Infallibility

Originally posted by vistesd
(…continued from prior post)

The debate, quite naturally and appropriately steered into the question of conciliar infallibility. Removing the term a priori because of our differing understandings of it, I think the matter of the Councils being per se infallible is settled. Under either schema (Rome’s or Orthodoxy’s), whether or not a Counc ...[text shortened]... ot being “just Council.” I have not yet presented their historical case for “why not the Pope.”

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, I am not sure the Orthodox Church can clearly articulate its validation process for Ecumenical Councils.

What I mean is, in the Catholic view a Council can be immediately identified as having been infallible*. With the idea of infallibility being identified by the consent of the people†, it is not clear which Councils are infallible and w ...[text shortened]... odox Churches; 7 - [Eastern] Orthodox Churches; 8 - some Orthodox sources; 21 - Catholic Church.

Vistesd: First, since the language in Mt. 16:18, 19 has the singular “you” in the Greek, it does seem that Jesus was addressing Peter in particular with reference to the keys; but the question is still whether anyone else (e.g., Paul) had the ability to forgive without being ordained by Peter…

Mt. 18:18: “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Here the “you” is plural, not singular.

A fairly common theme running through the Orthodox writings (though not always in these words) is that a kind of “papal primacy” is recognized; papal “supremacy” is not.

The Orthodox argument against Papal infallibility seems to be four-pronged:

(1) The principle of the consent of the faithful (which we have already discussed), as opposed to simply Papal confirmation to validate the decrees and decisions of councils/synods.

(2) The nature of Petrine authority and succession (e.g., whether Peter (a) alone was given the “keys,” which therefore are given only to Peter’s successors; (b) whether the fact that Peter was a bishop of Rome gives Rome any apostolic supremacy.

(3) The tradition of the Fathers and the Councils.

(4) Honorius I.

____________________________________________

Orthodox articles on the primacy of Peter:

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html
Excerpt:
Having looked at the writings of the Pre-Nicene Fathers, we can now ask if the Papal Christian interpretation that identifies the Apostle Peter with the rock on which the Church is built withstands the test of universality and antiquity and consent. Was such an identification found throughout the world? Based upon the above, it does not appear that such an identification was widespread. Was such an identification extant from the earliest years? Again, it appears that such a belief was not present. The judgement of Chadwick is clear that Matthew 16:18 was not understood in the Pre-Nicene Church as it is now interpreted by Papal Christianity. Was such an identification attacked as inconsistent with the Apostolic Faith? It appears that because this view was not proposed in the early Church, no Father had a need to compose a refutation. However, we know that once Rome began to claim an identification between the Apostle Peter and the rock on which the Church was built, there were refutations. Thus, the identification of the Apostle Peter with the rock on which the Church is built does not seem to withstand the test of consent (although in the earliest times no explicit rejection may be found), but it clearly fails the tests of universality and antiquity. For this reason it cannot be claimed that the belief that the Church is founded on the Apostle Peter (as claimed by Papal Christianity) is catholic truth. In other words, it is not the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp

Excerpt:

Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ's twelve apostles. The Church built its identity on them as witnesses, and responsibility for pastoral leadership was not restricted to Peter.[11] In Matthew 16:19, Peter is explicitly commissioned to "bind and loose"; later, in Matthew 18:18, Christ directly promises all the disciples that they will do the same. Similarly, the foundation upon which the Church is built is related to Peter in Matthew 16:16, and to the whole apostolic body elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 2:10).It is thus possible to conclude that, although the distinctive features of Peter's ministry are stressed, his ministry is that of an apostle and does not distinguish him from the ministry of the other apostles. In addition, the New Testament does not contain an explicit record of the transmission of Peter's leadership, nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. As a result, the Petrine texts of the New Testament have been subjected to differing interpretations from the time of the Church Fathers on. Many theologians regard Roman "primacy" as having developed gradually in the West due to the convergence of a number of factors, e.g., the dignity of Rome as the only apostolic Church in the West; the tradition that both Peter and Paul had been martyred there; Rome's long history as a capital of the Roman empire; and its continuing position as the chief centre of commerce and communication.

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/boumis_peter.html

A sermon by St. Augustine of Hippo:

http://www.missionstclare.com/english/people/jun29o.html

Excerpts:

On "this stone" [petra], is on that which thou sayest: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" -- it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the "thou art Peter": it is from the "stone" [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the "stone" [petra] is -- just as how the christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the christian.

Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these "keys" and the right "to bind and loosen." And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" -- and further after this: "Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained" (Jn 20:22-23); or: "with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens" (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone -- Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen.

And to shepherd literally the flock of Christ was acquired by all the Apostles and their successors.

Bump for my own sake.

(vistesd) If what you’re looking for is some clearly delineated process (first step A, then step B, and so on), it seems clear that isn’t there. You can criticize that in both Orthodoxy and Protestantism. What the Orthodox have done is articulate the ultimate source of validation, without an institutionalized process (except, perhaps, for how a new council might be convened). Again, the Orthodox seem a lot more comfortable with letting more issues remain dogmatically unsettled.

Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The [Orthodox] Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the [Orthodox] Church, she does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science....

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.*

Originally posted by vistesd
Vistesd: [b]First, since the language in Mt. 16:18, 19 has the singular “you” in the Greek, it does seem that Jesus was addressing Peter in particular with reference to the keys; but the question is still whether anyone else (e.g., Paul) had the ability to forgive without being ordained by Peter…

Mt. 18:18: “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on ea ...[text shortened]... ways in these words) is that a kind of “papal primacy” is recognized; papal “supremacy” is not.[/b]

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[quote] (vistesd) If what you’re looking for is some clearly delineated process (first step A, then step B, and so on), it seems clear that isn’t there. You can criticize that in both Orthodoxy and Protestantism. What the Orthodox have done is articulate the ultimate source of validation, without an institutionalized process (except, perhaps, for how ...[text shortened]... 4 n.6.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4
‡ Galileo being the tragic case in point.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Could you check the plural/singular thing again? AFAICS, all the "you"s in Mt 16:19 are singular:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi

On the latter point, I wonder if both sides have not confused the doctrinal and administrative powers of the Pope.

Originally posted by vistesd
All the "yous" in Mt. 16:18 & 19 are singular in the Greek (with verb agreement). However, in Mt. 18:18, they are plural.* From this, one could argue that the keys were first given to Peter, and then to the others.

I have a program that allows me to read the English and Greek "interlinearly" (only one verse at a time), and check the morphology of t ...[text shortened]... ral) bind," ignoring here Nemesio's study of the verb tense (subjunctive aortive active here).

I came across a statement by an Orthodox writer (I can't recall if it's in any of the sites I referenced so far) to the effect that Rome's view of Papal primacy was "apostolic," while the "East's" was "pragmatic." Does that make any sense to you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

I came across a statement by an Orthodox writer (I can't recall if it's in any of the sites I referenced so far) to the effect that Rome's view of Papal primacy was "apostolic," while the "East's" was "pragmatic." Does that make any sense to you?

I think it does. The Catholic position is that the primacy of the Pope comes f ...[text shortened]... IMO - when the capital was shifted to Constantinople, the Bishop of Rome still retained primacy.

I’ll go ahead and put this in here now—

Below are the Council canons that Orhtodox typically cite contra Papal supremacy:

Canon 6, Council of Nicaea, 325
Concerning the forms of primacy belonging to some cities; and that bishops may not be created without the consent of the metropolitan

6. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.
In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however, two or three, by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's rule (regula), the vote of the majority shall prevail. (bold mine)

Council of Constantinople, 381

Canon 3. The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Canon 28, Council of Chalcedon, 451

FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do 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 and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. (my bold)

Note: I do recall your comment that Leo originally rejected canon 28, but that “later Popes eventually had to accept it as well.”

Okay, the final “brick” in the Orthodox edifice—Honorius I.

After reading the newadvent article that you referenced, I am convinced that, while Honorius may have been an “embarrassment” with regard to papal infallibility, it is no more than that—i.e., if the article is correct that Honorius was not “speaking” under the strictures that apply to infallibility. Clearly, it was an issue that Rome had to deal with.

According to Pelikan: “The most scholarly history of church councils written during the nineteenth century, that of Karl Josef von Hefele, published while he was still a professor in the Roman Catholic faculty of Tubingen, had carefully examined the Greek and Latin texts of the Acts of the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, concluding, against the theories advanced by apologists for the papacy, that the transmitted texts were accurate and that the council had indeed condemned the pope as a heretic. ‘As for the bearing of the history of Honorius on the infallibility of the pope,’ Hefele ended his narrative of the sixth ecumenical council, published in 1858, ‘it is not our task to discuss this in detail.’ Having meanwhile been made bishop of Rottenberg just before the opening of the Vatican Council, Hefele did go on to discuss the question in detail, in a tract read also in the East, entitled The Case of Pope Honorius, published in 1870, the year of the council. The claim that the Acts were inauthentic was ‘an excessively audacious hypothesis, totally devoid of any solid basis’; but since any doctrine of papal infallibility must necessarily be retroactive in its implications, it would be historically dishonest, as well as fatally injurious to the credibility of the church, to fly in the face of the historical evidence that a pope who, speaking in his official capacity, had declared, ‘We confess a single will of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ was in fact subsequently condemned as a Monotheletist heretic by a legitimate council of the church.”

The Vatican held that “The saying of the fathers at Chalcedon, ‘Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo,’ applied to each of Leo’s successors—not, of course, ‘as a private person and a mortal man,’ but when speaking ‘ex cathedra.’” (If I understand the argument put forth in the newadvent article, it is, at least in part, that Honorious was not speaking ex cathedra.) Pelikan also notes that there was an argument that the 681 council was not a legitimate ecumenical council when it condemned Honorius.

Pelikan sums up the Orthodox response: “Eastern Orthodox theologians denied to the Vatican Council—or for that matter any of the so-called councils held by the separated Latin church since the schism between East and West—the title of ‘ecumenical council’ and consequently the right to speak on matters of faith and doctrine in the name of the universal church. They denied as well the claim of the pope to speak infallibly in the absence of a proper council, for Christ and the Holy Spirit were the only two “infallible witnesses of the truth” to the church.”

He also notes: “Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology likewise saw the church as having been ‘confirmed’ in its faith, through the prayer of Christ to the Father to ‘keep them in my name’; but that confirming did not take place through subordination to Rome, which was only one of the sees of Christendom, though one with a certain kind of primacy.”

[Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 5, “Christian Doctrine in Modern Culture (since 1700),” pp. 247-253.)

I'll need to highlight a couple of issues before I can address the four-fold response of the Orthodox Church to Papal Infallibility.

1. Papal Primacy vs. Papal Supremacy vs. Papal Infallibility

Papal 'primacy' and 'supremacy' are used inter-changeably by the Catholic Church to refer to the 'ordinary' (i.e. canonical and ecclesiastical) authority of the Pope over the Church hierarchy (CCC 882). One may call this a 'primacy of fact'.

The Orthodox Church rejects Papal supremacy, of course; but recognises a 'primacy of honour' accorded to the Bishop of Rome. This is the 'first among equals' view - the Bishop of Rome is accorded a respect similar to that which one might accord to the eldest member of a council or committee; but which does not carry with it any special powers or rights*. For the purposes of clarity in this discussion, I'll refer to the Orthodox view as 'Papal Primacy' and the Catholic view as 'Papal Supremacy'.

What is important to remember is that Papal Supremacy does not automatically follow from, or imply, Papal Infallibility (the charism that protects the Pope from teaching error when teaching ex cathedra). In other words, a challenge to Papal Supremacy (even if successful) does not negate Papal Infallibility. Logically, there is no constraint to having a Supreme Pontiff who is not Infallible and vice-versa.

2. Unchanging doctrine vs. Development of doctrine

The Catholic understanding of Revelation is analogous to "seeds of truth" being planted in the Apostles and the Early Church, which would provide the basis for an ever-increasing understanding of truth over time, achieving its fulfilment at the parousia. This is how the Catholic Church understands 'development of doctrine'. Of course, development of doctrine differs from new Revelation (e.g. a fourth person of the Godhead, or that the Logos had been incarnated in Krishna before Jesus etc.) and cannot contradict known doctrines from Revelation.

Therefore, the Catholic Church can argue for Papal infallibility even if the doctrine itself does not pass the "triple test" of antiquity, universality and consent if:

(a) The principle of doctrinal development can be shown to be a sound principle in Christian theology
(b) Papal infallibility can be shown to be a valid development of Christian doctrine and traditions

3. Map vs. territory

Just something from JPII's encyclical Fides et Ratio:

Reason before the mystery

13. It should nonetheless be kept in mind that Revelation remains charged with mystery. It is true that Jesus, with his entire life, revealed the countenance of the Father, for he came to teach the secret things of God.13 But our vision of the face of God is always fragmentary and impaired by the limits of our understanding. Faith alone makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently...

In a sense, then, we return to the sacramental character of Revelation and especially to the sign of the Eucharist, in which the indissoluble unity between the signifier and signified makes it possible to grasp the depths of the mystery. ...

In short, the knowledge proper to faith does not destroy the mystery; it only reveals it the more, showing how necessary it is for people's lives: Christ the Lord “in revealing the mystery of the Father and his love fully reveals man to himself and makes clear his supreme calling”,18 which is to share in the divine mystery of the life of the Trinity.19 †

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll need to highlight a couple of issues before I can address the four-fold response of the Orthodox Church to Papal Infallibility.

1. Papal Primacy vs. Papal Supremacy vs. Papal Infallibility

Papal 'primacy' and 'supremacy' are used inter-changeably by the Catholic Church to refer to the 'ordinary' (i.e. canonical and ecclesia ...[text shortened]... to power. But that may be besides the point.
† http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__P4.HTM