Supremacy of Peter

[Peter J]

B-I-N-G-O.

That's my favorite game! I just can't remember what to yell out when you win.

[Mickey]

Well, the bishops all have the keys, but the Supreme Pontiff holds the master key.

Hmmm? I can't seem to locate any information from the early Church regarding supreme pontiffs and master keys.  

[ozgeorge]

Well, the bishops all have the keys, but the Supreme Pontiff holds the master key.

Then the "Supreme Pontiff" must be the Patriarch of Constantinople since the Fourth Ecumenical Council gave the the right to judge heirarchs and clerics in other Patriarchates to the Throne of Constantinople and no one else.
The reality is that the idea of someone holding the "master key" is an innovation.  

[Mickey]

Not sure if this is useful or not. But I thought I would just throw it into the conversation.
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

And so...what do you think this quote is saying?

[SolEX01]

Hmmm? I can't seem to locate any information from the early Church regarding supreme pontiffs and master keys.  

On The Price is Right, there's a game show called, appropriately enough, "Master Key."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Key

[Papist]

And so...what do you think this quote is saying?

Just that Peter was viewed by some of the Fathers as the Rock on which the Church was built.

[ozgeorge]

Just that Peter was viewed by some of the Fathers as the Rock on which the Church was built.

I would check the source of your translation/interpretation of the quote from St. Cyprian.
If you read St. Cyprian's Epistles, he clearly indicates in three different Epistles that he considers the "Rock" to be Christ and the Church to be founded on all the Bishops:

[15:4]It now remains, beloved brethren, that you should be mindful of me; that, among your great and divine considerations, you should also think of me in your mind and spirit; and that I should be in your prayers and supplications, when that voice, which is illustrious by the purification of confession, and praiseworthy for the continual tenor of its honour, penetrates to God’s ears, and heaven being open to it, passes from these regions of the world subdued, to the realms above, and obtains from the Lord’s goodness even what it asks. For what do you ask from the Lord’s mercy which you do not deserve to obtain?—you who have thus observed the Lord’s commands, who have maintained the Gospel discipline with the simple vigour of your faith, who, with the glory of your virtue uncorrupted, have stood bravely by the Lord’s commands, and by His apostles, and have confirmed the wavering faith of many by the truth of your martyrdom? Truly, Gospel witnesses, and truly, Christ’s martyrs, resting upon His roots, founded with strong foundation upon the Rock, you have joined discipline with virtue, you have brought others to the fear of God, you have made your martyrdoms, examples. I bid you, brethren, very brave and beloved, ever heartily farewell; and remember me.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_V/Cyprian/The_Epistles_of_Cyprian/Part_15

[26:1] Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_V/Cyprian/The_Epistles_of_Cyprian/Part_26

[62:8] If they shall thirst, he says, He shall lead them through the deserts, shall bring forth water for them out of the rock; the rock shall be cloven, and the water shall flow, and my people shall drink; which is fulfilled in the Gospel, when Christ, who is the Rock, is cloven by a stroke of the spear in His passion; who also, admonishing what was before announced by the prophet, cries and says, If any man thirst, let him come and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_V/Cyprian/The_Epistles_of_Cyprian/Part_62

[buzuxi]

Not sure if this is useful or not. But I thought I would just throw it into the conversation.
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
 

The only problem with this quote is that St Cyprian was speaking of his own See of Carthage. He being the bishop is the successsor of Peter, the chair of the episcopacy beng one.

I fixed the quote, nothing more.--YtterbiumAnalyst

[lubeltri]

3,000 Assyrians Received into the Catholic Church

The Chaldean Catholic Diocese of St. Peter and Paul has formally received into its fold, those members of the Assyrian Catholic Apostolic Diocese who, under the leadership of Mar Bawai Soro, had asked to be reconciled with the Catholic Church last January 17, 2008.

One bishop (Mar Bawai himself), six priests, 30+ deacons and subdeacons and an estimated 3,000 faithful were received into full communion during liturgical celebrations for the Feast of Pentecost. . . .

Mar Bawai Soro has long advocated the Primacy of the See of Rome. On November 2, 2005, he presented to the Synod of Bishops of the Assyrian Church of the East (of which he was a bishop at that time) a paper entitled "The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion " in which, among other things, he stated that

    The Church of the East attributes a prominent role to Saint Peter and a
    significant place for the Church of Rome in her liturgical, canonical and
    Patristic thoughts. There are more than 50 liturgical, canonical and Patristic
    citations that explicitly express such a conviction. The question before us
    therefore is, why there must be a primacy attributed to Saint Peter in the
    Church? If there is no primacy in the universal church, we shall not be able to
    legitimize a primacy of all the Catholicos-Patriarchs in the other apostolic
    churches. If the patriarchs of the apostolic churches have legitimate authority
    over their own respective bishops it is so because there is a principle of
    primacy in the universal Church. If the principle of primacy is valid for a
    local Church (for example, the Assyrian Church of the East), it is so because it
    is already valid for the universal church. If there is no Peter for the
    universal church there could not be Peter for the local Church. If all the
    apostles are equal in authority by virtue of the gift of the Spirit, and if the
    bishops are the successors of the Apostles, based on what then one of these
    bishops (i.e., the Catholicos-Patriarchs) has authority over the other
    bishops?

    The Church of the East possesses a theological, liturgical and
    canonical tradition in which she clearly values the primacy of Peter among the
    rest of the Apostles and their churches and the relationship Peter has with his
    successors in the Church of Rome. The official organ of our Church of the East,
    Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall, based
    himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which
    he clearly states the following: “To the Great Rome [authority] was given
    because the two pillars are laid [in the grave] there, Peter, I say, the head of
    the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and
    the head of the patriarchs.” (Memra 9; Risha 1) Furthermore, Abdisho asserts “.
    . . . And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner
    in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has
    authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community,
    for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church. He who
    transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema.”
    (Memra 9; Risha 8 ). I would like to ask here the following: who among us would
    dare to think that he or she is more learned than Abdisho of Soba, or that they
    are more sincere to the church of our forefather than Mar Abdisho himself? This
    is true especially since we the members of the Holy Synod have in 2004 affirmed
    Mar Abdisho’s List of Seven Sacraments as the official list of the Assyrian
    Church of the East. How much more then we ought to consider examining and
    receiving Abdisho’s Synodical legislation in his Nomocanon?


Five days later, Mar Bawai was suspended by the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church. . . .

Following upon his suspension, Mar Bawai and the clergy and faithful who had remained loyal to him formed the Assyrian Catholic Apostolic Diocese, then proceeded to draw ever closer to the Catholic Church through the Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate.

--

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/05/3000-assyrians-received-into-catholic.html

[buzuxi]

We do not agree with that in Orthodoxy . Primacy was given by the canons of the councils. Namely Canon 6 of Nicea, Canon 3 of Constantinople, The elevation of Jerusalem at Ephesus 431, and Canon 28 of Chalcedon.  And those canons only apply as long as that See remains Orthodox.

[Mickey]

St Cyprian was speaking of his own See of Carthage. He being the bishop is the successsor of Peter, the chair of the episcopacy beng one.

Yes.
St Peter's succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved.

The idea of a supreme infallible pontiff who claims the power to teach infallibly outside of an Ecumenical Council if necessary, and who claims to be the supreme leader of the Universal Church is an innovated doctrine which was championed by the ultramontanists and defined in 1870 by Pius IX.

[Papist]

I would check the source of your translation/interpretation of the quote from St. Cyprian.
If you read St. Cyprian's Epistles, he clearly indicates in three different Epistles that he considers the "Rock" to be Christ and the Church to be founded on all the Bishops:

Cannot it not be both? I don't see why not. And, I think the inclusion of both interpretations as different layers of the text in Matthew is more in keeping with the corpus of patristic writings that includes both.

[Papist]

Yes.
St Peter's succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved.

The idea of a supreme infallible pontiff who claims the power to teach infallibly outside of an Ecumenical Council if necessary, and who claims to be the supreme leader of the Universal Church is an innovated doctrine which was championed by the ultramontanists and defined in 1870 by Pius IX.

While I don't agree with your idea about "innovation" (I think that word is tossed about alot) I did not provide that quote to support the idea of the Papacy. I provided in order to show that some of the Fathers did in fact consider Peter to be the Rock on which the Church was founded.

[lubeltri]

St Peter's succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved.

And who determines when/where the "right faith" is preserved? Certainly not the Successors to the Apostles, as they are only Successors and thus authoritative if they have been determined (by whom?) to have the "right faith." Your statement sounds, I'm afraid to say, Protestant in its de facto acceptance of private interpretation.

The idea of a supreme infallible pontiff who claims the power to teach infallibly outside of an Ecumenical Council if necessary, and who claims to be the supreme leader of the Universal Church is an innovated doctrine which was championed by the ultramontanists and defined in 1870 by Pius IX.

You mean defined in council. The idea, of course, is much more ancient. VCI clarified it, authoritatively.

[Anastasios]

Obviously. But the point being that the idea that only one Bishop holds the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven at a time, and St. Peter hands them to the Pope of Rome at his election and consecration is not so "obvious".

Is that what they really teach though? You know I am against papal supremacy as much as you, but I just want to make sure we are criticizing what they are actually teaching.

[lubeltri]

The idea of a supreme infallible pontiff who claims the power to teach infallibly outside of an Ecumenical Council if necessary, and who claims to be the supreme leader of the Universal Church is an innovated doctrine which was championed by the ultramontanists and defined in 1870 by Pius IX.

I would add that infallibility is not at all about power. For an ex-Catholic you seem to have a stereotypical conception of one of Rome's most misunderstood teachings. It is not a positive infallibility but a negative one---it essentially means that the Holy Spirit will protect the pope from formally promulgating heresy in his capacity as supreme shepherd. Papal infallibility is one of the channels of Church infallibility.

[ozgeorge]

Cannot it not be both? I don't see why not. And, I think the inclusion of both interpretations as different layers of the text in Matthew is more in keeping with the corpus of patristic writings that includes both.

But it is not in keeping with St. Cyprian's intent.
Here is what he actually says:
 

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments.  There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth.  The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”
Source

There is nothing to indicate that Cyprian believed Peter to be "the Rock" of Matthew 16. It just makes no grammatical sense in the original Greek, since Christ calls Simon "Petros" ("Rock" [masculine]), and then says He will build His Church on "h Petra" ("the Stone"[feminine]). "h Petra" is clearly Peter's confession of Faith in Christ.

[ozgeorge]

Is that what they really teach though?

Yes. As lubeltri says, the Pope has the "master Key" which gives him alone the right to confer keys to others.
He even gave us a pretty diagram to explain this "logic":

Well, the bishops all have the keys, but the Supreme Pontiff holds the master key. It works in concert with the other keys, but as Peter was head of the Apostles, the Pope's key will also work as the head.

[Marc1152]

I don't listen to Rome. I listen to the Fathers and Councils of the pre-schim Church. Are you actually going to assert, that the primacy of Rome is not based on the Gospels? Is that your claim?

Correct, it is not scriptual. It is based on a particular interpretation of Peter himself as the Rock upon which the Church was to be built.That was a minority reading of the passage according to the Early Church Fathers. Only about 1/3 of them agreed with the modern Roman interpretation. Most thought it meant that the Church was founded upon the Peter's declaration of Faith.

Or did you mean something else?

[Mickey]

And who determines when/where the "right faith" is preserved?

The bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church of course!  

I'm afraid to say, Protestant in its de facto acceptance of private interpretation.

The protestants are the wayward children of the Roman Catholic Church. Please do not accuse Holy Orthodoxy of protestant errors.

You mean defined in council.

I cannot recall the doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy being defined in one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils?

The idea, of course, is much more ancient.

Papal supremacy/infallibility is a post schism innovation of the Latin Church.

[Papist]

You mean defined in council. The idea, of course, is much more ancient. VCI clarified it, authoritatively.

Yup. The Vatican certainly didn't want us to go around thinking that everything the Pope said was from God.

[Papist]

I would add that infallibility is not at all about power. For an ex-Catholic you seem to have a stereotypical conception of one of Rome's most misunderstood teachings. It is not a positive infallibility but a negative one---it essentially means that the Holy Spirit will protect the pope from formally promulgating heresy in his capacity as supreme shepherd. Papal infallibility is one of the channels of Church infallibility.

I think that one of the problems that we often run into when discussing the matter of Papal Infallibility is that we first have to demonstrate that many of the charicaturizations of the Papacy as are simply false and have nothing to do with what the Church teaches with regard to the Papacy.

[Papist]

There is nothing to indicate that Cyprian believed Peter to be "the Rock" of Matthew 16. It just makes no grammatical sense in the original Greek, since Christ calls Simon "Petros" ("Rock" [masculine]), and then says He will build His Church on "h Petra" ("the Stone"[feminine]). "h Petra" is clearly Peter's confession of Faith in Christ.

Then why, in my quote, does he specifically say that the Church was founded on Peter? I am not claiming to be an expert on this matter. It's just clear that, according to St. Cyprian, that the Church was founed on Peter according to the quote I provided.

[Papist]

One key to rule them all...  

[lubeltri]

Yes. As lubeltri says, the Pope has the "master Key" which gives him alone the right to confer keys to others.
He even gave us a pretty diagram to explain this "logic":

I never said that. The keys come from Christ. All of them. The "diagram" is purely illustrative and my own idea.

George, you have a very serious problem with strawmen.  My humble suggestion to you: Either address what we really teach or abstain.

[lubeltri]

There is nothing to indicate that Cyprian believed Peter to be "the Rock" of Matthew 16. It just makes no grammatical sense in the original Greek, since Christ calls Simon "Petros" ("Rock" [masculine]), and then says He will build His Church on "h Petra" ("the Stone"[feminine]). "h Petra" is clearly Peter's confession of Faith in Christ.

I wasn't aware that Christ spoke in Greek with his disciples.

[Mickey]

I would add that infallibility is not at all about power. For an ex-Catholic you seem to have a stereotypical conception of one of Rome's most misunderstood teachings.

This ex-Catholic understood the "dogma" quite well. I am used to this accusation flying whenever a Roman Catholic becomes frustrated trying to explain this odd dogma.

it essentially means that the Holy Spirit will protect the pope from formally promulgating heresy in his capacity as supreme shepherd.

You mean like the heretic Honorius?

[lubeltri]

The bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church of course! 

Uh-huh. According to you, they are not Successors of the Apostles unless they have the "right faith." And who determines that but the bishops themselves? You?

The protestants are the wayward children of the Roman Catholic Church.

Private interpretation is a Protestant idea.

I cannot recall the doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy being defined in one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils?

Stop jumping about and be intellectually honest here. You mistakenly said that infallibility was defined by Blessed Pius IX. It was actually defined in council---VCI---I corrected you on that. Where did I say it was defined in one of the "first seven" ECs?

[lubeltri]

You mean like the heretic Honorius?

Show me the heresies he formally promulgated as dogmatic Church teaching or cease tossing out that chestnut.

 I repeat---for someone who was Catholic before your schism, you follow stereotypes more than realities.

[ozgeorge]

Then why, in my quote, does he specifically say that the Church was founded on Peter?

Perhaps this may explain:

"Cyprian is often innocently quoted by Romanist controvertists against the very principles of Cyprian himself, of his life and his writings. This is due to the fact that they have in their hands vitiated and interpolated copies. Thus, take a famous passage as follows:—

Cyprian.

Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, Ego tibi dico Tu es Petrus, etc.(a)

Super unum(b) ædificat ecclesiam.

Hoc erant utique et cæteri apostoli quot fuit Petrus, qui consortio præditi et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficisitur,(c) ut(d) Christi ecclesia(e) una monstretur.(f)

Qui Ecclesiæ resistitur et resistit,(g) in ecclesia se esse confidit?

Interpolated.

(a) Et iterum eidem, post ressurectionem suam dicit, Pasce oves meas.

(b) Super illum unum…et illi pascendas mandat oves suas.

(c) Et primatus Petro datur.

(d) Una.

(e) Et cathedra.

(f) Et pastores sunt omnes et grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus, unanimi consensione pascatur, etc.

(g) Qui cathedram Petri, super quem fundata est ecclesia deserit, etc.

This is but a specimen of the way in which Cyprian has been “doctored,” in order to bring him into a shape capable of being misinterpreted. But you will say where is the proof of such interpolations? The greatly celebrated Benedictine edition reads as the interpolated column does, and who would not credit Baluzius? Now note, Baluzius rejected these interpolations and others; but, dying (a.d. 1718) with his work unfinished, the completion of the task was assigned to a nameless monk, who confesses that he corrupted the work of Baluzius, or rather glories in the exploit.[4]  “Nay, further,” he says, “it was necessary to alter not a few things in the notes of Baluzius; and more would have been altered if it could have been done conveniently.”  Yet the edition came forth, and passes as the genuine work of the erudite Baluzius himself.

An edition of this treatise, with valuable annotations, appeared (a.d. 1852) from the press of Burlington, N.J., under the very creditable editorship of Professor Hyde, who was soon after called to depart this life. It exhibits the interpolations, and gives a useful catalogue of codices and of editions. Though its typographical execution is imperfect, I know not where so much condensed information on the subject is to be had at so little cost.Source

[Mickey]

Uh-huh. According to you, they are not Successors of the Apostles unless they have the "right faith."

Right faith means orthodox my friend.

Private interpretation is a Protestant idea.

Spawned by Roman Catholicism.

Stop jumping about and be intellectually honest here.

I will suggest that you cease and desist from calling me intellectually dishonest. Ad hominem is not necessary.

You mistakenly said that infallibility was defined by Blessed Pius IX. It was actually defined in council

Wrong. Pius IX rendered the council meaningless with the odd doctrine--and any council after VI.

[Mickey]

you follow stereotypes more than realities.

More ad hominems? Unbelievable!



The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

[ozgeorge]

I never said that. The keys come from Christ. All of them.

Then tell us how many of the Bishops of your Church are consecrated without the approval of your Pope?
The keys might come from Christ, but apparently, He can only confer them if the Pope approves of His choices.

[Anastasios]

Then tell us how many of the Bishops of your Church are consecrated without the approval of your Pope?
The keys might come from Christ, but apparently, He can only confer them if the Pope approves of His choices.

Patriarchs of patriarchal churches do not need papal approval within their canonical territory. But the other 99.999% do require it.

[Papist]

The bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church of course!

Which one's? They don't always agree.

 ;)The protestants are the wayward children of the Roman Catholic Church.

You are right that you are certainly not Protestants. Eastern Orthodoxy is much more dignified than that.

I cannot recall the doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy being defined in one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils?Papal supremacy/infallibility is a post schism innovation of the Latin Church.

Heyschasm and the Essence/Engergies distinction (don't worry, I am not gonna debate this particular teaching here   ) were not defined in the first seven ecumenical councils. Yet you still hold to them.

[Papist]

Perhaps this may explain:

So the specific quote I provided was interpolated?

[ozgeorge]

Good People,
I would ask that we all refrain from ad hominems and try and keep our tempers.
Remember: "Lose your temper and you lose the argument."
George

[Mickey]

Which one's? They don't always agree.

Could you elaborate on another thread perhaps?

Heyschasm and the Essence/Engergies distinction (don't worry, I am not gonna debate this particular teaching here   ) were not defined in the first seven ecumenical councils. Yet you still hold to them.

Is this doctrine?

[ozgeorge]

Patriarchs of patriarchal churches do not need papal approval within their canonical territory. But the other 99.999% do require it.

When was the last time approval had to be sought from the Oecumenical Patriarchate (which has the Canonical right of ecclition remember) for the consecration of a Bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate?

[ozgeorge]

So the specific quote I provided was interpolated?

According to Shaff, yes.
In fact, in the quotation I gave you, Schaff is speaking specifically about the text you are using (in Latin).

[lubeltri]

Good People,
I would ask that we all refrain from ad hominems and try and keep our tempers.
Remember: "Lose your temper and you lose the argument."
George

My point about intellectual honesty was not an ad hominem. I will quickly summarize:

1. Mickey claims Pope Pius IX dogmatized infallibility.

2. I respond with the correction that it was actually defined in council (specifically Vatican Council I).

3. Mickey then inexplicably retorts that he "cannot recall the doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy being defined in one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils?" Where did I claim that?

Such statements tell me that I am wasting my time responding to him.

[Peter J]

It is not a positive infallibility but a negative one---it essentially means that the Holy Spirit will protect the pope from formally promulgating heresy in his capacity as supreme shepherd.

You mean like the heretic Honorius?

Mickey,

There are two separate (although related) questions here:
1. If the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement (I'll omit elaborating on what is meant by ex cathedra -- of course, you could look at my blog ), is that statement necessarily infallible?
2. Is it possible for a Pope to fall into heresy?

On the first question, the official Catholic answer is yes.

On the second question, I don't think there's an official Catholic position, but the general understanding is that, yes, it is possible for a Pope to fall into heresy. (This was, incidentally, the subject of a recent thread started by our friend holdencaulfield on another website.)

[Peter J]

Patriarchs of patriarchal churches do not need papal approval within their canonical territory.

If memory serves, that is also true for major archbishops of major archepiscopal churches.

[Mickey]

1. Mickey claims Pope Pius IX dogmatized infallibility.

2. I respond with the correction that it was actually defined in council (specifically Vatican Council I).

3. Mickey then inexplicably retorts that he "cannot recall the doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy being defined in one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils?" Where did I claim that?

1. He pushed it through admidst much opposition.

2. Pope Pius IX was the Latin council in my opinion.

3. That is because I only recognize the first seven. Understand?

Such statements tell me that I am wasting my time responding to him.

Yes. If you do not like my posts, then stop responding. But do not attack me. I do not attack you.

[Peter J]

Eastern Orthodoxy is much more dignified than that.

"Look are you just fiddling around with me or what?"

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Supremacy of Peter