Infallibility And Primacy

[pippo buono]

I understand papal primacy to be the Pope's ability to govern the Church, a privilege that has evolved quite a bit from the early Church, while papal infallibility is the grace which protects the Pope's teaching authority as it was given by Christ to Peter.

This understanding came from a book I read entitled [u]Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present[/u]. The book seemed to imply this. For example, the early church communities were often in charge of certain areas where Christians lived in the emires, but no one, not even the Bishop of Rome, could give a command to the other areas and expect the other to obey. Often times they sought the support of each others' decisions. However, the book also notes that whenever Rome quarreled with other churches on (what seems to have been) matters of faith and morals, it seemed to always have been the view that the rest of the churches adopted even when it lacked the superior thinkers of other churches.

[i]Basically, my question is this:[/i] is there a difference between papal primacy and papal infallibility?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've been arguing that all along.
i came to the primacy realization slowly on my own, but there are in fact lots of materials on the subject. look to the orthodox if nothing else.

here's some interesting books off hand for someone interested in that subject.

You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy
[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/CarlsonPrimacy.shtml"]http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/CarlsonPrimacy.shtml[/url]
Papacy and development : Newman and the primacy of the Pope
Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present

also here's something i tend to quote a lot here. for whatever its worth.
[quote]QUOTE
if you look at all those early church writings, even the ones from clement, and read them in the spirit of a unifying church, not necessarily in any way infallible, you'll see a different way to interpret history. ie just a unifying and persuasive authority.

the only possibly convincing quotes are from firmilian and cyprian. firmilian was not a believer, but in fact a non-believer in the autority of rome. cyprian... there's the cyprianic theory that said that the church was suppose to be one, but that doesn't necessarily imply what catholics say it does. i do know cardinal newman talks about the cyprianic theory briefly in that sense before he became catholic. see the next set of quotes for the context.

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

when i look at the question of whether hte orthodox broke away or who did. i see it exemplified by the pope steven (or was it victor?) controversy where the guy said said to the pope who excommunicated his people "in excommunicating us from you, you've excommunicated yourself from all". again, it goes back to how you take the pope's assertion to excommunicate. (remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.

lastly, not only could the dissenters at vatican I dissent, the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....


QUOTE
Here's Victor and Stephen info, two most notable events early on...


Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).[/quote]

Edited January 25, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.debate.com/debates/The-Bishop-of-rome-pope-was-not-the-sole-authority-or-final-say-of-the-church./1/"]http://www.debate.com/debates/The-Bishop-o...-the-church./1/[/url]

also here is an interesting debate, with some interesting quotes, open for interpretaion as always, that could be looked into sometime.

eg
[quote]POPE GREGORY
another problem is the roman catholic assumption that papal primacy has existed and been practiced since ancient times. To refute this assumption, i will quote the ancient witness Pope Gregory, (540-604 a.d.) one of the greatest of all the ROMAN popes! Pope Gregory was deeply concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted that title of Ecumenical (or universal) Patriarch. He immediately condemned any such title with the following quote: "I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others"

Pope Gregory also demonstrated that such a title would be harmful to the church. He quotes: "It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall"

Pope gregory didn't stop there! ( hang in there folks, i know this is alot of reading!) Pope Gregory refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal to the other patriarchs. He wrote to the bishop of Alexandria these words: " Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY."

AUGUSTINE
St. Augustine also referred to Peter's primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the church. He quoted, "He had not the primacy over the disciples, but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons"
(interesting he talks about Stephen, given that the stephen controversy mentioned above is so prominent and pivotal)

AMBROSE
St. Ambrose taught that peter and paul were equal. He quotes: " Is it proper that Paul should go to see Peter? Why? Was peter superior to him and the other apostles? No, but because, of all the apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that peter might know the paul has received the power which had also been given to himself"

St. Ambrose also taught that peter's primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession.He quoted: "As soon as peter heard these words 'whom say ye that i am?' remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honor, a primacy of faith, not of rank"

St. Jerome (342-420 a.d.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."[/quote]

can't believe i didn't post this one. but, it belongs in any good database.
[quote]St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian")

and
ugustine’s comments in Sermon 131, quoted by Keating as "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." Keating puts these words in quotes, indicating that Augustine actually said this. He places it in the context of Papal Infallibility. It is clearly his intention to communicate to his readers that Augustine 1) said these words, and 2) was speaking about the subject in his sermon.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Augustine never said what Keating quotes. In fact, here is the actual Latin text of the final section of Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734:

Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.

Translated, it reads,

. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.[/quote]

also looks like an interesting book
[url="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_4_116/ai_53914271"]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m105...116/ai_53914271[/url]

i don't remember ever seeing this one though, i'll have to look into it, pretty strong stuff:
Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, asked: "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"
honestly, this cyprian quote, is intensely profound, especially coming from cyprian.
except that i did find this:

[quote]Please let me know where I could read St.Cyprian's letters online in the original (I guess Latin) since I have found two very different translations of one passage, namely:

“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, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take
thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle,
and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.”

from this passage there is this shorter and quite different translation:

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come"

(Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).

-------------------------------
What are your sources for these two passages? You give no citation or context, which makes it hard to help you. The "Ante-Nicene Fathers" series (19th-century Protestant, but the most easily available edition) has this translation of the entire passage:

Quote:
To these also it was not sufficient that they had withdrawn from the Gospel, that they had taken away from the lapsed the hope of satisfaction and repentance, that they had taken away those involved in frauds or stained with adulteries, or polluted with the deadly contagion of sacrifices, lest they should entreat God, or make confession of their crimes in the Church, from all feeling and fruit of repentance; that they had set up50 outside for themselves-outside the Church, and opposed to the Church, a conventicle of their abandoned faction, when there had flowed together a band of creatures with evil consciences, and unwilling to entreat and to satisfy God. After such things as these, moreover, they still dare-a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics-to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source;51 and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.52 But what was the reason of their coming and announcing the making of the pseudo-bishop in opposition to the bishops? For either they are pleased with what they have done, and persist in their wickedness; or, if they are displeased and retreat, they know whither they may return. For, as it has been decreed by all of us53 -and is equally fair and just-that the case of every one should be heard there where the crime has been committed; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account of his doing to the Lord; it certainly behoves those over whom we are placed not to run about nor to break up the harmonious agreement of the bishops with their crafty and deceitful rashness, but there to plead their cause, where they may be able to have both accusers and witnesses of their crime; unless perchance the authority of the bishops constituted in Africa seems to a few desperate and abandoned men to be too little,54 who have already judged concerning them, and have lately condemned, by the gravity of their judgment, their conscience bound in many bonds of sins. Already their case has been examined, already sentence concerning them has been pronounced; nor is it fitting for the dignity of priests to be blamed for the levity of a changeable and inconstant mind, when the Lord teaches and says, "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay."
In this edition the letter is numbered 54, but the editors note that the Oxford edition gives it the number 59.

This obviously agrees with your longer version better, and indeed the shorter sounds more like a summary or paraphrase.

However, it's worth noting that some of Cyprian's writings have come down to us in several editions. His treatise "On the Unity of the Church," for instance, has two different readings in different manuscripts for a key passage on the chair of Peter. This has caused endless wrangling between Protestant and Catholic patristics scholars!

Also note that the footnotes to the online edition I cited are very polemically Protestant. . . . As I said, it was the 19th century![/quote]

Edited July 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

Papal primacy is the governing of the Church by the Pope and involves his authority over other bishops and priests. This authority is not limited to faith and morals and includes the granting of indulgences for instance. We can have confidence that an indulgence has the effect that the Pope declares because of Christ's words to Peter "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". Also included are practices such as preistly celibacy and practices for our spiritual good such as the abstinance from meat and the order of the Mass. Papal infallibility is limited to faith and morals and guarantees that the Pope will not promulgate anything in error to the Whole Church on a matter of F&M.

I should also say it is difficult not to see papal primacy in the writings of Clement of Rome when he commands the reinstatement of some leaders that the community of Corinth has ousted. It should be noted that Rome was 600 miles from Cornith and the Apostle John was in Ephuses, 200 miles away, at the time.

The Quadramecian heresy also are a notable example of papal primacy early on. Irenaus did oppose the Pope on the matter but he did not deny the Pope's right to excommunicate simply on the date that they celebrated easter.

Edited July 23, 2008 by thessalonian

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='pippo buono' post='1450193' date='Jan 24 2008, 04:03 PM']This understanding came from a book I read entitled [u]Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present[/u].[/quote]
That is a good book, I read it a few years ago. Another book you might want to get a copy of is called "The Petrine Ministry." It was published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and contains a series of articles that go over many topics related to both primacy and infallibility.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Apotheoun

[CatherineM]

Read St. Clement's letters. It is obvious from what he writes, and the tone, that his position as the Bishop of Rome was primary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the orthodox believe, or at least is the prevalent belief as that debate in the link shows, that the roman bishop is the head. i think even clement said could be reconciled with that.

i wonder though... when the orthodox split in the 1000 or so.... what was said by rome as per the infallibiliy, or their word being final? was it merely excommunicating each other for simply following what the other thought as error, or was it excommunicating the orhtodox for not following the bishop of rome?
or how were the primacy terms couched, if there was indeed some mention?

Edited July 24, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

the debate could probably go on forever.

but here is something the orthodox use as proof of nonpapal claims.
they cite this, which the pope i think even then rejected.

[quote]28 [in fact a resolution passed by the council at the 16th session but rejected by the Pope]

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out--the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome -- we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.[/quote]

does the fact he rejected it mean the papal claims are true (at least on the matter of jurisdiciton generally... not per se about their finality)... or does it mean, that since the church thought what it did, show that the claims are not true?

[thessalonian]

The power of binding in Matt 18 applies to all the Apostles in communion with Peter. Nowhere in scriptrue does it say that a group of Apostles has such authority as well. Nowhere is a small group of Apostles given the binding and loosing authority. Nowhere in Church councils, even those that the orthodox accept does it say that local synods have such authority. Only Peter is given binding and loosing authority soley. So there is no basis for 180 bishops having such authority as claimed in the article you posted. There is no basis for the 4 patriarchies having any kind of special authority either, scriptural or as a part of sacred tradition.

[Cam42]

[quote name='pippo buono' post='1450193' date='Jan 24 2008, 04:03 PM']I understand papal primacy to be the Pope's ability to govern the Church, a privilege that has evolved quite a bit from the early Church, while papal infallibility is the grace which protects the Pope's teaching authority as it was given by Christ to Peter.

This understanding came from a book I read entitled [u]Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present[/u]. The book seemed to imply this. For example, the early church communities were often in charge of certain areas where Christians lived in the emires, but no one, not even the Bishop of Rome, could give a command to the other areas and expect the other to obey. Often times they sought the support of each others' decisions. However, the book also notes that whenever Rome quarreled with other churches on (what seems to have been) matters of faith and morals, it seemed to always have been the view that the rest of the churches adopted even when it lacked the superior thinkers of other churches.

[i]Basically, my question is this:[/i] is there a difference between papal primacy and papal infallibility?[/quote]

Essentially yes, there is a difference. The Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals. Correct? Correct. His primacy essentially is his apostolic authority as the Bishop of Rome, from the Holy See, over the several churches that comprise the Catholic Church in the Latin and Eastern Rites.

Pope John Paul II made this comment in 1993,
[quote]Jesus' intention to make Simon Peter the foundation "rock" of his Church (cf. Mt 16:18) has a value that outlasts the apostle's earthly life. Jesus actually conceived his Church and desired her presence and activity in all nations until the ultimate fulfillment of history (cf. Mt 26:14; 28:19; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:47; Acts 1:8). Therefore, as he wanted successors for the other apostles in order to continue the work of evangelization in the various parts of the world, so too he foresaw and desired successors for Peter. They would be charged with the same pastoral mission and equipped with the same power, beginning with the mission and power of being Rock--the visible principle of unity in faith, love and the ministry of evangelization, sanctification and leadership entrusted to the Church. (General Audience 27 Jan 1993)[/quote]

[quote]The same Council defined as a truth of the faith: "It is by the institution of Christ the Lord, that is, by divine right, that blessed Peter has endless successors in his primacy over the whole Church" (DS 3058). This is an essential element of the Church's organic and hierarchical structure, which no one has the power to change. For the Church's entire duration, there will be successors of Peter in virtue of Christ's will.....On the basis of this tradition, Vatican I also defined: "The Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy" (DS 3058). The definition binds the primacy of Peter and his successors to the See of Rome, which cannot be replaced by any other see. However, it can happen that, due to circumstances of the times or for particular reasons, the bishops of Rome take up residence temporarily in places other than the Eternal City. Certainly, a city's political condition can change extensively and profoundly over centuries. But it remains, as is the case with Rome, a determinate space to which an institution such as an episcopal see is always referred--in the case of Rome, the See of Peter.(General Audience 27 Jan 1993)[/quote]

[quote]Regarding the link between the papal primacy and the Roman See, significant testimony is given by Ignatius of Antioch, who extols the excellence of the Church of Rome. In his Letter to the Romans this authoritative witness of the Church's organizational and hierarchical development in the first half of the second century addressed the Church "which presides in the land of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, deservedly blessed, worthy of happy success, worthily chaste, which presides over charity" (Introduction). Charity (agápe) in St. Ignatius' language refers to the ecclesial community. Presiding over charity expresses the primacy in that communion of charity which is the Church, and necessarily includes the service of authority, the ministerium Petrinum. In fact, Ignatius acknowledges the Church of Rome's teaching authority: "You have never been jealous of anyone; you have taught the others. So I want those lessons that you give and enjoin in your teaching to be steadfast too" (3, 1). (Ibid.)[/quote]

Looking at what is being said there by the former Holy Father, we see that the definition is quite clear. Whereas the infallibility of the Pope is a matter of faith, the primacy is not and as such there can and have been developments of the role he exerts in that particular ministry. In July of last year, Pope Benedict resurrected the question of papal primacy when he approved of a document which states that Eastern Orthodox churches are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, that Protestant churches are not true churches, and that Roman Catholicism is the only true path to salvation.

Primacy is an extension of the Great Schism of 1054. The idea of Papal infallibility, while only solemnly defined since the First Vatican Council, has actually been a matter of faith from all time. It was just realized and formalized then.

[Resurrexi]

Supremacy:
1831 [Canon]. If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema. (Vatican I, D 1831)

Infallibility:
1839 And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.

1840 [Canon]. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema. (Vatican I, D 1839-1840)

[dairygirl4u2c]

...