Evidence for the Papacy; infallibility; supremacy; quotes;

 Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, which means The Eternal Shepherd (referring to Jesus Christ) defines Papal Primacy in four parts: (1) the institution, (2) permanence, (3) nature, and (4) infallible prerogative of the pope.

The Institution

The Council states that Peter was given a primacy over the universal Church of God directly and immediately from Jesus Christ.

Proof: 

-“tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies 3. 3. 2 A.D. 189) 

-Maximus too, however, unambiguously held that the Roman see held “supreme dominion, authority, and power over all of God’s churches throughout the world to bind and loose.” (Opscula 12; translation from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev in his book Orthodox Christianity, vol. 1, p. 110)

The Permanance

Peter’s primacy is “...for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, [and it] must of necessity remain for ever…will stand firm until the end of time”

Proof: 

-[read aloud in both Latin and Greek] “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” (Council of Ephesus A.D. 431).

The Nature

This primacy is “universal” and “jurisdictional” (or legally binding). This jurisdiction is “immediate,” and “ordinary” “over every other Church.” The pope is the “supreme judge of the faithful.”

Proof: 

-In Sermon 51 (early to mid 5th century), Pope Leo the Great states, “in loosing or binding the petitions of any whatsoever, only that should be ratified in heaven which had been settled by the judgment of Peter [i.e. Rome’s judgment].” 

-Though there are many pastors and bishops in the universal Church, Leo says in Letter 14, “the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head [i.e. the Apostolic See of Rome].”

-Maximus too, however, unambiguously held that the Roman see held “supreme dominion, authority, and power over all of God’s churches throughout the world to bind and loose.” (Opscula 12; translation from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev in his book Orthodox Christianity, vol. 1, p. 110)

-7th century pope Martin delegated his Petrine authority to John, a bishop of the patriarchate of Jerusalem to clean up his church offices that were seized by heretics in the East. The pope says that John must “correct the things which are wanting and appoint bishops, presbyters, and deacons in every city of those which are subject to the see both of Jerusalem and of Antioch. We charge you to do this in every way in virtue of the apostolic authority which was given us by the Lord in the person of the most holy Peter, prince of the apostles, on account of the necessities of our time and the pressure of the nations”

-Formula of Hormisdas (A.D. 519) states, “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.”

-same formula: “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.” “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.”

[explanation of the Formula: There is a schism going on in the east, and some eastern bishops, including the bishop of Constantinople went astray. So, to be reconciled to the true Church, they needed to sign the Formula by Pope Hormisdas. A total of 2500 bishops signed, including 250(?)/1000(?) eastern bishops]

Infallible Prerogative

The pope has the “supreme power of teaching.” On certain conditions, the Pope can teach infallibly.

Proof of infallibility: At the 3rd Council of Constantinople (681 A.D.; 6th ecumenical), Pope Agatho’s letter was read aloud in Latin and Greek and was approved by the Greeks as the voice of Peter. In that letter, Agatho [from Rome] states, “this Apostolic Church [Roman Church] of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in ALL things”

-same council: “the Apostolic Church of Christ” “has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations” “[she] remains undefiled unto the end”

“…which has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from ALL error…”

Obj: 7th canon of Ephesus (431) says no to making Nicean constantinople creed (325) different. But Catholics changed it to the new creed with filioque (381)

Ans: but it says, “unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith **as a rival** to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.” But the filioque is not a rival, just something that is doctrinally fitting that was there but is now there.

Filioque in the early church fathers:

St. Augustine of Hippo (+354-430, Feast Day June 18th ): “If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the **Father AND the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit**, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . **relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle**” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

St. Leo the Great (+450, Feast Day Feb 18th) : “And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceeded from both yet another”” (Letter XV, section II)

St. Eucherios of Lyons (+AD 454 – Feast Day Nov. 16) , writes: “**The Holy Spirit** is neither begotten or unbegotten, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father **and the Son**, as a harmony, we may say, of Both” (Spiritus Sanctus nece genitus nec ingentius …. sed potius qui ex Patre et Filio procedat, velut quaedam patris filioque concordia). Migne 1.774

Protestant obj: i accept 1, 2, 3 ecumenical  councils

Ans: well then accept papal claims in 3rd. To include only christology but nothing else is arbitrary.

Miscelaneous papacy notes:

Early church evidence of matthew 16 and isaiah 22: -”And I will give the glory of david to him, and he shall rule, and there will not be someone contradicting, and i will give him the key of david’s house upon the shoulder of him, and he shall open, and no one shall shut, and he shall shut and there will not be someone opening” (Greek variant of LXX Isaiah 22:22). On this matter, too, our own realities are (proto-)typified. For he [Jesus] says: “Whatever you should bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens and whatever you should loose on earth shall lossed in the heavens” (Matthew 16:18-20). “And i shall establish him a ruler in a faithful locale, and he shall be unto the throne of glory by the house of his father” (LXX Isaiah 22:23). According to this quote, too, he gives to him [St. Peter[ the priest and governing jurisdiction. Wherefore, too, he was mindful of David: For David is not a priest but a king, but all the same he [Jesus] ordered the priesthood.” -Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century), translated by Rev. Dr. C. W. Kappes. In A Pope Gone Wild [unpublished]

The Papal Legate Philippus, at the Council of Ephesus (431), declared: " This (Peter) lives and passes judgment up to the present day, and for ever, in his successors" (Denzinger Sources of dogma)

“…lest perverse men…should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances — though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force” (Pope Gregory Great Book 9 Letter 68 in the 6th to 7th century)

Correction: some think that the keys are given only to Peter not anyone else. This is wrong because the Fourth Lateran Council says, “Nobody can effect this [Eucharist] sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.” In other words, Jesus gave the keys to the apostles and their successors, not only Peter.

Athanasius records Pope Julius I Bishop of Rome in the Council of Rome saying, “And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us [the see of Rome], and then for a just decision to be passed from this place ?”

[Notice that he’s talking to the East, not his own patriarchate. Showing forth what power Rome has even over the East]

“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter , that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us” (“Apologia Contra Arianos” before 350 A.D.)

Pope Julius I living in the early fourth century was recorded to have claimed that “there is a sacerdotal canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null” (“Ecclesiastical History by Sozomen” Book III 4th or 5th century).

Sermon 3 of Pope Leo Great (saint in Eastern Orthodoxy), bishop of Rome, 5th century says, “The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still today he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See [Rome].”

Athanasius says in De Sententia Dionysii A.D. 352, “For Dionysius [of Alexandria], Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all.” Now Athanasius saying, “all” is very important. It shows how what the Pope in Rome does is what is true for all. It is as if the Pope in Rome had such an authority to declare something true for all. 

To summarize what is being said, basically, Athanasius is saying here that before Arianism (the belief Jesus was a created creature) was condemned by the Council of Nicea, Arianism was already condemned by Dionysius, who was pope of Rome.

Optatus: “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas – of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . .Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367])

Augustine: “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]). 

Innocent I: “If cases of greater importance are to be heard, they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See” (Epistle to Victricius[Bishop of Rouen] 2:3:6 [A.D. 404]). 

In a letter to Eutyches, St. Peter Chrysologus [a Western saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church] (380 ad - 450 ad) shows the authority of the bishop of Rome when it comes to faith matters. He says, "We exhort you…to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed Pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of the faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try these cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the city of Rome” (Letter 25, To Eutyches). Some object by saying that Peter is a Westerner, meaning he’s already biased toward the pope so what he says has no authority in proof of the papacy. But the problem with this objection is that Peter is actually talking to an Easterner. He’s basically telling this Easterner that the pope is to be listened to.

Obj: vigillius and three letters. 

Ans: let’s get into the background first: 

Nestorianism was a heresy (Ephesus in 431AD). Theodore of Mopsuetia, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus were men who made some writings which had Nestorian tendencies. So some people wanted these three men condemned. Later on, the Council of Chalcedon (451AD) accepted Ibas and Theodoret as not guilty of Nestorianism.

The Emperor Justinian in 544 wanted the writings of these three men, called the “Three Chapters” condemned. He pressured bishops to sign it. So some Easatern bishops did. The West Church opposed the signing. In fact, Pope Vigilius in the West did not sign it. Because of this, Justinian had him kidnapped and brought to Constantinople. Eventually the pope changed his mind and sort of condemned the Three Chapters in his writing, “Judicatium” (548AD) 

2-3 years later, Pope Vigilius changed his mind on wanting to condemn the Three Chapters again. He thought no one should make a ruling on the Three Chapters until a General Council could meet. Justinian accepted to have a council but because Vigilius wanted to go back to Italy to talk to Westerners before the council and for there to be equal numbers of Westerners and Easterners at the council, Justinian didn’t accept.

Though Vigilius didn’t attend the Council in the end, he wrote what’s called the Constitutum I, in this document, Vigilius “refused to condemn the persons of Ibas, Theodoret or Theodore of Mopsuestia, but he does condemn 60 propositions taken from the writings of the latter” (Chapman 234).  Vigilius decided that, in accordance with the previous practice of the Roman See, people who had died should not be posthumously condemned, which is why he refused to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia.  He noted that Theodoret had repudiated Nestorianism completely at Chalcedon, and so decided that it would be inappropriate to condemn a man for anything in his writings which he himself had condemned and abjured.  He did agree, however, to condemn Nestorian tendencies in any writings in general in which they might be found, without condemning anything in the writings of Theodoret by name.  With regard to Ibas of Edessa, Vigilius noted that the Fathers at Chalcedon had read Ibas’s letter and vindicated it and Ibas himself as orthodox, and so he decided that no one should oppose Chalcedon’s decision on this matter, noting that Pope Leo previously had condemned the idea of altering anything in the decrees of Chalcedon.  Vigilius closes his Constitutum I with these words:  “we decree and ordain with the authority of our present verdict that, as regards all matters and in particular the oft-cited  letter of the venerable Ibas, the judgment of the fathers in session at Chalcedon is to remain in inviolate. By this our constitution, we do not permit anyone with ecclesiastical rank or dignity ever to presume, whether by addition or abridgement or amendment or in any way, to make any rash innovation in the matter of the same letter or in other matters that at the Council of Chalcedon with the assent of the representatives of the apostolic see were resolved, ordained, defined, and decreed, as if they were imperfect and open to criticism.” (p 205 richard price Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553). In the same letter, he says, “...whomsoever and wheresoever it so transpire, anything in breach of what we have here declared and enacted concerning these Three Chapters, this we totally annul with the authority of the apostolic see over which by the grace of God we preside” (p 211).

After Vigilius realizes his assent to Justianian’s desire to have the three condemned caused controversy in the West, Vigilius retracts his own assent. As evidenced in his letter to the patriarch of constantinople AD Eutychius in his Constitutum II: “But whatever was done by myself or by others in defence of the aforementioned Three Chapters we annul by the authority of our present letter.” (p218 richard price council of cnstnp 553). “But whatever is produced or found anywhere whether under my name or that of anyone else in defence of the aforementioned Three Chapter we annul by the authority of our present most comprehensive decree” (p. 268).

Justinian then made a second edict, of which the eastern patriarchs signed it. But Vigilius refuses to sign it and then excommunicates the eastern patriarchs. 

Then because Vigilius didn’t change his mind, he is made an outsider to the council. Council is closed. But the problem for the Orthodox now is that they don’t have this council as being ecumenical because the West didn’t participate in it. It is necessary to have the West to have participated in the council be ecumenical.

Summary of liberius situation by errick ybarra on papal failures from suan’s channel: 

-liberius was taken captive under emperor constantius ii

-returned from captivity and annulled a semi-aria creed and condemned macedonianism

-keen defender of nicene orthodoxy – theordoret, rufinus, socrates, sozomen, and athanasius

-was remembered as a saint by st. ambrose, st. damasus, st. siricius, st. basil, theodoret, and st. epiphanius of salamis

-according to st. hillary, st. jerome, and st. athanasius he did subscribe to a heretical creed and communed with heretics

-in liberius’’s letters, one can see his capitulation to condemn athanasius and to comply with the wishes of the emperor

-officially, the creed he signed was not arian, but simply avoided homoousias [father and son being of same substance] – defensible by st. hillary (confession of antioch), confession of sirmium

P.s. as a result of the vigilius case, two councils most explicit on papal infallibility are constantinople 3 (681AD) and council of nicea 2 (787AD)

Obj: The Eastern Churches were fine but only the Western Churches were messy.

Ans: No, Eastern Churches were bad too. “The condemnation of St. John Chrysostom [was], eventually shared by the “Patriarchates” of Cple [East], Alex [East], and Antioch [East].” “it was…only the Roman See, which had alone taken initiative with Emperor Honorius/Arcadius to hold a synod to examine the case of Chrysostom, and the western sees which had retained Chrysostom’s name” (erickybarra).

Obj: there should be more early church sources about the papacy

Ans: St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogical Catecheses doesn’t mention the episcopate, yet the episcopate was already in existence. Paul doesn’t expound on the duties of different ministries, such as teachers, prophets, deacons, elders, and presbyters.

Letter to philadelphians ignatius: “Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.”

Citations of fathers about pope and rome: https://web.archive.org/web/20220513150224/https://erickybarra.org/2017/03/14/church-fathers-papal-infallibility/

Trent says JND Kelly believes succession started in early church

Obj: Liberius subscribed to Arian creed and condemned Athanasius when he was captured

Ans: Athanasius was condemned by liberius during his duress yet athanasius charitably interprets Liberius not as accepting Arianism but that liberius was under duress: “Yet even this only shows their [captors] violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors” (Athanasius 3-4th century History of the Arians part V)

Obj: honorius [625-638] was a heretic who believed Christ had one will, which is the heresy of monothelitism.

Ans: tough to answer because honorius was 20 years dead when people dug up his letters, so he couldn’t defend hismelf. (1) Honorius I was probably not even teaching monotheletism. That’s why St. Maximus of Constantinople, a monk, said that “John Symponus, the composer of the letter of Honorius” indicated “to the effect that the pope only meant to deny that Christ had not two contrary human wills, such as are found in our fallen nature.” (2) Honorius was not teaching infallibly. That’s why “Pope Agatho explains that Pope Honorius did not appeal to Papal authority and the tradition of Rome when he wrote his letter to Sergius of Cple.” Nevertheless, Honorius was anathematized for using terms like the monothelites, who were heretics. (3) pope John IV [640-642], who was after Pope Severinus [640], wrote an apology in defense of Honorius not having taught heresy. (4) the sixth ecumenical council also didn’t condemn him nor question his position. (5) the councils that condemned him could’ve erred in fact bc cannons can be protected in faith and morals only, so it’s wrong on fact of Honorius being heretical.

Obj: succession was something new bc it only started in Vatican I where it states, “it was known in every age that…Peter…lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated…” Therefore succession is new.

Ans: V1 is quoting Philip, the Roman legate in the Council of Ephesus in 431.

Obj: what ignatius, clement, and shepherd of hermes says about bishops is contradictory to what irenaeus and hegesippus about there being a succession of bishop of rome (probably pope)

Ans: no, it’s compatible if bishops are understood properly. Just because there are multiple bishops in one place it does not thereby does away with one bishop.

Moreover, if ignatius, clement, and hermes are contradictory to irenaeus and hegesippus, then the gospels are contradictory to each other. A person should try to harmonize sources, not immediately try to find them contradictory to each other.

Clement written before AD 70 bc temple sacrifices are said in present tense. It is this a primary source bc it is within memory of the apostles.

Obj: Clement says “we” instead of “Linus” in his letter. Therefore, there were multiple bishops w same authority not one pope

Ans: Even in the 20th century, the dogma of Mary has the pope saying, “We,” instead of “I.” 

Moreover, Clement is writing to the Corinthians who weren’t obedient to leaders, so Clement is showing how leaders are to be obeyed.

Moreover, even in major metropolitan areas, we have a bishop and then an auxiliary bishop.

Obj: (Jerry Walls) Ignatius wrote 7 letters and in 6 of them he mentions the names of bishops but in his letter to Rome, he doesn’t. Therefore, wasn’t a single bishop in Rome.

Ans: Ignatius says in his letter to the trallians that in order to have a church, there must be a bishop, deacon, and presbyter. He says apart from these a gathering cannot be called a church. Yet he calls Rome a church. In his letter to the Romans, he doesn’t greet anyone, including deacons and presbyters, does that mean there weren’t deacons and presbyters? The reason he doesn’t mention the bishop in Rome is to avoid persecution. Moreover, he actually asks permission that Rome doesn’t stop him from martyrdom.

Obj: shepherd of her as mentions how there are multiple bishops in Rome who acted in purity by when receiving widows and others into their homes. Therefore, not one pope

Ans: Clement was speaking of bishops successively, not simultaneously in their office as pope. Moreover, the obj is argument from silence. Moreover, elders, bishops, and presbyters were all called bishopsz

Pope wrong on some things as private theologian: John XII taught the saints do not see the beatific vision until final judgment—this is contrary to church teaching 

Traditions on Rome:

“[Iraeneus speaking of the Church of Rome] For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies Book 3 chapter 3 A.D. 180)

Succession:

-2 Peter 1:15 (RSVCE): And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things

2 Timothy 4:21

21 Do your best to come before winter. Eubu′lus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren. 

St. Irenaeus confirms this in his writings:

St. Irenaeus

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Then the third pope who succeeded Linus was Clement who is also mentioned in the Bible:

Philippians 4:3

3 And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

St Augustine confirms this in his writings:

St. Augustine 

If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

-Against Heresies book 3 chapter 3 by Ireneus; (obj) don’t trust ireneus; (ans) he’s the first person to tell us Matt. Mark. Lk. Jn. are the four Gospels, we do ourselves a disservice to do so; he’s also the student of Polycarp who knew John

Obj: Francis heresy in Amoris Laetitia. He says, “The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever” and “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!”

Ans: no. The context is ‘the way of the Church’ judges no one. Indeed only God can judge, not the Church. The Church’s job is to be submissive and provide healing.

Tridentine and Florentine (council) fathers tolerated divorce and remarriage from the Greeks even though they didn’t like it.

Verses: 

Luke 22:31-34: ““Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you[e] like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Exodus 18:26 (RSVCE): And they judged the people at all times; hard cases they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves.

-Deu 17:8-13

-Isaiah 1:26–27 (RSVCE): “And I will restore your judges as at the first, 

and your counselors as at the beginning. 

Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, 

the faithful city.”  Zion shall be redeemed by justice, 

and those in her who repent, by righteousness.”

Mt. 23:2-3 where Jesus says, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

Matthew 16:18-19 and isaiah 22:22. “BINDING AND LOOSING (Hebrew, asar ve-hittir) . . . Rabinnical term for ‘forbidding and permitting.’ . . .

“The power of binding and loosing as always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), ‘became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.’ . . . The various schools had the power ‘to bind and to loose’; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast-day ( . . . Talmud: Ta’anit 12a . . . ). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b).

“In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. 16:19, 18:18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who ‘bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers’; that is ‘loose them,’ as they have the power to do (Matt. 23:2-4). In the same sense the second epistle of Clement to James II (‘Clementine Homilies,’ Introduction [A.D. 221]), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: ‘I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the Church.'” (Jewish Encyclopedia 3:215).

It’s been said that archeologist Roland de Vau and Old Testament scholar Tryggve N.D. Mettinger thought the office of being a chief steward was like being Joseph under Pharoah. Why is it important that the position of being a chief steward was like that of Joseph under Pharoah? Well, because Joseph had all of Pharaoh's possession (Ps. 105; Gen. 39:5). So it is as though being a chief steward meant having all of the king’s possessions.

Here are some similarities which shows that Jesus is giving Peter high authority when we consider mt 16 and is 22. Both Peter and Eliakim are compared to an object—Peter to a rock (Matt. 16:18) and Eliakim to a peg (Isa. 22:23). Their names always appear first on the list of their kings’ servants (2 Kings 18:18; Matt. 10:2). 

What words are all necessary for some doctrine to be infallible (summary)?

-Firstly, Cath ency says “infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching”

-Pastor aeternus indicates that “defines,” “definitions”, or “defining” are indicators of ex cathedra teachings 

-1983 Canon Law Code 749 indicates that something is an infallible teaching if it uses “definitive” or “definitively”

-Further, the relator (the man who gives the official interpretation of a text presented to the council bishops so they know what they’re voting for) for Vatican I named Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, says that the word “defines” signifies doctrine concerning faith or morals in his writing The Gift of Infallibility

-Pastor aeternus says ex cathedra teachings are irreformable

Religious submission summary:

-Can. 752, Profession of Faith, and Donum Veritatis says that religious submission of the intellect and will are for teachings even not intended with a definitive act 

-Lumen Gentium 25 of Vatican II says that religious submission of mind and will must be given to the Roman Pontiff even when he’s not speaking ex cathedra. It also tells us that how much reverence and adherence we’d have for the teaching will depend on (1) the character of the documents, (2) from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or (3) from his manner of speaking.

-Donum Veritatis adds that the response of religious submission of the intellect and will are not simply exterior or disciplinary but also concerns logic and obedience.

-“Doctrinal Commentary on concluding formula of 'Professio fidei'” says that there are “degrees of adherence” for a non-definitive teaching. So this implies that a Catholic does not need to give full adherence but only partial adherence if they think that is right.

-Donum Veritatis says, “some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies”

1917 canon law 2257 § 1 says, “Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful”

1917 canon law 2257 § 2 says, “Moreover, it is called anathema especially when it is inflicted with the formalities that are described in the Roman Pontifical”

Infallibility is different from inspiration and revelation. Inspiration is when the human is (1) infallible but also (2) that what they say has God as the author.

Infallibility is merely infallibility, it does not have God as the author.

Revelation “means the making known by God” of “some truth” unknown until the point of the revelation “or at least not vouched for by Divine authority.” Infallibility is the infallible defining of some doctrine already revealed.

Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus chapter 4 says “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable”

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

Cannon law 749 §3 says, “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident” 

Proof of “faith and morals” infallibility in patristics. Because of the Council of Chalcedon, Constantinople and Alexandria split. During this tension, Pope St. Gelasius (492-496 A.D.) (for some Orthodox, a venerated saint) wrote the following to an Eastern Christian named Faustus, and in this letter, Gelasius implied infallibility: “It matters of religion (faith/morals), the canons say that the ultimate judgement must come only from the apostolic see” (Pope Gelasius, Epistle 10 to Faustus – Thiel, A., Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, p. 347)

1. sensus fidelium is infallible: "The whole body of the faithful . . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals" (Lumen Gentium 12; CCC 92)

• BUT

                        "Resistance, as a matter of principle, to the teaching of the magisterium is incompatible with the authentic sensus fidei" (ITC'S SENSUS FIDEI IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH (2014))

also: 

• Through the “ordinary magisterium” of the bishops scattered throughout the world, teaching in union with the pope
• Through the “extraordinary magisterium” of the bishops meeting in an ecumenical council
• Through the “extraordinary magisterium” of the pope when he issues an ex cathedra statement

The conditions for the first of these are discussed in Lumen Gentium 12 (cf. CDF, Mysterium Ecclesiae 2) and the others in Lumen Gentium 25.

            Early church Fathers' unanimous teaching about a bible passage concerning faith or morals is infallible: "The Holy Fathers, we say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially" (Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, n. 14).

                                    BUT they are not always right on non-faith and non-morals interpretations: "[The Fathers], in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned, have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it . . . for in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are (ibid., n. 19)."