (701-05), Sisinnius (708), and Constantine (708-15) --directly condemned Trullo and refused to ratify it as a Council.

NOW ... The reason that I cite these Popes is because ALL OF THEM (including John VII) happened to be either Greeks or Syrians:

St. Sergius = Syrian

John VI = Greek

John VII = Greek

Sisinnius = Greek (from Syria)

Constantine = Syrian

The next Latin to be Pope would be Gregory II (715-31), almost 20 years AFTER Trullo and its consistent rejection by the See of Rome.

So, the important thing to note here is that Trullo was not merely rejected by "Western barbarians," (as many Byzantines tended to consider Westerners to be) but even by the Eastern / Byzantine factions in Rome --that is, men who considered themselves part of the Eastern Empire and the Eastern Church. And, guess what? It was not only in the See of Rome that 7th Century bishops opposed the innovations of Trullo. It was also opposed in the Eastern patriarchates, esp. Alexandria, which continued to defend its Traditional status as primate in the East. And the fact that Rome refused to recognize Trullo allowed various Eastern bishops to dispute (or ignore) its canons for some time. However, the increasing problems with Monophysism in the oriental sees, and the increasing power of the so-called "Melchite" bishops (that is, Byzantine Greek bishops who were imposed on the oriental sees as imperial agents by the Byzantine court to suppress the Monophysite heretics) led to Trullo's eventual acceptance by the entire East and its present status as an "Ecumenical Council" in the eyes of most modern Eastern Orthodox. But, it was not that way at the time. Trullo was considered a politically-motivated imposition by the imperial court of Constantinople ...which is exactly what it was. It tried to strong-arm the universal Church into conformity with Byzantine policies, so as to foster the "one-Church, one Empire" agenda of Constantinople.

Furthermore, I think you misunderstand the historical reality (and our position on it) when you write:

...notes Rome's objections, and the fact that those objections were never heeded, demonstrating that Rome's power was grossly overstated.

What needs to be appreciate here is that we Catholics are not claiming that Rome possessed any kind of "political" power over the Eastern Empire at the time. And the issue that we are dealing with is one of Traditional AUTHORITY vs. political POWER. In other words, when Rome rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon, it did so as a matter of (and in the context of) ecclesial authority. It did not possess the power to "change imperial law" (which is what Canon 28 technically was, as well as being an attempt at ecclesial canon law), but merely to state with authority that Canon 28 of Chalcedon did not apply to THE CHURCH. And for everyone who was concerned about THE CHURCH (and who did not confuse the Church with the Empire's "political cult" ...as many Byzantines would continue to do, and which some Eastern Orthodox still do today), Canon 28 of Chalcedon was considered an non-entity. Rome did not accept it; it was never ratified by the leading authority in THE CHURCH, and so it was not a binding canon. End of argument. The only ones who continued to tout it were the imperial legalists (those who did not "heed" Rome's rejection), who were the SAME kind of people who (for the sake of political unity or the good of the Empire) tried (repeatedly) to legitimize Monophysism or impose Iconoclasm and other such politically expedient agendas, despite the fact the Rome and the other leading prelates of THE CHURCH always opposed them. And Photius himself (while his own family had been victimized by Iconclastic imperial legalists) was cut from the same cloth and (like Trullo before him) "dusted off" Canon 28 of Chalcedon (which was always on the LEGAL books of the EMPIRE) and used it as part of his anti-Roman crusade to protect Byzantine IMPERIAL interests in the Balkans via the (supposed) claims of its "state cult," the Eastern Church. But, again, any Eastern Christian who could distinguish between the Empire's "state cult" and THE CHURCH ITSELF recognized that Canon 28 of Chalcedon was not a legitimate canon as far as THE CHURCH was concerned. Both "lungs" of THE CHURCH, East and West, did not accept or recognize it. So, it is important to appreciate the true historical context and the difference between the ecclesial authority that Rome possessed (which all faithful Christians recognized) vs. the practical political power of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was often (and repeatedly) at odds with the true authority of the Church and which frequently interfered with it or tried to usurp or over-ride it. Canon 28 is but one of many examples of this.

Whew...my brain hurts now...time for bed...

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

I disagree. I think you make a false distinction because Peter was still teaching (by example) when not *living out* Jesus' teaching by not eating with Gentile believers in front of Jewish believers.

Well, Rick, you are overlooking one important factor here...

The Archbishop was criticizing Catholic claims of papal infallibility. Well...we Catholics claim the Pope is infallible ONLY when he binds the entire universal Church to a given teaching by virtue of his formal office. So, in this case, St. Peter was merely having a private meal with personal friends. He wasn't binding the entire universal Church to not eat with Gentile believers in front of Jewish believers. So that example would not qualify as an infallible teaching by any definition. While we can quibble over the semantics of if "teaching by example" is the same thing as "teaching" per se by preaching, the reality is that acting like a hypocrite (preaching one thing, doing another) is NOT the same thing as binding the universal Church to a given teaching by virtue of his formal office. Thus, the Archbishop was "context switching" by pointing to Peter's actions in Galatia and saying "Aha! See - he wasn't infallible". We Catholics would never claim that Peter's actions in Galatia was an infallible teaching in the first place.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Peaceful Dove]

I haven't been here in GT in a long time.
As usual, some very interesting reading.

I notice that there is a lot more respectful dialogue than there were a few years back.

Good to see some old friends are still here and posting.

 

[NewMan99]

Hi Peaceful

Nice to see you again. I haven't been to CF in awhile, but was bored the other day and decided to pop back in for old-time's sake. I am not bored any more. LOL.

Okay...now I really do need to get to bed.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Standing Up]

Like I said ...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I haven't been here in GT in a long time.
As usual, some very interesting reading.

I notice that there is a lot more respectful dialogue than there were a few years back.

Good to see some old friends are still here and posting.

Good to see you (and Bob) back at GT.

We're still working here.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well...we Catholics claim the Pope is infallible ONLY when he binds the entire universal Church to a given teaching by virtue of his formal office.

Friend,

Anyone can claim to bind anyone to anything, obviously. But when has the specific, singular Bishop of the Diocese of Rome stated something that every single Christian (or Christian congregation) on the planet has accepted as binding because he specifically so said it? Would you give me some examples there? If you claim (interesting word choice) that he is infallible only in such cases, then your examples will be relevant. If you claim only that it is claimed that the entire universal church is bound to such, then we simply have a claim of self for self. Nothin' wrong with that; doesn't mean such is wrong, but that's what we'd have. We have several cases of that in Christianity (even the mother of one of my friends claims such for herself).

Thanks! Blessings, my respected and unseparated brother!

Oh, and thanks for your extensive responses to the Archbishop. I found it interesting and helpful, and I appreciate all the hard work and time there. I'm particularly focus on the reality that this seems to be primarily an CC vs. EO/OO debate, among those where both "sides" claim the same Authority, same Apostolic Tradition, same Apostolic Succession. Interesting. And yet this seems to be the very foundation, the keystone of the CC. I've found that interesting. Of course, I'm just an observer.


Pax!


- Josiah





.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=NewMan99;Well, Rick, you are overlooking one important factor here...

Somehow I suspect you're going to mention more than one (lol)

The Archbishop was criticizing Catholic claims of papal infallibility.

Gotchya.

Well...we Catholics claim the Pope is infallible ONLY when he binds the entire universal Church to a given teaching by virtue of his formal office.

Yeah, I know. I have a callous on my brain where it's been rubbing up against that for a few years now, thanks.
The wonderful thing about that response is it's vagueness & ambiguity.
Never are the ONLY incidents of this official virtue specificaly cited.
If they were, they would be the subject of their own threads, maybe even their own forum.

So, in this case, St. Peter was merely having a private meal with personal friends.

No. I don't at all accept your minimization & marginalization of the issue on that point. "Merely" & "private" are adjectives of your own making in characterizing this event.

He wasn't binding the entire universal Church to not eat with Gentile believers in front of Jewish believers.

By example, he was teaching his closest converts. He was feeding sheep.
And he was feeding them fear of man's opinions.
He was in office & he was in error.
We learn by trial & error & it requires repitition, so to equate the gates of hell overcoming the Church with it making mistakes, is exagerration. "Overcome" in the sense of hell's gates, would mean the death of the Church, not the stumbling that is natural for any maturing lamb.

So that example would not qualify as an infallible teaching by any definition.

What would? Is there a list? Something so rock solid, I would imagine to be available on RC T-shirts & keychains. (WWJD?)

While we can quibble over the semantics of if "teaching by example" is the same thing as "teaching" per se by preaching, the reality is that acting like a hypocrite (preaching one thing, doing another) is NOT the same thing as binding the universal Church to a given teaching by virtue of his formal office.

Is there an infallable teaching that binds us from hypocracy or not?
It's like forgiveness just became irrelevant when it comes to the Churches attempts at official teaching - I guess. I have to guess because I still haven't seen the list of infallible teachings. Is it too long to tattoo on my arm?

Thus, the Archbishop was "context switching" by pointing to Peter's actions in Galatia and saying "Aha! See - he wasn't infallible".

No brother, you are attempting an "issue switch". Not directly, but by splitting the philosophical illusion of a difference when you seperate Magesterial Inerrancy from Papal Infallability. The dead give-away is you're lack of a smoking gun - the list. (Almost sounds like we're in an action-thriller! LOL)

We Catholics would never claim that Peter's actions in Galatia was an infallible teaching in the first place.

Nor do we. We cite it as an example of Magesterial Error.

 

[NewMan99]

Hi CJ,

Nice to see you again.

I said:

Well...we Catholics claim the Pope is infallible ONLY when he binds the entire universal Church to a given teaching by virtue of his formal office.

You replied:

Anyone can claim to bind anyone to anything, obviously.

Yep.

But when has the specific, singular Bishop of the Diocese of Rome stated something that every single Christian (or Christian congregation) on the planet has accepted as binding because he specifically so said it? Would you give me some examples there?

Well, there are really a few distinct issues here at play. The first issue is what I meant by "entire universal Church". The second issue is whether or not a given "official papal teaching" (for lack of a better way of saying it...just keeping it in ordinary layman lingo instead of technical ecclesial/theological terminology) is, objectively speaking, infallibly true. The third issue is whether or not every Christian on the planet would accept it as infallibly true.

As you no doubt already know, we consider the Catholic Church to be the "universal" Church and always have. Christ left the world ONE Church (not many churches - plural)...and this One Church is given for the benefit of all - it is universal. And while you and I are now, sadly, separated in the formal and physical/institutional sense, we are imperfectly joined to that One and same universal Church by virtue of our baptism (thanks be to God). So when I speak of the "universal Church" I am not saying that you are excluded from it - I am saying you are informally joined to it even if our unity lacks completeness. With me so far? Now within the Catholic Communion there are about two dozen total disctinct "Churches"...they are distinct in that they have their own hierarchies, liturgies, rites, canon laws, and jurisdictions...many of them have their own customs, cultures, languages, liturgical calendars, traditions, devotions, and even their own unique theological expressions and understanding of the One True Faith which has been Revealed to us via the Incarnate Christ and His Church. Each of the distinct Churches operate of their own volition without interference from other Churches or from Rome. Rome is NOT the "boss" of the other Churches (all of which are in the East, so are generally called Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) in the sense of running or overseeing their daily affairs. And even while each of these two dozen Churches are distinct they are not really considered "separate" Churches either (they are distinct, not separate) in the sense they they all find communion with each other *through* their communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Holy See. In other words, the reason why Eastern Church A is in communion with Eastern Church B is because they are each in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Thus the unity of the "universal Church" is found through the Pope who acts as successor of St. Peter. And because all of these distinct Churches (each running their own affairs) find their unity in their own communion with the Holy See, the Pope is "hands off" UNLESS and until the unity or orthodoxy of the Church is threatened. THAT is when a Pope will step up to the plate and try to nudge a given Church or a given Bishop back into orthodoxy and/or communion with the Holy See (and thus with the rest of the universal Church also in communion with the Holy See).

There are countless examples of various Popes exercising that kind of authority.

For example, during the Arian crisis we see numerous orthodox Bishops and Archbishops being deposed from their offices by heretical Arians who curried favor with Arian civil powers and Eastern Emperors. Many were arrested and even died in jail while the Arian Bishops ruled (for a time) in their places. Deposed rightful and orthodox clergymen often appealed to the Bishop of Rome for help (which begs the question about papal authority - if the Bishop of Rome was without ecclesial authority, then WHY would all these Eastern Bishop continue to appeal to him throughout the centuries whenever there was a dispute or they were in prison?). So the Pope would then depose the Arian Bishops (since their heresies threatened the orthodoxy of the Church) and restore the rightful Bishop (if possible - sometimes the poor men have died in prison in the meantime). This happened, for example, with the Bishop of Alexandria, St. Athanasius. Thus, the authority of the Bishop of Rome was brought to bear to restore both orthodoxy and unity to the universal Church.

A second example came out of the so-called "Robber Council" of Ephesus whereby the rightful Bishop of Constantinople, Flavian, was deposed by the heretics and thrown in prison where he eventually died. While in prison he wrote to Pope Leo with these words:

After the unjust sentence which it pleased Dioscorus to pronounce against me, everything, as if by some prearranged pact, turned against me; when I appealed to the throne of the prince of the apostles, the Apostolic See, and to the holy synod which is under the authority of your Holiness, a large number of soldiers surrounded me, prevented my taking refuge at the altar, and tried to drag me from the church' (Schwartz. Acta Concil. OEcum. II Vol. II, pars prior, p. 78)

Theodoret of Cyprus wrote similarly:

'If Paul, the preacher of truth . . . betook himself to the great Peter, much more do we who are weak and lowly turn to the Apostolic See, that we may obtain from you a remedy for the ulcers of the Church. For it is your part to direct us in all things. I await the decision of the Apostolic See . . . above all that I may learn whether I ought to accept this unjust decision or not: for it is your decision that I await' (Theodoret to Leo the Great, Ep. lii, 1, 5, 6. PL. liv, 847 and 851, cf. PG. lxxxiii, 1311S and 1315S).

Pope Pius XII recounted the historical aspects of the events and explained this (written in 1951):

As soon as St. Leo learnt from the deacon Hilary of the evil deeds of this council, he condemned and annulled all the decrees and decisions made by it. His grief at these crimes was greatly increased by the frequent appeals to his authority made by the numerous bishops who had been deposed.

.....

Then Anatolius, who had been illegally raised by Dioscorus to the see of Constantinople [in place of Flavian], accepted the letter which St. Leo wrote to Flavian on the Incarnation of our Lord [i.e., a papal epistle]. The remains of Flavian were brought back to Constantinople with great solemnity. The exiled bishops were restored to their sees, and the general hostility to the heresy of Eutyches grew so strong that there scarcely seemed to be any further need for a council.

The full account by Pius can be read here:

Sempiternus Rex Christus

Now, all that being given as a backdrop, perhaps you can see where I am coming from when I say that the Pope's teaching is only considered (by us Catholics) infallible when he is teaching in a manner that is binding on the "entire universal Church" (here loosely defined as those who are in communion with the Holy See and therefore consider themselves subject to his teaching authority). The doctrine of papal infallibility is merely an extension of the doctrine of the infallible Church (which is something most EOs believe in). In other words, EOs and Catholics agree that while theological debates can rage among the Bishops meeting in Council, once they formally adopt and promulgate a teaching (such as the Nicene Creed, for example) we believe the Holy Spirit has guided the Fathers in a mysterious way that prevents error from being bound to all the Church.

Think of it this way, if, for the sake of argument, the Pope is supposed to keep the Church united in orthodoxy, the only way this will be possible will be through the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit when he is teaching for the benefit of the whole Church...otherwise he could be, in theory, capable of teaching error and binding all Catholic believers to it.

NOTE: We are not claiming the Pope is infallible merely because he is responsible for teaching the Church (that would be a circular argument), there are other reasons which would require too much space here to explain.

Going back for a moment to the Council of Chalcedon (where the disputed canon 28 arose), we can see this account from Pius XII:

18. It is useful to note here that this very important letter of St. Leo to Flavian concerning the Incarnation of the Word was read in the third session of the council, and hardly had the voice of the reader ceased, when there went up a unanimous cry: 'This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, and so believe all orthodox Christians. Let him be anathema who does not believe this. Peter has spoken through Leo' (Schwartz, II, Vol. I, pars altera, p. 81 [277] [Act. III]; Mansi vi, 871. [Act. II])

So the questions here are these:​

1. Was this letter from Leo a teaching on the Christian faith? Yes.
2. Was this teaching bound to the entire Church? Yes (since it was an accepted document from the Council and had unanimous consent).
3. Does the universal Christian Church teach error? No. (I realize Protestants will disagree)​

Therefore...Pope Leo taught infallibly when his letter to Flavian was bound to the Church.​

If you claim (interesting word choice) that he is infallible only in such cases, then your examples will be relevant. If you claim only that it is claimed that the entire universal church is bound to such, then we simply have a claim of self for self. Nothin' wrong with that; doesn't mean such is wrong, but that's what we'd have. We have several cases of that in Christianity (even the mother of one of my friends claims such for herself).

​

Well sure, we understand that there are many Christians who are outside the formal authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope. But that doesn't mean that the teachings are not infallible nor does it mean that they are not binding to those who claim for themselves fidelity to the One Church in communion with the Holy See.​

Oh, and thanks for your extensive responses to the Archbishop. I found it interesting. I'm particularly focus on the reality that this seems to be primarily an CC vs. EO/OO debate, among those where both "sides" claim the same Authority, same Apostolic Tradition, same Apostolic Succession. Interesting. And yet this seems to be the very foundation, the keystone of the CC. I've found that interesting. For now, I'm mostly just a lay observer.

Thanks and I hope others found it interesting.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Peaceful Dove]

New Man, did you change your username?

I have always been bad at names but am getting worse in these "golden" years.

 

[sunlover1]

New Man, did you change your username?

I have always been bad at names but am getting worse in these "golden" years.

I was wondering that same thing.

(Saw your name and dropped in to say hello, hope all is well )

 

[NewMan99]

Hi Rick,

I said:

Well...we Catholics claim the Pope is infallible ONLY when he binds the entire universal Church to a given teaching by virtue of his formal office.

You replied:

The wonderful thing about that response is it's vagueness & ambiguity.

Really? With respect, I don't think it is ambiguous or vague at all, unless a person refuses to look at it from a Catholic POV or insists upon imposing one's own definition on Catholic terms and then arguing against that. I don't know you well enough to say if either of those are really the case with you (generally speaking), but once some of the groundrules are established it can take some of the difficulties away. Granted, there are some nuances, but there are some rather large and un-nuanced examples we can point to without having to strain at the gnats.

Never are the ONLY incidents of this official virtue specificaly cited. If they were, they would be the subject of their own threads, maybe even their own forum.

Never? I see citations all the time. In fact, I gave one of them in my very last post (which I was writing while you made your last post...in other words...I was giving CJ an example before I knew you would say that we "never" give citations of this "official virtue" (actually, the correct term is "charism").

No. I don't at all accept your minimization & marginalization of the issue on that point. "Merely" & "private" are adjectives of your own making in characterizing this event.

Here is Gal 2:12-14:

12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Peter's initial custom was to EAT with Gentiles. That's all it says. It wasn't a council (as per Acts 15) or any official Church function where Peter was formally teaching for the benefit of the whole Church. This is not to say Peter wasn't talking to his companions about the Christian faith while they were eating, but there is a gigantic difference between Peter's "eating" habits changing and something else along a grander scale which is what you are reading into the text.

By example, he was teaching his closest converts.

Well..."teaching by example" is not the same thing as "fomally teaching" - and our definition of "infallibility" does not include how any given teacher happens to live out what they formally teach. In YOUR definition of "infallibility" you are including "teaching by example" along with "formal teaching"...therefore you are imposing your definition on our terms and then arguing against that. I don't know if you do this often, but in this case, that is exactly what I think is going on (which might explain in part why you are having brain calluses with regard to the concept we are exploring here).

In any case, if you carefully read the text it says that BEFORE the party from James arrived he ate with Gentiles. That is to say, it was his custom to eat with them. But once the party from James arrived in Antioch, Peter changed that habit and stopped eating with the Gentiles - he only ate with the Jewish Christians. His ordinary custom changed - that isn't quite the same thing as *formally* teaching anybody anything. Peter didn't have a chalk board at his tableside while eating (although rumor has it he had a couple of nuns with really wicked rulers just waiting to smack the knuckles of anyone with their elbows on the table - that'll teach 'em proper table manners) - nor did he set up a classroom or preach from the pulpit that hypocrisy is okie-dokie. So Paul rightly confronted Peter in front of all (during dinner? at a church meeting? at a gathering? who knows?) for changing his personal habit - not for changing his formal teaching (which can be found in Acts 15).

He was feeding sheep.

Yes.

And he was feeding them fear of man's opinions.

Yes - but he was not "binding" anyone to this as if it was an actual and official teaching of the Church...much less binding the ENTIRE Church to it...which is how WE define the term "infallible". And therein lies the rub, Rick.

He was in office & he was in error.

That's right, but he was not offering his actions in Antioch as an official Church teaching nor was he telling the entire Church that insincerity with Gentiles was an official Church doctrine.

He was guilty of hypocrisy.

So...what is "hypocrisy"? It is not DOING what you TEACH. Therefore, in any kind of incident like this you have to ask the question, what is the TEACHING that is being contradicted? Since the charism of infallibility is only applied in cases where something is TAUGHT (and not contradicted by actions), you cannot say that Peter's personal actions (as bad as an example as they were) in any way negates the infallible teaching he proclaimed (along with the other elders and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) in Acts 15.

Just because a Pope can be personally guilty of hypocrisy and thereby make an error in judgment (or make an error of teaching by a bad example...the word "teaching" being used very loosely here) is NOT the same thing as imposing that hypocrisy on the entire Church *in the form of a formal teaching which all are bound to obey and assent to*.

We learn by trial & error & it requires repitition, so to equate the gates of hell overcoming the Church with it making mistakes, is exagerration. "Overcome" in the sense of hell's gates, would mean the death of the Church, not the stumbling that is natural for any maturing lamb.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by this...but...assuming I do understand...I agree that making "a mistake" in judgment (in the form of a sinful deed) will not be enough for the gates of hell to prevail. If, however, the "mistake" is in the form of binding the flock to false teachings presented as Truth, then that is an entirely different thing. Satan would rejoice at that.

What would? Is there a list? Something so rock solid, I would imagine to be available on RC T-shirts & keychains. (WWJD?)

A list? The examples are too numerous to begin to list them out.

When Peter wrote the letters that are included in the Bible...do they contain any error? No - they are inerrant. Therefore, there is an example of a Pope teaching the flock in a manner that is binding universally and the Holy Spirit prevented him from making any errors.

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples of Popes teaching infallibly. Sometimes they come in the form of encyclicals, sometimes in statements read into various documents from Church councils, and so on.

But here I will throw you a bone and offer a (hopefully constructive) critique I have of my fellow apologists who oftentime overstate or understate the limitations of the doctrine.

It is commonly (but incorrectly) asserted by numerous Catholic apologists at places like CF that the Pope has only made two infallible "ex-Cathedra" teachings (i.e., The Immaculate Conception, and Mary's Bodily Assumption)...but this is not quite true. I am glad to see that my fellow Catholic apologists are attempting to err on the side of being conservative. But the reality is that there are other examples of the Pope issuing teachings apart from his fellow Bishops in a Council.

What about Pope Benedict XII's definition of the state of the departed souls viz. a viz. not having to wait until Judgment day to see God? Pope Benedict XII issued a constitution defining this matter in 1336. What about Pope Boniface VIII's definition at the end of Unam Sanctum in 1302? What about Pope Leo the Great's definition of the two persons of Christ in 449 with his famous Tome? Was the latter only infallible by virtue of being enshrined in the decrees of Chalcedon in 451 or was it infallible when Leo issued the decision itself two years earlier? Similarly Pope Celestine's judgment in 430: a year prior to the Council of Ephesus at which he instructed Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria to pronounce before the assembly in Pope Celestine's name the judgment the Pope had already settled by papal epistle? Many others could be cited - hundreds of examples no doubt.

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, the doctrine of papal infallibility is merely an extension of the long-accepted (by us Catholics and by the Orthodox) belief that the Church herself is Infallible. Just as we see the Holy Spirit guiding the Council of Jerusalem (see Acts 15:28) - preventing the elders from making an error in what they bound the Church to - so too we believe that the Spirit continues to guide the Church perpetually from error. And since the Pope has a thing or two to say about what is taught and bound to the flock, it is only logical that he, too, would be protected by the same charism that protects the Church in Council (particularly since a Council's documents are not official or binding until the Pope ratifies them). Of course, our Orthodox brothers disagree with us about papal infallibility.

Is there an infallable teaching that binds us from hypocracy or not?

Actually there is. We are commanded to obey the teachings of the Church. Aren't there plenty of Bible verses warning us against hypocrisy? Those are infallible teachings. If I looked hard enough, I am sure I could likewise find Church and/or Papal documents reiterating that infallible teaching.

The hard part is being obedient to it. We are sinners. We are fully capable of being hypocritical at times. That includes Popes. And me. But that doesn't mean that the teaching against hypocrisy is, itself, false or fallible.

No brother, you are attempting an "issue switch". Not directly, but by splitting the philosophical illusion of a difference when you seperate Magesterial Inerrancy from Papal Infallability. The dead give-away is you're lack of a smoking gun - the list. (Almost sounds like we're in an action-thriller! LOL)

The reason you can't see "the list" is that there is so much smoke from the gun that it is clouding your vision. LOL.

As I said above, the fact that we fallen humans often act contrarily to what we teach does not mean that the teaching itself (which IS the thing we are bound to follow and obey and believe) is therefore negated or false.

Nor do we. We cite it as an example of Magesterial Error.

Not Magisterial error. Personal error. If it was "Magisterial" then that would mean the entire Church will have been taught that Peter's insincerity with Gentiles is somehow correct and an example that we should imitate.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

New Man, did you change your username?

I have always been bad at names but am getting worse in these "golden" years.

Nope - I have been NewMan and nothing else for the last 10 years or so. I just haven't been around CF very much lately.

 

[NewMan99]

I was wondering that same thing.

(Saw your name and dropped in to say hello, hope all is well )

Hi Sunlover

Nice to see you again. I am well and hope you are too.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Nope - I have been NewMan and nothing else for the last 10 years or so. I just haven't been around CF very much lately.

Hi NM! Welcome back.
Ahhh..still Roman Catholic I see

 

[NewMan99]

Hi NM! Welcome back.
Ahhh..still Roman Catholic I see

Hi LLOJ

Yep - still Catholic.

I see you have a new faith icon. You decided to become an EO? While I would have preferred it if you crossed the Tiber, I can't say I disapprove of your openness to Orthodoxy. Catholics and Orthodox have much in common. Personally, I find our bickering a bit distasteful, but then I never cared much for the bickering between Catholics and Protestants either.

 

[Mikeb85]

So the questions here are these:

1. Was this letter from Leo a teaching on the Christian faith? Yes.
2. Was this teaching bound to the entire Church? Yes (since it was an accepted document from the Council and had unanimous consent).
3. Does the universal Christian Church teach error? No. (I realize Protestants will disagree)​

On point 2 I want to mention that the teaching ONLY bound the entire church because the council accepted it (and it was an Orthodox teaching anyway). Had the council rejected it then this teaching wouldn't have mattered. Of course Pope Leo was Orthodox, and is considered a Saint in both our churches, so in this case he didn't teach heresy. In fact, it's interesting that many, many early Popes were Saints, yet many of the later Popes leading up to the Great Schism were far from Saintly...

Another point I wanted to quickly mention, is that during councils when the Pope exercised his supposed authority or made 'judgement', or whatever, these actions still had to go through the council. Much like the Primate of a church has to go through the Holy Synod to exercise his authority, it's much the same for the Patriarch who has Primacy (in ancient times the Roman Pope, later the Ecumenical Patriarch). Outside of a Synod or Council no Bishop has any authority over another Bishop's territory...