Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?

[ialmisry]

One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..

Come on, Father. This is a bit of a strawman. Every five centuries or so, there is disagreement in the Catholic church, therefore the Pope in invalid for unity?

A disaster!

And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy?

lol. name one.

Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?

What argument?

[deusveritasest]

The Pope could be regarded as the highest authority on faith because he sat in the chair of Peter who was the champion of Orthodoxy.

Practically speaking, the authority of an inter-church council had higher authority than the Pope. If that were not the case, than any such councils really had no reason to be held in the first place. Everyone should have just petitioned to Rome for answers.

[deusveritasest]

One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity.  Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

In the 5th century the papacy was unable to retain the Oriental Orthodox in the Church, because (it is said these days) of a linguistic misunderstanding.    That does not speak well of Rome functioning properly as the centre of unity and universality.

2.  11th century.  Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

In the 11th century the Pope lost the greater part of the Catholic Church.  Catholics in the East outnumbered Catholics in the West in those days.   The reason for this mass defection was the signal incompetency of the papacy to comprehend the Eastern Catholics.   After the issuing of the Anathemas by Humbert -which were known by the Popes to be groundless accusations- the Popes did not attempt to right the situation and bring the Church back into unity.

3.  16th century. Protestant Reformation.  Loss of much of Europe

The widespread corruption in the Catholic Church brought on the defection of millions of Catholics in the Protestant Reformation which carried entire countries out of the Catholic Church.

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history.  It amounts to wishful thinking..

Don't forget the loss of the Old Catholics in the 19th century.

[deusveritasest]

There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.

This is indeed how Fr.John McGutchin describes the proceedings in his book "St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological controversy".

Well it's not what the acts of the council themselves show.

[deusveritasest]

There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith.  The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome.  They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.

The Acts say otherwise.

Quite the contrary. As to the first statement: "the Tome of Leo, which made the Council Fathers so happy", the acts show that many of the bishops were rather unhappy with the Tome. Also, even the statement that "they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith" is not absolutely true as not all of the bishops accepted it at all, namely the Egyptian bishops.

[Irish Hermit]

You may paint him as a dim-wit but he rarely misses details when he writes. 

Mary, there you go again, making silly personal comments on what I write.   I never said the Pope was a dimwit.  I have much respect for him.

[Irish Hermit]

Quite the contrary. As to the first statement: "the Tome of Leo, which made the Council Fathers so happy", the acts show that many of the bishops were rather unhappy with the Tome. Also, even the statement that "they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith" is not absolutely true as not all of the bishops accepted it at all, namely the Egyptian bishops.

Apparently they were unhappy because of linguistic problems!   The present day Egyptian bishops are quite happy with it and have officially declared, in union with the Vatican, that their previous problems were only linguistic misunderstandings between them.   Now, so they proclaim, miaphysitism and dyophysitism are one and same.

[Wyatt]

Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.

The Pope is the earthly leader of the Church, but only Christ is the supreme head of the Church. The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.

[Irish Hermit]

 The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

Saint Paul obviously did not know this when he writes of how he stood up to Peter and called him a hypocrite to his face.

If Christ had willed Peter's authority then Catholics today would be mandated to circumcise their male children and to observe kosher food rules and not to eat with non-Jews.  Peter really was NOT doing a very good job in shepherding the Church in these areas.

[Irish Hermit]

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!

If there actually are many Catholics, including some Orthodox faithful, who find more scriptural evidence for Petrine Primacy than Apostolic Conciliarism, then perhaps they would  show us the instances in the Book of Acts where this Petrine Primacy is exercised.

Anybody?  Catholic or Orthodox?

[Alveus Lacuna]

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!

If there actually are many Catholics, including some Orthodox faithful, who find more scriptural evidence for Petrine Primacy than Apostolic Conciliarism, then perhaps they would  show us the instances in the Book of Acts where this Petrine Primacy is exercised.

Anybody?  Catholic or Orthodox?

Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH! 

[Irish Hermit]

Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH! 

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

[BoredMeeting]

Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Pope.  It says, over and over, that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church.

The Pope is the earthly leader of the Church, but only Christ is the supreme head of the Church. The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.

No, Christ spoke against any of the apostles having authority over the others and He never spoke about the successors gaining such authority.

And what of Peter's seat in Antioch? Shouldn't it be treated in the same manner as the one in Rome?

[Azul]

The Pope is not above councils..

Peter did not supported the circumcision for converts at the Council of Jerusalem(Acts 15:7-11).Yes all Apostles received binding power and the keys of the divine kingdom and from them esspecially Peter.. Peter is regarded a great pillar by Paul among with James and John.. The figure of Peter appears in the patronage of the Church till James gets in the picture.Since that time James takes the first plan when he becames ruler of the Church in Jerusalem..

[Wyatt]

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

[theistgal]

So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?

[Irish Hermit]

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

Dear Wyatt,

I was replying to this statement of yours

The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.

Are you now revising it and saying that the Pope does not have authority from Christ to shepherd His Church in matters of discipline?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH! 

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

Apparently my sarcasm didn't come off very clearly. I was being sarcastic.

[Irish Hermit]

Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH! 

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

Apparently my sarcasm didn't come off very clearly. I was being sarcastic.

My 200% apology.  I know what it is like to be misunderstood on the forum.... it's the price we pay for being two countries divided by a common language.   

[synLeszka]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership
Church membership in 2007 was 1.147.000.000,[243] increasing from the 1950 figure of 437.000.000[245] and the 1970 figure of 654.000.000.[246] OOn 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166.000.000, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%). The increase was 33.02% in Africa, but only 1.17% in Europe. It was 15.91% in Asia, 11.39% in Oceania, and 10.93% in the Americas. As a result, Catholics were 17.77% of the total population in Africa, 63.10% in the Americas, 3.05% in Asia, 39.97% in Europe, 26.21% in Oceania, and 17.40% of the world population. Of the world's Catholics, the proportion living in Africa grew from 12.44% in 2000 to 14.84% in 2008, while those living in Europe fell from 26.81% to 24.31%.[1] Membership of the Catholic Church is attained through baptism.[247] If someone formally leaves the Church, that fact is noted in the register of the person's baptism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents
Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church.[12] The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 300.000.000[13].
Orthodoxy is the largest single religious faith in Belarus (85%), Bulgaria (83%), Cyprus (80%), Georgia (89%), Greece (95%),[14] Moldova (98%), Montenegro (74%),[15] Romania (87%), Serbia (84%),[16] Russia (80%),[17] Republic of Macedonia (65%) and Ukraine (80%).[18]
In my opinion, the number of Orthodox in the former Soviet Union is inflated because other sources claim that there are huge numbers of atheists and agnostics there.

[Iconodule]

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra.

Not very impressive, since Papal infallibilty was only dogmatically defined in 1870, and the definers surely had in mind this and other problematic episodes (e.g. Honorius) when they formulated the dogma.

[Wyatt]

Are you now revising it and saying that the Pope does not have authority from Christ to shepherd His Church in matters of discipline?

If I gave the impression that the Pope is absolutely infallible in all things including discipline then, yes, a revision is needed because that was not the point I intended to convey. The Catholic Church, in her wisdom, indicated that there were restrictions to Papal Infallibility. From the Catholic point of view, disciplines can and do change, and the Pope's charism doesn't apply to disciplines.

[FormerReformer]

Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy.

That's like saying I always tell the truth, except when I lie.

[elijahmaria]

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

The rendition offered by Father Ambrose is also a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis of that particular Chapter and is not upheld in the context of Peter's authority as it is found in Scripture.  I am sure you can find Catholic responses to these exegetical assertions.  May even be able to find them on the Internet.

Mary

[elijahmaria]

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

Dear Wyatt,

I was replying to this statement of yours

The Pope only has authority because Christ wills it and appointed St. Peter and his successors to shepherd His Church.

Are you now revising it and saying that the Pope does not have authority from Christ to shepherd His Church in matters of discipline?

A pope is quite capable of making mistakes, in the exercise of his primacy.  He is also capable of making mistakes in matters of doctrine, unless teaching infallibly as the universal Church teaching.

You, naturally, are adding things to Catholic doctrine that are not there.  Building in non-existent meaning makes it so much easier to knock down.

Mary

[elijahmaria]

Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH! 

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

Apparently my sarcasm didn't come off very clearly. I was being sarcastic.

Would you quote the passages in Scripture where Jesus gives the keys of authority to the rest of the Apostles, please.

Mary

[elijahmaria]

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra.

Not very impressive, since Papal infallibilty was only dogmatically defined in 1870, and the definers surely had in mind this and other problematic episodes (e.g. Honorius) when they formulated the dogma.

Also you can make the same spurious claim about the Christological Councils if you want to debunk the Son of the Living God, Incarnate....

These kinds of assertions usually are dangerous because they are so general so as to be applicable to a variety of similar circumstances.

M.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

[elijahmaria]

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

[Iconodule]

Question for our Roman Catholic interlocutors: If your dogma does not assert that the Pope is infallible under any circumstance, why is it not a good and profitable thing for the Roman Catholic Church to consign the dogma of Papal Infallibility to the dustbin of history? After all, is the unity of the Body of Christ not more important than mere dogma?

At that rate one should simply be able to strip Scripture and Tradition of all paradox and antinomy entirely.  Make the entire religious experience one of "real" tolerance, equity, and love regardless of the old and dusty patriarchal ways...bring on condoms and the pill!!...oh...well...nevermind.

I have to say, I can't get behind Second Chance's reasoning here either. The problem with Papal infallibility is that, precisely as a dogma, it is considered a divinely revealed truth, like the Trinity and the Incarnation. It's not something to be ditched lightly. There is nothing "mere" about dogma. One can be convinced it is true or that it is false, but sweeping it under the carpet is not an option.

[Irish Hermit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Membership
Church membership in 2007 was 1.147.000.000,[243] increasing from the 1950 figure of 437.000.000[245] and the 1970 figure of 654.000.000.[246] OOn 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166.000.000, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%). The increase was 33.02% in Africa, but only 1.17% in Europe. It was 15.91% in Asia, 11.39% in Oceania, and 10.93% in the Americas. As a result, Catholics were 17.77% of the total population in Africa, 63.10% in the Americas, 3.05% in Asia, 39.97% in Europe, 26.21% in Oceania, and 17.40% of the world population. Of the world's Catholics, the proportion living in Africa grew from 12.44% in 2000 to 14.84% in 2008, while those living in Europe fell from 26.81% to 24.31%.[1] Membership of the Catholic Church is attained through baptism.[247] If someone formally leaves the Church, that fact is noted in the register of the person's baptism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents
Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church.[12] The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 300.000.000[13].
Orthodoxy is the largest single religious faith in Belarus (85%), Bulgaria (83%), Cyprus (80%), Georgia (89%), Greece (95%),[14] Moldova (98%), Montenegro (74%),[15] Romania (87%), Serbia (84%),[16] Russia (80%),[17] Republic of Macedonia (65%) and Ukraine (80%).[18]
In my opinion, the number of Orthodox in the former Soviet Union is inflated because other sources claim that there are huge numbers of atheists and agnostics there.

Roman Catholics

I have been told that Catholic figures are inflated because they count 1/2 billion people in Latin America.  Most of them are purely nominal.

I have been told that Catholic figures are skewed because they base them on the number of baptisms and ignore the fact that many of those people cease to be Catholics, etc.


Orthodox

Orthodox figures vary widely, but at least they are more realistic than the over inflated Catholic figures.   Orthodox figures are based on counts of the number of people who receive Communion to fulfill their Easter obligation of Confession and Communion.  This is exactly what we do in my parish.    So at least Orthodox figures are based on practicing Orthodox.

[Irish Hermit]

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

The rendition offered by Father Ambrose is also a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis of that particular Chapter and is not upheld in the context of Peter's authority as it is found in Scripture.  I am sure you can find Catholic responses to these exegetical assertions.  May even be able to find them on the Internet.

Mary

Excuse me, Mary, but with your scholarship you cannot be unaware that to label it a piece of Protestantism is awfully misleading.  It is in fact the interpretation of the passage given by Saint John Chrysostom in his commentary on the Book of Acts.

Chrysostom gives this understanding after 300 of the Church's existence, 300 years in which the Church had mulled these things over.

To call the understanding of the Church and the exegesis of this passage "a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis" blows my mind.   It has always been the ecclesial interpretation of the passage.  People need to be cautioned about Roman Catholic interpretations which do not derive from the consciousness of th Church but out of a need to bolster the aberrant teaching of the papacy.

[ialmisry]

So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?

1054. The Church.

[Irish Hermit]

Uh, the KEYS in Matthew, dude! DUH! 

Look in Matthew 18, mate.  The power of the keys, of binding and loosing is given to ALL the Apostles.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 15, we have a concrete example of the Apostles utilising the keys.  Where do we have a specific example of Saint Peter doing the same?   I am of course not denying that he had the same authority as all the Apostles -just asking for examples.   Peter's "apparent" use of the keys appear to be in making erroneous decisions - such as requiring circumcision for converts, keeping the kosher requirements and not eating with non-Jews!  It was for these things that Paul withstood him to his face on account of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2.)

Apparently my sarcasm didn't come off very clearly. I was being sarcastic.

Would you quote the passages in Scripture where Jesus gives the keys of authority to the rest of the Apostles, please.

Mary

What were the powers of the Keys as understood in the West in earlier days?

The Clavis Potentiae and the Clavis Scientiae

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article The Power of the Keys where it seems that up until the 14th or 15th century the power of the keys was not understood in the limited modern Catholic understanding.  The understanding for the first millennium and a half in the West was centred on the power of all the clergy to judge penitents and forgive their sins.   It's a tantalisingly short article and it would be great to find a fuller source.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

"The meaning attached to the term [the power of the keys] by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance.

"The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments.

Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII [died 1334] in a well-known passage dealing with this subject. The definition, "The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge [the confessor] should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom", generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Peter. Lombard,  John XXII, St. Thomas Aquinas), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum.

"But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentiae [key of power]and the clavis scientiae [key of knowledge] was employed here. By the clavis scientiae was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentiae, the authority to grant or refuse absolution."

[For easier readibility I have taken the Latin sentences out of this extract, but of course left the English.  I don't believe that anything has been distorted by this but please read the article on the website if you want to see the Latin.]

[Shlomlokh]

So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?

1054. The Church.

Spot on! I did not think of that, but it is absolutely true. Of course I would not expect our Roman Catholic friends to agree with us.

In Christ,
Andrew

[Papist]

So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?

1054. The Church.

Spot on! I did not think of that, but it is absolutely true. Of course I would not expect our Roman Catholic friends to agree with us.

In Christ,
Andrew

Of course not.

[Wyatt]

So when was the last time a sitting Pope was overruled in a matter of discipline, and by whom?

1054. The Church.

Spot on! I did not think of that, but it is absolutely true. Of course I would not expect our Roman Catholic friends to agree with us.

In Christ,
Andrew

No I don't agree with it, but I'm glad you consider us friends though. I consider you guys friends as well even though we disagree.

[Jetavan]

 "Unlike some of the other bosses I’ve worked for in my life, this one admits that he’s only infallible under certain extremely limited conditions."

-- Jesuit priest Guy Consolmagno, speaking about papal infallibility

[elijahmaria]

Father,

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Mary

[elijahmaria]

You missed a part there, Father:

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in "Dict. Christ. Antiq.", s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hierarchy throughout the world.

Some few of the Fathers, however, are careful to note that the bestowal of this power upon St. Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles, denoted his primacy among the twelve (Optatus, "De Schism. Don.", vii, 3, in P.L., XI, 1087). Origen dilates at length on this point, but teaches erroneously that the power conferred upon the Twelve in Matthew 18:18, could only be exercised within certain restrictions of place, while that conferred upon St. Peter in Matthew 16:18, was of universal extent (Comm. in Matt., P.G., XIII, 1179).

(2) Occasionally, though infrequently, Christ's promise is not restricted to signify the power to forgive sins, but is taken in the fuller meaning of the gift of authority over the Church. Thus St. Gregory in his letter to the Emperor Maurice, after quoting Christ's words in Matthew 16:18-19, writes: "Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him [cura ei totius Ecclesiae et principatus committitur (Epist., lib. V, ep. xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)]. St. Maximus in a sermon on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (P.L., LVII, 403) says that to St. Peter was given the key of power (clavis potentioe), to St. Paul the key of knowledge (clavis scientioe). The idea of a key of knowledge is clearly derived from Christ's words to the Pharisees, Luke 11:52: "You have taken away the key of knowledge." This distinction of the clavis potentioe and clavis scientioe recurs frequently in the medieval writers, though without reference to St. Paul.

[elijahmaria]

This is something which the other Apostles did not know when they convened the Council of Jerusalem (Book of Acts, chapter 15) to confront Peter over his wish to circumcise Gentile converts and impose other Jewish practices in food on the Christian Church.  Saint Peter was soundly defeated in these issues at the Council.

This is an example which people who oppose Papal authority often bring up, but it actually does not disprove the role of the Pope and here is why: The Pope's Infallibility only pertains to faith and morals, and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. It was perfectly possible for St. Peter to be wrong in this instance because this pertained to a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine or dogma. Disciplines can change, and indeed, both Peter and current Popes could be overruled when it comes to Church discipline because the charism of infallibility only applies to ex cathedra statements concerning faith and morals, ergo the Pope can't infallibly proclaim heresy. To circumcise or not to circumcise new Christians, however, is a discipline, just as clerical celibacy as opposed to a married priesthood is a discipline.

The rendition offered by Father Ambrose is also a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis of that particular Chapter and is not upheld in the context of Peter's authority as it is found in Scripture.  I am sure you can find Catholic responses to these exegetical assertions.  May even be able to find them on the Internet.

Mary

Excuse me, Mary, but with your scholarship you cannot be unaware that to label it a piece of Protestantism is awfully misleading.  It is in fact the interpretation of the passage given by Saint John Chrysostom in his commentary on the Book of Acts.

Chrysostom gives this understanding after 300 of the Church's existence, 300 years in which the Church had mulled these things over.

To call the understanding of the Church and the exegesis of this passage "a traditional out-of-context protestant exegesis" blows my mind.   It has always been the ecclesial interpretation of the passage.  People need to be cautioned about Roman Catholic interpretations which do not derive from the consciousness of th Church but out of a need to bolster the aberrant teaching of the papacy.

I am familiar with English translations of that particular homily.  Would you mind extracting the text and putting it together with your earlier explanation so that we can see that they are identical, please.

Mary

[ialmisry]

"Unlike some of the other bosses I’ve worked for in my life, this one admits that he’s only infallible under certain extremely limited conditions."

...but like most bosses, expects to be obeyed when not infallible."

[ialmisry]

Father,

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Mary

Maybe you can ask the same of St. Jerome:

But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men. Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle— the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert, Isaiah 40:3 Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says, John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God, and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother John 19:26-27 was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

How different from his whinny tone in the letter to Pope St. Damasus. Of course, here he is expounded on his disdain for marriage, and it gets the better of his Ultramontanism.

[Irish Hermit]

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

[elijahmaria]

I just asked a simple thing.  Please cut and paste the passage of Scripture where Jesus gives the keys to all of the Apostles. 

Contrary to the odd Roman Catholic belief that the keys are something given to the Prime Minister of Israel, the keys are in fact the powers of binding and loosing given to all the Apostles and I believe that is recorded in the 18th chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The bishops take their power through Peter's successor. 

The keys are a symbol of authority and the power to bind and loose is intimately tied to that authority.

You can fuss and wiggle and snark all you like but the Petrine Office is of divine origin, and will remain as long as the Church remains, and for the first time in a long time you fellows have managed to make me quite contented to be an integral part of it.

M.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?