15 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdVistesd: I’ll buy all of that (I think—at least at first blush), with this caveat…
[b]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'.
Agreed.
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 ...[text shortened]... t those intermediate positions any formal recognition. So maybe we can set them aside…
Peace
[/b]I have to amend that a bit after re-reading your post more carefully. The Orthodox view is simply that it is not a “sound principle in Christian theology,” nor a “valid development of Christian doctrine and traditions.”
What I buy is (1) that Papal infallibility can be argued without the “triple test,” and (2) I think you have shown that the Orthodox position with regard to the history of doctrine and tradition is not a “slam dunk.” But then, I don’t see the RCC position as a “slam dunk” either.
I’m not sure I understand how Papal infallibility could be a “sound principle in Christian theology”—or soteriology, for that matter. I wouldn’t see it as a theological principle at all. I might see it as having to do with the orthodox idea of oikonomia to the extent that the question goes to how and through whom the Holy Spirit works (must work?) in the world in general, and the ecclesia in particular.
Logically, there is no constraint to having a Supreme Pontiff who is not Infallible and vice-versa.
Also (it seems I read you too quickly the first time!), I have question on this. If a pontiff is recognized as being infallible, would it not be irrational—once such recognition is granted—to deny his supremacy in those areas where he is recognized as infallible?
Given the differences in how the two sides read the patristic writings and interpret the councils, I think that prongs (1) and (3) [I had to go back and look them up!], fail to provide either side with an unequivocal case (say, to a neutral examiner). And, as I said, although the condemnation of Honorius I may be embarrassing, it appears that he was not speaking under the strictures required for infallible pronouncements; so I find that to be far and away the weakest “prong” for the Orthodox argument.
That leaves prong (2). Scripture is the seed-bed (expanding on your seed metaphor) for tradition and doctrinal development. Of course, in this case both sides hold to the principle of reading scripture from within the tradition, so things might be a bit murkier than they would be for a Protestant. And maybe I’m seeing this too much through a “Protestant” lens, but it seems to me that an unequivocal scriptural base would shore up what would otherwise appear to be disputable interpretations of the patristic tradition.
15 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd
Vistesd: [b]I’ll buy all of that (I think—at least at first blush), with this caveat…
[/b]I have to amend that a bit after re-reading your post more carefully. The Orthodox view is simply that it is not a “sound principle in Christian theology,” nor a “valid development of Christian doctrine and traditions.”
What I buy is (1) that Papal in ...[text shortened]... hore up what would otherwise appear to be disputable interpretations of the patristic tradition.[/b]
(vistesd) I have to amend that a bit after re-reading your post more carefully. The Orthodox view is simply that it is not a “sound principle in Christian theology,” nor a “valid development of Christian doctrine and traditions.” ...
I’m not sure I understand how Papal infallibility could be a “sound principle in Christian theology”—or soteriology, for that matter. I wouldn’t see it as a theological principle at all. I might see it as having to do with the orthodox idea of oikonomia to the extent that the question goes to how and through whom the Holy Spirit works (must work?) in the world in general, and the ecclesia in particular.
I was referring to 'development of doctrine' when I said "sound principle in Christian theology", not the specific doctrine of infallibility. Of course, properly speaking, Infallibility (Papal or Conciliar) is a matter of economy (oikonomia*).
By 'theology', I wasn't referring to the theologia ("the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity"&dagger😉 - but rather the subject (or academic discipline) of theology; i.e. the human understanding of the theologia‡ and the oikonomia. So, the Catholic view of doctrine is that it can develop over time (the principle of doctrinal development); i.e. human understanding of the theologia and oikonomia can increase over time; human beings are continuously "learning" about God over history but our "new" learnings do not overthrow the old, but supplement them.
(vistesd) If a pontiff is recognized as being infallible, would it not be irrational—once such recognition is granted—to deny his supremacy in those areas where he is recognized as infallible?
Could you expand on this?
I liken the role of Supreme Pontiff to that of the Head of Operations (COO) of a large organisation and the Infallible Pope to that of the CEO of the same organisation. The CEO and COO can be the same person, but not necessarily. Of course, the COO is bound by the policy decisions of the CEO.
Once again, this is partly moot because the Pope is both; but we need to remember that Papal supremacy and infallibility refer to two different "hats" or roles of the Pope - which are linked through history and the person of Peter.
EDIT: Apparently, there are some Orthodox theologians who have professed their belief in Papal Infallibility** (though not Supremacy) - but I have no idea who they are. Then again, there are "Catholic" theologians (Kung et. al.) who hold to the "consent of the people" doctrine so maybe we shouldn't read too much into that.
---
* C.f. CCC 236
† ibid.
‡ Map and territory again! 😉
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church#Papal_infallibility
15 Nov 05
1 edit
Another interesting quote I found on the Web:
With regard to the infallibility of ecumenical councils, Orthodox opinion has been divided ever since A. Khomiakov proposed his theory of sobornost (catholicity) in the middle of the last century. [1] [2] [3] According to this theory, only the faith-consciousness of the whole Church enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit which ensures its remaining in the true faith. The bishops, even gathered in an ecumenical council, have no claim to such assistance of the Holy Spirit as would guarantee the truth of their dogmatic decrees. The bishops can only witness to what is already the faith of the Church, and it is only when their teaching is confirmed by its reception by the faithful that it has any dogmatic authority.
While Khomiakov's view has had wide acceptance, especially among Russian Orthodox theologians, it is rejected by many, especially of the Greek Orthodox, who see it as an innovation which does not reflect the traditional eastern position regarding the magisterial authority of bishops. These Orthodox theologians hold that the ecumenical councils of the first millennium, representing the dogmatic consensus of the whole episcopate, enjoyed the assistance of the Holy Spirit which ensured the truth of the doctrines they solemnly defined. They reject the idea that the whole body of the faithful is the only locus of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the faith-life of the Church.
--- Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium, Paulist Press, 1983, p. 88.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infallibility_of_the_Church#Infallibility_of_the_Church:__Orthodox_view
EDIT: Khomiakov's 'The Church is One' can be read online at
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/khomiakov_church.aspx
Wherefore the Church has not been, nor could she be, changed or obscured, nor could she have fallen away, for then she would have been deprived of the spirit of truth. It is impossible that there should have been a time when she could have received error into her bosom, or when the laity, presbyters, and bishops had submitted to instructions or teaching inconsistent with the teaching and spirit of Christ. ... Moreover, a partial revolt against false doctrines, together with the retention or acceptance of other false doctrines, neither is, nor could be, the work of the Church; for within her, according to her very essence, there must always have been preachers and teachers and martyrs confessing, not partial truth with an admixture of error, but the full and unadulterated truth. The Church knows nothing of partial truth and partial error, but only the whole truth without admixture of error. And the man who is living within the Church does not submit to false teaching or receive the Sacraments from a false teacher; he will not, knowing him to be false, follow his false rites. And the Church herself does not err, for she is the truth, she is incapable of cunning or cowardice, for she is holy. And of course, the Church, by her very unchangeableness, does not acknowledge that to be error, which she has at any previous time acknowledged as truth; and having proclaimed by a General Council and common consent, that it is possible for any private individual, or any bishop or patriarch, to err in his teaching, she cannot acknowledge that such or such private individual, or bishop, or patriarch, or successor of theirs, is incapable of falling into error in teaching; or that they are preserved from going astray by any special grace. By what would the earth be sanctified, if the Church were to lose her sanctity? And where would there be truth, if her judgments of to-day were contrary to those of yesterday? Within the Church, that is to say, within her members, false doctrines may be engendered, but then the infected members fall away, constituting a heresy or schism, and no longer defile the sanctity of the Church.
15 Nov 05
More interesting perspectives from the Net:
http://www.theandros.com/sobornost.html
Just as the early Apostles Council mentioned in Acts 15, so the subsequent Councils from the fourth though he ninth centuries were both de jure and de facto the highest authority in the Church; which always have been understood to be divinely inspired as infallible for its purpose of promulgating the true faith. Most significantly, the Fourth Ecumenical Council explicitly reiterated this understanding when it declared: We will permit neither ourselves nor others to overstep even by so much as a syllable what our fathers at Nicaea determined, mindful of the saying, “Remove not the landmarks which thy fathers have set. Gregory the Great said: I esteem them [the Councils] as I do the four Gospels. The Ecumenical Councils presented themselves to posterity with this authority, and the same authority descended in due course upon each of the later representative assemblies of the whole Church. The infallibility of the Church thus can be defined as follows: The dogmatic decrees of the episcopacy in Council are infallible; for the hierarchy represents the Universal Church. Thus, the institution of the Church Council – which the Holy Apostles have established for the preservation and the explanation of Christ’s doctrines – is also exempt from error.
--Mar Melchizedek, Ph.D. 'Sobornost, Catholicity and True Salvation'
15 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was referring to 'development of doctrine' when I said "sound principle in Christian theology", not the specific doctrine of infallibility.
[quote](vistesd) I have to amend that a bit after re-reading your post more carefully. The Orthodox view is simply that it is not a “sound principle in Christian theology,” nor a “valid development of Christian doctrine and traditions.” ...
I’m not sure I understand how Papal infallibility could be a “sound principle in Christian theology”—or soter ...[text shortened]... itory again! 😉
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church#Papal_infallibility
Ah, gotcha.
Vistesd: If a pontiff is recognized as being infallible, would it not be irrational—once such recognition is granted—to deny his supremacy in those areas where he is recognized as infallible?
lucifershammer: Could you expand on this?
Maybe I was using supremacy in a confusing way there. What I mean is—Suppose, for example, that the Patriarch of Constantinople became convinced that under certain circumstances the Pope’s decrees would be infallible on certain issues. It seems logical that, in such a case, the Patriarch would be compelled to subordinate all else to the Pope’s voice on those decrees—i.e., he would have to hold the Pope’s decision to be “supreme” in those cases. On the other hand, if the Patriarch does not recognize Papal infallibility under any circumstances, supremacy is a wholly separate issue.
I liken the role of Supreme Pontiff to that of the Head of Operations (COO) of a large organization and the Infallible Pope to that of the CEO of the same organisation. The CEO and COO can be the same person, but not necessarily. Of course, the COO is bound by the policy decisions of the CEO.
Excellent analogy. And the Orthodox model, perhaps, is more like a commune based on consensus?
Apparently, there are some Orthodox theologians who have professed their belief in Papal Infallibility** (though not Supremacy) - but I have no idea who they are. Then again, there are "Catholic" theologians (Kung et. al.) who hold to the "consent of the people" doctrine so maybe we shouldn't read too much into that.
I thought that wiki article laid out the range of Orthodoxy’s views pretty well. The most common Orthodox view seems to be “infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium,” with a strong segment (especially Russian?) holding to “infallibility of all (Orthodox!) believers,” and a smaller segment that holds to “infallibility of ecumenical councils.”
Too bad the link to “Dogma and Authority in the Orthodox Church” didn’t work! However, I did find this article, which I think is interesting: http://www.theandros.com/infallib.html.
Here also is a perhaps somewhat dated, and polemical, article from a Protestant perspective: http://www.bible.ca/cath-salmon-infallibility.htm. It seems fairly exhaustive, however, in its coverage.
I couldn't help but quote this excerpt from the http://www.theandros.com/sobornost.html link that you provided: 🙂
“The Ecumenical Councils, according to Orthodox theology, have no authority ex sese, but only when they express the truth which exists in the Church as a whole. And the decisions of a Council in order to be Ecumenical must be accepted by the whole Church, which alone possesses the infallible prerogative to speak ex cathedra though her Councils. Thus, all dogmatic proclamations can only be executed by the Councils, because their function lies not only in their decisions, but also in their investiture with the authority of the whole of the Orthodox Church. In turn, as the Council’s promulgations are met with universal acceptance, the faithful confirm the dogmatic and moral mind of the Universal Church.”
15 Nov 05
Originally posted by vistesd
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 t ...[text shortened]... to shepherd literally the flock of Christ was acquired by all the Apostles and their successors.
(vistesd) 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.
Taken by itself, (1) isn't so much an argument against the Catholic position as it is simply a counter-position. In other words "That apple is green" vs. "That apple is red". For (1) to be an "affirmative" argument against Papal Infallibility, it will need to be proven in its own right; i.e. it will need to be demonstrated from Scripture, Patristic writings etc. Exactly as the Catholic Church would "prove" its own position regarding Papal and Conciliar Infallibility.
(2) effectively represents the rebuttal to the arguments that the Catholic Church raises to support Papal Infallibility. I'll come back to this in my next post.
(3) is what the Orthodox position would need to prove (1); or what the Catholic position would need to prove (2).
I think (4), if true, would be "slam dunk" rebuttal of Papal Infallibility. However, as you've observed, it isn't the strongest argument in the box.
So, essentially, the Orthodox position would need to do two things:
1. Prove its own position on infallibility by popular consent.
2. Rebut the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and Church History.
15 Nov 05
3 edits
(a) whether Peter 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
A. Matthew 16:18-19
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
1. As you've pointed out, all the "you"s in these verses are singular. Hence, as of this point, the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the power to bind and loose have been given to Peter alone.
2. Much has been made of the Petros/petra vs. kepha arguments that Protestant† and Catholic apologists use, so I won't go into it too much here. A more interesting perspective is that Jesus may have actually used the Greek words 'Petros' and 'petra' in order to refer to an older tradition (emphasis added):
It seems likely that Jesus alluded to a tradition with which his disciples were familiar, the tradition that God built the world on the sure foundation of a dependable man.‡
3. The power of the "keys" appears to be a cultural reference to a position of authority as a steward; e.g. from Isa 22*.
4. As Nemesio pointed out in the "Confession" thread, the Greek wording of v.19 means that whatever Peter binds on earth has already been bound in heaven and whatever Peter loosens on earth has already been loosened in heaven. It is impossible that Peter binds or loosens something on earth whilst it is loosened or bound respectively in heaven. Peter's power to bind/loose is infallibly so. This is supported by the "powers of death" ("gates of Hades" ) not prevailing against the bedrock of Christ's Church in v.18.
Note i: The power to bind/loose given to Peter is not contingent on anything else (e.g. consent of Christ's ekklesia or Church in v.18).
Note ii: Peter's infallibility is derived from the power to bind/loose; his supremacy is derived from the power of the "keys".
In summary, as of this point, Peter alone among the Apostles has been given the power of the "keys" and the power to "bind and loose" infallibly and non-contingently.
B. Mt 18:18
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
1. As you pointed out, all the "you"s here are plural. The grammatical construction is the same as in Mt 16:19, so the power to bind/loose is infallible and non-contingent as in Mt 16.
Note iii: There is no mention of "keys" here - so one cannot argue from Scripture that the power of the keys was given to all the Apostles.
Note iv: The power given to the Apostles in Mt 18:18 is given to them collectively; i.e. as a body. This is where conciliar infallibility derives from.
Note v: Peter is, quite naturally, part of the collective that this verse refers to.
So far, both Peter individually and the Apostles collectively have been given the charism of infallibility. In addition, Peter alone has been given the power of the keys.
The question now would be - were these charisms also transmitted to their successors?
(Contd.)
---
*
[20] In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
[22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
[23] And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.
† I remember you posted a sermon by Augustine on that basis - but I haven't yet been able to validate the authenticity of the sermon.
‡ http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1859
15 Nov 05
(Contd.)
C. Acts 1
(emphases added)
[15] In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
[16] "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
[17] For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
...
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it';
and `His office let another take.'
[21] So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us -- one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
[23] And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab'bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi'as.
[24] And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
[25] to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place."
[26] And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
1. This event is the first instance of Apostolic Succession.
2. The second Psalms reference is from Ps 109:
[8] May his days be few;
may another seize his goods!
also translated as
May his life be cut short;
may another take his office!
Note v: The Psalms reference gives us a hint as to why the Bishop of Rome (rather than, say, Antioch) is considered the successor to the Petrine Office - Peter's office was transmitted upon his death. This gives added meaning to references about Rome being Peter's final episcopacy and place of martyrdom.
D. Church Fathers
Now, there is no scriptural evidence for Peter's successors receiving all of Peter's gifts (keys, power to bind/loose), but I've already provided some Patristic writings* (in particular, look at the quotes from Cyprian, Optatus, Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine) that reflect this view. For example:
My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.
--- Jerome to Pope Damasus† (c. A.D. 397)
Up until the end of the fourth century, this appears to be the prevailing view with the Eastern Fathers as well. The claims of Rome to the Petrine office (rock, keys, bind/loose) are at least well-known, if not widely accepted, in the East and none of the Eastern Bishops have rejected this claim so far.
With the division of the Roman Empire in the latter part of the fourth century, however, a subtle shift appears in the mindset of the Eastern Churches (especially those in and around Constantinople). At both Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), the Papal legates declare the apostolic authority of the Bishop of Rome, but this view does not seem to be reflected in the (non-doctrinal) canons of those councils (particularly those dealing with the Episcopate of Constantinople) - although the Councils never reject the claim.
---
* http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
† http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm
16 Nov 05
1 edit
Probably not directly relevant, but something I read on another bulletin board:
Quote:[quote]The Byzantine Theological Tradition is more on the Mystery side rather than the Scholastic side that the Latin Theological Tradition is...
You know, this is a common accusation by Byzantines, and quite frankly I fint[sic] it historically untenable.
If you research the Christological controversies of the pre- and post-Nicene Church, you'll see that they occurred all on the Eastern-wing on the Church, with theologians agreeing over a single damned letter, whether or not to use the word "homoousious" or "homoiousious." Its differences over stupid semantics like this that led to the many schisms within the Eastern Churches (Chalcedonian, non-Chalcedonian, "Nestorian," etc.). The Latin Church was quite content on leaving the Trinity a mystery, and the East intent on defining it.
Even today, the Orthodox are so insistent that the word "filioque" is heretical in its implications, and refuse communion with us Catholics on the basis of this single word. Hmmm . . . why can't we leave this "a mystery"?
Also today, the Catholic Church is much more conciliatory, much more open, willing to tolerate liturgical variations within the universal church. In contrast, a good deal of Orthodox are explicitly anti-Western, practically considring all their Wstern saints (Augustine, Leo, Gregory, Jerome) to be material heretics. A good many Orthodox priests refuse to concelebrate with their Western-rite Antiochene brethren. No appreciation for "mystery" here. Just a denial of their entire Latin patrimony, and an insistence on an exclusively Eastern approach.
You might be surprised to learn that Medieval Scholasticism has its roots in the theology of the Eastern Churches. Do you know who historians and patrologists consider to be the "Father of Schoalsticism[sic]"? That's right: Saint John Damascene. Don't believe me? Do a google search, and read his On the Orthodox Faith.[/quote]
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=3790
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerDon't believe me?
Probably not directly relevant, but something I read on another bulletin board:
Quote:[quote]The Byzantine Theological Tradition is more on the Mystery side rather than the Scholastic side that the Latin Theological Tradition is...
You know, this is a common accusation by Byzantines, and quite frankly I fint[sic] it historically un ...[text shortened]... and read his On the Orthodox Faith.[/quote]
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=3790
Why in the world wouldn’t I believe you? (Okay, I know it was a rhetorical question and not aimed at me.) The Orthodox polemics are not my polemics. I think they have arguable grounds for rejecting the filioque, it’s really not an issue that I can get exercised about. It simply seemed to be the main doctrinal issue that got tied up with Papal supremacy. But I think we can leave it alone…
Hmmm . . . why can't we leave this "a mystery"?
No—this isn’t you talking!!??!! Leave it “off the map”? 😉 Only kidding. I know we’re not that far apart on the map-versus-territory. And I frankly agree with you on that one—though I would go even further and say that the trinity is only a sometimes useful way of speculating about the mystery.
Re, your other posts, I have to get off here now! as it’s lightning outside—will get back to you.
Shalom.
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by vistesdYou do realise that that post was a cut-paste job off another website, don't you? 😀 None of the views expressed there are mine (although it is an interesting perspective - was the Latin Church in the early centuries more mystical while the Eastern Church was more Scholastic?)
[b]Don't believe me?
Why in the world wouldn’t I believe you? (Okay, I know it was a rhetorical question and not aimed at me.) The Orthodox polemics are not my polemics. I think they have arguable grounds for rejecting the filioque, it’s really not an issue that I can get exercised about. It simply seemed to be the main doctrinal issue tha ...[text shortened]... s, I have to get off here now! as it’s lightning outside—will get back to you.
Shalom.[/b]
Nevertheless, I think the filioque question is given far too much importance in most discussions of the Great Schism. Given all the events that preceeded (starting with the elevation of the episcopate of Constantinople at Constantinople I and leading up to the deposing of Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople), I think the Schism would've happened even if the Latin Church had not used the filioque.
17 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTaken by itself, (1) isn't so much an argument against the Catholic position as it is simply a counter-position. In other words "That apple is green" vs. "That apple is red". For (1) to be an "affirmative" argument against Papal Infallibility, it will need to be proven in its own right; i.e. it will need to be demonstrated from Scripture, Patristic writings etc. Exactly as the Catholic Church would "prove" its own position regarding Papal and Conciliar Infallibility.
(Contd.)
C. Acts 1
(emphases added)
[quote][15] In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
[16] "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. ...[text shortened]... ://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
† http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm
I think that’s an accurate description.
So, essentially, the Orthodox position would need to do two things:
1. Prove its own position on infallibility by popular consent.
2. Rebut the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and Church History.
With regard to 1, I don’t think either side can prove or disprove this, given the nature of their arguments (viz., “The councils were legitimate because they were accepted,” versus “The councils were accepted because they were legitimate councils.” )
I’m not convinced that the “burden” of proof re Papal infallibility lies with the Orthodox; but I’m not sure that that matters with regard to this discussion.
(3) is what the Orthodox position would need to prove (1); or what the Catholic position would need to prove (2).
Maybe, but if the Orthodox fail to prove* infallibility by popular consent, that does not make Papal infallibility the default alternative—e.g., if the Orthodox decided that ecumenical councils were per se infallible, without confirmation by either the Pope or popular consent (which, however, is not a position that anyone seems to regard as tenable). If the issue were simply about whether the Pope or popular consent is required for confirmation of a council, that would be one thing. But Papal infallibility ex cathedra is another. We have already, at least partially, “de-coupled” Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility. For example, the Orthodox could accept Papal supremacy if confirmed ex post facto by popular consent—I don’t see them doing that, or Rome accepting it—but it is another logical possibility.
3. The power of the "keys" appears to be a cultural reference to a position of authority as a steward; e.g. from Isa 22.
Agreed. One could regard this passage in Matthew as a midrash on Isaiah (Rabbi Jacob Neusner, in his book What is Midrash, argues that Matthew is an accomplished midrashist, reading “the verses of ancient Israel’s Scriptures in the light of their meaning in the life and teachings of Jesus.” [p.39]). Maybe when this is over, I’ll have to attempt my own “midrash” on Isaiah, within a strictly Jewish context. 🙂
4. As Nemesio pointed out in the "Confession" thread, the Greek wording of v.19 means that whatever Peter binds on earth has already been bound in heaven and whatever Peter loosens on earth has already been loosened in heaven. It is impossible that Peter binds or loosens something on earth whilst it is loosened or bound respectively in heaven. Peter's power to bind/loose is infallibly so. This is supported by the "powers of death" ("gates of Hades" ) not prevailing against the bedrock of Christ's Church in v.18.
Note i: The power to bind/loose given to Peter is not contingent on anything else (e.g. consent of Christ's ekklesia or Church in v.18).
I think this is the single most powerful argument laid out so far supporting infallibility—especially given Nemesio’s correct reading of the Greek. I do not think, however, that it is insurmountable. The main reason, which I will address below, is that I think decoupling the keys from the authority to bind/loose is fallacious.
So far, both Peter individually and the Apostles collectively have been given the charism of infallibility. In addition, Peter alone has been given the power of the keys…. Note ii: Peter's infallibility is derived from the power to bind/loose; his supremacy is derived from the power of the "keys".
I think there are a few problems with this—
(1) It seems clear to me, both in terms of the Isaiah passage and the Matthean ones that “keys” is defined in terms of binding and loosing. Therefore, the fact that the word “keys” is not repeated in Matt18:18 doesn’t mean anything. It would be as if I said to you, “Here is your 4 = 2 + 2,” and said to Nemesio tomorrow, “And here is your 2 + 2.”
(2) If you decouple the concept of the “keys,” from whence are you going to derive the meaning of the term? Where are the other scriptural sources for defining “keys” as this or that authority? In what way does the “key to the house of David” in Isaiah 22 mean something other than the power to “open and shut?”
I can find no reference in scripture to key or keys that would give it any other meaning than the power to open/shut, bind/loose.
(3) If the Apostles are collectively given the charism of infallibility, then there is no need for any confirmation by Peter of their decisions, which would be as infallible as his. Peter could, of course, exercise some supremacy with regard to institutional and administrative matters, without having some “extra” charism of infallibility over the other apostles.
This event is the first instance of Apostolic Succession.
Okay.
Note v: The Psalms reference gives us a hint as to why the Bishop of Rome (rather than, say, Antioch) is considered the successor to the Petrine Office - Peter's office was transmitted upon his death. This gives added meaning to references about Rome being Peter's final episcopacy and place of martyrdom.
So how was apostolic succession accomplished for the Church at Antioch, once Peter left Antioch? If the Psalms reference is used as a text in support of apostolic succession generally, how can it give extra weight to succession of the “Petrine Office”?
Up until the end of the fourth century, this appears to be the prevailing view with the Eastern Fathers as well. The claims of Rome to the Petrine office (rock, keys, bind/loose) are at least well-known, if not widely accepted, in the East and none of the Eastern Bishops have rejected this claim so far.
There does not appear to be a consensus, however, that only Peter was the rock, that only Peter had the keys, or that only Peter had the authority to bind/loose—if that can be somehow separated from the “keys,” which I do not think it can. I will grant that—for a whole host of reasons that I outlined before—Rome was recognized as “the see of Peter.”
* I’m assuming that we’re just using the word “prove” here to mean something like “according to a preponderance of evidence.”
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNevertheless, I think the filioque question is given far too much importance in most discussions of the Great Schism. Given all the events that preceeded (starting with the elevation of the episcopate of Constantinople at Constantinople I and leading up to the deposing of Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople), I think the Schism would've happened even if the Latin Church had not used the filioque.
You do realise that that post was a cut-paste job off another website, don't you? 😀 None of the views expressed there are mine (although it is an interesting perspective - was the Latin Church in the early centuries more mystical while the Eastern Church was more Scholastic?)
Nevertheless, I think the filioque question is giv ...[text shortened]... I think the Schism would've happened even if the Latin Church had not used the filioque.
You might be right. I don’t even think it was the use of the filioque in the “West” that contributed to the Great Schism. But at some point, the Latin Church insisted on the filioque—so that the Latin Church was at least as guilty as the Greek Church of not leaving this issue as part of the “mystery.”
A question about Honorius and ex cathedra: That Protestant polemic that I cited argued that the requirements for the Pope to speak infallibly are flexible enough to always allow the Church to argue ex post facto that a statement by a prior Pope was not covered by the requirements. I’d like to hear your comments on that—i.e. why we can always know that a Pope is speaking under the strictures required for infallibility, so that that question cannot be raised. I know you have outlined thus stuff before, but if you could just give me a refresher in a few statements, I’d appreciate it.
18 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd
[b] Taken by itself, (1) isn't so much an argument against the Catholic position as it is simply a counter-position. In other words "That apple is green" vs. "That apple is red". For (1) to be an "affirmative" argument against Papal Infallibility, it will need to be proven in its own right; i.e. it will need to be demonstrated from Scripture, Patristi ...[text shortened]... ing the word “prove” here to mean something like “according to a preponderance of evidence.”[/b]
vistesd: (1) It seems clear to me, both in terms of the Isaiah passage and the Matthean ones that “keys” is defined in terms of binding and loosing. Therefore, the fact that the word “keys” is not repeated in Matt18:18 doesn’t mean anything. It would be as if I said to you, “Here is your 4 = 2 + 2,” and said to Nemesio tomorrow, “And here is your 2 + 2.”
(2) If you decouple the concept of the “keys,” from whence are you going to derive the meaning of the term? Where are the other scriptural sources for defining “keys” as this or that authority? In what way does the “key to the house of David” in Isaiah 22 mean something other than the power to “open and shut?”
Fair point. I'll have to revise my original analysis of Mt 16. However, I think it can still be established that the infallibility given to Peter in Mt 16 is not identical to that given to all the apostles in Mt 18.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
My argument (based on your points on "decoupling" above) is that none of the promises here can be decoupled - they constitute a thematic unity:
1. Simon bar-Jonah is renamed "Peter" (Petros). In the Jewish context, the renaming of a person represents a change in that person's mission, vocation and destiny (e.g. the renaming of Abram to "Abraham" in Gen. 17; Jacob to "Israel" in Gen. 32 etc.)
2. "On this rock" (i.e. Peter), Christ will build His Church. Where Peter is, the Church is.
3. The gates of Hell ("powers of death"😉 will not prevail against Christ's Church, which is built on the rock that Peter signifies.
4. The "keys" are given to Peter (we've looked at this before).
5. Peter's binding/loosing action is infallible and non-contingent (we've seen this as well).
My point about the "keys" earlier was not that it can be completely decoupled from "bind/loose"; but that in the Jewish context, "keys" represented a temporal (i.e. earthly) authority (e.g. steward of a household) as well.
In any case, both Peter's "keys" and his infallibility proceeds from the fact that he is the rock on which Christ builds His Church.
(Contd.)