Papal Infallibility in history
St.Athanasius
Is there any evidence in ancient Christianity to demonstrate that
the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as defined by
Vatican 1 is the received faith of the Christian Church Universal?
Thanks
Anonymous
Answer: Yes Here's a couple of the earliest examples you will find (although not necessarily the *only* ones):
1. "If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us,
let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no
small danger." "You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the
things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the
wicked passion of jealousy." (St. Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, ~80AD)
St. Clement was the 4th Pope, and here calls the Corinthians (which already have
their own local church) to obey him as his proclamations are guided by the Holy
Spirit. This asserts a primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the entire Church,
and also, arguably, papal infallibility.
2. "Ignatius...to the church also which holds the presidency, in the
location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor,
worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of
sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after
Christ and named after the Father" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans,
~110 AD).
Ignatius here is acknowledging a primacy of the church in Rome over
the entire Church which is a necessary foundation for and result of papal
infallibility.
Michael
---------------
John 6:66 Anti-Eucharist = Anti-Christ
Glenn Wright
St.Athanasius <athmi...@quicknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:372ebc8a...@news.quicknet.com.au...
The belief that the Church as the receptacle of the
Deposit of Faith infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit goes
back to St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. However,
in the early Church, the Bishop of Rome was regarded more
as "primus inter pares." When a crisis arose, a Church Council
was convened, as the Council of Jerusalem to settle the question
of whether Christians needed to convert to Judaism, or the Council
of Nicaea to define the Trinity. Significantly, in the fourth
and fifth centuries, these councils occurred in the Eastern part of the
Roman Empire, in Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and Ephesus.
The schisms between East and West in the eleventh century and
between North and South in the Reformation of the sixteenth century
concentrated in the Pope much of the authority that had been exercised
in the earlier councils. The doctrine of papal infallibility dates only
from 1870, but was conferred by a council--Vatican I.
Deslea R. Judd
background in some detail (from an RC perspective, btw) that the motivations
for papal infallibility were rooted squarely in the Enlightenment and in the
fall of the Papal states - a reconsolidation of power, so to speak. It's
true there had always been a substantial body of belief in the vague idea
that "the Pope is always right" (not as refined an idea as that found in
Vatican 1) but usually this came from those who elevated the Papacy to a
god-like level - ie, it came from heretics.
Deslea
St.Athanasius
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>athmi...@quicknet.com.au (St.Athanasius) asks:
>
>> Question:
>>
>> Is there any evidence in ancient Christianity to demonstrate that
>>the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as defined by
>>Vatican 1 is the received faith of the Christian Church Universal?
>
>Answer: Yes Here's a couple of the earliest examples you will find (although not necessarily the *only* ones):
>
>1. "If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us,
>let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no
>small danger." "You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the
>things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the
>wicked passion of jealousy." (St. Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, ~80AD)
>
Could you kindly supply more detailed references? These two quotes
could be anywhere. I want to check them.
Thanks
>St. Clement was the 4th Pope, and here calls the Corinthians (which already have
>their own local church) to obey him as his proclamations are guided by the Holy
>Spirit. This asserts a primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the entire Church,
>and also, arguably, papal infallibility.
>
>2. "Ignatius...to the church also which holds the presidency, in the
>location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor,
>worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of
>sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after
>Christ and named after the Father" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans,
>~110 AD).
>
>Ignatius here is acknowledging a primacy of the church in Rome over
>the entire Church which is a necessary foundation for and result of papal
>infallibility.
>
>Michael
>---------------
>John 6:66 Anti-Eucharist = Anti-Christ
>
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He,who has neither the repentance of the Tax Collector, nor the good deeds of the Pharisee.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all,
and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
Mr. Zoom
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, let's see if they are worth
reading....
> Could you kindly supply more detailed references? These two quotes
> could be anywhere. I want to check them.
Check out the Early Church Fathers section at http://ccel.wheaton.edu/
HTH HAND :)
mr. zoom
--
===zoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom
Edward "Mr. Zoom" Curtis cur...@labyrinth.net
Visit the Handicapped Encounter Christ webpage
http://welcome.to/encounter-christ
Cunneen
Deposit of Faith infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit goes
back to St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.>>
is derived from. The councils, in union with the pope, where the guardians of
this infallibility.
<< However,
in the early Church, the Bishop of Rome was regarded more
as "primus inter pares." When a crisis arose, a Church Council
was convened, as the Council of Jerusalem to settle the question
of whether Christians needed to convert to Judaism, or the Council
of Nicaea to define the Trinity.>>
Stephen showed that the Roman bishops at least attempted to exercise
independent authority, even in the East. The metropolitans could appeal their
cases to Rome, even before the era of councils beginning in the fourth century.
True, the Easterners tended to only do this as a last resort, but the
precedence is there.
<< Significantly, in the fourth
and fifth centuries, these councils occurred in the Eastern part of the
Roman Empire, in Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and Ephesus.>>
What few people seem to realize is that Constantine moved the capital of the
empire to the East, so naturally that was the were the Imperial councils were
held. There are many more Imperial councils that are NOT recognized as
Ecumenical, however, and one of the outstanding characteristics of them was
that NONE were approved by the Bishop of Rome. In other words, "Council + pope
= ultimate teaching authority". Not council alone. The pope's approval was
required for all doctrinal decrees. That was as far as I can see the teaching
of the first millenium church. Also, the size and representativeness of the
councils varied, so that a council that only consisted of a small cross section
of the church, as long as it had the Pope's approval, was considered
authoritative. So in the West, Western councils, although never recognized as
Ecumenical, still had doctrinal authority, given the pope's approval. (To be
fair, these councils never had the same authority in the East. The Eastern
criteria seems to have been "Imperial Eastern councils approved by the pope")
With the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, the emphasis on
what was authoritative shifted. In the east, it was (and is) an Eastern
council, approved by the church as a whole. In the west, it was sometimes
difficult to hold representative councils (given the pressure of kings and
emperors), and the importance of councils in the exercise of authority was
increasingly ignored. Conciliarist theologians who claimed that councils were
superior to the pope almost triumphed, especially during the Affair of the
Three Popes, but the West learned the lesson that the first millenium had
taught the East; just because it's a council doesn't mean that the results
aren't heretical at worst and political expediency at best.
<<The schisms between East and West in the eleventh century and
between North and South in the Reformation of the sixteenth century
concentrated in the Pope much of the authority that had been exercised
in the earlier councils.>>
One characteristic particular to Western Christianity almost universally
(Protestant or Catholic, except perhaps among the Lutherans and Anglicans) is
distrust of the political leadership. Among Protestants it shows up as the
"Separation of Church and State" issue. I've sometimes thought the the
paradigm of Protestantism can be summed up in, "Put not your trust in princes,
in sons of man in whom there is no salvation."
But it's also a strong Catholic paradigm, too. During the time of feudalism,
the Investiture Controversies raised the issue of whether the church would
break up into national and regional and even local sub-churches or retain its
unity under the bishop of Rome. The whole medieval period can be characterized
as one long running battle between the church on one side trying to keep its
independence, and the barons and kings and emperors on the other, trying to
turn the church to their own purposes. Many of the latter had the bishops of
their territories "in their pocket", so councils became a means of gaining
power over the pope and the church. This was particularly true during the
Conciliarist period of the 15th century.
Actually from then until Vatican I in 1870 the only council was the crisis
council at Trent. The popes were not at all excited about having such a
council. It took a long time to call it, and once it's work was done, it was
quickly disbanded. Papal distrust never really lifted until this century.
The "council + pope" model therefore tends to become the "pope + (only in a
crisis) council" model. But if the church doesn't "need" a council for
authoritative leadership, (after all, we went for over three hundred years
without one) then the pope alone must be able to do everything that the
council and pope could do. Ergo, church infallibility implies "council + pope"
infallibility implies papal infallibility.
<< The doctrine of papal infallibility dates only from 1870, but was conferred
by a council--Vatican I.>>
No, the doctrine has been around in the form of "council + pope" since the 4th
century, and various claims to authority had been made by popes since even
earlier. The definitive "statement" of the doctrine was made at V I.
It's interesting to note that the statement is really much narrower than some
of the opinions of theologians. It only when teaching on faith and morals in
the name of the church as the universal pastor from the chair of Peter ("ex
cathedra") that the teaching is authoritative and irreformable (which is what
infallible translates to) - must be believed and cannot be changed. Ordinary
teaching and personal private beliefs don't count; nor do non-doctrinal
teachings. He also is protected from error, but not from cowardice or bad
judgement. He may FAIL to teach when he should; he may teach in a way that is
true, but incomplete. Infallibility doesn't protect the pope from sin or
stupidity.
Deo Gratias
John