www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What do we have to believe about papal infallibility?

Jennifer,

A very good book to read regarding Papal Infallibility and Primacy is:

Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present [amazon.com]

It was written by a Jesuit priest, but is very balanced. It traces the Church's view of the Papacy from the 1st century to today. An Eastern Catholic originally recommended it to me, and I found it very informative. It does not take the Roman Catholic "apologetic" view that the Church always saw the office of the papacy as it views it today; this is just not the case. However, it shows how the Church grew in it's understanding of the office of the Papacy.

In a nutshell, from the first century, the Universal Church has seen the Church of Rome as one you can depend on to keep the Faith. Over time, the Church began to realize how Christ's promises to Peter could be understood in light of this faithfulness of Rome. Often Rome overstepped their bounds and equated this protection with power, to terrible results. But that did not remove the protection.

Again, I found that book very informative and would recommend it to you.

Administrator, I think you are being oversensitive.

Jennifer

Papal infalibility is a way to show that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. In other words it�s not the pope who is infalible, it is the HOLY SPIRIT himself that is infalible and guides the Pope while sucessor of St. Peter.
Therefore the Pope cannot make a mistake while he is guided by the Holy Spirit and this way the Pope is infalible.

I am not saying that "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys" is the best book on the subject...it's just one that I appreciate, and that spoke to me.
It's okay with me that it didn't speak to you, Jennifer...though I wish I could have been more helpful.

Sarah--who hopes to help promote a deep and abiding Unity In Christ

Another good text is published by Ignatius Press: Stephen Ray, "Upon this Rock: The Primacy of St. Peter in Scripture and Tradition."

It includes both a variety of quotations but also extensive commentary and rationale.

Oh my goodness! Stephen Ray of the Catholic-Convert forum? He is no friend of the Eastern Churches.

Hi,

Let me quote the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus from the First Vatican Council:

So, you have to believe that whenever the Pope is acting as Pope (that is, not when he is acting as bishop of the Local Church of Rome, or as Patriarch of the Latin Church, but rather, as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church), and when he is teaching (that is, not when he is merely expressing an opinion), and the teaching is to be accepted universally (that is, not only directed to a portion of the Church), and when the teaching is definitive (that is, not when the Church feels not ready to make a definitive statement), and when the teaching is about faith and morals (that is, not about biology or sociology or astrophysics), then the Pope CANNOT teach an error.

As for the Supremacy of the power of the Pope, again I quote Pastor Aeternus:

That is basically it.

Well, I was where you are, but I am no longer there, so I didn't have to reconcile anything.

I questioned myself, and asked if I trusted my own reason and formation more than the teaching authority of the Church.

As my honest answer to the question had to be in the negative, I found myself abandoning my own conclussions and accepting what the Church teaches.

So it is a matter of trust. However, in order to trust the Church that much, I had to pray a lot, study a lot, and think a lot.


Well, that depends.

If your reason is not able to reach conclusions compatible with the teaching of the Church, and if you insist in listening to your reason first, and only then to the teaching of the Church then, I need to point out that the Church does consider these two issues grave matter and dogma. Catholic faithful are *required* to give these doctrines the assent of faith.

However, the Church finds it acceptable if you trust the teaching of the Church even in spite of your own reasonings. That means, again, that you do not have to reconcile Church and reason entirely, in order to remain a Catholic, as long as you trust the Church better than your reason in these matters, the Church can be patient with your reason for as long as it's needed.

Shalom,
Memo.

Even if that were true (and I'd dispute it), does that mean the book should be disregarded?

Yes, it does. Why would I assume that someone who opposed to the Orthodox Churches could write an objective book about the papacy?

Some of the most important reading I've ever done is with a text I argued with part or all of the time.

Still, I dispute your characterization of Steve Ray as "opposed to the Orthodox Churches," though even if true has no real bearing on the book in question.

I can't stand the catholic-convert forum (even though I am one - a convert, that is, not a forum). I found it very difficult to have any useful conversation there, so I left. HOWEVER, note that Stephen Ray himself is not the only participant on that forum, nor does he moderate the forum. So do not judge him based on the actions of others. Please show some evidence that he is "no friend of Eastern Churches" if you are going to throw that accusation out there. Many on that forum fall into that category, but I've never heard anything from Mr. Ray that suggests that. Of course, I've never really listened or read to much of his work, but I think you make a strong, unsubstantiated charge that borders on uncharitable.

Does being "opposed" to the Orthodox Churches make one not objective? You technically just ruled out every single Catholic writing on the papacy as being not objective, since all Catholics, in a sense, "oppose" the Orthodox Church (by virtue of not joining it). One could have done an in-depth study of the papacy and concluded that that Orthodox Church is incorrect - does this make them not objective? If so, is this just because they don't agree with your conclusions? And honestly, who has EVER written a 100% "objective" book on the papacy? It doesn't exist - we are all biased when it comes to that subject.

It also seems as if you just want a book that agrees with what you already think. "Peter, Jesus, and the Keys" and Mr. Ray's book are both good ones. Not because they are perfect (I personally disagree with much of what is in them), but because they discuss the issue seriously from a certain viewpoint. In my studies of the papacy, I have tried to read ALL viewpoints - traditionalist Catholic to hard-core Protestant. From all of this I was able to come to my own conclusions. Don't think it is a waste to read a book just because you don't agree with the author - you just might learn something.

I want a book that is intellectually rigorous. Not a list of proof-texts.

As I wrote earlier, I read Jesus, Peter and the Keys several years ago and was disappointed. I'd just another book about the papacy that discussed the same passages from the Fathers. I noticed that Jesus, Peter and the Keys had short snippets of the Fathers while the other book had longer passages. What I concluded is that the other perspective (this was an Orthodox book) had merit.

What I object to in "conservative" Catholic circles is the assumption that the Orthodox position has no merit and if they only studied the issue further they would agree with us.

I don't think our position is completely without merit but I also don't think their position is completely without merit. I object to texts that make suggest that the other side hasn't studied the issue.

Jesus, Peter and the Keys seemed to be directed more towards evangelizing Protestants.

What was the other Orthodox book you had read? Just curious....

The Primacy of Peter by Frs. Schmemman and Meyendorff.

The books cannot be compared as one is by university professors and the other is by laymen. (Not to say a book by laymen has no merit.)

But, I have to ask: The Primacy of St Peter has longer passages from the Fathers than Jesus, Peter and the Keys?

Personally I benefitted more from Meyendorrf's book Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (I may have the title wrong...I'm going by memory here and it's been awhile since I read it), even if I found myself arguing with him at times.