Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

The blog posts I'm going to quote from here contain a number of statements and conclusions that I would take exception to. But their author looks at the doctrine of ecclesial infallibility in a frank way that I haven't encountered elsewhere. Below I cite the material I'd like to put forward as the starting point for a discussion on whether the Early Church believed in ecclesial infallibility.

From this response to Dave Armstrong's case for ecclesial infallibility:

From this response to common arguments for papal infallibility:

Continued in next post.

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

From this response to the Catholic Answers case for papal infallibility:

Continued in next post.

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

More from the same response cited above to the Catholic Answers case for papal infallibility:

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

Dear brother Trebor,

I will respond point-by-point by this weekend. For now, let me say that after reading it, the responses to Catholic Answers demonstrates that
(1) the respondents do not even know what the Church's teaching on infallibility is.
Just a few of their errors, on which I will elaborate later in the week:
(a) Infallibility means that a teaching is true "a priori." That is not what the Church teaches about infallibility. The term "a priori" does not even apply to infallibility because the object of infallibility is not new doctrine, but the Truth of Sacred Tradition. The term "a priori" presumes that what was once not true is made true, but Infallibility is simply utilized to reaffirm or restate an already existing Truth.

(b) Infallibility means there is no possibility of error in the future.
This is not actually the definition of infallibility, but rather of indefectibility, If the respondents want to believe the Holy Spirit is going to fail in his job of protecting the Church forever, that's their problem. Are Orthodox not in communion with Rome giving heed to this Protestant innovation?

(2) the respondents are begging the question.
The respondents ASSUME papal infalliblity and other teachings of the Catholic Church are wrong without delving into the teachings themselves. Thus, they make such statements as "the Fathers denied that something could be added to the Faith" without demonstrating that the Catholic Church has ever added anything to the Faith in the first place.

As stated, I will elaborate more later in the week in the process of giving a point-by-point rejoinder, if someone has not already done so.

Blessings,
Marduk

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

Marduk, I don't think you are understanding correctly what the writer means by a priori. A priori meant in an epistemological sense, not a temporal sense. You write: Firstly, priority in a temporal sense would mean that the truth preexists those who come to know it. What you are denying here is posteriority, not priority. But this is not the sense in which the the writer uses the term a priori. Knowing something a priori simply means to know something without (or before) experience and empirical evidence. What he means when he denies the a priori infallibility of councils is that councils are not known to be infallible a priori: they are only known to be infallible after critical examination, that is a posteriori.

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

I'm looking forward to this comprehensive response. I always find your posts about the papacy worth reading and pondering: out of all the Catholics on CAF, you're the only one able to give a plausible case in its defense.

Perhaps.

What I took Emil Anton, the author of all the posts quoted above, to be saying was this: infallibility means that conciliar or papal proclamations are correct in and of themselves, as divinely-protected statements, which can be identified as such by looking at whether they meet a certain set of characteristics.

Anton actually suggests that the doctrine of indefectibility is a superior alternative to infallibility. From post #3:

"Keating continues with a theological speculation about infallibility where he states the Tridentine understanding of infallibility: '[The Church] must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.' But this can be maintained with a general indefectibility and without solemn papal additions to the deposit of the faith (such as the Marian dogmas).

"A related argument goes as follows: if the Church ever apostatized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; 'because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church'. This is naive. As long as there are people baptized and believing in Christ and gathering in his name and as long as the Eucharist is celebrated, the Church endures.

"One would need to define 'heresy', 'Church', 'apostatize', and see how these terms have been understood throughout the centuries. We would see that Keating’s logic stands on fallible ground – his assumptions are unnecessary and unapostolic.

"One more time Keating commits the same mistake: 'Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true'. The Church is 'God’s spokesman' – 1 Tim 3:15 and Lk 10:16 cited as purportedly evidencing the same mindset. Of course the Church is God’s spokesman when it proclaims Christ and his gospel faithfully. But this needn’t have anything to do with new dogmatic definitions about Mary in the 19th and 20th centuries."

How so? A couple times, for example, Anton states that Theodore Abu Qurra was the first scholar to come up with the now-dogmatic Catholic teaching of conciliar infallibility--a notion originating in the ninth century.

Again, I hope you'll make an extensive reply--you're very well-qualified to do so. :)

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

Well, yes, it is an objective fact to Christians that God's Truth is eternal and that it was true even before our knowledge of it. Do Orthodox really deny this theological fact?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

As the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 noted (a document which you should read to understand the teaching of Vatican 1, and overcome a lot of the misinterpretations), Infallibility is not inspiration or revelation, and its realization in the Church comes about only by natural, practical means. Before an infallible statement is issued, before an infallible statement CAN be issued, much study and prayer on Sacred Tradition needs to be done. So directly contrary to the author's misunderstanding, infallibility has nothing to do with a priori presumptions, but rather has everything to do with the experience and empirical evidence of the living Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Agreed. The author's argument exposes his ignorance of the Church's teaching on infallibility.

Disagreed. The Fathers of Ecumenical Councils all expressed in a united voice that the Holy Spirit was speaking with them, that the Council was guided by the Holy Spirit. Show us even one shred of evidence from the documents of the Seven Councils that they imagined they would need to wait for the consensus of the "rest of the Church" before they could authoritatively assert what they did in their decrees. Show us even a modicum of doubt in the mind of the Fathers of these Seven Councils that what they were teaching to the Church was not the actual teaching of God. The awareness of their collective infallibility as a Council was not an a posteriori.

Blessings,
Marduk

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

Dear brother Trebor,

Thanks for the explanation, but I think your last clause contradicts his presumption of a priori awareness. If we know that certain conditions must be met, it cannot be a priori, and Anton's argument simply demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the Church's teaching on the matter. I think what he meant was that conciliar or papal proclamations are correct in and of themselves without reference to and regardless of Sacred Tradition (the "experience and empirical evidence" of which Cavaradossi spoke). But said proclamations are always made in the context of, and in fact dependent on, Sacred Tradition. Again, Anton's argument demonstrates a lacik of knowledge of the Church's teaching on infallibility.

If this is true, then Anton is simply denying that the Holy Spirit works through the bishops in particular instances (which is what infallibility is). Do you agree with such an idea?

Where there is no bishop, there is no Eucharist. The argument above is basement-level Petrine, far below Low Petrine assumptions (perhaps it would not even be classed as Petrine).:D This argument seems to deny the specific teaching office of the bishop, and that bishops are an integral part of the constitution of the Church. If all the bishops taught error, as the God-ordained teachers of the Faith, the Church indeed would fall. Of course, the correct counter to the argument is that since bishops are integral to the Church, there will never be a time when ALL bishops have apostasized, so there will always be teachers of the Faith to spread the Truth and the Sacraments.

Not sure what you mean.

Saying something "needn't" is not tantamount to proving that something "doesn't."

Not sure if you properly responded to my statement; not sure what Qurra's statement has to do with it? In any case, what proof does he have that Qurra was the first? Didn't the Councils assert that they spoke with the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit? If that's not a claim to infallibility, I don't know what is.:shrug:

More, later.:)

Blessings,
Marduk

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

To clear up the confusion, I asked in the comments section of this post about what Anton meant by "the a priori infallibility of ecumenical councils". He answered as follows:

"- I mean the belief (that already precedes the council) that under such and such conditions such and such teachings of such and such a council will not be liable to error. As opposed to an a posteriori acceptance of an already issued conciliar teaching as authoritative."

There seems to be some discord among Eastern Orthodox about whether or how ecumenical councils are infallible. I'll definitely have to bring up this question in the fall with my catechists. I won't be able to comment until I get an "official" answer.

I can't speak for Anton, but will affirm that bishops are indeed essential. :) The point he's really driving at, it seems to me, is that the Church isn't going to self-destruct if the pope or bishops teach heresy once in a blue moon "in their official public capacity". After all, the damage done to the flock worldwide is far greater if hierarches can spread grave error from day to day "in their unofficial public capacity"--see the Arian crisis.

Relevant would be questions such as whether (1) a distinction between official public, unofficial public, and unofficial private teaching was made in the Early Church, or (2) the Church teaching correct doctrine in a binding manner was one way, or the most important way, in which the faithful could see Christ protecting his body from being overcome by the forces of evil.

Right. But what benefit is it to the Church for the prerogative of doctrinal infallibility to be invested in the office held by each successor to St. Peter in Rome if the pope clearly exercises this charism on only two occasions, less than a century apart, in the course of two millennia? Such a doctrine appears very much like an innovation unknown to the apostles and their successors.

You had originally charged Anton with "begging the question" because he would "ASSUME papal infalliblity and other teachings of the Catholic Church are wrong without delving into the teachings themselves. Thus, [he] make[s] such statements as 'the Fathers denied that something could be added to the Faith' without demonstrating that the Catholic Church has ever added anything to the Faith in the first place."

I cited Anton's statements that conciliar infallibility was invented by Theodore Abu Qurra in the ninth century as one piece of evidence by which the blogger was substantiating his claim that the Catholic Church brought in a novelty to supplement the apostolic deposit. Another piece of evidence Anton used to establish this charge is found in the following paragraph, cited in post #2:

"Keating goes on to say that the doctrine of papal infallibility is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in the Church. But the historical study of Brian Tierney suggests just that: it appeared rather suddenly in the Middle Ages. I am not aware of Catholic Answers materials dealing with Tierney."

Have you heard of this scholar, or read his work "Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages"?

Also in the comments section of this post I asked for a source to back up the claim. Anton replied thus:

"- I learned this from Francis Sullivan’s book 'Magisterium'"

Wouldn't bishops make statements to that effect (believing that they were) defending the true faith on such solemn occasions?

Did outside observers attribute infallibility to the dogmatic definitions of the seven ecumenical councils as they were in progress and/or after they had completed their work?

:thumbsup:

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

And these conditions include -
1) adherence to Sacred Tradition,
2) the agreement of the head bishop and the other bishops.

What more is there?

Answer these two questions:
a) What Ecumenical Council has ever claimed that consensus of "the rest of the Church" was necessary for the infallibility and the authoritative status of the decrees of the such Councils.

b) if such evidence is not found within the Ecumenical Councils themselves, where do the Orthodox get this idea? Is this a "development of doctrine" on their part?

Yes. The Ravenna colloquy had the Orthodox participants affirm that the Ecumenical Council is a "unique event" specially guided by the Holy Spirit. But you will find many lay Orthodox commentators deny that assertion.

Yes, that would be a huge difference between the Catholic and non-Catholic perspective. To Catholics, not only is the episcopate of the very esse of the Church's constitution, but also the teaching office of the episcopate. If the teaching office fails, the Church fails. The Catholic solution is that the teaching office will never fail. That the teaching office will never fail is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith. It is very easy, however, for non-Catholics - which apparently includes (some) Orthodox - to engage in these fearmongering extravagances. That these controversialists can even imagine that the teaching office will fail as a permise for their arguments simply demonstrates how different their religion is from the Catholic Faith.

The differentiation is evident even in the New Testament. We know what Jesus' and the Apostles' teaching was. But there were those who taught something that was not the Church's teaching. Such things were unofficial, public teachings because they did not reflect the actual teachings of Christ - such as the judaizing tenets. The official public teaching came either from St. Peter personally (Acts 10-11), or from the Apostles united (Acts 15).

A source of debate between Protestants and Catholics, obviously, but not so much between Orthodox and Catholics, IMO.

CONTINUED

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

CONTINUED

I am not aware of any able Catholic apologist who will claim that the infallibility of the CHURCH as exercised by her head bishop was only ever used twice in the history of the Church. If no ex cathedra statements were ever made prior to V1, then the Fathers of that Council would have had nothing on which to draw the conditions for infallibility that were asserted. It seems common sense to me that there had to be available data in the eyes of the V1 Fathers.:shrug:

I thought "papal infallibility" only appeared at V1 according to him? Now, he admits it existed in the Middle Ages? Anton has a lot to learn about consistency.

I'll check it out sometime. But if it tries to equate the concept of "papal infallibility" with the rise of the papal secular power, I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears. Dependence on the teaching authority of Rome has clear evidence from the early Fathers. The concept of "papal infallibility" simply provides a very logical reason for that dependence (no one is claiming here that "only the Pope is infallible" because that is not what the Church's definition of "papal infallibility" is).

Isn't he an EO? As you probably admit, EO are not really united (officially) on this issue, so I'd take that source with a grain of salt.

Yes. But the other side of the coin is whether these bishops in these Councils made any statements even close to the claims of some modern EO - i.e., did any of these bishops claim that they needed the consensus of "the rest of the Church?"

[quoite]Did outside observers attribute infallibility to the dogmatic definitions of the seven ecumenical councils as they were in progress and/or after they had completed their work?[/quote]
Here, I sense you are misunderstanding what infallibility is. Infallibility has nothing to do with your or my perception of the dogmatic decrees. Infallibily refers to the OBJECTIVE reality of those decrees as God's Truth. That you or I or some segment of the lay Church concedes to or affirms the Truth of those decrees does not make them infallible. Those decrees are infallibile because they are from God (PERIOD!), regardless of anyone's awareness that they are God's Truth. That you or I agree to those Truths demonstates nothing more than that we have been moved by the Holy Spirit. The agreement of the lay Church adds absolutely nothing to the infallibility of God's Truth.

Will have to wait. Sorry.:o

Blessings,
Marduk

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

Some general comments about infallibility...

Of course the early Christians accepted, by definition, the infallibility of the apostles. Not only were the apostles infallible, they were also inspired, that is, they were the source of doctrine.

Now, the early Christians also probably thought the end would come in their lifetimes. But, the end did not come, the apostles had all died, and Christians were still around. I bet they wondered, what do we do now? I suppose many left. But, as we know, many did not, and we are their heirs.

So, yes, what do we, the heirs, do now, 10 years, even 1900 years later? We have to believe that somehow, infallibility continued in some manner. Therefore, we see, by its very nature, the concept of infallibility has to be somewhat retroactive. We are forced to assume a form of infallibility inhering somewhere even after the apostles. But how does it inhere? In individual Christians? Obviously not. In individual bishops? We wish, but again bishops have disagreed. What then? The only answer is in the Church itself. Because scripture does say the household of God, the church, is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Okay, what then is the Church? It can only be a visible gathering of the bishops. And there is a precedence for this--the council of Jerusalem. Back in Jerusalem they got together, argued about it, and came to a conclusion affecting the entire church. So that is what was decided to be the pattern for the post-apostolic church too. Ecclesial infallibility. A necessary idea unless you want to chuck the whole thing.

Some people think we can access the teachings of Jesus and the apostles without going through the Church. I don't see how. For example, what did the apostles believe about the deity of Christ? What did they believe the Eucharist meant? Did they worship on Sunday? Did they believe Jesus died on a cross? That is the whole purpose of ecclesial infallibility, to settle these questions.

Infallibility may be an ex post facto notion, but essential for the continuance of Christianity.

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

What were the data? Why do we have no such list of examples of ex cathedra statements that was used by the proponents of papal infallibility as evidence for the doctrine? Furthermore and most importantly, how can the use of empirical evidence to develop doctrine be justified?


Where did Anton write that papal infallibility only started at VI? Please quote him on this. Even if he did write that, I'm not sure that it masters, since he is using the quoted passage evidence that the doctrine is of late origin. The job of the skeptic is not to provide a consistent position, only to present evidence which casts doubt upon the established belief which is being called into question.


For each example one can give, a similar counter-example may also be given. This is why quotes alone avail nobody.

That is an ad hominem fallacy. His personal convictions have nothing to do with the strength of his argument, nor is it logically sound to attempt to discredit his argument in this way.

That is a strawman. The Orthodox would say that the widespread recognition of a council over time is what causes us to know that it taught the true faith. The truth itself needs no validation, but that which causes us to come to know the truth is not certain, hence the need for the Church literally to manifest the truth with the Holy Spirit.

But your argument here is self-defeating. You are right to say that the truth has a degree of objectivity to it (this is a consequent of accepting the premise of an all-knowing God). What is true is true regardless of who or how many have come to believe in it. But that also means that the truth is not just true regardless of whether some segment of the laity believe in it, but it is true regardless of whether anybody, be it the bishops, the presbyters, the Archbishop of Rome, the deacons, or the laity believe in it. What then you are claiming is that papal infallibility is simply another attempt to explain the mystery of how the Church makes the truth manifest to those baptized into Christ. But what then justifies the claim that papal infallibility is a preferable alternative to indefectibility or general ecclesial infallibility over time? In order to provide a thorough refutation, you absolutely must address this point.

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

And because your belief is that 2) can never occur without 1) being true, for you, knowing that a council teaches the true faith is only contingent upon recognizing whether 2) is true, because if 2) is true, then 1) must be true, according to Catholic belief. That 2) automatically implies 1) is the Orthodox objection.

You are conflating two separate questions. 1) What is truth? 2) How is the truth made known (or stated another way, how can we justify believing that something is true)? We can all agree as monotheists (not even as Christians, but as monotheists) that the answer to 1) is that things are true by virtue of their relation to God. The real question with which we are concerned is 2). The Councils were obviously not concerned with answering 2), but only ascertaining the answer to 1) through the use of reasoned argument and divine revelation (most especially the Scriptures but also the Traditions). The problem which faces us is that no council ultimately concluded with the line, "it was disagreeable to the Holy Spirit that we should this heresy." Instead, they all invoked the Holy Spirit, with the absolute conviction that they taught the truth, no matter if the council taught heresy or orthodoxy. How then can we ascertain which councils actually made the truth manifest? Therein lies the disagreement.

No, the Orthodox commentators deny the Roman Catholic teaching on how it can be justified that a gathering of bishops can be considered a "unique event" specially guided by the Holy Spirit. There is a world of difference between your caricature and that actual disagreement.


In other words, you support clericalism. Your description of the Church could function with or without the laity.

No, you are just making caricatures again. The promise that the Church will fail does not mean that those in her are guaranteed to know who is teaching the true faith.
Right, I guess Paul was just writing private opinions to all of those Churches of God with no intent of teaching them.

Re: Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church
 

If you need a list to build your faith, well, that's on you ("you" in general, not you persoally:D). The evidence of Rome's orthodoxy, and the constant appeal to Rome to confirm matters of doctrine in the first millenium up to the 7th Council is enough for me.

:confused: The empirical evidence is Sacred Tradition. So it is a mystery to you that Sacred Tradition is used in the development of doctrine? Now I can see why EO generally deny that principle - they (or at least some portion of them) have taken Sacred Tradition out of the equation when considering what "development of doctrine" means (more misinterpretation from non-Catholics), but Catholics understand that Sacred Tradition is part and parcel of the development of doctrine.

I understand that. I'm just saying that consistency is not a mainstay of a skeptic. Skeptics will generally use any evidence, even contradictory evidence, for no other reason than to support their doubt. Not a very convincing method of argumentation, IMO.

Yeah, there are a lot of examples of those who were in error opposing decrees of Rome on a theological matter. Like the example with the Arians who opposed the Council of Sardica, EO apologetics (I've noticed) tend to lean on Fathers who were in error as evidence for their position. Not at all convincing, IMO.

Really? It's an ad hominem to say he is EO?:shrug: EO are not united on this matter - that is not an ad hominem, that is a fact that you cannot easily brush aside.

How is it a straw man? I know your belief (I used to hold it as well). But none of the Fathers of these councils had any notion of the/your modern belief that "we will just wait until the Church in general guided by the Holy Spirit makes this truth evident to us." These Fathers knew they had the Truth, and that they were teaching it with the authority of God. Perhaps you are confusing the concept of infallibility with the concept of certainty? They are not the same.

Yes, that's the difference between your Faith as an Orthodox and my Faith as a Catholic - Catholics believe in Christ's words "whoever listens to you listens to me," This was said to the Apostles, an ascription of authority that was handed down in the Apostolic Succession to the bishops. We believe in a divinely guided teaching office that God gave us to settle the tough questions. In the Catholic paradigm, the entire Church, laity included, are responsible for carrying on the Faith through the centuries. But when controversies come, the matter that is among the laity is judged by the God-ordained teachers of the Church, the bishops. It is an EO development of doctrine (developed only after the events of Florence IMO) that, after the bishops have judged a matter among the laity, that judgment is given back to the laity to be judged once more. It is the EO position that is self-defeating since it is circular with no final authority to settle any matter.

Your "preferable" statement merely reflects another misinterpretation of the Catholic teaching. As the Offical Relatio of Vatican 1 affirms, the Ecumenical Council is the NORMATIVE means of settling matters of doctrine. "Papal infallibility" is only exercised EXTRAordinarily, and, even then, is initiated by the solicitude of the world's bishops. Contrary to the belief of Low Petrine detractors, and Absolutist Petrine exaggerators, the Pope cannot just wake up one morning and decide unilaterally to make a new dogma out of the blue. In short, Vatican 1 never claimed that "papal infallibility" is a "preferable alternative." So your argument is a straw man.

CONTINUED