Topic: The Council of Ephesus and its implications for Papal infallibility

[EY]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

[Mor Ephrem]

Didn't we already do this? 

[EY]

This actually got skipped over quite a bit, and thought it would be worth a new post.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Didn't we already do this? 

Yeah, we did.

1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic

Fine. Bishop of Rome doesn't equal Peter.

3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession

Sure. As do all Bishops.

4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals

The biggest non-sequitur I have ever read. Nowhere does that quote imply or indicate that the Bishop of Rome is infallible. It doesn't even imply infallibility.

[EY]

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

[xOrthodox4Christx]

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

It's called rhetoric. All figures from ancient and medieval history used rhetoric in their writings. It's the same reason why certain people allege antisemitism on the part of St. John Chrysostom and Martin Luther.

Granted, Phillip wasn't 'writing' here, he was speaking. Nonetheless, the point stands.

[EY]

That's hand-waving the issue. What does Philip mean? That's the question. Or is it meaningless rhetoric

[Fabio Leite]

Some of the confusions the modern West has made about the topic derive, IMO, from reading mediterranean hyperbolic rethoric as if it was meant to be literal.

Even today, if you speak to Italians and Greeks you see the difference of metaphors and overral discoursive style from French and Germans. They may speak the very same words but they mean very different things.

Before and around the fall of Rome, the West was still more like the whole of South Europe in that regard.

Even today, here's the full title of the Patriarch of Alexandria, the first to be called Pope:

"His Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All Egypt and All Africa, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Prelate of Prelates, the Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Universe"

Similar titles were thrown to every major authority in those times. When the West "demediterraneanized" and "germanified", they started reading these things literally.

[Mor Ephrem]

This actually got skipped over quite a bit, and thought it would be worth a new post.

Not really.  There's plenty before and after this post, including questions you haven't answered. 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

That's hand-waving the issue. What does Philip mean? That's the question. Or is it meaningless rhetoric

You got me. Phillip cannot possibly mean what he says. That would be silly. That's why we need to make up some out-of-the-blue interpretation that Phillip is actually calling the Bishop of Rome an infallible magic man, who has unlimited power over all the world. (c.f., CCC #882, #891, #937, Vatican I)

Silly me, how could I have known that Phillip meant something he didn't even say? 

[EY]

Well if we can't sit down and listen to Philip because he is speaking in fanciful and meaningless language, how about Pope Hormisdas?


This was the formula that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.


It is illogical to walk away from this and not conclude that Pope Hormisdas is claiming that true communion with Christ and his body DEPENDS on one's submission to the teaching of the Apostolic See (Rome). He makes a direct connection between Jesus, the promise of Simon as Peter, the keys of the kingdom, and the indestructibility of the Church, with the CHURCH OF ROME.

[xariskai]

Vatican I anathematizes anyone who has the temerity to deny papal infallibility. The whole RC Church did that for centuries universally in papal oaths and Ecumenical Councils.[1]

"The whole church, East and West, as represented by the official acts of oecumenical Councils and Popes, for several hundred years believed that a Roman bishop may err ex cathedra in a question of faith, and that one of them at least had so erred in fact. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed papal infallibility in the face of this fact, thus overruling history by dogmatic authority. ...If dogma contradicts facts, all the worse for the dogma" Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol IV: Mediaeval Christianity AD. 590-1073, § 113 "The Heresy of Honorius."

"This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church" [including the West as represented by the papal legates] (J. von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61). [Roman Catholic historian]

___________
[1] From C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187:

"It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic! That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:

At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says:

"After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine." Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.

Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"

Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ." After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them." In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: \'91We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.

In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself. We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present ...we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council, in his letter to the Spanish bishops, and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig.

Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after.

Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning ...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places.

To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

=====

"The following points are established by the best documentary evidence:
1. Honorius taught and favored in several official letters (to Sergius, Cyrus, and Sophronius), therefore ex cathedra, the one-will heresy. He fully agreed with Sergius, the Monotheletic patriarch of Constantinople. In answer to his first letter (634), he says: “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.”623 He viewed the will as an attribute of person, not of nature, and reasoned: One will, therefore only one will. In a second letter to Sergius, he rejects both the orthodox phrase: “two energies,” and the heterodox phrase: “one energy” (ejnevrgeia, operatio), and affirms that the Bible clearly teaches two natures, but that it is quite vain to ascribe to the Mediator between God and man one or two energies; for Christ by virtue of his one theandric will showed many modes of operation and activity.624 The first letter was decidedly heretical, the second was certainly not orthodox, and both occasioned and favored the imperial Ekthesis (638) and Type (648), in their vain attempt to reconcile the Monophysites by suppressing the Dyotheletic doctrine.625

...Various attempts have been made by controversialists to save the orthodoxy of Honorius in order to save the dogma of papal infallibility. Some pronounce his letters to be a later Greek forgery.626 Others admit their genuineness, but distort them into an orthodox sense by a nonnatural exegesis.627 Still others maintain, at the expense of his knowledge and logic, that Honorius was orthodox at heart, but heretical, or at least very unguarded in his expressions.628 But we have no means to judge of his real sentiment except his own language, which is unmistakably Monotheletic. And this is the verdict not only of Protestants,629 but also of Gallican and other liberal Catholic historians.630

2. Honorius was condemned by the sixth oecumenical Council as “the former pope of Old Rome,” who with the help of the old serpent had scattered deadly error.631 This anathema was repeated by the seventh oecumenical Council, 787, and by the eighth, 869.

...Here again ultramontane historians have resorted to the impossible denial either of the genuineness of the act of condemnation in the sixth oecumenical Council,632 or of the true meaning of that act.633 The only consistent way for papal infallibilists is to deny the infallibility of the oecumenical Council as regards the dogmatic fact.634 In this case it would involve at the same time a charge of gross injustice to Honorius.

3. But this last theory is refuted by the popes themselves, who condemned Honorius as a heretic, and thus bore testimony for papal fallibility. His first success or, Severinus, had a brief pontificate of only three months. His second successor, John IV., apologized for him by putting a forced construction on his language. Agatho prudently ignored him.635 But his successor, Leo II., who translated the acts of the sixth Council from Greek into Latin, saw that he could not save the honor of Honorius without contradicting the verdict of the council in which the papal delegates had taken part; and therefore he expressly condemned him in the strongest language, both in a letter to the Greek emperor and in a letter to the bishops of Spain, as a traitor to the Roman church for trying to subvert her immaculate fate. Not only so, but the condemnation of the unfortunate Honorius was inserted in the confession of faith which every newly-elected pope had to sign down to the eleventh century, and which is embodied in the Liber Diurnus, i.e. the official book of formulas of the Roman church for the use of the papal curia.636 In the editions of the Roman Breviary down to the sixteenth century his name appears, yet without title and without explanation, along with the rest who had been condemned by the sixth Council. But the precise facts were gradually forgotten, and the mediaeval chroniclers and lists of popes ignore them. After the middle of the sixteenth century the case of Honorius again attracted attention, and was urged as an irrefutable argument against the ultramontane theory. At first the letter of Leo II. was boldly, rejected as a forgery as well as those of Honorius;637 but this was made impossible when the Liber Diurnus came to light.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Well if we can't sit down and listen to Philip because he is speaking in fanciful and meaningless language, how about Pope Hormisdas?


This was the formula that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.


It is illogical to walk away from this and not conclude that Pope Hormisdas is claiming that true communion with Christ and his body DEPENDS on one's submission to the teaching of the Apostolic See (Rome). He makes a direct connection between Jesus, the promise of Simon as Peter, the keys of the kingdom, and the indestructibility of the Church, with the CHURCH OF ROME.

Yeah, well only if you're a heretic. Considering Rome had the Orthodox faith, it's only logical that Rome would condemn heretics. I don't see the problem. Unless, you read quotes in an ideological prism and not in their historical context.

Notice how the first sentence begins with how the Church accepted Rome's proclamations of faith. It doesn't say that "Rome has spoken, the matter is finished." He clearly needed to check whether Rome was speaking with Orthodoxy, or whether they were speaking in heresy.

[xariskai]

To reiterate another yet unanswered post relevant to the topic:

Even in Roman Catholic historiography one does not find papal infallibility dogmatically declared until 1870; prior to that date we, rather, have opposition to the notion of papal infallibility by earlier popes. With Vatican I those denying its truth are anathematized. It is not even a topic of discussion (or implied by any historical praxis) in the whole of the first millennium, as Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar candidly admitted (Congar, an academic historian having been a specialist in this area) -not even the "germ" of what developed into the idea(!) existed before the Middle Ages (AD 1200's) according to Congar.

Roman Catholic Fr. Hans Kung (note: dissenting, but from an purely historical perspective on this point) observes:
"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries. The freely invented legend of the holy Pope Silvester comes from the fifth/sixth centuries. In the eighth century it led to a highly influential forgery, the Donation of Constantine (shown to be a forgery in the fifteenth century), according to which Constantine left Rome and the Western half of the empire to Pope Silvester, allowed him the imperial insignia and garments (purple) and a court to match; and bestowed on him the primacy over all other churches, especially Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. In fact Constantine had left him only the Lateran palace and the new basilicas of the Lateran and St. Peter's" Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (2001), pp. 60-61.

Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, affirms "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).

cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion (1981).

Vatican I had insisted it was a part of the faith of the Latin church from the beginning. The adamant denial that this is so by academic historians including Roman Catholic academics is sometimes explained theologically with reference to the paradigm of development defended by Cardinal John Henry Newman (cf. Hegelian dialectic) which became a prominent factor in Vatican II according to Pope John Paul who called it "Newman's Council." Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding it seems reasonable to suggest -if there is no trace of papal infallibility for a thousand years as many scholars argue- that the Latin church is susceptible to the same criticism Cardinal Newman in his Development of Christian Doctrine used to counter Protestantism:

"...this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: "So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'—Nay dead and buried—and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!—then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will,... and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless."

[Mor Ephrem]

Well if we can't sit down and listen to Philip because he is speaking in fanciful and meaningless language, how about Pope Hormisdas?


This was the formula that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519

What exactly is your agenda, EY?  You start a thread about "The Council of Ephesus and its implications for Papal infallibility".  When your OP was basically dismissed because we've been through it already and showed you where, you skip a few Popes and a couple of centuries and try again rather than addressing responses to the OP which have already been made elsewhere or answering questions you ignored.  

So what is this?  Genuine seeking?  Proselytism?  Are you a direct descendent of Philip the Presbyter?  

[Fabio Leite]

Well if we can't sit down and listen to Philip because he is speaking in fanciful and meaningless language, how about Pope Hormisdas?


This was the formula that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.


It is illogical to walk away from this and not conclude that Pope Hormisdas is claiming that true communion with Christ and his body DEPENDS on one's submission to the teaching of the Apostolic See (Rome). He makes a direct connection between Jesus, the promise of Simon as Peter, the keys of the kingdom, and the indestructibility of the Church, with the CHURCH OF ROME.

Those in agreement with orthodox faith would naturally be in agreement with the church in Rome on this matter – which was stating orthodox faith. For Catholic apologists agreement to this text means an agreement to Rome, because Rome is the leader. For Orthodox agreement to Rome is because it stated the truth.

"For the Greeks, the text of the libellus meant a factual recognition that the apostolic Roman church had been consistent in orthodoxy for the past seventy years and, therefore deserved to become a rallying point for the Chalcedonians (those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon) of the East."[66]

Further evidence seems to point to this. Patriarch John expressed his opinion that Rome (Old Rome) and Constantinople (New Rome) were on the same level.[67] The Patriarch showed this when he added to the document…

"I declare that the see of apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one"[68]

Furthermore despite it being one of the demands in the formula the east continued to disregard papal demands by not condemning Acacius.[69]

In doing so John was re-affirming Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon - a canon which the popes were not to affirm for many centuries to come.

The politics of this is demonstrated by the fact that the Emperor Justin ignored the pope's candidate for the vacated see of Alexandria and instead…

"…authorised the consecration of Timothy III, an intransigent Monophysite."[70]

Theoderic, king in Italy, and an Arian grew suspicious of the new alliance between Rome and Constantinople. John who succeeded as pope was sent to Constantinople to restore Arian churches there. Thus the orthodox Catholic pope was sent to urge the restoration of churches to heretics. This the pope did with limited success.[71][72] Having failed, upon his return the pope was arrested and died in prison.

This then is not the capitulation of the eastern churches to Roman authority. It is not even the capitulation of the church in Constantinople – as other eastern churches ignored the formula completely. The popes didn't have authority over the church and in fact were forced to go and plead the case of heretics before the imperial throne.

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

[Fabio Leite]

The root falacy of Rome is that "authority is the foundation of Orthodoxy". For the Catholic tradition "orthodoxy is the foundation of authority".

Every single time other Patriarchs made eulogies of Rome it was based on the Catholic concept in the latter sentence. Rome, from some point difficult to see, started to understand as in the first statement.

[EY]

The root falacy of Rome is that "authority is the foundation of Orthodoxy". For the Catholic tradition "orthodoxy is the foundation of authority".

Every single time other Patriarchs made eulogies of Rome it was based on the Catholic concept in the latter sentence. Rome, from some point difficult to see, started to understand as in the first statement.

So are you saying that what gave the Apostles their authority was their orthodoxy?

[Fabio Leite]

The root falacy of Rome is that "authority is the foundation of Orthodoxy". For the Catholic tradition "orthodoxy is the foundation of authority".

Every single time other Patriarchs made eulogies of Rome it was based on the Catholic concept in the latter sentence. Rome, from some point difficult to see, started to understand as in the first statement.

So are you saying that what gave the Apostles their authority was their orthodoxy?

Not me. Jesus said it very clearly:

Jesus enquires about the Orthodoxy of the faith of the Apostles:

¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some {say that thou art} John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Simon Peter, as speaker of the group, answers the question above with the opinion of all the Apostles:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Then Jesus *directly* explains: Because you have said the Orthodox faith, you will receive the keys to the Kingdom, an allusion to Isaiah 22:15-25.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed {it} unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also 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. {Peter: this name signifies a rock}
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 shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Before we continue, here is Isaiah 22:15-25

¶ Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, {even} unto Shebna, which {is} over the house, {and say},
What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here, {as} he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, {and} that graveth an habitation for himself in a rock? {as...: or, O he}
Behold, the LORD will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee. {will carry...: or, who covered thee with an excellent covering, and clothed thee gorgeously, (next verse) shall surely, etc} {a mighty...: Heb. the captivity of a man}
He will surely violently turn and toss thee {like} a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory {shall be} the shame of thy lord's house. {large: Heb. large of spaces}
And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
And I will fasten him {as} a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons. {vessels of flagons: or, instruments of viols}
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that {was} upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken {it}.

Isaiah 22:15-25

What do we see here? The unfaithful treasurer is deposed and the keys are given to another. Possession of the key depends on Orthopraxis in Isaiah 22. What comes next in the Gospel passage?

Simon Peter expresses unorthodox faith, not speaking for all the Apostles but from himself:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. {Be...: Gr. Pity thyself}

The honor that he had just received is *immediately* rebuked, pending his repetence to be fully given once more:

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any {man} will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 16:13-28

Both directly in the Gospel and in the OT passage Jesus alludes to, we see that the honor of the keys depends on the correction of the holder and *never* the opposite.

[Maria]

The root falacy of Rome is that "authority is the foundation of Orthodoxy". For the Catholic tradition "orthodoxy is the foundation of authority".

Every single time other Patriarchs made eulogies of Rome it was based on the Catholic concept in the latter sentence. Rome, from some point difficult to see, started to understand as in the first statement.

So are you saying that what gave the Apostles their authority was their orthodoxy?

Yes, as long as the Apostles preached that Holy Unchanging Faith once preached by Christ, then they had Apostolic authority, but once they insisted upon Papal authority, then they lost Apostolic authority for Christ is the Head and Pillar of the Church, not the Pope.

[Fabio Leite]

And I know that there is a lot of controversy about who or what is the rock mentioned by Christ.

The controversy stopped for me when I asked St. Peter himself. That's what he told me:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, {even} by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 4:8-12


If so be ye have tasted that the Lord {is} gracious.
¶ To whom coming, {as unto} a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, {and} precious,
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. {are: or, be ye}
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe {he is} precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, {precious: or, an honour}
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, {even to them} which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

1 Peter 2:3-8

[ialmisry]

The root falacy of Rome is that "authority is the foundation of Orthodoxy". For the Catholic tradition "orthodoxy is the foundation of authority".

Every single time other Patriarchs made eulogies of Rome it was based on the Catholic concept in the latter sentence. Rome, from some point difficult to see, started to understand as in the first statement.

So are you saying that what gave the Apostles their authority was their orthodoxy?

Not me. Jesus said it very clearly:

Jesus enquires about the Orthodoxy of the faith of the Apostles:

¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some {say that thou art} John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Simon Peter, as speaker of the group, answers the question above with the opinion of all the Apostles:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Then Jesus *directly* explains: Because you have said the Orthodox faith, you will receive the keys to the Kingdom, an allusion to Isaiah 22:15-25.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed {it} unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also 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. {Peter: this name signifies a rock}
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 shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Before we continue, here is Isaiah 22:15-25

¶ Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, {even} unto Shebna, which {is} over the house, {and say},
What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here, {as} he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, {and} that graveth an habitation for himself in a rock? {as...: or, O he}
Behold, the LORD will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee. {will carry...: or, who covered thee with an excellent covering, and clothed thee gorgeously, (next verse) shall surely, etc} {a mighty...: Heb. the captivity of a man}
He will surely violently turn and toss thee {like} a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory {shall be} the shame of thy lord's house. {large: Heb. large of spaces}
And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
And I will fasten him {as} a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons. {vessels of flagons: or, instruments of viols}
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that {was} upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken {it}.

Isaiah 22:15-25

What do we see here? The unfaithful treasurer is deposed and the keys are given to another. Possession of the key depends on Orthopraxis in Isaiah 22. What comes next in the Gospel passage?

Simon Peter expresses unorthodox faith, not speaking for all the Apostles but from himself:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. {Be...: Gr. Pity thyself}

The honor that he had just received is *immediately* rebuked, pending his repetence to be fully given once more:

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any {man} will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 16:13-28

Both directly in the Gospel and in the OT passage Jesus alludes to, we see that the honor of the keys depends on the correction of the holder and *never* the opposite.

Exactly. Like a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system: he speaks with authority only as long as he speaks for (in the sense of "on behalf of" NOT "instead of") the parliamentary majority. When he ceases to do that, he loses his vote of confidence, his job and his authority.

[ialmisry]

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

As I pointed out (and yes, we have just been over this), since Philip said it in Latin it was a nice gesture unintelligible to the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council, who conducted the business of the Council in Greek.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59849.msg1173574.html#msg1173574

We also went over how the Letter of Pope St. Celestine doesn't match the rhetoric of Philip the Presbyter.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59849.msg1173577.html#msg1173577

And we went over this as a historian

Quote from: EY on August 16, 2014, 10:49:28 AM
Actually, Arianism was "spotted" as heresy. The papal claims of Leo/Damasus/ Gregory were not "spotted" as heresy. This difference is historically noteworthy.

You are making this far more mysterious than it is.

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

New Rome is now playing the same role that Old Rome did when Constantinople was on the rise, and for the same reason-a new Rome, namely the Third (Moscow), is now outshining it, as the new capital of New Rome outshone Old Rome (at the time sinking to the level of a clump of huts huddled around the ruins of its former glory.  Constantinople, especially after it contracted to the Phanar, has been making a lot of excessive claims about itself, and, with the same deference that younger generations pay to their granny matron when she gets a little senile and at times bossy and even overbearing, remembering the lady of their younger years in her prime.

Now the Phanar has of late really been straddling the line between misstatement and heresy, but it has not forced us-yet-to call it on its Ultramarism. If the loudmouth of Ultamarism doesn't tone it down, though, that day may come sooner than later.

If one compares the rhetoric of today with Constantinople and Moscow, and compare it with Rome and Constantinople of the first millenium, there isn't any difference. God grant that it does not end the same way.

[ialmisry]

Well if we can't sit down and listen to Philip because he is speaking in fanciful and meaningless language, how about Pope Hormisdas?


This was the formula that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.


It is illogical to walk away from this and not conclude that Pope Hormisdas is claiming that true communion with Christ and his body DEPENDS on one's submission to the teaching of the Apostolic See (Rome). He makes a direct connection between Jesus, the promise of Simon as Peter, the keys of the kingdom, and the indestructibility of the Church, with the CHURCH OF ROME.

Patriarch John of Constantinople signed the Formula of Hormisdas AFTER he added this at the beginning:

Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.

Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, at the time the suffragan of Old Rome, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.

[Maria]

Read the original documents of Vatican I. I took a college class in theology at a Catholic university and read the translation by the Jesuits of St. Mary: The Church Teaches.

After I read these documents, I had no choice but to convert to Holy Orthodoxy.
There is no basis in the Holy Bible for Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility.
Instead, these dogmas of Vatican I show that the Roman Catholic Church believes in the development of dogma in order to increase its power. It is ungodly.

[xariskai]

1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession

"'The 'Peter Syndrome' is the automatic (and unjustified) application of anything about Peter to the bishop of Rome exclusively." (Fr. Cleenwerke, His Broken Body, p. 78).

As Fr. John Meyerendorff affirms,
"...a very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the 'See of Peter' being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known. (cf. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church) It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops [plural] the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” [plural] of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saints, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter.'"

[EY]

Vatican I anathematizes anyone who has the temerity to deny papal infallibility. The whole RC Church did that for centuries universally in papal oaths and Ecumenical Councils.[1]

"The whole church, East and West, as represented by the official acts of oecumenical Councils and Popes, for several hundred years believed that a Roman bishop may err ex cathedra in a question of faith, and that one of them at least had so erred in fact. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed papal infallibility in the face of this fact, thus overruling history by dogmatic authority. ...If dogma contradicts facts, all the worse for the dogma" Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol IV: Mediaeval Christianity AD. 590-1073, § 113 "The Heresy of Honorius."

"This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church" [including the West as represented by the papal legates] (J. von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61). [Roman Catholic historian]

___________
[1] From C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187:

"It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic! That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:

At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says:

"After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine." Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.

Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"

Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ." After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them." In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: \'91We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.

In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself. We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present ...we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council, in his letter to the Spanish bishops, and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig.

Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after.

Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning ...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places.

To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

=====

"The following points are established by the best documentary evidence:
1. Honorius taught and favored in several official letters (to Sergius, Cyrus, and Sophronius), therefore ex cathedra, the one-will heresy. He fully agreed with Sergius, the Monotheletic patriarch of Constantinople. In answer to his first letter (634), he says: “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.”623 He viewed the will as an attribute of person, not of nature, and reasoned: One will, therefore only one will. In a second letter to Sergius, he rejects both the orthodox phrase: “two energies,” and the heterodox phrase: “one energy” (ejnevrgeia, operatio), and affirms that the Bible clearly teaches two natures, but that it is quite vain to ascribe to the Mediator between God and man one or two energies; for Christ by virtue of his one theandric will showed many modes of operation and activity.624 The first letter was decidedly heretical, the second was certainly not orthodox, and both occasioned and favored the imperial Ekthesis (638) and Type (648), in their vain attempt to reconcile the Monophysites by suppressing the Dyotheletic doctrine.625

...Various attempts have been made by controversialists to save the orthodoxy of Honorius in order to save the dogma of papal infallibility. Some pronounce his letters to be a later Greek forgery.626 Others admit their genuineness, but distort them into an orthodox sense by a nonnatural exegesis.627 Still others maintain, at the expense of his knowledge and logic, that Honorius was orthodox at heart, but heretical, or at least very unguarded in his expressions.628 But we have no means to judge of his real sentiment except his own language, which is unmistakably Monotheletic. And this is the verdict not only of Protestants,629 but also of Gallican and other liberal Catholic historians.630

2. Honorius was condemned by the sixth oecumenical Council as “the former pope of Old Rome,” who with the help of the old serpent had scattered deadly error.631 This anathema was repeated by the seventh oecumenical Council, 787, and by the eighth, 869.

...Here again ultramontane historians have resorted to the impossible denial either of the genuineness of the act of condemnation in the sixth oecumenical Council,632 or of the true meaning of that act.633 The only consistent way for papal infallibilists is to deny the infallibility of the oecumenical Council as regards the dogmatic fact.634 In this case it would involve at the same time a charge of gross injustice to Honorius.

3. But this last theory is refuted by the popes themselves, who condemned Honorius as a heretic, and thus bore testimony for papal fallibility. His first success or, Severinus, had a brief pontificate of only three months. His second successor, John IV., apologized for him by putting a forced construction on his language. Agatho prudently ignored him.635 But his successor, Leo II., who translated the acts of the sixth Council from Greek into Latin, saw that he could not save the honor of Honorius without contradicting the verdict of the council in which the papal delegates had taken part; and therefore he expressly condemned him in the strongest language, both in a letter to the Greek emperor and in a letter to the bishops of Spain, as a traitor to the Roman church for trying to subvert her immaculate fate. Not only so, but the condemnation of the unfortunate Honorius was inserted in the confession of faith which every newly-elected pope had to sign down to the eleventh century, and which is embodied in the Liber Diurnus, i.e. the official book of formulas of the Roman church for the use of the papal curia.636 In the editions of the Roman Breviary down to the sixteenth century his name appears, yet without title and without explanation, along with the rest who had been condemned by the sixth Council. But the precise facts were gradually forgotten, and the mediaeval chroniclers and lists of popes ignore them. After the middle of the sixteenth century the case of Honorius again attracted attention, and was urged as an irrefutable argument against the ultramontane theory. At first the letter of Leo II. was boldly, rejected as a forgery as well as those of Honorius;637 but this was made impossible when the Liber Diurnus came to light.

In volume two of his work entitled A History of Christendom, historian Warren Carroll explained that Pope Agatho never confirmed the 6th Ecumenical council's decrees because he had been dead when the council's actions arrived in Rome. Also, the successors, Leo II, confirmed the council's decrees but "redefined" the language making it absolutely clear that Pope Honorius did not in fact teach heresy, but just failed to condemn the heresy.

 "Writing to the Emperor, almost certainly composing the letter himself in the Emperor's own language, Greek, Pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because 'he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted'. Writing in latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather gaining them by his negligence. To King Erwig, he wrote that Honorius was condemned for negligence in not denouncing the heresy and for using an expression which the heretics were able to employ to advance their own cause, thereby allowing the faith to be stained.....The fact remains that no decree of the council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it. There is no 'supreme law' prescribing how the Pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the Supreme Church authority, but only for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it" (Warren Carroll, The history of Christendom, vol 2: The building of Christendom, page 254)


 

[EY]

Well if we can't sit down and listen to Philip because he is speaking in fanciful and meaningless language, how about Pope Hormisdas?


This was the formula that settled the first schism between East and West. It was concluded in Constantinople in AD 519

What exactly is your agenda, EY?  You start a thread about "The Council of Ephesus and its implications for Papal infallibility".  When your OP was basically dismissed because we've been through it already and showed you where, you skip a few Popes and a couple of centuries and try again rather than addressing responses to the OP which have already been made elsewhere or answering questions you ignored.  

So what is this?  Genuine seeking?  Proselytism?  Are you a direct descendent of Philip the Presbyter?  

I would just like a better way to understand how to overcome this popular RC quote.

[Mor Ephrem]

So what is this?  Genuine seeking?  Proselytism?  Are you a direct descendent of Philip the Presbyter?  

I would just like a better way to understand how to overcome this popular RC quote.

Very well.  When you have a chance to review the post I linked to above and its context, feel free to address it in this thread (since the other one is locked).  Ask questions, make comments, answer others' questions to you, etc. 

[EY]

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

As I pointed out (and yes, we have just been over this), since Philip said it in Latin it was a nice gesture unintelligible to the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council, who conducted the business of the Council in Greek.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59849.msg1173574.html#msg1173574

We also went over how the Letter of Pope St. Celestine doesn't match the rhetoric of Philip the Presbyter.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59849.msg1173577.html#msg1173577

And we went over this as a historian

Quote from: EY on August 16, 2014, 10:49:28 AM
Actually, Arianism was "spotted" as heresy. The papal claims of Leo/Damasus/ Gregory were not "spotted" as heresy. This difference is historically noteworthy.

You are making this far more mysterious than it is.

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

New Rome is now playing the same role that Old Rome did when Constantinople was on the rise, and for the same reason-a new Rome, namely the Third (Moscow), is now outshining it, as the new capital of New Rome outshone Old Rome (at the time sinking to the level of a clump of huts huddled around the ruins of its former glory.  Constantinople, especially after it contracted to the Phanar, has been making a lot of excessive claims about itself, and, with the same deference that younger generations pay to their granny matron when she gets a little senile and at times bossy and even overbearing, remembering the lady of their younger years in her prime.

Now the Phanar has of late really been straddling the line between misstatement and heresy, but it has not forced us-yet-to call it on its Ultramarism. If the loudmouth of Ultamarism doesn't tone it down, though, that day may come sooner than later.

If one compares the rhetoric of today with Constantinople and Moscow, and compare it with Rome and Constantinople of the first millenium, there isn't any difference. God grant that it does not end the same way.

Pope Celestine's letter only shows that all bishops alike have been entrusted with the commonality of preaching the truth. That's totally compatible with Catholic theology.

[MalpanaGiwargis]

1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

You continue to make the same unjustified leaps and to not address a couple of objections that are being raised.

1) You interpret Peter's unique role among the apostles in terms of authority and even jurisdiction. This is reading the later juridic approach of the Latin Church into the Scriptures. Many ancient authors glorify Peter - St. Aphrahat and St. Ephrem are two marvelous Syriac examples who highly praise Peter, even flatly saying that Peter is "head of the apostles" and "head of the Church." But before seeing that as the triumph of Catholic claims, a closer reading indicates that they mean that he is a sublime example of Christian repentance, and that by being the first to confess Jesus as the Christ and Son of God, he is made a "stumbling block" for Satan.

2) Even if it were granted that Peter has juridic authority over the other apostles, it is a leap to connect this personally with the Bishop of Rome, as if the Pope personally continues Peter's role. This is asserted, but not really demonstrated. It is not even necessary if the "power of the keys" is transmitted to the whole episcopate, which is the dominant patristic understanding; the "foundation" perpetually exists in the episcopate. All bishops are successors of Peter; the Pope is his successor in a particular sense as the bishop of the city wherein Peter was martyred. Returning to St. Aphrahat and St. Ephrem, as highly as they exalt Peter, they never once connect Peter with the bishop of Rome.

3) Even if it were granted that the Pope of Rome is the personal successor to Peter's role, it is another leap to take this to mean that the Pope has universal, supreme and immediate episcopal jurisdiction, which Peter doesn't seem to have in the Scriptures, and even were he granted that, yet another leap to say that the Pope is infallible. The one does not necessarily imply the other. You really tend to pass over the bit about "universal, supreme and immediate episcopal jurisdiction" - being the protos does not imply "universal, supreme and immediate episcopal jurisdiction" at all. There really is a deafening lack of support, certainly outside of Rome, in the first millennium for the concept of such staggering authority.

A doctrine that is steadfastly refused by the Christian East and is seemingly contradicted by the facts of history requires rather explicit support from an early period, and this doctrine simply lacks it.

[TheTrisagion]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

I think the far greater implication that can be seen here is that this was an ecumenical council where issues were dealt with in a conciliar manner.  If Philip the Presbyter was actually accepting of your points 1-4, it would have made more sense for him to just bring a letter from the Pope saying "This is the way it is, everybody shape up and do what the Pope says". If you have heresy ripping apart a Church and you have a guy who is accepted as the infallible supreme head of the whole Church, you don't need to have everyone get together to discuss the doctrinal issues, you just have the Pope issued a Papal decree setting the Church on the correct path.  That sort of thing didn't happen until about 600 years later and caused the Great Schism.

[xariskai]

Vatican I anathematizes anyone who has the temerity to deny papal infallibility. The whole RC Church did that for centuries universally in papal oaths and Ecumenical Councils.[1]

"The whole church, East and West, as represented by the official acts of oecumenical Councils and Popes, for several hundred years believed that a Roman bishop may err ex cathedra in a question of faith, and that one of them at least had so erred in fact. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed papal infallibility in the face of this fact, thus overruling history by dogmatic authority. ...If dogma contradicts facts, all the worse for the dogma" Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol IV: Mediaeval Christianity AD. 590-1073, § 113 "The Heresy of Honorius."

"This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church" [including the West as represented by the papal legates] (J. von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61). [Roman Catholic historian]

___________
[1] From C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187:

"It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic! That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:

At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says:

"After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine." Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.

Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"

Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ." After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them." In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: \'91We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.

In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself. We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present ...we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council, in his letter to the Spanish bishops, and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig.

Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after.

Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning ...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places.

To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

=====

"The following points are established by the best documentary evidence:
1. Honorius taught and favored in several official letters (to Sergius, Cyrus, and Sophronius), therefore ex cathedra, the one-will heresy. He fully agreed with Sergius, the Monotheletic patriarch of Constantinople. In answer to his first letter (634), he says: “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.”623 He viewed the will as an attribute of person, not of nature, and reasoned: One will, therefore only one will. In a second letter to Sergius, he rejects both the orthodox phrase: “two energies,” and the heterodox phrase: “one energy” (ejnevrgeia, operatio), and affirms that the Bible clearly teaches two natures, but that it is quite vain to ascribe to the Mediator between God and man one or two energies; for Christ by virtue of his one theandric will showed many modes of operation and activity.624 The first letter was decidedly heretical, the second was certainly not orthodox, and both occasioned and favored the imperial Ekthesis (638) and Type (648), in their vain attempt to reconcile the Monophysites by suppressing the Dyotheletic doctrine.625

...Various attempts have been made by controversialists to save the orthodoxy of Honorius in order to save the dogma of papal infallibility. Some pronounce his letters to be a later Greek forgery.626 Others admit their genuineness, but distort them into an orthodox sense by a nonnatural exegesis.627 Still others maintain, at the expense of his knowledge and logic, that Honorius was orthodox at heart, but heretical, or at least very unguarded in his expressions.628 But we have no means to judge of his real sentiment except his own language, which is unmistakably Monotheletic. And this is the verdict not only of Protestants,629 but also of Gallican and other liberal Catholic historians.630

2. Honorius was condemned by the sixth oecumenical Council as “the former pope of Old Rome,” who with the help of the old serpent had scattered deadly error.631 This anathema was repeated by the seventh oecumenical Council, 787, and by the eighth, 869.

...Here again ultramontane historians have resorted to the impossible denial either of the genuineness of the act of condemnation in the sixth oecumenical Council,632 or of the true meaning of that act.633 The only consistent way for papal infallibilists is to deny the infallibility of the oecumenical Council as regards the dogmatic fact.634 In this case it would involve at the same time a charge of gross injustice to Honorius.

3. But this last theory is refuted by the popes themselves, who condemned Honorius as a heretic, and thus bore testimony for papal fallibility. His first success or, Severinus, had a brief pontificate of only three months. His second successor, John IV., apologized for him by putting a forced construction on his language. Agatho prudently ignored him.635 But his successor, Leo II., who translated the acts of the sixth Council from Greek into Latin, saw that he could not save the honor of Honorius without contradicting the verdict of the council in which the papal delegates had taken part; and therefore he expressly condemned him in the strongest language, both in a letter to the Greek emperor and in a letter to the bishops of Spain, as a traitor to the Roman church for trying to subvert her immaculate fate. Not only so, but the condemnation of the unfortunate Honorius was inserted in the confession of faith which every newly-elected pope had to sign down to the eleventh century, and which is embodied in the Liber Diurnus, i.e. the official book of formulas of the Roman church for the use of the papal curia.636 In the editions of the Roman Breviary down to the sixteenth century his name appears, yet without title and without explanation, along with the rest who had been condemned by the sixth Council. But the precise facts were gradually forgotten, and the mediaeval chroniclers and lists of popes ignore them. After the middle of the sixteenth century the case of Honorius again attracted attention, and was urged as an irrefutable argument against the ultramontane theory. At first the letter of Leo II. was boldly, rejected as a forgery as well as those of Honorius;637 but this was made impossible when the Liber Diurnus came to light.

In volume two of his work entitled A History of Christendom, historian Warren Carroll explained that Pope Agatho never confirmed the 6th Ecumenical council's decrees because he had been dead when the council's actions arrived in Rome. Also, the successors, Leo II, confirmed the council's decrees but "redefined" the language making it absolutely clear that Pope Honorius did not in fact teach heresy, but just failed to condemn the heresy.

 "Writing to the Emperor, almost certainly composing the letter himself in the Emperor's own language, Greek, Pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because 'he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted'. Writing in latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather gaining them by his negligence. To King Erwig, he wrote that Honorius was condemned for negligence in not denouncing the heresy and for using an expression which the heretics were able to employ to advance their own cause, thereby allowing the faith to be stained.....The fact remains that no decree of the council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it. There is no 'supreme law' prescribing how the Pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the Supreme Church authority, but only for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it" (Warren Carroll, The history of Christendom, vol 2: The building of Christendom, page 254)


 

But you're missing the whole point of the post by getting sidetracked about whether or not Honorius was really a heretic or not and whether anyone sought/seeks to deny that he was. That is not relevant to the point.

Regardless of whether they were factually right or wrong about Honorius's heresy or not, the whole Church universally for centuries in papal oaths and Ecumenical Councils actually *denied* he was infallible (citations above).[1] According to Vatican I anyone who *denies* papal infallibility is anathematized/excommunicated.

"Vatican I anathematizes anyone who has the temerity to deny papal infallibility. The whole RC Church did that for centuries universally in papal oaths and Ecumenical Councils." (citations from a RC historian above).
______________________
[1]"The whole church, East and West, as represented by the official acts of oecumenical Councils and Popes, for several hundred years believed that a Roman bishop may err ex cathedra in a question of faith, and that one of them at least had so erred in fact. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed papal infallibility in the face of this fact, thus overruling history by dogmatic authority. ...If dogma contradicts facts, all the worse for the dogma" Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol IV: Mediaeval Christianity AD. 590-1073, § 113 "The Heresy of Honorius."

"This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church" [including the West as represented by the papal legates] (J. von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61). [Roman Catholic historian]

[EY]

A Roman Catholic would say that Leo II purposely said that Honorius was guilty of "negligence", thereby indicating that he himself did not teach the heresy, as is explained above, but that he did not stop the heresy from being promoted.

But it is interesting, to say the least, that the whole Council and the general episcopate did not believe the whole Church was destroyed when Pope Honorius was caught in heresy. That in and of itself is a testimony against Papal Infallibility.

[EY]

Now I would be interested to hear how you guys would respond to the following argument.


Papal infallibility may not have been "known" in all ages of the Church, however there is an organic development to faith and morals. Although the one deposit of faith can never change, there is a deeper awareness, understanding, and realization from the same one revelation, and over time, there are things that are realized to have been absolutely wrong, and it is corrected.

Here are some examples:

1) Original Sin (this was not unanimous or settled until Augustine/Pelagius)
2) Infant Baptism (adult baptism was widely practiced, tertullian even denied infant baptism)
3) The Canon of the NT (Many did not believe some of the books that we have now were inspired)
4) Homo-ousios- The equality of the Son with the Father
5) The two wills of Christ
6) That post-baptismal sin can be forgiven
7) Communion in one kind


These are all examples where over time, a good portion of the Church has to do an "about face" to their previous beliefs to be in conformity with the whole Church. And so Papal Supremacy/Infallibility is one of those things which was always true, but at a point in time, many had to change their belief in Conciliar tradition and believe in Papal infallibility.

What say you all?

[xariskai]

But it is interesting, to say the least, that the whole Council and the general episcopate did not believe the whole Church was destroyed when Pope Honorius was caught in heresy. That in and of itself is a testimony against Papal Infallibility.

And indeed centuries of popes themselves with respect to their own papal oaths of office. There was a centuries-long universal catholic denial at all levels of the Church of what in 1870 was proclaimed anathema to deny (entailing excommunication).

[ialmisry]

Vatican I anathematizes anyone who has the temerity to deny papal infallibility. The whole RC Church did that for centuries universally in papal oaths and Ecumenical Councils.[1]

"The whole church, East and West, as represented by the official acts of oecumenical Councils and Popes, for several hundred years believed that a Roman bishop may err ex cathedra in a question of faith, and that one of them at least had so erred in fact. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed papal infallibility in the face of this fact, thus overruling history by dogmatic authority. ...If dogma contradicts facts, all the worse for the dogma" Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol IV: Mediaeval Christianity AD. 590-1073, § 113 "The Heresy of Honorius."

"This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church" [including the West as represented by the papal legates] (J. von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61). [Roman Catholic historian]

___________
[1] From C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187:

"It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic! That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:

At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says:

"After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine." Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.

Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus"

Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ." After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them." In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: \'91We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.

In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself. We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present ...we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius...also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council, in his letter to the Spanish bishops, and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig.

Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after.

Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning ...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places.

To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius" (C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

=====

"The following points are established by the best documentary evidence:
1. Honorius taught and favored in several official letters (to Sergius, Cyrus, and Sophronius), therefore ex cathedra, the one-will heresy. He fully agreed with Sergius, the Monotheletic patriarch of Constantinople. In answer to his first letter (634), he says: “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.”623 He viewed the will as an attribute of person, not of nature, and reasoned: One will, therefore only one will. In a second letter to Sergius, he rejects both the orthodox phrase: “two energies,” and the heterodox phrase: “one energy” (ejnevrgeia, operatio), and affirms that the Bible clearly teaches two natures, but that it is quite vain to ascribe to the Mediator between God and man one or two energies; for Christ by virtue of his one theandric will showed many modes of operation and activity.624 The first letter was decidedly heretical, the second was certainly not orthodox, and both occasioned and favored the imperial Ekthesis (638) and Type (648), in their vain attempt to reconcile the Monophysites by suppressing the Dyotheletic doctrine.625

...Various attempts have been made by controversialists to save the orthodoxy of Honorius in order to save the dogma of papal infallibility. Some pronounce his letters to be a later Greek forgery.626 Others admit their genuineness, but distort them into an orthodox sense by a nonnatural exegesis.627 Still others maintain, at the expense of his knowledge and logic, that Honorius was orthodox at heart, but heretical, or at least very unguarded in his expressions.628 But we have no means to judge of his real sentiment except his own language, which is unmistakably Monotheletic. And this is the verdict not only of Protestants,629 but also of Gallican and other liberal Catholic historians.630

2. Honorius was condemned by the sixth oecumenical Council as “the former pope of Old Rome,” who with the help of the old serpent had scattered deadly error.631 This anathema was repeated by the seventh oecumenical Council, 787, and by the eighth, 869.

...Here again ultramontane historians have resorted to the impossible denial either of the genuineness of the act of condemnation in the sixth oecumenical Council,632 or of the true meaning of that act.633 The only consistent way for papal infallibilists is to deny the infallibility of the oecumenical Council as regards the dogmatic fact.634 In this case it would involve at the same time a charge of gross injustice to Honorius.

3. But this last theory is refuted by the popes themselves, who condemned Honorius as a heretic, and thus bore testimony for papal fallibility. His first success or, Severinus, had a brief pontificate of only three months. His second successor, John IV., apologized for him by putting a forced construction on his language. Agatho prudently ignored him.635 But his successor, Leo II., who translated the acts of the sixth Council from Greek into Latin, saw that he could not save the honor of Honorius without contradicting the verdict of the council in which the papal delegates had taken part; and therefore he expressly condemned him in the strongest language, both in a letter to the Greek emperor and in a letter to the bishops of Spain, as a traitor to the Roman church for trying to subvert her immaculate fate. Not only so, but the condemnation of the unfortunate Honorius was inserted in the confession of faith which every newly-elected pope had to sign down to the eleventh century, and which is embodied in the Liber Diurnus, i.e. the official book of formulas of the Roman church for the use of the papal curia.636 In the editions of the Roman Breviary down to the sixteenth century his name appears, yet without title and without explanation, along with the rest who had been condemned by the sixth Council. But the precise facts were gradually forgotten, and the mediaeval chroniclers and lists of popes ignore them. After the middle of the sixteenth century the case of Honorius again attracted attention, and was urged as an irrefutable argument against the ultramontane theory. At first the letter of Leo II. was boldly, rejected as a forgery as well as those of Honorius;637 but this was made impossible when the Liber Diurnus came to light.

In volume two of his work entitled A History of Christendom, historian Warren Carroll explained that Pope Agatho never confirmed the 6th Ecumenical council's decrees because he had been dead when the council's actions arrived in Rome. Also, the successors, Leo II, confirmed the council's decrees but "redefined" the language making it absolutely clear that Pope Honorius did not in fact teach heresy, but just failed to condemn the heresy.

 "Writing to the Emperor, almost certainly composing the letter himself in the Emperor's own language, Greek, Pope Leo II wrote that Pope Honorius was condemned because 'he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted'. Writing in latin to the Spanish bishops, he declared that Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but rather gaining them by his negligence. To King Erwig, he wrote that Honorius was condemned for negligence in not denouncing the heresy and for using an expression which the heretics were able to employ to advance their own cause, thereby allowing the faith to be stained.....The fact remains that no decree of the council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it. There is no 'supreme law' prescribing how the Pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the Supreme Church authority, but only for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it" (Warren Carroll, The history of Christendom, vol 2: The building of Christendom, page 254)

Your first problem is that according to Pastor Aeternus and the Vatican's Code of Canon Law which codifies it (the basis of Carroll erroneous statement of fact), any Ecumenical Council ceases once the bishop of Rome dies.  The Council had issued its decree and put it into effect (the Patriarch of Antioch, for instance, was removed, and Honorius removed from the diptychs and anathematised, Patriarch Sophronoius of Jerusalem vindicated, etc.) after the death of Pope St. Agatho (10 January 681-the Council had just opened November 7, 680) and his successor Pope St. Leo II, although elected shortly thereafter, wasn't consecrated until 17 August 682, almost a year after the Council promulgated its decrees on 16 September 681.  The Church doesn't stand still for Old Rome.

You (nor your quote from Carroll) address the matter of the papal oath and Liber Diurnus. There is also the issue of the anathematization and condemnation in the office for the feat of Pope St. Leo II in the OLD Brevery, not the one that Trent edited out the embarrassing parts.

Carroll and you assUme that Pope St. Leo II wrote to the Emperor in Greek, on what basis is not stated.  Nor is any proof offered that the other Patriarchs acknowledged the alleged "redefinition" let alone accepted it-although they did send the deposed bishops to Rome.

[TheTrisagion]

1. We don't believe in Original Sin, at least not in the way that the west does.
2. There is no reason to believe infant baptism was not around at the very earliest stages of the Church. Tertullian believed a lot of things that were not orthodox, hence the reason he is not St. Tertullian.
3. The canon is not a development and the Orthodox do not hold to a dogmatic canon anyways, so it really isn't applicable.
4. I think St. John in his epistle confirms the equality of the Son with the Father. I don't see this as a development, more of a restatement of apostolic teaching
5. Given my tendency towards sympathy of our OO brothers, I'm not sure I can objectively comment on the two wills of Christ controversy other than to say that it was an attempt to refute monophysitism and given the fact that it caused a schism, I'm not sure it was done in the best way.  Certainly not a shining example of Church leadership.
6. The forgiveness of post-baptismal sin has been taught since the apostles. Certainly there have been some that have disagreed with it, but there was no development of the teaching, merely controversy.  There was not a time when it did not exist.
7. The Orthodox do accept communion in one kind.

It would therefore be our position that some of the issues you bring up are not developments and others are indeed developments and thus the reason we oppose them.

[primuspilus]

For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc

Bolded statement. When Rome stopped keeping the faith, then the Pope can no longer claim apostolicity.

4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals

Therefore, because humans drink water, humans are fish.

PP

[EY]

Wait a minute,


The New Testament Canon is a matter of doctrine. So if you have Church Fathers completely rejecting as false writings books such as the Apocalypse of John, James, Hebrews, 2nd & 3rd John, 2 Peter, and then calling the Shepherd of Hermas inspired, and other accepting these books, you have a fundamental disagreement concerning doctrine, and this was not settled until the church made a decision. This would be an example of doctrinal development, where a good portion of the Church has to do an about face to what they formerly held. So why wouldn't this line of reasoning work with Papal supremacy/infallibility, for a good portion of the Church accepted it, and the other did not and was required to repent.

[xariskai]

Wait a minute,


The New Testament Canon is a matter of doctrine. So if you have Church Fathers completely rejecting as false writings books such as the Apocalypse of John, James, Hebrews, 2nd & 3rd John, 2 Peter, and then calling the Shepherd of Hermas inspired, and other accepting these books, you have a fundamental disagreement concerning doctrine, and this was not settled until the church made a decision. This would be an example of doctrinal development, where a good portion of the Church has to do an about face to what they formerly held. So why wouldn't this line of reasoning work with Papal supremacy/infallibility, for a good portion of the Church accepted it, and the other did not and was required to repent.

Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar, as an academic historian who specialized in this topic, concluded not so much as a seed of the idea of papal infallibility was present in the entire first millennium of the Undivided Church. De Novo dogma with no precedent even in the form of a seed (in Congar a reference to Aristotle's idea that for something to develop it must first be present in a seed form), and which was in fact universally denied for centuries everywhere and by all (in St. Vincent of Lerins' sense) is not development, but innovation.

_____________
Cf. also  (from another thread / unanswered):

Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, affirms "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).

[note: the first time the notion was even discussed, in an argument of the Franciscans, papal infallibility was adamantly **rejected** by the pope]

cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion (1981).

Vatican I had insisted it was a part of the faith of the Latin church from the beginning. The adamant denial that this is so by academic historians including Roman Catholic academics is sometimes explained theologically with reference to the paradigm of development defended by Cardinal John Henry Newman (cf. Hegelian dialectic) which became a prominent factor in Vatican II according to Pope John Paul who called it "Newman's Council." Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding it seems reasonable to suggest -if there is no trace of papal infallibility for a thousand years as many scholars argue- that the Latin church is susceptible to the same criticism Cardinal Newman in his Development of Christian Doctrine used to counter Protestantism:

"...this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: "So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'—Nay dead and buried—and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!—then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will,... and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless."

[ialmisry]

Wait a minute,


The New Testament Canon is a matter of doctrine. So if you have Church Fathers completely rejecting as false writings books such as the Apocalypse of John, James, Hebrews, 2nd & 3rd John, 2 Peter, and then calling the Shepherd of Hermas inspired, and other accepting these books, you have a fundamental disagreement concerning doctrine, and this was not settled until the church made a decision. This would be an example of doctrinal development, where a good portion of the Church has to do an about face to what they formerly held. So why wouldn't this line of reasoning work with Papal supremacy/infallibility, for a good portion of the Church accepted it, and the other did not and was required to repent.

no, we simply point out that those who did not accept the Apocalypse of John, etc. were mistaken.

I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more.  I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith.  I'll adapt it to the OP.

An example of what happens when Sola Scriptura runs against Apostolic Tradition:
Joshua Joshua 22:10 And when they came to the region about the Jordan, that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size. 11 And the people of Israel heard say, "Behold, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh have built an altar at the frontier of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that belongs to the people of Israel." 12 And when the people of Israel heard of it, the whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh, to make war against them. 13 Then the people of Israel sent to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, 14 and with him ten chiefs, one from each of the tribal families of Israel, every one of them the head of a family among the clans of Israel. 15 And they came to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh, in the land of Gilead, and they said to them, 16 "Thus says the whole congregation of the LORD, 'What is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the LORD, by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the LORD? 17 Have we not had enough of the sin at Pe'or from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the LORD, 18 that you must turn away this day from following the LORD? And if you rebel against the LORD today he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow. 19 But now, if your land is unclean, pass over into the LORD's land where the LORD's tabernacle stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us; only do not rebel against the LORD, or make us as rebels by building yourselves an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. 20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.'"

21 Then the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas'seh said in answer to the heads of the families of Israel, 22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith toward the LORD, spare us not today 23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD; or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or cereal offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance. 24 Nay, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel ? 25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you Reubenites and Gadites; you have no portion in the LORD.' So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD. 26 Therefore we said, 'Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, 27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings; lest your children say to our children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD."' 28 And we thought, If this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, 'Behold the copy of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you.' 29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!"

30 When Phin'ehas the priest and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites spoke, it pleased them well. 31 And Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest said to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas'sites, "Today we know that the LORD is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this treachery against the LORD; now you have saved the people of Israel from the hand of the LORD." 32 Then Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, and the chiefs, returned from the Reubenites and the Gadites in the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the people of Israel, and brought back word to them. 33 And the report pleased the people of Israel; and the people of Israel blessed God and spoke no more of making war against them, to destroy the land where the Reubenites and the Gadites were settled. 34 The Reubenites and the Gadites called the altar Witness; "For," said they, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."

Now, note the following:

The Sola Scriptura folks were quite correct: the Law given to Moses had restricted sacrifices to one altar before the one Tabernacle. Btw, the tribes living on the East of the Jordan was a deviation from what God had commanded, revealed in His Word, and to which the Prophet Moses objected (Numbers 32, especially verses 6-15). Sort of like the innovation of the monarchy (I Kingdoms/Samuel 8, esp. verses 6-7), but we go a Messiah out of that (I Chronicles 17). Yet it is those who add Tradition to the mix who save Israel that day, as the chiefs of the Assembly/Congregation (we would say "Church") of Israel admit.

However, the Sola Scriptura first accuse the Eastern tribes of rebelling against God's Word, setting something that they see in addition to, and hence in opposition to (in their mind) in order to supplant God's Word, and replacing the Word of God with the traditions of men. And their solution? Just stick to the text and cross over to us.

The Eastern tribes had the foresight to see that, people being people, and sin being sin, that the Books of Moses were not going to suffice to stop Israel from sin. Those on the West Bank would focus on the literal promises to Abraham (which said nothing of the East Bank) and would interpret it in a manner which suited their sense of sensibilities: the Promised Land should fit our idea of the Land of Canaan (sort of like the idea of eating Body and Blood). Acting on this, they would exclude the Easterners, leading them to sin.

So the solution? Set up an interpretation of the letter of the law that preserved an indisputable indication of its spirit. And this they did.

A Melkite priest gave the best one word definition of Chrsitianity: witness.

Now, the problem most Protestants have with Tradition is the idea that the Church which set it up has tried to suppliment, and hence oppose, in order to supplant, Scripture.

We do not believe in, say, the Real Presense because St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom the Aposles ordained themselves as successor of St. Peter in the place where the disciples were first called Christians, writes in c. 105:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they will not confess that the Eucharist is the self same flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

we believe in the Real Presence because He said, "This is My Body," "This is My Blood." Rising, He appeared and was known to the Apostles in the breakding of the bread that first Pascha (Luke 24:13-36 NOT btw, in His opening of the scriptures, though that did make their heart burn). Those who continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrines communed in the breaking of bread in the prayers of the DL every Sunday from the Resurrection until June 7, 2009 (Acts 2:42, 20:7), which we received, delievered to us by the Apostles from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23. btw. when these words were written, the Church had been gathering on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7) for over two decades).

Now, the Aposles weren't doing this because of the verses quoted. Rather the verses were written to record what the Apostles did, what they were doing, believing, teaching, whether by word or letter (I Thess. 2:15) so those who followed could stand fast and hold these traditions, and withdraw (I Thes. 3:6) from those who refused to walk according to the traditions which they delievered and which we received.

St. Ignatius stood fast and held that tradition, and did not neglect that gift that was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, guarding what was committed to him. (I Tim. 4:14, 6:20) St. Ignatius set in order bishops in every city as the Aposltes commanded, to hold fast the faithful word as it had been taught, by word or letter, to both exhort and convict by sound doctrine those of a different opinion (heresia) who contradicted, and refused to walk according to that tradition. (cf. Titus 1:5-9). As the letters show, strong in the grace of Christ Jesus, he was committing these traditions he heard by word from the Apostles to the Faithful to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:1-2), that the Catholic Church continue in breaking the bread, the communion of the self same Body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16).

We do not believe in the Real Presence because St. Ignatius says so: he received the same Faith we received, and he stands as a Witness that God has erected between the Apostles and us, as a sign post as to whether we walk according to the Tradition of the Apostles or not. "Lo! I am with you always (Greek: "all the days") even unto the end of the age." Those were His parting words. And so He has: rather than standing gazing, the Church has raised up witnessses to that same Faith, who stand as witnesses between us and the Apostles. We have not abandoned the Bible for the Fathers (and Mothers!). Rather surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we are able to point to the Witness, like the Eastern Tribes to the altar on the Jordan, to show that we are right in our interpretation of Scripture, including the Words of Institution (themselves written in the Gospels to reflect Church practice). Every generation, we can document, from the Apostles to this day, those who, if they lived in our day, would come to OUR Church and commune with us (of course, closed communion is part of that Apostolic Tradition). Their Faith is our Faith, and that is the value of their words, not that they replace the Bible. Rather they preserve the full import of the Bible.

Tradition is giving our ancestors, our Fathers, the ones who passed down the Faith and copied and preserved the Bible, a vote.

Catechesis means "echo," and Christ's Word has roared throughout the generations through Apostolic Tradition.

As our priest says, if you come up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one else has, be cautious and ask yourself if you are wrong. If it contradicts what has gone before, YOU ARE DEFINITELY WRONG.

How to interpret Acts 8:31? The believers of sola scriptura cannot tell us. They have no one to guide them.

I'm going to repost something long (yeah, I know, suprise) but may not have the time to comment more.  I originally argued this against Sola Scriptura for the only source of the Faith.  I'll adapt it to the OP.....

Title of the thread confused the Consensus Patrum as a Source of Faith: the Consensus does not provide the Source of Faith, it reflects it.

There is only one soure of the Faith, Christ.  How that one source is transmitted, and how its transmition is verified, is what is at issue.

The Faith is transitted in the Holy Mysteries: as the Fathers say, Christ has passed into the Holy Mysteries, the signs of Christ's life within His Body, the Church.  When the Church acts as the Body of Christ, as a Body, in unity with her Head, then she speaks infallibly.  That is why the assent of the Faithful is needed, for instance, for the Ecumenicity of a Council.

There is, for no instance, no objective criteria on which to base the canon of the Bible.  Authorship by an Apostle does not determine the canon of the NT: St. Luke, strictly speaking, is not an Apostle-he does not include himself in the company of eyewitness and ministers of the Word from the beginning (Luke 1:2, cf. Acts 1:21-2). Yet there is no question of it being in the Orthodox canon.  St. Clement's first epistle (I'll leave aside the question of the second) which was reckoned as Scripture: after Clement received his doctrine directly from the Apostles, and not as an eyewitness of Christ, the same way  St. Luke received his doctrine.  Clement's epistles are approved by the Apostolic Canons (85), but yet St. Luke is canonized and St. Clement is not.  If an archaeologist dug up St. Paul's missing Epistles or when they dug up the Gospels that record Acts 20:35, or the Jesus seminar could prove that St. Thomas wrote the Gospel named after him, none were or would be accepted into the canon.  The Church has spoken.  Many Fathers and Churches deemed Revelation spurious, but the Church accepted it into the canon, and even if textual criticism would able to prove that St. John did not write it, it would remain in the canon as the Church has received it as an expression of her Faith in the return of her Bridegroom.

And that is why the Bible is canonized: it is not that the Church collected documents that the Apostles wrote.  Rather, they looked at what the Faithful had produced in the bosom of the Church, recognized herself in it, and adopted it as her self revelation.  Sort of like when parents see themselves in their children, and leave them as their legacy.  The Bible is not like the America Constitution, which brought a new government into order which is derived from that constition: it is like the Canadian Constitution, which merely codifies the system of government in place.  When St. Paul refers to Christ's life, he is not teaching history. He is appealing to an audience who already knows His life. Case in point: St. Paul's account of the Mystical Supper predates all the Gospels' accounts of it.  But he is not telling the Corinthians nothing that they do not already know (I Corin. 11:23)  In fact the ongoing Great Canon of the DL helped shape the Gospels' account.

That is why Sola Scriptura doesn't work: it is like owning the manuel, but not owning the car.

St. Theophan deals with the issue of why we say prayers written by the saints.  It is not because they are a replacement for Scripture nor for our own words.  But as we do not know how to pray as we ought, we look to those who did.  The saints we know (because they have been glorified, and their words consecrated by the usage of the Church) had reached the stage where the Holy Spirit spoke within them at prayer.  In that state, they composed in human language their thoughts in that state.  Using these words as guideposts, we are trying to follow them into the state where the Holy Spirit gives utterance to our prayers.  As the lesson of the Samaritan woman shows: the Samaritans came because of what she told them, but they reached a point at which they believed from knowing Him for themselves (John 4:43).

So too the Liturgy: the Church gathered as the Body of Christ so that He made be in their midst have put that experience into words.  The Church as a whole has adopted the Liturgy as the public expression of that experience, hence the appeal of liturgical texts for dogma: lex credendi, lex orandi.  But in that order: we do not believe that Christ is in the Eucharist because the DL says so, rather because we believe so, and experience Him in the Eucharist, that the DL so says.

So too the Dogmatic Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.  The Faith cannot be added too.  No development of doctrine, if it was not in the Apostles' preaching it cannot be in the Dogma of the Church.  When heresy infected the Body of Christ, the Body of Christ, as a Body, mustered its antibodies, the Fathers and developed an immunity, the Dogmatic Definitions, to the heresy.  They did not add to the Faith: as the body already has the antibody proteins but only puts them to work to form a defense against the foreign pathogen, so too the Fathers only erect from pre-existing materials a boundary marker which the Orthodox may not move.  The Fathers confessed the same Faith, but in different words to ensure it remained the same Faith.  The expression of Faith changes only so that the Faith can remain the same, something litrugists should keep in mind.

The iconography writes an icon only when he follows the canon the Church has laid down for the visual expression of her Faith. Otherwise he is a forger and a counterfeiter (like our deluded friend Lentz).  The icon is the expression of the Church, not personal agendas, and just like a counterfeiter tries to make his money look real but it has no value, so too the icongrapher who oversteps the Church's bounds.  That is why we appeal to the icons when we are asked about what we believe, because they are backed by the full Faith and Credit of the Church.

No Church Father is infallible: only Christ is infallible, and the Church's infallibility flows from her being His Body.  But that flows only when she acts as a Body, like in Ecumenical Council.  Any individual member cannot act infallibility, so why the claim of the alleged "visible head" to speak infallibly cannot be accepted.  So too, no one should expect every word of an individual Father to be infallible.  It is only in as much as they reflect the common Faith, between us and them and lived in the Church now, that they constitute the Consensus Patrum.  What they served, as I pointed out in my OP, as a witness between us and heretics, so when they claim that the Real Presence is an innovation, that we point to St. Ignatius etc.: they witenss to the Faith as we witness to the Faith.

Which is the point of my OP to the OP: merely extended Sola Scriptura to included Ecumenical Councils and certain Fathers misses the point.  These are not the source of Faith: they are witnesses, like the altar on the Jordan, to make sure we have kept the Faith.
[/size]

I'm just saying.

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.

If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.

Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Wait a minute,


The New Testament Canon is a matter of doctrine. So if you have Church Fathers completely rejecting as false writings books such as the Apocalypse of John, James, Hebrews, 2nd & 3rd John, 2 Peter, and then calling the Shepherd of Hermas inspired, and other accepting these books, you have a fundamental disagreement concerning doctrine, and this was not settled until the church made a decision. This would be an example of doctrinal development, where a good portion of the Church has to do an about face to what they formerly held. So why wouldn't this line of reasoning work with Papal supremacy/infallibility, for a good portion of the Church accepted it, and the other did not and was required to repent.

Not in certain parts of the Orthodox Church. The Syrian Churches don't have "the Apocalypse of John, James, Hebrews, 2nd & 3rd John, 2 Peter" in some versions of the Peshitta.

[Mor Ephrem]

Wait a minute,


The New Testament Canon is a matter of doctrine.

Where?

[EY]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

That "development" happened through years and years of councils, debates and imperial nitpicking before anything definitive was reached. There wasn't just an "infallible proclamation", "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" thing, it was a very long process.

Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years is all about these subjects.

[Peter J]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

[EY]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

That "development" happened through years and years of councils, debates and imperial nitpicking before anything definitive was reached. There wasn't just an "infallible proclamation", "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" thing, it was a very long process.

Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years is all about these subjects.

Regardless of "how" it came about. There is a development to this doctrine of the Canon, such that beliefs change for certain people. Certain people, such as those who follow St Athanasius will have to accept that the Shepherd is not "inspired", and some other will have to accept that Hebrews is "inspired".

So if the Orthodox are going to allow for a "development of doctrine", such that  many have their beliefs change (or more sharpened), why not accept Papal infallibility/supremacy just because it is a new concept?

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

That "development" happened through years and years of councils, debates and imperial nitpicking before anything definitive was reached. There wasn't just an "infallible proclamation", "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" thing, it was a very long process.

Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years is all about these subjects.

Regardless of "how" it came about. There is a development to this doctrine of the Canon, such that beliefs change for certain people. Certain people, such as those who follow St Athanasius will have to accept that the Shepherd is not "inspired", and some other will have to accept that Hebrews is "inspired".

So if the Orthodox are going to allow for a "development of doctrine", such that  many have their beliefs change (or more sharpened), why not accept Papal infallibility/supremacy just because it is a new concept?

That's the thing though, Orthodox don't accept the development of doctrine idea. Orthodoxy is and was Orthodoxy, at the time the Holy Spirit revealed it to the Apostles. Any innovation to the deposit of faith afterward is only in relation to how it's expressed or understood, not what it actually is in essence.

By the same logic, why not accept Sola Scriptura just because it's a new concept?

[ialmisry]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

The Trinity does not develop. He is.

What kind of theology they teaching you wherever?

[ialmisry]

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

As I pointed out (and yes, we have just been over this), since Philip said it in Latin it was a nice gesture unintelligible to the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council, who conducted the business of the Council in Greek.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59849.msg1173574.html#msg1173574

We also went over how the Letter of Pope St. Celestine doesn't match the rhetoric of Philip the Presbyter.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59849.msg1173577.html#msg1173577

And we went over this as a historian

Quote from: EY on August 16, 2014, 10:49:28 AM
Actually, Arianism was "spotted" as heresy. The papal claims of Leo/Damasus/ Gregory were not "spotted" as heresy. This difference is historically noteworthy.

You are making this far more mysterious than it is.

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

New Rome is now playing the same role that Old Rome did when Constantinople was on the rise, and for the same reason-a new Rome, namely the Third (Moscow), is now outshining it, as the new capital of New Rome outshone Old Rome (at the time sinking to the level of a clump of huts huddled around the ruins of its former glory.  Constantinople, especially after it contracted to the Phanar, has been making a lot of excessive claims about itself, and, with the same deference that younger generations pay to their granny matron when she gets a little senile and at times bossy and even overbearing, remembering the lady of their younger years in her prime.

Now the Phanar has of late really been straddling the line between misstatement and heresy, but it has not forced us-yet-to call it on its Ultramarism. If the loudmouth of Ultamarism doesn't tone it down, though, that day may come sooner than later.

If one compares the rhetoric of today with Constantinople and Moscow, and compare it with Rome and Constantinople of the first millenium, there isn't any difference. God grant that it does not end the same way.

Pope Celestine's letter only shows that all bishops alike have been entrusted with the commonality of preaching the truth. That's totally compatible with Catholic theology.

Of course it is. What is not compatible with is the Vatican's theology expressed in Pastor Aeternus.

You are also just skipping over the problem of the disconnect between the Pope's letter and the theology you are trying to get out of Philip the presbyter's speech, which isn't supported by the letter.  not the least in that the letter makes no appeal to St. Peter's authority but it does appeal to St. Paul's, St. John's etc. authority.

[Rdunbar123]

That's hand-waving the issue. What does Philip mean? That's the question. Or is it meaningless rhetoric

Was Phillip infallible. You say "seed" that is essentially what I found wrong with the roman church, development of doctrine.

[Peter J]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

[Godspell]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

I do believe that the EOC recognizes Rome with an honor of primacy or leadership for its important role in early Christendom and its connection to Peter. If and when the Church is reunited I understand that honor will be restored.

However the jump you make from point 3 to 4 is enormous to say the least. Primacy does not equal supremacy IMO.  As a matter of ecclesiastical unity Rome should be the focus, but that doesn't give the Pope untethered authority over the whole Church. The papacy doesn't constitute a fourth order. Based on early language of the Church the pope to me sounds like a sort of president of a council of equals, not the overlord overlord of peasants.

As to infallibility, St. Peter himself was not even infallible. Christ even called him Satan! As part of the magestrium I understand that the Church is protect from false doctrine but how that translates to papal infalliblity is beyond me. But even Pope Honorius I was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople. We don't need the doctrine of infallibility to discern good doctrine from bad. It is self evident by the fruits. 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

I do believe that the EOC recognizes Rome with an honor of primacy or leadership for its important role in early Christendom and its connection to Peter. If and when the Church is reunited I understand that honor will be restored.

That's a question that intrigues me - if the Orthodox and Catholics were to be reconciled on this side of the eschaton, would Rome reclaim first place in precedence? I think it's obvious Rome would want that, but from the Eastern side, Rome has been heterodox for (at least) a millennium.

[FormerReformer]

As to infallibility, St. Peter himself was not even infallible. Christ even called him Satan! As part of the magestrium I understand that the Church is protect from false doctrine but how that translates to papal infalliblity is beyond me. But even Pope Honorius I was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople. We don't need the doctrine of infallibility to discern good doctrine from bad. It is self evident by the fruits. 

I always thought it especially apt that Our Lord not only tells St Peter "Get thee behind Me, Satan", but does this no less than 4 verses after bestowing the keys and the power of binding and loosing. Indeed, it seems that for every Biblical verse that shows St Peter as the leader of the Apostles, there is also a verse demonstrating that he was far and away from being infallible.

[Godspell]

I do believe that the EOC recognizes Rome with an honor of primacy or leadership for its important role in early Christendom and its connection to Peter. If and when the Church is reunited I understand that honor will be restored.

That's a question that intrigues me - if the Orthodox and Catholics were to be reconciled on this side of the eschaton, would Rome reclaim first place in precedence? I think it's obvious Rome would want that, but from the Eastern side, Rome has been heterodox for (at least) a millennium.

Well that would be the precedent, however the papacy would look much differently than it does today. Question I have is would the EP go for that?

Honestly, though, aside from the theology most I don't think would mind having Francis as primus inter pares. In any case the Catholic church has come a long way since The dark ages.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

I do believe that the EOC recognizes Rome with an honor of primacy or leadership for its important role in early Christendom and its connection to Peter. If and when the Church is reunited I understand that honor will be restored.

However the jump you make from point 3 to 4 is enormous to say the least. Primacy does not equal supremacy IMO.  As a matter of ecclesiastical unity Rome should be the focus, but that doesn't give the Pope untethered authority over the whole Church. The papacy doesn't constitute a fourth order. Based on early language of the Church the pope to me sounds like a sort of president of a council of equals, not the overlord overlord of peasants.

As to infallibility, St. Peter himself was not even infallible. Christ even called him Satan! As part of the magestrium I understand that the Church is protect from false doctrine but how that translates to papal infalliblity is beyond me. But even Pope Honorius I was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople. We don't need the doctrine of infallibility to discern good doctrine from bad. It is self evident by the fruits.  

Infallible? An Inquiry is a book I am reading that deals with that very topic.

That's a question that intrigues me - if the Orthodox and Catholics were to be reconciled on this side of the eschaton, would Rome reclaim first place in precedence? I think it's obvious Rome would want that, but from the Eastern side, Rome has been heterodox for (at least) a millennium.

And the gist of the answers I've heard as to this question are more or less like this: Rome, since it abandoned the Orthodox, would normally need to start from square one, if they decided to come back into communion. However, certain exceptions could be made that could ensure that Rome is still an important see in Christendom.

Anyone can correct me if my evaluation is wrong anywhere.

[Mor Ephrem]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

I'm asking you.  You claimed it is, and I want to know what your source or reasoning for that is. 

[Godspell]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

I do believe that the EOC recognizes Rome with an honor of primacy or leadership for its important role in early Christendom and its connection to Peter. If and when the Church is reunited I understand that honor will be restored.

However the jump you make from point 3 to 4 is enormous to say the least. Primacy does not equal supremacy IMO.  As a matter of ecclesiastical unity Rome should be the focus, but that doesn't give the Pope untethered authority over the whole Church. The papacy doesn't constitute a fourth order. Based on early language of the Church the pope to me sounds like a sort of president of a council of equals, not the overlord overlord of peasants.

As to infallibility, St. Peter himself was not even infallible. Christ even called him Satan! As part of the magestrium I understand that the Church is protect from false doctrine but how that translates to papal infalliblity is beyond me. But even Pope Honorius I was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople. We don't need the doctrine of infallibility to discern good doctrine from bad. It is self evident by the fruits.  

Infallible? An Inquiry is a book I am reading that deals with that very topic.

That's a question that intrigues me - if the and Catholics were to be reconciled on this side of the eschaton, would Rome reclaim first place in precedence? I think it's obvious Rome would want that, but from the Eastern side, Rome has been heterodox for (at least) a millennium.

And the gist of the answers I've heard as to this question are more or less like this: Rome, since it abandoned the Orthodox, would normally need to start from square one, if they decided to come back into communion. However, certain exceptions could be made that could ensure that Rome is still an important see in Christendom.

Anyone can correct me if my evaluation is wrong anywhere.

I was reading about it and I came across the "Declaration of Ravenna" which essentially was agreed by the EP that the Bishop of Rome is still Primus Inter Pares, now, based on what I know about Orthodox governance that would have to be accepted by the Orthodox Church at large, which would probably be unlikely.

The depressing thing about the schism is that for a Catholic Bishop, even the Bishop of Rome to attain such a high office would have to necessarily  be quite certain that he is within the correct tradition, and equally so with Orthodox Bishops. So, to put it delicately, the schism will never be healed by an act of either Church "repenting". A Bishop would be far more likely to simply covert rather than attempt to effect change from the inside. Even attempting to do so, would likely cause an additional schism.

The only way to reattain unity would be to meet somewhere in the middle, which, unfortunately, parties on both sides think compromises the faith.

Though I have held out a lot of hope that the current Pontiff could gain unity, as a learn more about the situation, I grow less optimistic. Where I live there is a Catholic and Orthodox parish, each sitting across the street from each other, and each bearing the same name. How sad it is that a parishoner could commit apostasy simply by walking across the street to have communion with others just slightly different in theology and worship.

And what hope is there for Protestant reconciliation? If Catholics and Orthodox are like Apples and Oranges, Protestants are like shoes.

[EY]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

That "development" happened through years and years of councils, debates and imperial nitpicking before anything definitive was reached. There wasn't just an "infallible proclamation", "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" thing, it was a very long process.

Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years is all about these subjects.

Regardless of "how" it came about. There is a development to this doctrine of the Canon, such that beliefs change for certain people. Certain people, such as those who follow St Athanasius will have to accept that the Shepherd is not "inspired", and some other will have to accept that Hebrews is "inspired".

So if the Orthodox are going to allow for a "development of doctrine", such that  many have their beliefs change (or more sharpened), why not accept Papal infallibility/supremacy just because it is a new concept?

That's the thing though, Orthodox don't accept the development of doctrine idea. Orthodoxy is and was Orthodoxy, at the time the Holy Spirit revealed it to the Apostles. Any innovation to the deposit of faith afterward is only in relation to how it's expressed or understood, not what it actually is in essence.

By the same logic, why not accept Sola Scriptura just because it's a new concept?

But that is exactly how Catholics understand the development of doctrine. They believe that there is one deposit of revelation in Christ to the apostles, and from this point forward there is no addition to it, only a further and deeper understanding of the one revelation. And they would say that Papal Supremacy/infallibility was not explicit in the beginning, but that it was there is "seed" form, and it took historical progression for events to call forth the actual explication of the doctrine.

[EY]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

The Trinity does not develop. He is.

What kind of theology they teaching you wherever?

I meant the development of the Church's awareness and explication of the doctrine of the Trinity, not the Trinity himself.

[EY]

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

As I pointed out (and yes, we have just been over this), since Philip said it in Latin it was a nice gesture unintelligible to the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council, who conducted the business of the Council in Greek.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59849.msg1173574.html#msg1173574

We also went over how the Letter of Pope St. Celestine doesn't match the rhetoric of Philip the Presbyter.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59849.msg1173577.html#msg1173577

And we went over this as a historian

Quote from: EY on August 16, 2014, 10:49:28 AM
Actually, Arianism was "spotted" as heresy. The papal claims of Leo/Damasus/ Gregory were not "spotted" as heresy. This difference is historically noteworthy.

You are making this far more mysterious than it is.

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

New Rome is now playing the same role that Old Rome did when Constantinople was on the rise, and for the same reason-a new Rome, namely the Third (Moscow), is now outshining it, as the new capital of New Rome outshone Old Rome (at the time sinking to the level of a clump of huts huddled around the ruins of its former glory.  Constantinople, especially after it contracted to the Phanar, has been making a lot of excessive claims about itself, and, with the same deference that younger generations pay to their granny matron when she gets a little senile and at times bossy and even overbearing, remembering the lady of their younger years in her prime.

Now the Phanar has of late really been straddling the line between misstatement and heresy, but it has not forced us-yet-to call it on its Ultramarism. If the loudmouth of Ultamarism doesn't tone it down, though, that day may come sooner than later.

If one compares the rhetoric of today with Constantinople and Moscow, and compare it with Rome and Constantinople of the first millenium, there isn't any difference. God grant that it does not end the same way.

Pope Celestine's letter only shows that all bishops alike have been entrusted with the commonality of preaching the truth. That's totally compatible with Catholic theology.

Of course it is. What is not compatible with is the Vatican's theology expressed in Pastor Aeternus.

You are also just skipping over the problem of the disconnect between the Pope's letter and the theology you are trying to get out of Philip the presbyter's speech, which isn't supported by the letter.  not the least in that the letter makes no appeal to St. Peter's authority but it does appeal to St. Paul's, St. John's etc. authority.

It is completely compatible with Vatican I. In fact, historic and modern Catholicism believes that every single Christian has the same command to preach and teach the gospel. It is a commission to every disciple of Christ. This does not deny primacy, nor supremacy, nor does it deny infallibility. No Catholics would every deny that each bishop is given an equal charge to proclaim Christ. To see such a thing as contradicting to Papal claims is simply to make a category error.

[EY]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

[Porter ODoran]

I did finally find your "ergo" in that stack. Aristotle spins in his grave.

[TheTrisagion]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

[EY]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

Only after reading it into the text a millennium after the fact.

[EY]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

Only after reading it into the text a millennium after the fact.

There is a good point to your comment. However, we have instances in the very early Church where this is clearly taught by the early bishops of Rome. While Firmilian and Cyprian did not believe the Pope to be infallible, they were aware that Pope Stephen was claiming a jurisdiction authority when it came to the belief that heretics do not require re-baptism. Firmilian says that Stephen claims to hold the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid. What's the point of claiming that, except that Stephen was claiming to be "head" of other churches??

Similar instances are seen in Damasus, Leo, Julius, etc,etc.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

Only after reading it into the text a millennium after the fact.

There is a good point to your comment. However, we have instances in the very early Church where this is clearly taught by the early bishops of Rome. While Firmilian and Cyprian did not believe the Pope to be infallible, they were aware that Pope Stephen was claiming a jurisdiction authority when it came to the belief that heretics do not require re-baptism. Firmilian says that Stephen claims to hold the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid. What's the point of claiming that, except that Stephen was claiming to be "head" of other churches??

Similar instances are seen in Damasus, Leo, Julius, etc,etc.

Sure. And each time they were rebutted by the catholic Church. If Stephen was really the head of the other churches, Cyprian would have accepted that claim, he didn't. Since the Apostolic deposit (as Irenaeus and Vincent of Lerins point out) is a single deposit. Since Cyprian took his orthodoxy from the same deposit that Stephen did, one of them would have to be innovating or detracting from that deposit to make new claims such as the one Stephen made against Cyprian.

In other words, if Papal supremacy was part of the Apostolic deposit (as Rome claims) we would see overwhelmingly that Cyprian and others wouldn't have any problem with Rome's assertions. But they did.

[TheTrisagion]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

[Godspell]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

Here is where I am upset. Where does Peter somehow equate with Rome? Antioch has just as much a claim to succession of Peter as Rome, and for that matter, I've never understood why Jerusalem is not considered the center of the Church since it was the center of the faith.

Moreover, I think the Orthodox stance is not that the pillar is not "Peter" per se, but simply that Rome is not de facto "Peter". It was when Roman Bishops had the faith of Peter, but when they abdicated that faith in order to assume authority both temporal and spiritual, they ceased to carry on that faith. In that case, it is not the geographical location that Peter once governed that constitutes his see, it is the see the exemplifies his faith.

As Christ appointed Simon as the Rock of the Church, this was not just his personage, it was also his faith and his revelation that was first conferred to Rome, and is now conferred to New Rome, as the Orthodox view it.

With all due respect, of course.

What I dislike about the Papacy is not the doctrine of infallibility, per se, I do believe the true faith is preserved from error. But the papacy is asserted to be preserved from error by virtue of simply being the papacy. Here is the circular argument:

1. The Church is infallible.
2. How do you know?
3. Because the Church said so.
4. So?
5. The Church is infallible.

As I see it, the faith is preserved not because we believe in the faith, or because of a dogma ratified by a council, but because we believe God loves us enough that He would not allow the faith to so deviate that future generations would be unable to find salvation.

If every Patriarch of the EOC declared some heresy to be fact, they would simply cease to be Patriarchs. The faith would then prevail through some other means.

And here is a conundrum... what if the Pope declared ex cathedra that he was not infallible?

Of course the thinking is that it would be impossible for the Pope to declare that, as God would simply not allow it.

But, I will tell you, ex cathedra is somewhat arbitrary. I learn doctrine not just by words but by actions as well. As I see faithful people act a certain way it teaches me about the faith. Yet, no Catholic believes the Pope is impeccable, yet his actions speak volumes about his faith notwithstanding.   

[Porter ODoran]

Gosh, Tris, that was fun.

[ialmisry]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

The Trinity does not develop. He is.

What kind of theology they teaching you wherever?

I meant the development of the Church's awareness and explication of the doctrine of the Trinity, not the Trinity himself.

1 over infinity is the same as 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 over infinity.  The dogma of the Trinity does not evolve: to think it did is to say that those of this generation know more about God than the Apostles who beheld Him face to face, utter nonsense.

[Mor Ephrem]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

[EY]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

[Porter ODoran]

The New Testament Canon is not a doctrine?

Or if not, what of the development of the trinity?

The Trinity does not develop. He is.

What kind of theology they teaching you wherever?

I meant the development of the Church's awareness and explication of the doctrine of the Trinity, not the Trinity himself.

1 over infinity is the same as 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 over infinity.  The dogma of the Trinity does not evolve: to think it did is to say that those of this generation know more about God than the Apostles who beheld Him face to face, utter nonsense.

I've observed statements like this make some people (I think he was an adjunct) very angry.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

(1) Except that you assume that the Bishop of Rome is the only legitimate successor to Peter's magic infallible powers. Where do you get that from?

[Mor Ephrem]

You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

What about when the pillar dies?

[EY]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

(1) Except that you assume that the Bishop of Rome is the only legitimate successor to Peter's magic infallible powers. Where do you get that from?

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Secondly, it is not so much "I" assume, but rather the Fathers who, on both East and West, understood that there was a universal principle of petrinias in the whole episcopate everywhere, but also understood there to be a very special sense in which the bishops of Rome, on account of being heir to all of Peter's ministry (St Leo), are successors of Peter.

[EY]

You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

What about when the pillar dies?

Then infallibility will be continued via promulgating past dogmas and doctrines which the whole Church, under the past Popes, have given infalible assent to.  Until the next bishop is put into the office of pillar.

[Mor Ephrem]

You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

What about when the pillar dies?

Then infallibility will be continued via promulgating past dogmas and doctrines which the whole Church, under the past Popes, have given infalible assent to.  Until the next bishop is put into the office of pillar.

But the edifice has already been toppled.   

[EY]

You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

What about when the pillar dies?

Then infallibility will be continued via promulgating past dogmas and doctrines which the whole Church, under the past Popes, have given infalible assent to.  Until the next bishop is put into the office of pillar.

But the edifice has already been toppled.  

Thats a conflation between an ecclesiastical office and a human body/soul

[Mor Ephrem]

You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

What about when the pillar dies?

Then infallibility will be continued via promulgating past dogmas and doctrines which the whole Church, under the past Popes, have given infalible assent to.  Until the next bishop is put into the office of pillar.

But the edifice has already been toppled.  

Thats a conflation between an ecclesiastical office and a human body/soul

I agree wholeheartedly, but the conflation is yours, not mine. 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

(1) Except that you assume that the Bishop of Rome is the only legitimate successor to Peter's magic infallible powers. Where do you get that from?

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Secondly, it is not so much "I" assume, but rather the Fathers who, on both East and West, understood that there was a universal principle of petrinias in the whole episcopate everywhere, but also understood there to be a very special sense in which the bishops of Rome, on account of being heir to all of Peter's ministry (St Leo), are successors of Peter.

Again, I haven't seen anything that would determine that apart from the obvious; Rome was the capital of the empire. That's why it was special.

I've already said this to another poster, maybe it was you but...

"Pre-eminence" "special" "specific" "particular" "unique" etc. as far as I know, are not synonyms for the words "infallible" or "supreme", until you can find a dictionary definition that says otherwise, your words are meaningless.

[EY]

You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

What about when the pillar dies?

Then infallibility will be continued via promulgating past dogmas and doctrines which the whole Church, under the past Popes, have given infalible assent to.  Until the next bishop is put into the office of pillar.

But the edifice has already been toppled.  

Thats a conflation between an ecclesiastical office and a human body/soul

I agree wholeheartedly, but the conflation is yours, not mine. 

No it is yours. I never claimed that an ecclesiastical office always need to be filled in order for it to be a living principle always living in the Church. You assumed that I assumed this, and this is why you created a straw man.

[EY]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

(1) Except that you assume that the Bishop of Rome is the only legitimate successor to Peter's magic infallible powers. Where do you get that from?

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Secondly, it is not so much "I" assume, but rather the Fathers who, on both East and West, understood that there was a universal principle of petrinias in the whole episcopate everywhere, but also understood there to be a very special sense in which the bishops of Rome, on account of being heir to all of Peter's ministry (St Leo), are successors of Peter.

Again, I haven't seen anything that would determine that apart from the obvious; Rome was the capital of the empire. That's why it was special.

I've already said this to another poster, maybe it was you but...

"Pre-eminence" "special" "specific" "particular" "unique" etc. as far as I know, are not synonyms for the words "infallible" or "supreme", until you can find a dictionary definition that says otherwise, your words are meaningless.

And so none of the Councils or statements of the Fathers matter to you?

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

(1) Except that you assume that the Bishop of Rome is the only legitimate successor to Peter's magic infallible powers. Where do you get that from?

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Secondly, it is not so much "I" assume, but rather the Fathers who, on both East and West, understood that there was a universal principle of petrinias in the whole episcopate everywhere, but also understood there to be a very special sense in which the bishops of Rome, on account of being heir to all of Peter's ministry (St Leo), are successors of Peter.

Again, I haven't seen anything that would determine that apart from the obvious; Rome was the capital of the empire. That's why it was special.

I've already said this to another poster, maybe it was you but...

"Pre-eminence" "special" "specific" "particular" "unique" etc. as far as I know, are not synonyms for the words "infallible" or "supreme", until you can find a dictionary definition that says otherwise, your words are meaningless.

And so none of the Councils or statements of the Fathers matter to you?

They matter to me greatly, which is why I don't buy the claims of Rome. Granted, I haven't read all of the pre-Nicene Fathers but the ones I have read don't say anything about infallible powers of a specific man residing in Rome.

[Mor Ephrem]

I agree wholeheartedly, but the conflation is yours, not mine. 

No it is yours. I never claimed that an ecclesiastical office always need to be filled in order for it to be a living principle always living in the Church. You assumed that I assumed this, and this is why you created a straw man.

Not really.  If Peter is the "very foundation of the whole Catholic Church", and without the foundation the Church is "finished" (your words); and if you would have us believe that "Peter" lives on exclusively in the Bishops of Rome, then you have to account for dead Popes and how it is that the Church (and its episcopate) continues to exist even if its foundation no longer holds up the edifice.  

While you never claimed that an ecclesiastical office always needs to be filled, yet by elevating the office as you have, you have made it essential to the existence of the Church as Church.  So again, you have to account for sede vacante.  Otherwise or additionally, define "a living principle always living in the Church".        

[EY]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

(1) Except that you assume that the Bishop of Rome is the only legitimate successor to Peter's magic infallible powers. Where do you get that from?

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Secondly, it is not so much "I" assume, but rather the Fathers who, on both East and West, understood that there was a universal principle of petrinias in the whole episcopate everywhere, but also understood there to be a very special sense in which the bishops of Rome, on account of being heir to all of Peter's ministry (St Leo), are successors of Peter.

Again, I haven't seen anything that would determine that apart from the obvious; Rome was the capital of the empire. That's why it was special.

I've already said this to another poster, maybe it was you but...

"Pre-eminence" "special" "specific" "particular" "unique" etc. as far as I know, are not synonyms for the words "infallible" or "supreme", until you can find a dictionary definition that says otherwise, your words are meaningless.

And so none of the Councils or statements of the Fathers matter to you?

They matter to me greatly, which is why I don't buy the claims of Rome. Granted, I haven't read all of the pre-Nicene Fathers but the ones I have read don't say anything about infallible powers of a specific man residing in Rome.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZGMRsKMkHduo7fHBCPOq7QT9aVel5GWSnPAbT3fa_HM/mobilebasic

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

And this, children, is why symbolic logic classes should be taught in school.

I said Infallibility "can" be seen, not "must" be seen. Perhaps you should take a class yourself. And at the end of the day, your response is a hand wave, and really doesn't even interact with the data.

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

(1) Except that you assume that the Bishop of Rome is the only legitimate successor to Peter's magic infallible powers. Where do you get that from?

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Secondly, it is not so much "I" assume, but rather the Fathers who, on both East and West, understood that there was a universal principle of petrinias in the whole episcopate everywhere, but also understood there to be a very special sense in which the bishops of Rome, on account of being heir to all of Peter's ministry (St Leo), are successors of Peter.

Again, I haven't seen anything that would determine that apart from the obvious; Rome was the capital of the empire. That's why it was special.

I've already said this to another poster, maybe it was you but...

"Pre-eminence" "special" "specific" "particular" "unique" etc. as far as I know, are not synonyms for the words "infallible" or "supreme", until you can find a dictionary definition that says otherwise, your words are meaningless.

And so none of the Councils or statements of the Fathers matter to you?

They matter to me greatly, which is why I don't buy the claims of Rome. Granted, I haven't read all of the pre-Nicene Fathers but the ones I have read don't say anything about infallible powers of a specific man residing in Rome.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZGMRsKMkHduo7fHBCPOq7QT9aVel5GWSnPAbT3fa_HM/mobilebasic

Scan the first five quotes, and only the first could be used (as it always is) to argue Papal infallibility. Even so, not enough information is given in the text as to what Jerome is talking about, and especially nothing related to infallibility.

Small clauses, with the ellipsis and no context shouldn't even be taken seriously, and when reading these quotes we should remember the dates and historical contexts. I'll read through all of them when I have the time. There is a quote in Alan Dershowitz' The Case for Israel that spans over 87 pages, and he gets away with it using the ellipsis. Just an example on how a little tampering with linguistic units can dishonestly manipulate the actual content of information.

I mostly limit my considerations to pre-Nicene Fathers because of later imperial interference into the Church, and what effect that might have on the character and rhetoric of the person writing.

[EY]

But there doesn't need to be an explicit statement "Rome is infallible".


All you need is a fresh teaching that the singular successors of Peter are themselves, the true rock and pillar of the Catholic Church, and that this designation of Petrine authority is part of the essence of the Church from its birth (pentecost) to is gathering with Christ in the clouds, and is directly designed by Christ himself. From this, every Papal claim is thereby justified.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

But there doesn't need to be an explicit statement "Rome is infallible".


All you need is a fresh teaching that the singular successors of Peter are themselves, the true rock and pillar of the Catholic Church, and that this designation of Petrine authority is part of the essence of the Church from its birth (pentecost) to is gathering with Christ in the clouds, and is directly designed by Christ himself. From this, every Papal claim is thereby justified.

You're right that there doesn't need to be an explicit statement, but rather an explicit demonstration. Or at the very least, a well reasoned one. If we assume that everything you just typed is true, does that mean you accept the supremacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Antioch? Seeing as how he sits on the chair of Peter, and is his successor in the same way the Roman Bishop is, in that Peter founded the Antiochian See just as he founded the Roman one?

[ialmisry]

But there doesn't need to be an explicit statement "Rome is infallible".


All you need is a fresh teaching that the singular successors of Peter are themselves, the true rock and pillar of the Catholic Church, and that this designation of Petrine authority is part of the essence of the Church from its birth (pentecost) to is gathering with Christ in the clouds, and is directly designed by Christ himself. From this, every Papal claim is thereby justified.

You're right that there doesn't need to be an explicit statement, but rather an explicit demonstration. Or at the very least, a well reasoned one. If we assume that everything you just typed is true, does that mean you accept the supremacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Antioch? Seeing as how he sits on the chair of Peter, and is his successor in the same way the Roman Bishop is, in that Peter founded the Antiochian See just as he founded the Roman one?

After al "what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch?  Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body."-Met. St. Basil to Pope St. Athanasius.
 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

And don't forget the Church of Jerusalem  “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem St. Sophronius  as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.

[TheTrisagion]

No worries, I took it in college. If you would like me address it, I will. First, you have far too many postulates. Second, you have a conclusion in the middle of the theorem. Conclusions always go at the end. Third, your conclusion cannot be derived from the stated postulates. Fourth, you affirmed the consequent which is a logical fallacy.

Now, to look at it from a different perspective. Here is your argument.
According to Philip:
P1. Peter was the foundation of the Catholic Church.
P2. The Church is infallible
Conclusion: Therefore, as the foundation of the Church, Peter is also infallible

You then have a second argument that states:
C1. Per prior proof, Peter is infallible
P2. Fallibility cannot come from infallibility
P3. Bishop of Rome comes from Peter
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bishops of Rome are infallible

Let us first examine the first argument. It cannot be argued that because the set is infallible that a subset cannot be fallible.  Indeed, if this were the case, then every person in the Church could claim infallibility. Second, Philip never introduces infallibility into the discussion, so we cannot, from Philip, derive that he even believes in the infallibility of the Church. Therefore we have an invalid postulate and a logical fallacy.

Now, to examine the second argument which falls first on the fact that C1 was not proved.  Second, we cannot demonstrate that fallibility cannot come from infallibility and considering the fact that humanity came from God, it is evident that falliblity can come from infallibility. We also have an additional problem that it cannot be demonstrated that the Bishop of Rome is the sole descendant of Peter, indeed, it could be argued that anyone who was ordained or followed Peter would have an equal claim to infallibility.

Those are my initial thoughts on the logical problems surrounding your theory.

Nothing substantial has been said here. In fact you've ignored some major parts:

1) Philip says that Peter continues to AND EVER "lives" and "judges" (preside) in his successors, of which, at the time, was in Celestine of Rome. There seems to be an implication that this Petrine activity is ongoing.

2) The whole Church is infallible. Would you agree?

3) If Peter is the foundation of the Church, how could the foundation be subject to heresy or apostacy ?

4) You presume that the "set" (Church) can be "infallible" while a "subset" (Peter) is fallible. But that's the issue, Peter is not just a "subset" but is the source of the episcopate, as Cyprian says, the very foundation of the whole Catholic Church. The Pillar is not a subset of the whole. If the pillar is cracked and separated, the set is finished.

I removed some of the convo to make it more manageable.
1. There is no dispute as to ongoing Petrine activity, but we must recognize what Petrine activity we are talking about. See point 4 below.
2. I believe the Church is infallible, but you have to demonstrate that Philip the Presbyter believed that. Perhaps he did, but he didn't address it, therefore, it cannot be accepted as a postulate and it would need to be proved before being stated as fact.
3. We are not discussing heresy or apostacy, we are talking about fallibility. You are demonstrating the fallacy of equivocation. Error =/= heresy or apostacy.
4. Christ is the source of the episcopate because He ordained Peter. Peter is the head of the Apostles, not the origin. Philip does not claim that Peter is the source. Philip also emphasizes that the Popes have kept and are keeping intact the apostolic doctrine. He recognizes that it is the apostolic doctrine which is truth, which is different than claiming Papal proclamation is truth. Apostolic doctrine is the measuring stick, not the Pope. Also note that while Peter was proclaimed pillar and foundation, Philip does not say that that aspect "lives and judges in his successors", he stated that the "power of loosing and binding sins lives and judges in his successors".

There are certainly ecclesiological concepts that can be gleaned from Philip the Presbyter, but you are reading his statement through the lens of modern day Catholicism and using later assumptions to interpret his writings.  If you look at what he writes at face value, you will see Philip's postulates.

1. St. Peter is considered foundational to the Church and the teachings of the Church and is the Head Apostle. There is no mention of this being transferable to any other individual.
2. St. Peter was granted the power to loose and bind sins. This power has also been transferred to his successors.
3. At the point at which Philip was speaking, the Popes had always been faithful to the teachings of apostolic doctrine.

Now, if you you beleive that infallibility of the Pope can be derived from these postulates, I invite you to demonstrate that, but for the life of me, I cannot see how that would be possible.

[EY]

I think you are missing the relationship of the Church's life with her foundation. The Church must always have her foundation, and that can never be moved or cracked, otherwise the Church falls as well. Part of the Church standing strong requires her to be infallible in faith/morals (the doctrine of christ - Matt 28), and to fall into heresy would be to fall apart completely. Therefore, the foundation of the Church, since it provides the Church with the strength to stand, must be (a) source of infallibility (not denying other, more divine sources).

And philip here is saying that Peter is the foundation of the Church. But the inevitable question arises. If Peter is the foundation of the Church, and Peter has been martyred. Has the Church fallen? The answer is no, because Peter continues to live in his successors, which are not, particularly from Philip, a general notion of all who enter the episcopate, but specifically the bishops of Rome.

Now, Peter living in His See, which is none other than Rome (par exellence, no denial of petrinias in alexandria/antioch), is rather poetic. But that doesn't strip it of its entire meaning, as if its just superfluous. What is mean, I think, is that Peter's "role" of being the foundation to the Church continues in the successors.

This is one way of reading Philip, and I would say it would be too much had not the surrounding Pope's and bishops taught the same.

[TheTrisagion]

I think you are missing the relationship of the Church's life with her foundation. The Church must always have her foundation, and that can never be moved or cracked, otherwise the Church falls as well. Part of the Church standing strong requires her to be infallible in faith/morals (the doctrine of christ - Matt 28), and to fall into heresy would be to fall apart completely. Therefore, the foundation of the Church, since it provides the Church with the strength to stand, must be (a) source of infallibility (not denying other, more divine sources).

The Church has her foundation. Christ is the eternal foundation of the Church. (1 Cor 3:11) The Church is infallible because of Christ, not because of St. Peter.  It is helpful not to read too literally into the word foundation. Scripture alternately refers to Christ, to the Apostles, to St. Peter specifically and to the prophets all as the foundation of the Church. It should come as no suprise that infallibility comes from God, not from any man.

And philip here is saying that Peter is the foundation of the Church. But the inevitable question arises. If Peter is the foundation of the Church, and Peter has been martyred. Has the Church fallen? The answer is no, because Peter continues to live in his successors, which are not, particularly from Philip, a general notion of all who enter the episcopate, but specifically the bishops of Rome.

You are using a sleight of hand on the word "foundation". In the first use, Philip is using it as a descriptor (St. Peter is the foundation because he was foundational in the establishing of the Church), in the second use, you are using it as a synonym for the word "basis" (St. Peter is not the basis of the Church, that would be Christ)

Now, Peter living in His See, which is none other than Rome (par exellence, no denial of petrinias in alexandria/antioch), is rather poetic. But that doesn't strip it of its entire meaning, as if its just superfluous. What is mean, I think, is that Peter's "role" of being the foundation to the Church continues in the successors.

This is one way of reading Philip, and I would say it would be too much had not the surrounding Pope's and bishops taught the same.

That might be what you think, but that is not what Philip says. He never states that St. Peters role of being the foundation (or foundational) of the Church continues to the successors. No one is stripping any meaning, but you seem to be reading into the text that which is not there.

[MalpanaGiwargis]

EY, the Petrine foundation can and still does exist without a Supreme Pontiff if the chair of Peter is shared by each and every bishop. The link between Peter and a personal successor in Rome is asserted but not demonstrated. The personal successor doesn't seem necessary if the Petrine chair is the common possession of the whole episcopate, and Rome's preeminence is most easily explained by its status as the capital, the martyrdom of St Peter AND St Paul, and that it remained steadfastly orthodox for a long time - not because of some unique charism of its bishop.

[Skydive]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

Not how the fathers saw. The interpretations of Christ and the faith being the Rock predomine over Peter being the Rock in the patristic consensus.

[EY]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

Not how the fathers saw. The interpretations of Christ and the faith being the Rock predomine over Peter being the Rock in the patristic consensus.

That's completely false.

The patristic understanding is that the Rock is Jesus Christ, the gospel, Peter's faith, and Peter himself. For goodness sake, his name was changed to Peter. they referred to him as "the Rock". When they were trying to get his attention, they called him "the Rock". And this was the case until he died. His very grave read the inscription "Peter is in here", which means, "the rock is here". And then you have a consensus building that the see of Rome is the chair of Peter, which was indestructible.

See the link I gave.

[TheTrisagion]

The successors to Peter are no more the Rocks of the Church than the successors to Warren Buffett are the Oracles of Omaha.

[Mor Ephrem]

The successors to Peter are no more the Rocks of the Church than the successors to Warren Buffett are the Oracles of Omaha.

But if Jesus changed Warren's name...

[EY]

I am amazed at the ignorance of the early Church's understanding of all of this. It is quote striking.

[Porter ODoran]

I am amazed at the ignorance of the early Church's understanding of all of this. It is quote striking.

Now you're starting to get it.

[EY]

Peter Odoran,


At the end of the day, this is just a hand-wave, and it is not an actual interaction with the data presented. Because of this reason, your participation has been useless. It you wish to participate, please exchange ideas that are directly related to the subject at hand.

[Mor Ephrem]

I am amazed at the ignorance of the early Church's understanding of all of this. It is quote striking.

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Seeker or teacher? 

[TheTrisagion]

I am amazed at the ignorance of the early Church's understanding of all of this scepticism of the Latin Church's claims. It is quote striking.

Fixed

[Porter ODoran]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

Not how the fathers saw. The interpretations of Christ and the faith being the Rock predomine over Peter being the Rock in the patristic consensus.

That's completely false.

The patristic understanding is that the Rock is Jesus Christ, the gospel, Peter's faith, and Peter himself. For goodness sake, his name was changed to Peter. they referred to him as "the Rock". When they were trying to get his attention, they called him "the Rock". And this was the case until he died. His very grave read the inscription "Peter is in here", which means, "the rock is here". And then you have a consensus building that the see of Rome is the chair of Peter, which was indestructible.

See the link I gave.

"When they were trying to get his attention, they call him 'the Rock.' " To me this reads as a poignant argument for your opposition. Simon being "withstood ... to the face," as St. Paul recounts, with his fellow bishops calling him "the Rock," reminding him of a duty too large for one mortal man.

[EY]

I am amazed at the ignorance of the early Church's understanding of all of this. It is quote striking.

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Seeker or teacher? 

A seeker still knows his ABC's. Is that a shock ? I got smart remarks from the get go.

[Mor Ephrem]

I am amazed at the ignorance of the early Church's understanding of all of this. It is quote striking.

Let's be clear. "I" do not "assume". In fact, I am seriously inquiring Orthodoxy. However, as a Catholic, I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Seeker or teacher? 

A seeker still knows his ABC's. Is that a shock ? I got smart remarks from the get go.

You did, but not in the way you think.  Only after a while did you get the ones you think you got. 

[Ekdikos]

1) Original Sin (this was not unanimous or settled until Augustine/Pelagius)

You mean Carthagenian bishops who on same council rejected Pope's authority over them?

2) Infant Baptism (adult baptism was widely practiced, tertullian even denied infant baptism)

Which Pope solved issue?

3) The Canon of the NT (Many did not believe some of the books that we have now were inspired)

Roman Pope Who defined it? It was Alexandrine Pope though.

4) Homo-ousios- The equality of the Son with the Father

Settled by two Councils, and Fatehrs of one were Out of Communion with Roman Pontiff while they were in session.

5) The two wills of Christ

There is certain Roman Pope who taught about single will of Christ.
6) That post-baptismal sin can be forgiven

7) Communion in one kind

Ancient XIII century practice... but when we separated it was two kinds only.

[EY]

1) Original Sin (this was not unanimous or settled until Augustine/Pelagius)

You mean Carthagenian bishops who on same council rejected Pope's authority over them?

2) Infant Baptism (adult baptism was widely practiced, tertullian even denied infant baptism)

Which Pope solved issue?

3) The Canon of the NT (Many did not believe some of the books that we have now were inspired)

Roman Pope Who defined it? It was Alexandrine Pope though.

4) Homo-ousios- The equality of the Son with the Father

Settled by two Councils, and Fatehrs of one were Out of Communion with Roman Pontiff while they were in session.

5) The two wills of Christ

There is certain Roman Pope who taught about single will of Christ.
6) That post-baptismal sin can be forgiven

7) Communion in one kind

Ancient XIII century practice... but when we separated it was two kinds only.

Thank you for your comments.

Would you say that all doctrine held by the Orthodox have not undergone development?

[Ekdikos]

In sense of Faith none. But I am impartial. I graduated at Eastern Orthodox Seminary, I am teaching EO Religious Education classes, and I am on lis for ordination...
In sense of philosophical definitions and grammar, Orthodox Theology did develop.

[Porter ODoran]

I am amazed at the ignorance of the early Church's understanding of all of this. It is quote striking.

Now you're starting to get it.

Peter Odoran,

At the end of the day, this is just a hand-wave, and it is not an actual interaction with the data presented. Because of this reason, your participation has been useless. It you wish to participate, please exchange ideas that are directly related to the subject at hand.

That's fair.

[Iconodule]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

Not how the fathers saw. The interpretations of Christ and the faith being the Rock predomine over Peter being the Rock in the patristic consensus.

That's completely false.

The patristic understanding is that the Rock is Jesus Christ, the gospel, Peter's faith, and Peter himself. For goodness sake, his name was changed to Peter. they referred to him as "the Rock". When they were trying to get his attention, they called him "the Rock". And this was the case until he died. His very grave read the inscription "Peter is in here", which means, "the rock is here". And then you have a consensus building that the see of Rome is the chair of Peter, which was indestructible.

See the link I gave.

The interpretation of Peter as the rock is a valid one in Orthodoxy. For instance, St. Gregory Palamas gives such an interpretation and no one can accuse him of being a Papist. Unfortunately, some Orthodox, in their polemics against Rome, tend to read 20th century propaganda more than they read the Fathers. I guess the question is whether the Pope of Rome is the successor of Peter or whether all bishops are. Orthodox Christians take the latter view.

[Cavaradossi]

If the bishop of Rome is really the unique successor of Peter, how is this succession passed on, since popes do not choose their successors or even pass their office on to them?

[Misplaced Book]

I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Why?


"Arguments" can bring something to your attention, but you aren't going to be "untangled" by sheer force of rhetoric or fancy words.   

The Holy Spirit "untangles" us.

When you attend a Roman Catholic Mass, and immerse yourself in the lives of it's Saints and pray the prayers,  where do you find yourself?

[Porter ODoran]

I think I have a feeling for what may underlie EY's concern here. It's not easy to do something that one has long believed is a mortal sin.

[Misplaced Book]

I think I have a feeling for what may underlie EY's concern here. It's not easy to do something that one has long believed is a mortal sin.

I sympathize.

Going into Schism is nothing to take lightly, whether you are going to the right side or not.

[Skydive]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to provide an excerpt from the Council of Ephesus to see if we could discuss how its possible that there is taught within it the seed of Papal infallibility:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc


1) Peter is the head, pillar, and foundation of the Church Catholic
2) Pillars, Heads, and Foundations never cease existing for the structure, lest the structure fall
3) The bishops of Rome hold "Peter's place" in his succession
4) Therefore, the Pope in Rome is the infallible supreme head of the whole Church Catholic in terms of faith/morals


How can we avoid seeing this implicated from the text?

Not how the fathers saw. The interpretations of Christ and the faith being the Rock predomine over Peter being the Rock in the patristic consensus.

That's completely false.

The patristic understanding is that the Rock is Jesus Christ, the gospel, Peter's faith, and Peter himself. For goodness sake, his name was changed to Peter. they referred to him as "the Rock". When they were trying to get his attention, they called him "the Rock". And this was the case until he died. His very grave read the inscription "Peter is in here", which means, "the rock is here". And then you have a consensus building that the see of Rome is the chair of Peter, which was indestructible.

See the link I gave.

More ascribed it to Christ and the faith than Peter. That is completely true..

The OP is full of non-sequitur.

[primuspilus]

they called him "the Rock"

Evidently, you're not smelling what the Rock is cooking........

PP

[EY]

You know how Catholic/Orthodox apologists try to respond to Evangelical/Protestants when Protestants try and sell the idea that Christ founded the Christian church with the Apostles and earliest Christians, but that soon thereafter, the whole Church fell into heresy, and the Catholics/Orthodox will respond by saying that Christ's church can never be overcome by the gates of hades, nor can she cease to be visibly one holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Well, I feel like the Catholic Church has a stronger argument historically, since there is so much of the Church, both in East and West, by the 5th/6th century, that were buying into a supremacy in Rome as the first See and under which all councils needed ratification. How can the Church fall into such great heresy from the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14,th century etc,etc,etc. I mean the early Popes were quite literal in applying the Matt 16 passage to the specific chair of Peter in Rome.

[Mor Ephrem]

Whatever floats your ark. 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Yeah, I haven't seen a speckle of evidence to support Rome. I'll keep looking, since I have a lot of time, but I am still not convinced.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

You know how Catholic/Orthodox apologists try to respond to Evangelical/Protestants when Protestants try and sell the idea that Christ founded the Christian church with the Apostles and earliest Christians, but that soon thereafter, the whole Church fell into heresy, and the Catholics/Orthodox will respond by saying that Christ's church can never be overcome by the gates of hades, nor can she cease to be visibly one holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Well, I feel like the Catholic Church has a stronger argument historically, since there is so much of the Church, both in East and West, by the 5th/6th century, that were buying into a supremacy in Rome as the first See and under which all councils needed ratification. How can the Church fall into such great heresy from the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14,th century etc,etc,etc. I mean the early Popes were quite literal in applying the Matt 16 passage to the specific chair of Peter in Rome.

No. Chair of Peter = Bishop "Quite literal" is a long stretch, maybe 'vaguely' but not "quite literal".

As to the conciliar claim, it's a role called "first among equals" nothing more, nothing infallible.

[primuspilus]

Well, I feel like the Catholic Church has a stronger argument historically, since there is so much of the Church, both in East and West, by the 5th/6th century, that were buying into a supremacy in Rome

The reason why the Church supported Rome's primacy, not supremacy, is because it was the rock of Orthodoxy, not because of some special office the Pope had (see the 4th council). The more and more Rome fell into heresy, the more and more the East distanced herself from that rotting twig.

PP

[Misplaced Book]

Well, I feel like the Catholic Church has a stronger argument historically, since there is so much of the Church, both in East and West, by the 5th/6th century, that were buying into a supremacy in Rome as the first See and under which all councils needed ratification. How can the Church fall into such great heresy from the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14,th century etc,etc,etc. I mean the early Popes were quite literal in applying the Matt 16 passage to the specific chair of Peter in Rome.

The Church as a whole never fell into heresy.   There were various Sees which struggled with heresy over the Centuries, but The Church has endured.  We are still here today.

You keep asserting that the Church Fathers bought into Papal Supremacy, but this is not true at all.   Old Rome was special because it was the capital of the Empire, and because St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred there.   Their blood consecrated that ground, as well as all the martyrs.   That is pretty darn special in itself.

We differentiate between Primacy and Supremacy.   We acknowledge the reality of the former but deny the latter.   If you want to know what this Primacy would look like, see my Patriarch, +HAH Bartholomew or to use a Roman Catholic example, the Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Nobody is denying that Old Rome was revered, but this was because of her steadfast Orthodoxy, not because it was Roman Pope.   St. Peter founded multiple Sees, and they all trace their lineage from St. Peter.   To assert that a particular See has some kind of special power because of it's founder is bizarre from the Orthodox POV.

Yes, there were Popes who attempted to assert some kind of Papal perogatives outside of their own territory.   These Popes were either ignored or gently rebuked by they brother bishops.   There were some instances where other Sees sent requests to Rome to settle a dispute.   This is fully in keeping with the Primacy, as the EP today has the function of being a facilitator to settle disputes or issues between Sees.


I understand your difficulty.   The whole Latin System is built on the authority and character of the Pope.   If his claims are false, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards....what you are left with is Orthodoxy.

[EY]

The early Church, including Cyprian & Ambrose, believed that the see of Rome was the source of the sacerdotal ministry. It is there that the chair of Peter originated, since the prince of the Apostles sat and taught in Rome. Now, there is no doubt that Cyprian/Ambrose believed that the episcopal seat @ Rome was the source of communion with Christ, the question is whether they believed that "source" to be a priority of time or a perpetual fixed point of communion. In other words, the question would be whether they understood Rome to be the "source" of the episcopal ministry just as a bullet is sourced from the chamber of a gun, but does not remain within the chamber necessarily, since it is ejected OR that they understood the communion to be always sourced in Rome.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The early Church, including Cyprian & Ambrose, believed that the see of Rome was the source of the sacerdotal ministry. It is there that the chair of Peter originated, since the prince of the Apostles sat and taught in Rome. Now, there is no doubt that Cyprian/Ambrose believed that the episcopal seat @ Rome was the source of communion with Christ, the question is whether they believed that "source" to be a priority of time or a perpetual fixed point of communion. In other words, the question would be whether they understood Rome to be the "source" of the episcopal ministry just as a bullet is sourced from the chamber of a gun, but does not remain within the chamber necessarily, since it is ejected OR that they understood the communion to be always sourced in Rome.

(a) Cyprian and Ambrose did not believe any such thing. Context is important, when the Chair of Peter is mentioned, the Episcopate is mentioned a few lines down.

(b) There is surely a doubt there is the case. You cannot just claim that "x believes y" unless you can PROVE IT. I'm sorry, but I'm tired and irritable. Let's see the quotes and we'll see what they really say. People thought that Al Gore said he invented the internet by the same logic you're displaying here.

(c) No. The question is whether Cyprian and Ambrose saw Rome EXCLUSIVELY as the ONLY legitimate center of communion. That's the issue. Not about where Rome happens to be situated in any given location and time period. This is extreme Romanism. It seems that everything you even think about in relation to the Fathers is always centered on Rome. It cannot possibly mean anything else but Rome.

[Ekdikos]

The early Church, including Cyprian & Ambrose, believed that the see of Rome was the source of the sacerdotal ministry.

No. Cyprian did not, neither did Church

[EY]

Seems pretty clear to me. They understood a Peter principle in all bishops, but a source in Rome.


-St. Ambrose of Milan
16- "[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
-St. Ambrose of Milan
17- "It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
-St. Ambrose of Milan
18 - From this Church [of Rome] the rights of venerable communion flow unto all. (St. Ambrose of Milan, AD 385)
-St. Ambrose of Milan
19- "We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you" (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).
- Synod of Ambrose
20- "At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church."
Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms,43:40(AD 397),in GILES,145
- St. Ambrose of Milan
21 - "But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"
Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus,1:47(A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:168
- St. Ambrose of Milan
22 - "Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion."
Ambrose,To Emperor Gratian,Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160
- Ambrose of Milan


-St. Cyprian of Carthage
111 - "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-St. Cyprian of Carthage

112 - "There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

[Ekdikos]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

[EY]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

Well, Cyprian is not infallible. And so we are here observing a principle that he himself belief. Regardless if he did not see that principle as making it a binding law upon him to submit to Rome in all things (as if evident), he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood. Now why is it so wild that such a principle was just not fully lived out by Cyprian? After all, was he above correction? Absolutely not. In fact many believed he was wrong about the baptism of heretics. And so all I am saying is that here the Orthodox believe that each bishop is equal, whereas Rome has something distinct about it, namely, that it is the source of the episcopate. Now, some fathers saw in this a notion of infallibility, and others did not.

[primuspilus]

Well, Cyprian is not infallible

I find it funny that RC's love quoting the saints to try and prove the Pope's claims, but when others do the same to disprove them, we hear, "Well, <insert here> isn't infallible." So very convenient.

PP

[TheTrisagion]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

Well, Cyprian is not infallible. And so we are here observing a principle that he himself belief. Regardless if he did not see that principle as making it a binding law upon him to submit to Rome in all things (as if evident), he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood. Now why is it so wild that such a principle was just not fully lived out by Cyprian? After all, was he above correction? Absolutely not. In fact many believed he was wrong about the baptism of heretics. And so all I am saying is that here the Orthodox believe that each bishop is equal, whereas Rome has something distinct about it, namely, that it is the source of the episcopate. Now, some fathers saw in this a notion of infallibility, and others did not.

So the quotes that seem to be favorable to Papal infallibility are trustworthy, but the ones that clarify his position and demonstrate that he is not advocating Papal infallibility are not to be trusted?  Don't you realize how silly that sounds? 

[Mor Ephrem]

...he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood.

What does that mean, EY?  "Source of the priesthood (and/or episcopate)"? 

[Fabio Leite]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

Well, Cyprian is not infallible. And so we are here observing a principle that he himself belief. Regardless if he did not see that principle as making it a binding law upon him to submit to Rome in all things (as if evident), he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood. Now why is it so wild that such a principle was just not fully lived out by Cyprian? After all, was he above correction? Absolutely not. In fact many believed he was wrong about the baptism of heretics. And so all I am saying is that here the Orthodox believe that each bishop is equal, whereas Rome has something distinct about it, namely, that it is the source of the episcopate. Now, some fathers saw in this a notion of infallibility, and others did not.

All these quotes were written in times when Rome was the only Orthodox see among heresies or at least the only one willing to speak out against them. Rome was the source because it was confessing orthodoxy, it's not orthodoxy simply because it is being confessed by Rome.

My opinion is that although Rome itself saw the fall of the Empire in the West as a disaster, it kept the city out of petty imperial politics which were the true sources of all heresies, so they could look at it as outsiders.

Two seconds after an empire was formed in the West with Charlesmagne, the emperor tried to impose a heresy, just like in the East. The only difference is that, although Rome resisted it in the beginning, eventually the popes embarked on it wholeheartdly and, also unlike the East, never retracted on it.

[Mor Ephrem]

My opinion is that although Rome itself saw the fall of the Empire in the West as a disaster, it kept the city out of petty imperial politics which were the true sources of all heresies, so they could look at it as outsiders.

Two seconds after an empire was formed in the West with Charlesmagne, the emperor tried to impose a heresy, just like in the East. The only difference is that, although Rome resisted it in the beginning, eventually the popes embarked on it wholeheartdly and, also unlike the East, never retracted on it.

[PeterTheAleut]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

Maybe what I'm about to say has been said by others already. Please accept my apologies if I repeat anything.

Nowhere in the above progression do you establish that the bishops of Rome are unique successors of St. Peter in ways that no other bishops are. Until you can do so, Point 7 above is a big non sequitur--it just doesn't follow from the logic of the preceding points.

[ialmisry]

Not sure I want to get my finger prints on this thread, but let me give you my two cents, or maybe about 10% thereof.

But as a historian, how could you account for what Philip is saying? It is just a nice gesture?

I don't have anything against those questions, but first I'd like to understand what you said already, in the OP. Do you see infallibility (either of popes in general or of St. Peter specifically) being discussed in the Phillip quote? If so, where?

Bump.

Infallibility can be seen from the Philip quote if one exegetes the statement in the following manner.

1) Philip claims that Peter, the man, was the firm foundation and pillar of the whole Catholic Church
2) Pillars and foundations are the very thing which gives the whole structure its strength, stability, and its ability to stand
3) Pillars and foundations can never be separated from the whole structure, without the whole structure falling apart
4) The whole Church is the missionary society of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all nations, and therefore it must be infallible
5) Therefore the pillar and foundation of the Church must have this infallible quality
6) Philip claims that Peter continues to be "active" in the Church through his successors, both now and "forever".
7) The bishops of Rome are the infallible heads of the whole Church Catholic

Because priests acting as legates speak infalllibly.

The Holy Spirit through St. Paul said that St. James the Brother of God and St. John the Theologian were Pillars of the Church too, in fact refering to St. James, who precided over the Council of Apostles at Jerusalem and rendered its judgement and definition of the Faith, before St. Peter. Galatians 2:9

btw, you false syllogism is an example of the dangers that Scholasticism leads to, whole large edifices erected further and further off of the firm foundation.

[ialmisry]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

Well, Cyprian is not infallible. And so we are here observing a principle that he himself belief. Regardless if he did not see that principle as making it a binding law upon him to submit to Rome in all things (as if evident), he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood. Now why is it so wild that such a principle was just not fully lived out by Cyprian? After all, was he above correction? Absolutely not. In fact many believed he was wrong about the baptism of heretics. And so all I am saying is that here the Orthodox believe that each bishop is equal, whereas Rome has something distinct about it, namely, that it is the source of the episcopate. Now, some fathers saw in this a notion of infallibility, and others did not.

Which means it is a failure by Laurentian standards of Orthodoxy, lacking "everyone" "everywhere" and "at all times."
Philip the Presbyter is not infallible either.  At least Cyprian shared in the plentitude of the episcopate.

You have yet to demonstrate that "he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood."  The letter that he translated and published from Met. Firmillian says otherwise.

[EY]

Well, Cyprian is not infallible

I find it funny that RC's love quoting the saints to try and prove the Pope's claims, but when others do the same to disprove them, we hear, "Well, <insert here> isn't infallible." So very convenient.

PP

That's a straw man. I never said Cyprian believed in the Papacy.

[EY]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

Well, Cyprian is not infallible. And so we are here observing a principle that he himself belief. Regardless if he did not see that principle as making it a binding law upon him to submit to Rome in all things (as if evident), he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood. Now why is it so wild that such a principle was just not fully lived out by Cyprian? After all, was he above correction? Absolutely not. In fact many believed he was wrong about the baptism of heretics. And so all I am saying is that here the Orthodox believe that each bishop is equal, whereas Rome has something distinct about it, namely, that it is the source of the episcopate. Now, some fathers saw in this a notion of infallibility, and others did not.

So the quotes that seem to be favorable to Papal infallibility are trustworthy, but the ones that clarify his position and demonstrate that he is not advocating Papal infallibility are not to be trusted?  Don't you realize how silly that sounds? 

I never said Cyprian believed in Papal Infallibility.....straw man.

Secondly, I am just showing that there was more than one Father who saw in Rome the source of the priesthood. What does it mean? I am not sure. Could you assist in explaining?

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Seems pretty clear to me. They understood a Peter principle in all bishops, but a source in Rome.


-St. Ambrose of Milan
16- "[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
-St. Ambrose of Milan
17- "It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
-St. Ambrose of Milan
18 - From this Church [of Rome] the rights of venerable communion flow unto all. (St. Ambrose of Milan, AD 385)
-St. Ambrose of Milan
19- "We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you" (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).
- Synod of Ambrose
20- "At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church."
Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms,43:40(AD 397),in GILES,145
- St. Ambrose of Milan
21 - "But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"
Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus,1:47(A.D. 378),in NPNF2,X:168
- St. Ambrose of Milan
22 - "Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion."
Ambrose,To Emperor Gratian,Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160
- Ambrose of Milan


-St. Cyprian of Carthage
111 - "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-St. Cyprian of Carthage

112 - "There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Alright, so what do we see? I don't see anything. The vast majority of those quotes don't mention at all Rome in it's original text, it's added into the brackets, and the context is whisked away so we don't have any background to analyze these quotes critically. Those that do mention Rome don't say that it's infallible.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

Well, Cyprian is not infallible. And so we are here observing a principle that he himself belief. Regardless if he did not see that principle as making it a binding law upon him to submit to Rome in all things (as if evident), he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood. Now why is it so wild that such a principle was just not fully lived out by Cyprian? After all, was he above correction? Absolutely not. In fact many believed he was wrong about the baptism of heretics. And so all I am saying is that here the Orthodox believe that each bishop is equal, whereas Rome has something distinct about it, namely, that it is the source of the episcopate. Now, some fathers saw in this a notion of infallibility, and others did not.

So the quotes that seem to be favorable to Papal infallibility are trustworthy, but the ones that clarify his position and demonstrate that he is not advocating Papal infallibility are not to be trusted?  Don't you realize how silly that sounds? 

I never said Cyprian believed in Papal Infallibility.....straw man.

Secondly, I am just showing that there was more than one Father who saw in Rome the source of the priesthood. What does it mean? I am not sure. Could you assist in explaining?

If Cyprian didn't believe in Infallibility, will you concede it is a novel doctrine that the Apostles knew nothing about as well? Secondly, that quote has been explained a lot of times. The text is referring to the Episcopate, the office the Roman Bishop occupies, not his Papacy. Every local Episcopate is where sacerdotal unity is derived. This is what the Cyprian text says a few lines down, in it's original, with the context.

[EY]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

Well, Cyprian is not infallible. And so we are here observing a principle that he himself belief. Regardless if he did not see that principle as making it a binding law upon him to submit to Rome in all things (as if evident), he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood. Now why is it so wild that such a principle was just not fully lived out by Cyprian? After all, was he above correction? Absolutely not. In fact many believed he was wrong about the baptism of heretics. And so all I am saying is that here the Orthodox believe that each bishop is equal, whereas Rome has something distinct about it, namely, that it is the source of the episcopate. Now, some fathers saw in this a notion of infallibility, and others did not.

So the quotes that seem to be favorable to Papal infallibility are trustworthy, but the ones that clarify his position and demonstrate that he is not advocating Papal infallibility are not to be trusted?  Don't you realize how silly that sounds? 

I never said Cyprian believed in Papal Infallibility.....straw man.

Secondly, I am just showing that there was more than one Father who saw in Rome the source of the priesthood. What does it mean? I am not sure. Could you assist in explaining?

If Cyprian didn't believe in Infallibility, will you concede it is a novel doctrine that the Apostles knew nothing about as well? Secondly, that quote has been explained a lot of times. The text is referring to the Episcopate, the office the Roman Bishop occupies, not his Papacy. Every local Episcopate is where sacerdotal unity is derived. This is what the Cyprian text says a few lines down, in it's original, with the context.

Cyprian is referring to Rome

here is the whole letter

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.liv.html

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Have you ever heard about reading into? You are reading into St. Cyprien's words something he did not believe... I think numerous times, we told you, that Cyprien did believe every bishop sits in chair of Peter, and despite he recognised primacy of Roman Church, he was adamant in refusing to recognise right of Supermacy of Roman see. You are six hundred times repeating something you know we disagree with... if you are trying to convince us in Roman Supermacy, sorry last 1000 years we did not hear any convincible argument.

Well, Cyprian is not infallible. And so we are here observing a principle that he himself belief. Regardless if he did not see that principle as making it a binding law upon him to submit to Rome in all things (as if evident), he still held to the principle that Rome was the source of the priesthood. Now why is it so wild that such a principle was just not fully lived out by Cyprian? After all, was he above correction? Absolutely not. In fact many believed he was wrong about the baptism of heretics. And so all I am saying is that here the Orthodox believe that each bishop is equal, whereas Rome has something distinct about it, namely, that it is the source of the episcopate. Now, some fathers saw in this a notion of infallibility, and others did not.

So the quotes that seem to be favorable to Papal infallibility are trustworthy, but the ones that clarify his position and demonstrate that he is not advocating Papal infallibility are not to be trusted?  Don't you realize how silly that sounds? 

I never said Cyprian believed in Papal Infallibility.....straw man.

Secondly, I am just showing that there was more than one Father who saw in Rome the source of the priesthood. What does it mean? I am not sure. Could you assist in explaining?

If Cyprian didn't believe in Infallibility, will you concede it is a novel doctrine that the Apostles knew nothing about as well? Secondly, that quote has been explained a lot of times. The text is referring to the Episcopate, the office the Roman Bishop occupies, not his Papacy. Every local Episcopate is where sacerdotal unity is derived. This is what the Cyprian text says a few lines down, in it's original, with the context.

Cyprian is referring to Rome

here is the whole letter

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.liv.html

I don't know why I even bother.

Hit Ctrl + F and search "Episcop" and "Rome" and see how many results you get. Obviously, Cyprian was referring to Rome. That doesn't mean that he was referring to Rome as the source of sacerdotal unity though, those are separate issues. With relation to the latter, he's talking about the Episcopacy, the context is clear. It seems like it's impossible to disassociate Rome from anything in your worldview.

Edit: Scratch that, Rome is still not mentioned in the text. It's only inferred.

[Porter ODoran]

You can get an idea where EY's coming form whenever you take a gander at the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917). Most articles there pertaining to lives of Fathers and Saints and Doctors will find a way to work in a solemn paragraph or two on the Pope of the day and how the person under consideration gave him his due.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

I was reading a book called the Vatican Diaries, it was very well written and interesting, But in the  last Chapter which was mainly about Pope Benedict, there was a quote which Benedict very clearly downplayed the infallibility thing.

[Misplaced Book]

I must be untangled with the very argumentation which brought me to see the truth in Roman Catholicism.

Why?


"Arguments" can bring something to your attention, but you aren't going to be "untangled" by sheer force of rhetoric or fancy words.   

The Holy Spirit "untangles" us.

When you attend a Roman Catholic Mass, and immerse yourself in the lives of it's Saints and pray the prayers,  where do you find yourself?

[EY]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

[TheTrisagion]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

[EY]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

That is only recently. If you read historic baptist theology, it has always had a more rigorous take on discipleship, obedience, discipline, and evangelism.

In fact, the history has flip flopped. I find more Orthodox/Catholic being very weak when it comes to proclaiming the gospel to every creature, being violent against the passions of the flesh, holding others accountable to the law of Christ, etc,etc.....and I see the reformed baptists doing this almost in every congregation that holds to historic baptist theology.

I had to do my research about this because so many think, when I say I came from a reformed baptist church, that I came from a "pray the prayer", "walk down the aisle", and "ask jesus into your heart" kind of Christianity.

[TheTrisagion]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

That is only recently. If you read historic baptist theology, it has always had a more rigorous take on discipleship, obedience, discipline, and evangelism.

In fact, the history has flip flopped. I find more Orthodox/Catholic being very weak when it comes to proclaiming the gospel to every creature, being violent against the passions of the flesh, holding others accountable to the law of Christ, etc,etc.....and I see the reformed baptists doing this almost in every congregation that holds to historic baptist theology.

I had to do my research about this because so many think, when I say I came from a reformed baptist church, that I came from a "pray the prayer", "walk down the aisle", and "ask jesus into your heart" kind of Christianity.

Perhaps this is the part you are holding on to.  The Orthodox I know work hard and proclaiming the gospel and fighting against the passions of the flesh.  They do not, however, spend a great deal of time worrying about holding others accountable, we worry about ourselves and our own sins, not the sins of others.  I have enough to worry about in my own life that I don't need to go around my parish dictating to others what they should be doing in their life.  They are held accountable through the sacrament of confession, they don't need me to be a priest wanna-be telling them what they should be doing.

[Cavaradossi]

-St. Cyprian of Carthage
111 - "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-St. Cyprian of Carthage

This quotation is mistranslated. The verb in Latin is is the perfect, and so it ought to be rendered as "the church from which sacerdotal unity arose."

[EY]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

That is only recently. If you read historic baptist theology, it has always had a more rigorous take on discipleship, obedience, discipline, and evangelism.

In fact, the history has flip flopped. I find more Orthodox/Catholic being very weak when it comes to proclaiming the gospel to every creature, being violent against the passions of the flesh, holding others accountable to the law of Christ, etc,etc.....and I see the reformed baptists doing this almost in every congregation that holds to historic baptist theology.

I had to do my research about this because so many think, when I say I came from a reformed baptist church, that I came from a "pray the prayer", "walk down the aisle", and "ask jesus into your heart" kind of Christianity.

Perhaps this is the part you are holding on to.  The Orthodox I know work hard and proclaiming the gospel and fighting against the passions of the flesh.  They do not, however, spend a great deal of time worrying about holding others accountable, we worry about ourselves and our own sins, not the sins of others.  I have enough to worry about in my own life that I don't need to go around my parish dictating to others what they should be doing in their life.  They are held accountable through the sacrament of confession, they don't need me to be a priest wanna-be telling them what they should be doing.

Well, apostolic Christianity always had a system of accountability. Read Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 5. We are our brothers keepers, not their judges. But we can still exhort one another, and restore each other to right living.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

That is only recently. If you read historic baptist theology, it has always had a more rigorous take on discipleship, obedience, discipline, and evangelism.

In fact, the history has flip flopped. I find more Orthodox/Catholic being very weak when it comes to proclaiming the gospel to every creature, being violent against the passions of the flesh, holding others accountable to the law of Christ, etc,etc.....and I see the reformed baptists doing this almost in every congregation that holds to historic baptist theology.

I had to do my research about this because so many think, when I say I came from a reformed baptist church, that I came from a "pray the prayer", "walk down the aisle", and "ask jesus into your heart" kind of Christianity.

Perhaps this is the part you are holding on to.  The Orthodox I know work hard and proclaiming the gospel and fighting against the passions of the flesh.  They do not, however, spend a great deal of time worrying about holding others accountable, we worry about ourselves and our own sins, not the sins of others.  I have enough to worry about in my own life that I don't need to go around my parish dictating to others what they should be doing in their life.  They are held accountable through the sacrament of confession, they don't need me to be a priest wanna-be telling them what they should be doing.

Well, apostolic Christianity always had a system of accountability. Read Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 5. We are our brothers keepers, not their judges. But we can still exhort one another, and restore each other to right living.

Apostolic Christianity also believed in regular confession, Saint veneration and the Real Presence of the Eucharist...

[TheTrisagion]

There is a difference between encouraging one another and holding one another accountable. My priest holds me accountable before God. I do not expect everyone in the parish to do the same. I do expect that everyone will encourage one another in Christ though.

[EY]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

That is only recently. If you read historic baptist theology, it has always had a more rigorous take on discipleship, obedience, discipline, and evangelism.

In fact, the history has flip flopped. I find more Orthodox/Catholic being very weak when it comes to proclaiming the gospel to every creature, being violent against the passions of the flesh, holding others accountable to the law of Christ, etc,etc.....and I see the reformed baptists doing this almost in every congregation that holds to historic baptist theology.

I had to do my research about this because so many think, when I say I came from a reformed baptist church, that I came from a "pray the prayer", "walk down the aisle", and "ask jesus into your heart" kind of Christianity.

Perhaps this is the part you are holding on to.  The Orthodox I know work hard and proclaiming the gospel and fighting against the passions of the flesh.  They do not, however, spend a great deal of time worrying about holding others accountable, we worry about ourselves and our own sins, not the sins of others.  I have enough to worry about in my own life that I don't need to go around my parish dictating to others what they should be doing in their life.  They are held accountable through the sacrament of confession, they don't need me to be a priest wanna-be telling them what they should be doing.

Well, apostolic Christianity always had a system of accountability. Read Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 5. We are our brothers keepers, not their judges. But we can still exhort one another, and restore each other to right living.

Apostolic Christianity also believed in regular confession, Saint veneration and the Real Presence of the Eucharist...

Yes?

[Porter ODoran]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

That is only recently. If you read historic baptist theology, it has always had a more rigorous take on discipleship, obedience, discipline, and evangelism.

In fact, the history has flip flopped. I find more Orthodox/Catholic being very weak when it comes to proclaiming the gospel to every creature, being violent against the passions of the flesh, holding others accountable to the law of Christ, etc,etc.....and I see the reformed baptists doing this almost in every congregation that holds to historic baptist theology.

I had to do my research about this because so many think, when I say I came from a reformed baptist church, that I came from a "pray the prayer", "walk down the aisle", and "ask jesus into your heart" kind of Christianity.

Well -- how do I say this kindly -- this (that I bolded) touches on something very representative of the Baptist ethos in America. The books and preaching were traditionally impressively vigorous and systematic (and of course almost always polemical). However, there is the contrasting quality in which a Baptist is content to take pleasure in the rhetoric while living an unexamined but "blood covered" life ...

[EY]

There is a difference between encouraging one another and holding one another accountable. My priest holds me accountable before God. I do not expect everyone in the parish to do the same. I do expect that everyone will encourage one another in Christ though.

The Lord himself commanded "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault. If he repents, you have won your brother".

[Porter ODoran]

There is a difference between encouraging one another and holding one another accountable. My priest holds me accountable before God. I do not expect everyone in the parish to do the same. I do expect that everyone will encourage one another in Christ though.

The Lord himself commanded "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault. If he repents, you have won your brother".

This is a matter of bad blood being cleared up by the parties involved (the Christian taking the lead).

[EY]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

That is only recently. If you read historic baptist theology, it has always had a more rigorous take on discipleship, obedience, discipline, and evangelism.

In fact, the history has flip flopped. I find more Orthodox/Catholic being very weak when it comes to proclaiming the gospel to every creature, being violent against the passions of the flesh, holding others accountable to the law of Christ, etc,etc.....and I see the reformed baptists doing this almost in every congregation that holds to historic baptist theology.

I had to do my research about this because so many think, when I say I came from a reformed baptist church, that I came from a "pray the prayer", "walk down the aisle", and "ask jesus into your heart" kind of Christianity.

Well -- how do I say this kindly -- this (that I bolded) touches on something very representative of the Baptist ethos in America. The books and preaching were traditionally impressively vigorous and systematic (and of course almost always polemical). However, there is the contrasting quality in which a Baptist is content to take pleasure in the rhetoric while living an unexamined but "blood covered" life ...

This doesn't make any sense. Could you rephrase the sentences.

[EY]

There is a difference between encouraging one another and holding one another accountable. My priest holds me accountable before God. I do not expect everyone in the parish to do the same. I do expect that everyone will encourage one another in Christ though.

The Lord himself commanded "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault. If he repents, you have won your brother".

This is a matter of bad blood being cleared up by the parties involved (the Christian taking the lead).

That's interesting, because then Jesus says "If he fails to repent, bring two or three with you, that on account of the witness of two or three, every word might be established. And if he fails to repent again, tell it to the church. And if he does not listen to the Church, let him be to you a heathen and a tax collector".

These are the formal instructions of our blessed Lord, who gave his life for our sins, on how to restore each other to holiness. Often times, it leads to excommunication, which is a shunning intended to bring the sinner back to life, sort of like a sour medicine or a thick shot to cure illness. This kind of spirituality is often missing in our Mordernist culture.

[TheTrisagion]

There is a difference between encouraging one another and holding one another accountable. My priest holds me accountable before God. I do not expect everyone in the parish to do the same. I do expect that everyone will encourage one another in Christ though.

The Lord himself commanded "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault. If he repents, you have won your brother".

And if someone in the parish sins against me, I will do that, but the concept of holding each other accountable is not what Christ is speaking of there. Forgive me if this sounds a bit strawmanish, but in the Baptist tradition, accountibility often devolves to watching and gossiping about other people in the church and then confronting them "in love" (of course  ) about how they should be living their lives differently. I've been through too many church splits where I saw this happen to believe otherwise.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Well, to be truly honest. It seems that I am most spiritually enlivened when I go to a baptist/evangelical church that has the emphasis on conversion, repentance, the coming wrath of God, the need to be Christ-like, the urgency of evangelism, the practice of church disipline,etc,etc,etc. This is where I feel the "most" home at. Perhaps if Catholic/Orthodox churches were like this, I'd feel more at home there.

Yea....so this is why I am examining doctrine/theology/history

I am from a baptist/evangelical background and I didn't even know what these things really meant until I came to Orthodoxy. You must be going to a very different baptist/evangelical church than the ones that I attended throughout my life.

That is only recently. If you read historic baptist theology, it has always had a more rigorous take on discipleship, obedience, discipline, and evangelism.

In fact, the history has flip flopped. I find more Orthodox/Catholic being very weak when it comes to proclaiming the gospel to every creature, being violent against the passions of the flesh, holding others accountable to the law of Christ, etc,etc.....and I see the reformed baptists doing this almost in every congregation that holds to historic baptist theology.

I had to do my research about this because so many think, when I say I came from a reformed baptist church, that I came from a "pray the prayer", "walk down the aisle", and "ask jesus into your heart" kind of Christianity.

Perhaps this is the part you are holding on to.  The Orthodox I know work hard and proclaiming the gospel and fighting against the passions of the flesh.  They do not, however, spend a great deal of time worrying about holding others accountable, we worry about ourselves and our own sins, not the sins of others.  I have enough to worry about in my own life that I don't need to go around my parish dictating to others what they should be doing in their life.  They are held accountable through the sacrament of confession, they don't need me to be a priest wanna-be telling them what they should be doing.

Well, apostolic Christianity always had a system of accountability. Read Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 5. We are our brothers keepers, not their judges. But we can still exhort one another, and restore each other to right living.

Apostolic Christianity also believed in regular confession, Saint veneration and the Real Presence of the Eucharist...

Yes?

And Baptists don't...

[EY]

There is a difference between encouraging one another and holding one another accountable. My priest holds me accountable before God. I do not expect everyone in the parish to do the same. I do expect that everyone will encourage one another in Christ though.

The Lord himself commanded "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault. If he repents, you have won your brother".

And if someone in the parish sins against me, I will do that, but the concept of holding each other accountable is not what Christ is speaking of there. Forgive me if this sounds a bit strawmanish, but in the Baptist tradition, accountibility often devolves to watching and gossiping about other people in the church and then confronting them "in love" (of course  ) about how they should be living their lives differently. I've been through too many church splits where I saw this happen to believe otherwise.

I've seen it done properly. The problem is where it is not done at all.