Infallibility

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. ...[text shortened]... u have provided the best scriptural support, then there is no scriptual support for the concept.

A few quick points in response (more detail tomorrow, if not later today):

1. Read the commentary provided in the Cath. En. article.
2. You left out the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" bit in Mt 16:18. That is important.
2. That should've been Mt 16:18-19. My mistake. Keep in mind the discussion I'm having with Nemesio on bind/loosen.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A few quick points in response (more detail tomorrow, if not later today):

1. Read the commentary provided in the Cath. En. article.
2. You left out the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" bit in Mt 16:18. That is important.
2. That should've been Mt 16:18-19. My mistake. Keep in mind the discussion I'm having with Nemesio on bind/loosen.

It's okay: we're all fallible.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
It's okay: we're all fallible.

Or, we can deduce that Jesus temporarily abandoned him.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
But isn't the presumption fairly obvious here, Lucifershammer?

Retrospectively, you can interpret the apostles and Peter as analogues for the bishops and the Pope. However, prospectively this interpretation is far less plausible. Isn't it stretching it just a bit to claim that Jesus specifically had the bishops and Pope in mind when addressing his ...[text shortened]... de, which they acknowledge as being deadly...unless of course they are fallible on that one too.

But isn't the presumption fairly obvious here, Lucifershammer?

My argument rests on two assumptions:

(1) Christ really was the only begotten Son of God; he was omniscient.
(2) Christ really did say the things ascribed to Him in these verses to the audience mentioned.*

If you dispute (1), then the point of infallibility is moot - neither Christian laity nor clergy are infallible.

If you dispute (2), then the point of interpreting these verses is moot - Christ never said them so there's no point arguing over what he meant by them.

The point of this debate is to see whether the infallibility of the Pope and the episcopal college follows given (1) and (2) above.

Retrospectively, you can interpret the apostles and Peter as analogues for the bishops and the Pope. However, prospectively this interpretation is far less plausible. Isn't it stretching it just a bit to claim that Jesus specifically had the bishops and Pope in mind when addressing his apostles?

Not really. Given the omniscience of Christ, He would've known full well that his Apostles would die long before they had a chance to "teach all nations" and that they wouldn't last "all days, even to the consummation of the world". What's more, He would've known that the Apostles would interpret their "mission statement" to be one that would be executed by themselves and their successors - note that the very first action of the Apostles after Christ's Ascension was to select Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot in the "apostolic ministry"†.

So Christ knew His Apostles would interpret His statements to refer to their office rather than their persons; if He didn't want them to interpret it thus, He wouldn't have said them.

And why not the Anglican bishops (even if they, in their modesty, abjure claims of infallibility)?

The question of Anglican orders is very interesting‡ and maybe we can take that up in another thread.

What is more relevant, however, is the fact that the charism of infallibility was given to the episcopal college as a body, whereas the Pope has it individually. Since the Pope is himself a member of the episcopal college (as Bishop of Rome) as Peter was a member of the Apostles, the charism of infallibility applies only when the episcopal college teaches as a body in communion with the Pope.

So, that rules out the Anglican Bishops.

But while we are engaging in congenial retrospective interpretations, a disanalogy strikes me. The apostles had more in common with the laity than with the hierarchy in one crucial respect: they were lay people from various walks of life, not priests.

Every man's a layman before he is ordained. 🙂

The Apostles, disciples and their successors had clearly distinct roles as teachers and ministers in the early Christian community. Peter wasn't just someone who went fishing in the day time and did some moral classes in the evenings. Even when they engaged in some lay work, their key role in the community was understood to be that of their role as teachers and ministers of the Church.

That they look nothing like the priests of today does not mean they were the same as the laity then (or now). The accidental form of the priesthood may have changed, but the substantial form remains.

So--to take up my example again--are the laity (possibly the majority thereof) right about artificial contraception, or the hierarchy?

On the matter of artificial contraception, for instance, the Christian laity were virtually unanimous in agreement about its sinfulness till the 20th century. So, if they now think it is not sinful, they are, by definition, not infallible**.

Cheers,

LH

---
* Of course, he may not have used exactly the same words (not to mention He most probably used Aramaic and not Greek) - but you get the point.
† Acts 1:20-26
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts1.htm
‡ See
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm
** Of course, you could argue from a historicist position that both pre-20th cent. and post-20th cent. laity were infallible - what has changed is that contraception was objectively sinful then but not now. This is a variation of moral relativism. Is this the position you wish to take?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. u have provided the best scriptural support, then there is no scriptual support for the concept.

DS: Finally, where is the Simon Says clause in these verses? Where does it indicate that Peter would be infallible only when he said he was speaking from a particular aspect of his leadership role, but not in the rest of his leadership?

Let's take a look at the context of these verses:

13
8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20
15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah."

What is interesting is what happens next:

21
16 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 17 must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.
22
18 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you."
23
He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

First Jesus promises Peter that the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against him, then He calls him Satan. What's happening here? What's changed?

In the first case, Peter is speaking on behalf of and as leader of the Apostles (this is not explicit in the text, but can be inferred) on the matter of the faith they commonly share. In the second, he is speaking in a private capacity about his own opinion and hope. Even Peter wasn't infallible when he wasn't speaking publicly on a matter of dogma and wasn't exercising his authority to "bind" and "loosen".

While Peter had a unique role to play in Christ's Church (c.f. Jn 21), he did not cease to be part of the Apostles. When acting in the role of an ordinary Apostle, he was no more infallible than any of the others. To do this, he had to exercise his authority as Leader of the Apostles and Shepherd of the Church (a role that is understood but not exercised at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). Because modern Bishops have a few more administrative responsibilities than the Apostles did, and the Pope is also the Head of the modern Vatican State, modern Popes have a few more responsibilities than Peter did in his time. If Peter wasn't infallible in all the roles he did have in his time, why should his successors be infallible in the additional responsibiities they have?

The President of the United States has many simultaneous roles - Head of Government, Head of State, Supreme Commander of Armed Forces etc. Similarly, the Pope has many roles - Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City State etc. Each role carries with it separate rights and powers - some secular, some spiritual, some both.

I really cannot see why you find it so hard to distinguish between the person (or personal) and the office (or official).

EDIT:

DS: Regarding papal infallibility, the best explanation is that those in power simply made up the whole concept. I'll leave it to you to imagine their motives.

The idea that the Pope is infallible is not new - it was understood by the Church from the very beginning - at a time when it was under persecution and had no secular power to speak of. What do you think their motives were?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

DS: Finally, where is the Simon Says clause in these verses? Where does it indicate that Peter would be infallible only when he said he was speaking from a particular aspect of his leadership role, but not in the rest of his leadership?

Let's take a look at the context of these verses:

[quote]13
8 When Jesus went into the reg ...[text shortened]... as under persecution and had no secular power to speak of. What do you think their motives were?

The idea that the Pope is infallible is not new - it was understood by the Church from the very beginning - at a time when it was under persecution and had no secular power to speak of. What do you think their motives were?

It was not so understood by the other patriarchates (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria&hellip😉 prior to the Great Schism of 1054. It is not so understood by the Orthodox Churches today. The other patriarchs viewed the patriarch of Rome as “first among equals.” It was the issue of Papal authority (along with the filioque) that precipitated the 1054 schism.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The idea that the Pope is infallible is not new - it was understood by the Church from the very beginning - at a time when it was under persecution and had no secular power to speak of. What do you think their motives were?

It was not so understood by the other patriarchates (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria&hellip😉 prior to the Great Schism of 1054 ...[text shortened]... the issue of Papal authority (along with the filioque) that precipitated the 1054 schism.[/b]

(vistesd) It was not so understood by the other patriarchates (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria&hellip😉 prior to the Great Schism of 1054 ... The other patriarchs viewed the patriarch of Rome as “first among equals.”

Not so simple. Of course, the term 'papal infallibility' was not used until the second millennium. However, the Pope more than just a primus inter pares, as the following quote from the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) shows:

"We believe, as Leo: Peter hath spoken by Leo: we have all subscribed the letter: what has been set forth is sufficient for the Faith: no other exposition may be made."*

This is precisely what Papal Infallibility is all about - the decree of the successor of Peter on matters of faith should be sufficient to end all debate.

(vistesd) It was the issue of Papal authority (along with the filioque) that precipitated the 1054 schism.

This is where my admonition to Scribs about not distinguishing roles comes in. The dispute leading up to the Great Schism† had more to do with the canonical jurisdiction of the Pope than his doctrinal authority. Did the Pope have the canonical authority to appoint and depose bishops who were not of his patriarchate? The filioque issue, again, deals with whether the Pope had the canonical right to insert it into the Creed - not whether the filioque itself is heresy.

What I find really interesting is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have not had an Ecumenical Council since the first seven. Why not? I think the answer has to do with the issue of the participation of the Bishop of Rome.

---
* http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html
Also worth a read is the Letter of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo (who did not personally attend, but sent his legates):
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm
† And the Schism itself took a couple of centuries - from around 898 A.D. to 1204 A.D. with the sacking of Constantinople:
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/yukoszarycz/ecc/MOD5.HTML

Originally posted by lucifershammer

(vistesd) It was not so understood by the other patriarchates (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria&hellip😉 prior to the Great Schism of 1054 ... The other patriarchs viewed the patriarch of Rome as “first among equals.”

Not so simple. Of course, the term 'papal infallibility' was not used until the second millennium. However, the Pope ...[text shortened]... h the sacking of Constantinople:
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/yukoszarycz/ecc/MOD5.HTML

I wonder if we’re going to get into a “Rome says—Orthodoxy says” kind of situation here. That’s not a bad thing. I’m going to spend some research time before responding to you fully (or else agreeing). Just a couple notes in the meantime:

First, here are the quotes from the letter from Chalcedon to Leo that are the most affirming of the Pope’s place—

And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have steadfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good…

For if "where two or three are gathered together in His name," He has said that "there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were, chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you…

They announce their decision that Constantinople should take precedence next to Rome, and ask Leo's consent to it. And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told…

[NOTE: There follows here their decision to ratify the prevailing custom of the See of Constantinople’s of ordaining metropolitans (basically, archbishops) in its jurisdiction; I gather from your post this later became a matter of dispute.]

We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second: for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk…

Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting…

Now, although there is a tenor of, for lack of a better term at the moment, “formal obsequiousness” in these excerpts, there is no indication that the Pope has the authority to dismiss the conclusions of the Council by fiat. Of course, Rome clearly had representation at the Council, so his approval was likely already communicated, or at least anticipated. This was not a Council called by the Pope to do the work assigned by the Pope.

This is precisely what Papal Infallibility is all about - the decree of the successor of Peter on matters of faith should be sufficient to end all debate.

This seems to be decidedly not the basis upon which the Council proceeded, as the following, from the article you cited, indicates:

So it was determined, that the letter of Leo should be lawfully examined by the council, and a definition of faith be written by the synod itself…

[i]After the question as to examining the letter of Leo was put in this form, it will be worth while to weigh the sentences and, as they are called, the votes of the Fathers, in order to understand from the beginning why they approved of the letter; why they afterwards defended it with so much zeal; why, finally, it was ratified after so exact an examination of the council. Anatolius first gives his sentence. "The letter of the most holy and religious-Archbishop Leo agrees with the creed of our 318 Fathers at Nice, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled at Constantinople, and confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings at Ephesus under the most blessed Cyril, who is among the saints, by the Ecumenical and holy Council, when it condemned Nestorius. I therefore agree to it, and willingly subscribe to it." These are the words of one plainly deliberating, not blindly subscribing out of obedience. The rest say to the same effect: "It agrees, and I subscribe." Many plainly and expressly, "It agrees, and I therefore subscribe." Some add, "It agrees, and I subscribe, as it is correct." Others, "I am sure that it agrees." Others, "As it is concordant, and has the same aim, we embrace it, and subscribe." Others, "This is the faith we have long held: this we hold: in this we were baptized: in this we baptize." Others, and a great part, "As I see, as I feel, as I have proved, as I find that it agrees, I subscribe." Others, "As I am persuaded, instructed, informed, that all agrees, I subscribe." [/i][My bold]

[/i]In other words, the Council may “follow no other authority than Leo himself,” but only if and because they determine that Leo is right.

This is where my admonition to Scribs about not distinguishing roles comes in. The dispute leading up to the Great Schism† had more to do with the canonical jurisdiction of the Pope than his doctrinal authority. Did the Pope have the canonical authority to appoint and depose bishops who were not of his patriarchate? The filioque issue, again, deals with whether the Pope had the canonical right to insert it into the Creed - not whether the filioque itself is heresy.

The filioque goes to both canonical jurisdiction and doctrine. Orthodoxy has, based on my reading, never declared the filioque to be heresy. They do deem it to be bad theology (which is a whole other argument).* But, since this is a doctrinal issue—and if the Patriarch of Rome possesses the charism of infallibility in matters of doctrine—how could they refuse to follow the Pope in this matter of doctrine if they accepted that infallibility?

What I find really interesting is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have not had an Ecumenical Council since the first seven. Why not? I think the answer has to do with the issue of the participation of the Bishop of Rome.

Their answer, based on my reading, has been much simpler: (1) The need has not arisen, since there have been no major disputes over doctrine in the Orthodox Churches (this may also have something to do with the fact that Orthodoxy has, because of its less than enviable socio-political situation—as opposed to, say Rome—has kept their plate full with other issues; in the last couple of decades, there has been a kind of “coming out” for Orthodoxy, and doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues are now being debated); and (2) It may well be necessary to convene such a Council in the future. [Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware indicated in a recent interview that the question of women in the priesthood might be one of the catalysts that lead to a Council.]

Yes, there were numerous “causes” of the Great Schism that were brewing over time. Doctrinal historian Jaroslav Pelikan** believes that a growing inability to communicate clearly—since many in the West were no longer fluent in Greek, and few in the East were really fluent in Latin—was one underlying cause, albeit not the major one. Nevertheless, the twin issues of Papal authority and the filioque were the deciding factors. Since the filioque goes to both jurisdictional and doctrinal authority, that seems to be a good focal point for this thread, i.e. infallibility.

Two quick notes, then I’m going to spend some research time:

First, Orthodoxy since the Schism has not and does not grant the Pope infallibility.

Second, Orthodoxy—again, particularly in the matter of the filioque[/i]—views Rome as the doctrinal “innovator” that broke from the apostolic tradition.

* John D. Zizioulas in Being as Communion sets out this argument.

** Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600 – 1700), University of Chicago Press, 1974. (I believe that Pelikan’s opus is still considered to be the pre-eminent scholarly work in this area.)

Originally posted by vistesd
Second, Orthodoxy—again, particularly in the matter of the filioque[/i]—views Rome as the doctrinal “innovator” that broke from the apostolic tradition.

Heretics!

The following quotes, dealing with the question of infallibility are from Christos Yannaras, The Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, pp. 105-107. Yannaras is a Greek Orthodox theologian.

Whether the Scripture alone or the Scripture together with the Tradition, it is still a matter of the source or the sources by which the individual derives the truth "from the object"; it is a matter, that is, of the need for objective authority, the need of western man to be assured individually that he possesses an indisputable truth - even if this assurance is achieved by his submission to an idolized schematization of the "infallible", to the authority of supernatural revelation, or to the authority of science, to the divine inspiration of the texts of Scripture or, later, of the texts of Marx or any other ideology, to the "infallibility" of the Vatican or to the "infallibility" of Moscow or any other "see". The history of western man is a dialectic of submission and rebellion, where rebellion means in each case the choice of a different authority, consequently of a new submission, while the goal remains always the same individual security, the protection of individual certainty about the truth to be believed.

Yannaras goes on to accuse Rome of re-writing history in defense of Papal infallibility/authority:

Blatant forgeries of history were enlisted: that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, that he exercised a primacy of power over the other Apostles and subsequently bestowed this power to his successor Bishops of Rome, that Constantine the Great assigned the government of the western Roman state to the Pope with imperial rights (“pseudo-Donation of Constantine” ), that very ancient canons treated the Pope as the supreme head of ecclesiastical—and also of political—power (“pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” ), that Cyprian already in the 3rd century preached the papal primacy (“pseudo-Cyprian writings” ), and many others.

I, of course, do not know if any of this is accurate; I suspect it is (and has been) a matter of historical dispute.

Yannaras then discusses the Protestant arguments for sola scriptura as authority for faith. Then he outlines the Orthodox position:

The life and practice of the undivided Church, like its historical extension in the theology and spirituality of the Orthodox Churches, knew neither one nor two sources of infallible authority. This does not mean that it disregarded or underestimated the meaning and authority of the Holy Scripture and the Sacred Tradition. But it refused to separate truth from the realization and experience of the truth, the realization of life “in truth.” Before any formulation, the truth is an [i]event…

Scripture and Tradition define the truth and revelation of God to people without exhausting them. The words “truth” and “revelation” do not mean for the Church some “supplement” to our knowledge unattainable by our scientific or other reasonable method; they are not some “articles of faith” which we must accept without contradiction because they7 have been given to us in a “supernatural” way, such that no one would dare to dispute them. For the Church, truth and revelation refer to God who reveals himself to people as “real life.” And life cannot be revealed with concepts “about” life, but only as an existential realization accessible to man…[/i][discusses here the incarnation] …

We know, consequently, the truth and revelation not simply by reading the Holy Scripture and the “credal” texts of the Tradition, but we verify these texts with our participation in the Church’s mode of existence, in the way of the triadic prototype of life.

It is interesting to me how Yannaras points up here the “existential mysticism” that characterizes Orthodoxy. An Orthodox priest once asked to explain Orthodox theology, instead of launching into, say, a “catechetical” discourse of the Nicene Creed, simply said: “Go study our icons. They will tell you our theology.” To use a popular analogy, the Eastern churches are far more “right-brained” compared to the West.

In sum, Yannaras makes two points about the notion of infallibility in general:

(1) He critiques the Western quest for some infallible authority to which to submit, in an attempt to acquire “individual security, the protection of individual certainty about the truth to be believed.” He places both the Protestant sola scriptura and the Roman Catholic assertion of Papal authority in this category.

(2) He moves the question to the existential viewpoint of Orthodoxy, dropping the concept of infallibility for one of existential (and perhaps mystical—in the old sense of the word; simply an experience of the ineffable reality grounding our existence, which in Orthodoxy is Trinitarian in nature) “verification” within the communion of the Church. [Note: The question of salvation outside the Orthodox Church—and outside Christianity in general—seems to be just that in Orthodoxy: a question that is debated and disputed.]

Added note to the discussion of the (non)recognition by the East of the Patriarch of Rome as infallible prior to the Great Schism:

Lucifershammer: This is precisely what Papal Infallibility is all about - the decree of the successor of Peter on matters of faith should be sufficient to end all debate.

vistesd: This seems to be decidedly not the basis upon which the Council proceeded, as the following, from the article you cited, indicates….

Following a lengthy discussion of the condemnation of Pope Honorius by the Council of Constantinople in 681 for the heresy of monotheletism, Pelikan* states: “At the risk of oversimplification, one might say that to the East the pope was chief bishop because he was orthodox [Leo I, in particular], while to the West he was and always would be orthodox because he was chief bishop.”

* Pelikan, op cit, p. 161

Originally posted by vistesd
I wonder if we’re going to get into a “Rome says—Orthodoxy says” kind of situation here. That’s not a bad thing. I’m going to spend some research time before responding to you fully (or else agreeing). Just a couple notes in the meantime:

First, here are the quotes from the letter from Chalcedon to Leo that are the most affirming of the Pope’s place— ...[text shortened]... at Pelikan’s opus is still considered to be [b]the pre-eminent scholarly work in this area.)[/b]

Just a quick couple of points before I head to sleep:

(vistesd) Now, although there is a tenor of, for lack of a better term at the moment, “formal obsequiousness” in these excerpts, there is no indication that the Pope has the authority to dismiss the conclusions of the Council by fiat. Of course, Rome clearly had representation at the Council, so his approval was likely already communicated, or at least anticipated. This was not a Council called by the Pope to do the work assigned by the Pope.

First, the dogma of infallibility is not merely a statement that the Pope has no authority to dismiss the authoritative doctrinal teachings of an Ecumenical Council properly convened. The dogma is that the Pope cannot officially (i.e. in his capacity as Successor to Peter) reject it. He would be prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

Second, as a matter of history, both the papal legates at the Council and Pope Leo himself did reject Canon XXVIII (regarding the See of Constantinople). Ultimately, it didn't matter - the Bishops of the three sees involved accepted the canon and later Popes eventually had to accept it as well. What I find interesting is why the Fathers of Chalcedon had to ask for Pope Leo's assent in the first place. The paternal terminology of the letter is also very strong - much closer to the Catholic conception of il Papa than it is to the primus inter pares view of 'the Patriarch of Old Rome'.

Third, in the case of Chalcedon at least, this was a Council called by the Pope to do "his work"*.

Fourth, even before the convocation of the Council, most of the Eastern Bishops, including Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople (soon to be Patriarch) assented to Leo's Tome simply because he was the Pope (emphases added):

Already almost the whole West, and most of the Easterns, with Anatolius himself, Bishop of Constantinople, had gone so far as to confirm by subscription that letter, before the council took place; and in the council itself the Fathers had often cried out, "We believe, as Leo: Peter hath spoken by Leo: we have all subscribed the letter: what has been set forth is sufficient for the Faith: no other exposition may be made." Things went so far, that they would hardly permit a definition to be made by the council. But neither subscriptions privately made before the council, nor these vehement cries of the Fathers in the council, were thought sufficient to tranquillize minds in so unsettled a state of the Church, for fear that a matter so important might seem determined rather by outcries than by fair and legitimate discussion. And the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed, "It is a few who cry out, not the whole council which speaks." So it was determined, that the letter of Leo should be lawfully examined by the council, and a definition of faith be written by the synod itself. So the acts of foregoing councils being previously read, the magistrates proposed concerning Leo's letter, "As we see the divine Gospels laid before your Piety, let each one of the assembled bishops declare, whether the exposition of the 318 Fathers at Nice, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled in the imperial city, agrees with the letter of the most reverend Archbishop Leo."†

By the Council of Chalcedon, the doctrine of conciliar infallibility was already well-developed, while the doctrine of papal infallibility was still nascent. However, a significant number of 'Orthodox' bishops‡ would not have been surprised if you or I landed with the modern version of the dogma through a time machine. 🙂

Peace,

LH
---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon#The_council
† http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-89.htm#P4734_933455
A much cleaner version (to read!) than the Medieval Sourcebook page.
‡ More correctly, bishops of what would become Eastern Orthodox sees.

Despite the unusually long posts devoted to its analysis, in the end isn't papal infallibility just a bunch of baloney, like speaking in tongues?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Despite the unusually long posts devoted to its analysis, in the end isn't papal infallibility just a bunch of baloney, like speaking in tongues?

What, Doctor - finding the discussion a little too intellectual for your taste?

Perhaps you'd like to entertain us with another crack at Christianity. A limerick, perhaps?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just a quick couple of points before I head to sleep:

[quote](vistesd) Now, although there is a tenor of, for lack of a better term at the moment, “formal obsequiousness” in these excerpts, there is no indication that the Pope has the authority to dismiss the conclusions of the Council by fiat. Of course, Rome clearly had representation at the Cou ...[text shortened]... Medieval Sourcebook page.
‡ More correctly, bishops of what would become Eastern Orthodox sees.

Third, in the case of Chalcedon at least, this was a Council called by the Pope...

I’ll stand corrected on this, without even looking it up.

…as a matter of history, both the papal legates at the Council and Pope Leo himself did reject Canon XXVIII (regarding the See of Constantinople). Ultimately, it didn't matter - the Bishops of the three sees involved accepted the canon and later Popes eventually had to accept it as well.

Now I’m confused: I’m simply assuming that, since this is not a matter of doctrine or morals, either Leo or later Popes could well have been wrong (somebody had to be).

…even before the convocation of the Council, most of the Eastern Bishops, including Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople (soon to be Patriarch) assented to Leo's Tome simply because he was the Pope…

How many is “most?”

Re the notion of “conciliar infallibility:” this is not held a priori. I’ll find the reference, but an ecumenical council could be held to be fallible ex post facto.

However, a significant number of 'Orthodox' bishops‡ would not have been surprised if you or I landed with the modern version of the dogma through a time machine.

And a significant number would. It strikes me that this discussion is going where I predicted—“Rome versus the East”—in terms of whose accounts are accepted. (I realize you have not had a chance to reply to my follow-up posts.) After reading a bunch of Pelikan today, it also strikes me that we are likely to resurrect the same arguments that have been going on between East and West since probably the tenth century at least. Someone is rewriting history—or at least, the emphasis on different factors in different accounts is different.

I will be ruthlessly honest about my “strategy” here. I plan on citing back to you an Orthodox counter for every point you raise—on history as well as doctrine—(relying on Pelikan or other sources only when it seems good to do so); this will take me a lot of work (especially because I tend not to rely on the internet), but it may turn out to be “good work”—for me at least. I plan to stand on Orthodoxy’s past “obsession” with tradition. Until, at some point, you are going to have to say either that (1) “I accept the charism of infallibility on “pure faith”, for whatever reasons, despite all arguments to the contrary;” or (2) “Maybe the Orthodox are right and Rome is wrong;” or (3) "We are simply at impasse, since you give priority to the Orthodox version of events, and I give priority to the Roman version." Now, if you take the first route, you are going to have to deal, in some way, with Yannaras’ comments about seeking security and certainty in submission to authority. It will also establish the “charism of infallibility” as a simple debate-stopper (like the “secret decoder-ring defense” ). Of course, the opposite outcome is also possible: that you will convince me that Orthodoxy has been rewriting history all along.

Now, the focal point of my argumentation will be the filioque—since, again, that touches upon both jurisdictional authority and doctrine. (Does a married priesthood touch upon doctrine? That was another issue.) If the East, in any way, accepted the idea of Papal infallibility on doctrine, how could they have not acceded to the filioque?

I lay that out so as not to “sand-bag” you in any way. My motivations are two-fold: (1) to press your intellect on the “charism of infallibility” both for Orthodoxy and Protestantism as authentic (at least in some forms) expressions of Christianity, even when they disagree with Rome on doctrine or morals; and (2) to force myself to do deeper study of Orthodoxy.

That’s about as honest as I can be.