I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

Well the pope is bound by the pronouncements of those before him, by the councils, by the tradition of the church, by scripture, by divine and natural law, etc.
He also has no power unless people decide to follow him so there’s that…
The popes can also be deposed for heresy like honorius was.

Can you please show me where bellarmine said this about checks and balances?
I’d like to see what he was actually talking about.
I have read quite a few history books on the papacy, and seen a lot of back and forth debates on it. It’s the first time someone has ever said that the time of bellarmine had different papal beliefs than Vatican I.

 

By the same means the apostles doctrinal teachings wether oral or written were infallible


Also what do you mean the OT prophets weren’t infallible?
I’m talking about the real prophets attested to in scripture. Do you not believe their prophecies were infallible ??

 

How do we know whether every "prophecy" they spoke out was correct and came to pass? We don't. The ones that were written down and included in the books of the Bible were correct, but for all we know they may have missed it on a few occasions.

Peter taught for a time that the Gentiles should live like the Jews (observing the ritual laws and such, Gal. 2) and Paul had to correct him (2:14). So Peter's doctrinal teachings weren't infallible, were they?

 

Peter messed up almost as often as he did well. He's the one who denied Jesus three times. He's the one who stepped out of the boat, got scared and sank. Yet some people suppose that Jesus founded His church upon a deeply flawed man.

Faith in Jesus (as Messiah, Redeemer and Son of God) is the foundation upon which He built His church. Peter would be a shaky foundation to build on; maybe that's why the grand-looking old edifice of the RCC is leaning so precariously.

 

This sounds like a Christianized version of Saudi Arabia. The problem is there no agent actually doing the “binding”. There’s no room for “the consent of the governed” here. When you’re always the judge in your own cause, you tend to find that your claims fit within what the law intended. Actual governments don’t work this way, outside of totalitarian hellholes.

 

well, it’s not a totalitarian hell hole, it’s a church government. No one is forcing you to follow papal dogmas. There’s people all over the world being oppressed by their terrible governments, to say the papacy is akin to this is not very genuine.

There is no consent of the governed either when it comes to Christian doctrine. Should we start taking votes on wether homosexuality is not a sin? Many people in our churches after all would love for this to be declared.

If anyone doesn’t like the popes binding on doctrines they are more than welcome to leave.
Recall the Israelites. It was not a state run on the consent of the governed. King Josiah discovered the book of the law and destroyed pagan temples and centralized worship at the temple.
None of the kings or the priestly classes ever ran their doctrines based on the consent of the governed. Or else Israel would’ve stayed in a perpetual state of idolatry.

 

Well we will just have to disagree on this…
I do believe the prophets of the Old Testament all received their prophecies from God, therefore all of them are true. These are the genuine prophets I’m talking about of course.
There are prophecies written even in the Bible that didn’t come to pass, or came to pass way differently than they were described.
This does not mean the prophecies were not from God, or that God gave them false prophecies. Sometimes God prophecies things but they don’t come about because something else happens.
The prophecies must also be understood in their full meaning. When God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate the fruit, they didn’t drop dead. Obviously some prophecies of God need to be interpreted in different ways.
I honestly find your version of OT prophets quite unreliable.
Some things they said were true, others weren’t?
Who would ever want to follow a prophet who’s only sometimes right?
A broken clock is right twice a day. At that point they might not even be prophets, just a guy who’s really good at predicting the future.

not to mention in the Bible many prophecies were recorded that had yet come to pass. Like all the messianic psalms or the prophecies of Isaiah and even Daniel.
So no, the Bible doesn’t have just prophecies which Jews waited to right down to make sure they came true.
They wrote them down as the prophets spoke. This is obviously the most reliable way. I don’t see how waiting for a prophesy to pass 100 or some years and then writing it down as “true” will ever convince anyone.


Peter did not teach gentiles should live like Jews, he was just hypocritical in his actions and refused to eat with gentiles.

this is what Galatians 2 says :
“for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”
‭
there is nothing here about Peter teaching falsehood, just being a hypocrite and acting contrary to the gospel. Obviously this is wrong, but he wasn’t teaching gentiles they needed to follow the law.

I really do think it’s dangerous to say the apostles doctrinal teachings are not infallible. Are we really going to say Peter and the men from James and Paul were teaching 2 different things to Christians ?
This makes an awful mess of the truth of Christ. Did Jesus even say any of the things written in gospels, or did the evangelists just make it all up? did Peter or the others ever actually follow him?
How could men of the same teacher ever come away with different doctrine? Especially when these men were commanded to teach all nations by Christ who claimed to be God incarnate?
In fact, we can even be like some nowadays who say Paul was a false apostle who never actually saw the resurrected Christ and pit his teachings against James and the others.
But none of this is true. The gospel was the same from the beginning and all the apostles taught in accordance. That their actions didn’t line up sometimes is to be expected of men in need of the grace of God. But saying the apostles contradicted each other brings in a whirlwind of problems for Christianity. It’s also a bit bizarre to claim the epistles of the Bible are infallible and don’t contradict , but the oral teachings of the men who wrote said epistles are fallible and contradict. Why would The Holy Spirit preserve peters writings from doctrinal error but not his preaching to the church?
This makes no sense….

 

The fact that Christ made Peter the leader even after he denied him so many times goes to show the true forgiveness and love that God has for us. Christ knows we will fail him over and over again, and so he chose a man just as flawed as all of us to show that even those who fail, if they persevere, will be victorious in Christ by the grace of God.
St. John chrysostom put it best, when Christ restored Peter in John 21:

“That which most of all attracts the Divine love is care and love for our neighbor. Our Lord passing by the rest, addresses this command to Peter: he being the chief of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and head of the college. Our Lord remembers no more his sin in denying Him, or brings that as a charge against him, but commits to him at once the superintendence over his brethren. If you love Me, have rule over your brethren, show forth that love which you have evidenced throughout, and that life which you said you would lay down for Me, lay down for the sheep.
A third time He asks the same question, and gives the same command; to show of what importance He esteems the superintendence of His own sheep, and how He regards it as the greatest proof of love to Him.
The question asked for the third time disturbed him: Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, Love you Me? He was afraid perhaps of receiving a reproof again for professing to love more than he did. So he appeals to Christ Himself: And he said to Him, Lord, you know all things, i.e. the secrets of the heart, present and to come.
There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requires of Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

He says unto him, Feed My sheep.

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.”

 

In other words, he's bound by himself, that he shouldn't contravene these things. But there is no one on the face of the planet who could forbid him to contravene them. Correct? Thus the Pope has no checks and balances.

Sure, Pope Francis is afraid that if he declares something too radical a chunk of Roman Catholicism will split off, so he merely has to move a little slower but in the end achieve the same thing.

What you're saying is: "the Pope wouldn't suddenly declare a heresy."
And what I'm saying is: "the Pope wouldn't suddenly declare a heresy."

According to Roman doctrine, what you've just said here is the heresy of conciliarism.

I'll try to find it, it's been a while ago but I'll try to dig around.

But even without Bellarmine, just imagine the world of the 1600s Roman Catholicism. Unwind Vatican I. Unwind the 'magisterium', unwind ex cathedra infallibilism, unwind ordinary universal jurisdiction. Going back in time, what you have is the Pope, but you've also got other Patriarchs within Roman Catholicism, with their own authority, albeit in alliance with the Patriarch of Rome. You've also got bishops throughout the world who held diocesan synods, who declared heresy and excommunicated people by their own authority. The Bishops seemed to occupy their Sees by their own right. (However already in the Council of Trent you see the denial that a Bishop is a separate order, different from deacon and priest!)

Anyway, Roman Catholicism of the 1600s still had traces of the patristic Church, it had wheels within wheels, overlapping jurisdictions, multiple sources of authority.

Ok so let's continue: unwind conciliarism being declared a heresy. Keep going into the past -- you'll find the Council of Florence deposing a Pope and installing another one. As you said, you find Pope Honorius truly being deposed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The more you go into the past, the more you'll find that there were checks and balances. It wasn't an Empire Of One yet. That's what Bellarmine understood as 'roman catholicism'. He had no idea what was going to come in his name.

 

This is quite disingenuous. How many people were racked and burned at the stake - the most horrible punishment ever devised - for failing to make the “right” choice when it came to church teaching and practice? If Catholicism still doesn’t acknowledge that the consent of the governed is necessary for the legitimacy of any law, then perhaps those of us who want to keep a secular political order should be wary of the disproportionate role Catholics have in our public institutions today? It’s ironic: the RCC has managed to reinvent itself in every other conceivable way, yet when it comes to the most basic freedoms of all, thought, speech, and bodily autonomy, are they not still stuck in the Dark Ages?

 

Not true because no pope can bind a future pope. You only have to look at Pope Francis recent motu proprio on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass Traditionis Custodes which abrogates Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum.

He cannot be bound by councils and I'm not completely sure he's bound by Tradition.

This I do agree on as the pope is bound by these.

It is rather weak to rely on that. It's true a law doesn't much work unless people follow it. However, most of the time Catholics do follow what lawas the pope makes.

Who is going to depose a pope? There were, to my knowledge, four pope who took the name Honorius. To which one do you refer and how was he deposed?

 

The pope has yet to declare heresy (although you’d disagree) so I’m not really worried about that.
Francis can’t do anything to harm the faith. He is a liberal, but he hasn’t even declared heresy when it comes to, for example, homosexuals. The CDF made a clear statement to German bishops. The problem is Francis believes in democracy, so he will let people “discuss” what’s right, then he will decree the truth.

Its not conciliarism to say a pope can be deposed my a council for heresy.
A heretical pope cannot possibly exercise his heresy without losing office, and this would make him liable to be judged by the council.
The bishops in an ecumenical council are co judges with the pope. If the pope decrees heresy he may be judged by the bishops.

much of what you have said here is not true and is not at all what the Catholic Church teaches.
I will use a lot of quotes here from the Church to prove my point. Bare with me, to anyone reading this. But if you won’t read it (and this goes to anyone who wants to reply) please don’t reply to me telling me strawman of what the church teaches when you really have no idea.

From Vatican I:

But now it is our purpose to profess and declare from this chair of Peter before all eyes the saving teaching of Christ, and, by the power given us by God, to reject and condemn the contrary errors.

This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the holy Spirit by our authority in this ecumenical council, and relying on the word of God in scripture and tradition as we have received it, religiously preserved and authentically expounded by the catholic church.”




From the catholic encyclopedia:

“The principles hitherto set forth supply a complete solution to the controversy. General councils represent the Church; the pope therefore stands to them in the same relation as he stands to the Church. But that relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion: the pope is neither above nor below the Church, but in it as the centre is in the circle, as intellect and will are in the soul. By taking our stand on the Scriptural doctrine that the Church is the mystical body of Christ of which the pope is the visible head, we see at once that a council apart from the pope is but a lifeless trunk, a “rump parliament”, no matter how well attended it be


Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff’s ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ’s co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, “it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us”, and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.


Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. The council’s dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility, nor does that definition imply a “circular demonstration” by which the council would make the pope infallible and the pope would render the same service to the council. It should however, be borne in mind that the council without the pope has no guarantee of infallibility, therefore the conciliar and the papal infallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence. An infallible statement of Divine truth is the voice of Christ speaking through the mouth of the visible head of His mystical body or in unison, in chorus, with all its members. The united voice of the whole Church has a solemnity, impressiveness, and effectiveness, an external, circumstantial weight, which is wanting in simple ex-cathedra pronouncements. It works its way into the minds and hearts of the faithful with almost irresistible force, because in the universal harmony each individual believer hears his own voice, is carried away by the powerful rhythm, and moved as by a Divine spell to follow the leaders. Again, the bishops who have personally contributed to the definitions have, in that fact, an incentive to zeal in publishing them and enforcing them in their dioceses; nay the council itself is an effective beginning of its execution or enforcement in practice. For this reason alone, the holding of most Eastern councils was a moral necessity — the great distance between East and West, the difficulty of communication, the often keen opposition of the Orientals to Old Rome made a solemn promulgation of the definitions on the spot more than desirable. No aids to effectiveness were to be neglected in that centre of heresies.”


From the notion that the council is a court of judges the following inferences may be drawn:

The bishops, in giving their judgment, are directed only by their personal conviction of its rectitude; no previous consent of all the faithful or of the whole episcopate is required. In unity with their head they are one solid college of judges authoritatively constituted for united, decisive action — a body entirely different from a body of simple witnesses.

This being admitted, the assembled college assumes a representation of their colleagues who were called but failed to take their seats, provided the number of those actually present is not altogether inadequate for the matter in hand. Hence their resolutions are rightly said to rest on universal consent: universali consensu constituta, as the formula runs.

Further, on the same supposition, the college of judges is subject to the rule obtaining in all assemblies constituted for framing a judicial sentence or a common resolution, due regard being paid to the special relations, in the present instance, between the head and the members of the college: the co-operative verdict embodies the opinion of the majority, including the head, and in law stands for the verdict of the whole assembly, it is communi sensu constitutum (established by common consent). A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation. The verdict of a majority, therefore, not endorsed by the pope, has no binding force on either the dissentient members present or the absent members, nor is the pope bound in any way to endorse it. Its only value is that it justifies the pope, in case he approves it, to say that he confirms the decision of a council, or gives his own decision sacro approbante concilio (with the consent of the council). This he could not say if he annulled a decision taken by a majority including his legates, or if he gave a casting vote between two equal parties. A unanimous conciliary decision, as distinct from a simple majority decision, may under certain circumstances, be, in a way, binding on the pope and compel his approbation — by the compelling power, not of a superior authority, but of the Catholic truth shining forth in the witnessing of the whole Church. To exert such power the council’s decision must be clearly and unmistakably the reflex of the faith of all the absent bishops and of the faithful.”

Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25;

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith



John Paul II’s Encyclical, Ut Unum Sint:

With the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches. For this reason, he is the first servant of unity. This primacy is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the Liturgy and the Sacraments, the Church’s mission, discipline and the Christian life. It is the responsibility of the Successor of Peter to recall the requirements of the common good of the Church, should anyone be tempted to overlook it in the pursuit of personal interests. He has the duty to admonish, to caution and to declare at times that this or that opinion being circulated is irreconcilable with the unity of faith. When circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all the Pastors in communion with him. He can also—under very specific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council— declare ex cathedra that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith. By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity.

All this however must always be done in communion. When the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also “vicars and ambassadors of Christ”. The Bishop of Rome is a member of the “College”, and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry.”





If you have read this all, you can clearly see the pope is NOT above the council, he works with the council. These are checks and balances. The pope and the bishops work together. If the pope declares heresy, he has lost his Petrine privilege and is liable to be judged by a council, just like honorius was. The Catholic Church does not teach the pope is a tyrant and that he may do whatever he wishes. He is bound by the declarations of the councils as well as canon law to work together with his brother bishops.
What you said about Trent and bellarmine and everything else is not true. I would like to see the quote from bellarmine to see what checks and balances he was talking about. Probably the same ones I have stated here.

 

Statements from popes and church fathers and ecumenical councils on the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Roman see:


Formula of Pope Hormisdas signed Eastern Bishops to end the Accacian Schism


“The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied...

...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. 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. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries.”


Constantinople III (Ecumenical Council)


“Resting on Peter’s protection, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned aside from the way of truth to any part of error, and her authority has always been faithfully followed and embraced as that of the prince of the Apostles by the whole Catholic Church and all Councils, and by all the venerable Fathers who embraced her doctrine…..and she [the Roman church], by the grace of almighty God, will be proved never to have wandered from the path of apostolic tradition, nor to have succumbed to the novelties of heretics; but even as in the beginning of the Christian faith she received it from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, so she remains unspotted to the end, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior Himself…which He spoke to the prince of His apostles in the holy Gospels: ‘Peter, Peter, says He, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as he who sifts wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that they faith fail not, and thou one day being converted, strengthen thy brethren’. Let your clemency [Emperor Constantine] therefore consider that the Lord and Savior of all, to whom faith belongs, who promised that the faith of Peter should not fail, admonished him to confirm his brethren; and it is known to all men that the Apostolic Pontiffs [of Rome], predecessors of my littleness, have always done this with confidence…” (Letter of Pope St. Agatho to the Byzantine Emperor & Council of Constantinople III – AD 681)



John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575-593) to the Catholicos of the Gregorian monks


“As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of the faith for the strengthening of the churches, “You are Peter, etc….”. To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chaints those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the faith, and according to the word of the Lord, infallible’


Saint Maximos the Confessor:


“….For he who has willfully separated from the Catholic Church has fallen from all holiness. For it is not right that one who has already been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic See of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any king of honor , until he be received by her [Rome], having returned to her, nay, to our Lord, by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receives holiness and the name of holy. Therefore, if he wishes neither to be a heretic nor to be accounted one, let him not make satisfaction to this or that person, for this is superfluous and unreasonable. For just as all are scandalized at him when one is scandalized, so also, when satisfaction has been made to one, all without doubt are satisfied. Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God which are in the whole world. For with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman Pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him from the accusation. Wherefore, my blessed Lord, extend yet further the precept which it is known that you have made well and according to God’s will, by which Pyrrhus is not allowed to speak or misspeak with regard to dogma. But discover clearly his intention by further inquiry , whether he will altogether agree to the truth. And if he is careful to do this, exhort him to make a becoming statement to the Roman Pope, so that by his command the matter concerning Pyrrhus may be canonically and suitably ordered for the glory of God and the praise of your sublimity…”

 

See my post above.

 

Jesus did say that where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there with them. When did Jesus say that, in being with them, He would cure all the defects or perfect the unity of the gathered individuals? When did Jesus say that His presence in the midst of a gathering of His people would bring about a state of infallibility to whatever those gathered people might do?

Jesus wasn't talking about Councils when He said that; He was speaking of any gathering of His disciples, be it a gathering as small as two people. I serve in the prayer ministry, so when someone comes to me during communion time and requests prayer concerning a situation, we have confidence that our Lord is there in our midst; does He then place a seal of infallibility upon the prayer I utter?

The phrase used in the NT, "it seemed good to us..." or, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." in no way indicates infallibility. It indicates that the people felt led by the Holy Spirit to do something, but Christians feel led to do many things, some of which were correct and some of which were not. Christians are imperfect hearers of the Holy Spirit, they can and often do 'miss it' when they try to discern the Lord's leading, and never should they claim to have the ability to know with infallibility what God may (or may not!) be telling them; it is hubristic to do so no matter who the Christian might be (even the guy wearing the big hat and sitting in the special chair).

It is one thing to acknowledge Christ's presence in our midst, be it at mass or in a Council meeting or during a counseling session with one's priest, etc. It takes quite a leap of logic, without any scriptural support, to suppose that Christ's presence 'puts a seal of infallibility' on any of those gatherings. I think you are depending on the statement itself, and other such statements made by the RC hierarchy, to be self-probative. A bit of circular reasoning seems to be at work.

 

The first part of this has a few problems, and I find it interesting that someone speaking for a Church that takes history so seriously should simply bi-pass it. The obvious case in point in Benedict VII sanctioning the use of the filioque in 1014 for the coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor. This decision was clearly out of step with the Councils (significantly Constantinople 1, Ephesus and Chalcedon). It represents a significant shift in the Roman position upheld repeatedly that it should not be included. The Eastern position was that the Creed of the Councils should neither be added to nor subtracted from, and Rome responded that as holder of the Keys, the Pope could decide what the Creed was, not the Councils. This position was not and is not accepted in the East.

This is a clear example when the Pope was bound by neither Council, nor History, nor Tradition.

 

The filioque was used in the west since even before Augustine. The west had 3 creeds. The Athanasian, apostles, and Nicaean creed.
The athanasian creed had filioque language. Christians baptized into the churches recited 2 creeds in the west which had filioque.
If you look at a history of the creeds, there are several variations adapted to different places. The creeds were never really a rigid thing that didn’t allow for local custom, and the filioque is indisputably local custom.
Moreover, the filioque was in the acts of the council of Toledo. It didn’t just come out of nowhere.
Here is a list of official pronouncements that include the filioque from catholic encyclopedia:

• the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
• the so-called Athanasian Creed;
• several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
• the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
• St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
• Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
• the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
• the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
• the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
• the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
• the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
• the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
• Council of Florence, 1439.

Also, a big reason why the whole oriental church is in schism to this day is because they’re refused to add anything to Nicaea:

We can at least be certain that some of those at Chalcedon did refuse to adopt the 381 creed. This attitude was particularly strong in Egypt where the earlier silence of Cyril and Dioscorus concerning the Council of Constantinople and their rejection of any creed other than Nicaea remain highly influential. When Diogenes of Cyzicus in the passage quoted earlier from the first session condemned Eutyches for failing to recognize the clarification of Nicaea provided and 381, the Egyptian bishops immediately defended Eutyches and appealed to canon 7 of (Ephesus) 431, exclaiming ‘No one admits any additional or subtraction. Confirm the work of Nicaea’ (Acts I.161). The 13 Egyptian bishops in the fourth session who asked to remain outside the debates until Dioscorus, who had been condemned in the third session, was replaced likewise refer in their petition only to the creed of 325 (Acts IV.25) and omit any reference to the creative 381 as a symbol of orthodoxy. The strength of the Egyptian feeling on this question was apparently recognized by the emperor Marcian when is letter to the Monks of Alexandrian 454 (Documents after the Council 14) appeals solely to the faith of 325 and not (as in his other writings after Chalcedon) to the creeds of both 325 and 381.” (Chalcedon in Context, the Definition of Christian Tradition, pp. 18)

The council of Chalcedon added to the creed and the oriental churches stand as testament, as they believe St Cyril taught their unity of nature doctrine. Why does no one complain about this?


The filioque is clearly western tradition so it’s weird to claim the pope was somehow acting outside of tradition. What pope or saint or council ever said the filioque shouldn’t be included, as you claim?

Rome also did not force the East to say the filioque. To this day the eastern Catholics don’t say it. That’s not exactly papal tyranny, just asking the East to respect a long held tradition in the west, which is not at all heretical as defined by the Catholic Church.

Not to mention the orthodox don’t even agree as to why the filioque is bad. Some say as Rome teaches it is heresy, so their issue isn’t with the pope inserting it into the Latin creed.
Others say it’s not heresy and their issue is with the pope inserting it into the Latin creed.
Which one is it? We’ll never know.
But Rome can’t all be blamed for this. Since the time of St Maximus the confessor the easterners had issue with the latins beliefs about the filioque, and this was in the 7th century.
So the issue in the beginning was that they thought it was heresy, not papal authority.
but it’s completely ridiculous to claim the whole west from Augustine on became heretical. At least to me it is. Some orthodox have no issue saying that though.

 

Not really. That verse doesn’t really prove anything. The whole reason for that post was like I said, to clear up misconceptions about catholic teaching. You don’t have to agree with catholic teaching to understand it and present it correctly. That’s all that quote proved. The bishops are not below the pope. The council is both the pope and bishops. The council itself has infallibility. If the pope is a heretic the council can depose him.
You don’t have to agree with any of this to know it’s catholic teaching, I was just meaning to clear things up.


You also have seemed to say various times that the teachings of the apostles are not infallible, which is pretty shocking to me.
Do you consider the council of Jerusalem, lead by the apostles Paul, Peter, and James, to be infallible?

 

I am glad that you take pains to present RC teaching correctly, because that makes it easier for the rest of us to see its errors. And thank you for saying that we don't have to agree with RC teaching, because Anglicans do see some differences between catholic (universal) church teachings and RC teachings.

The teachings of Jesus were infallible, because God is infallible. No ordinary mortal man is infallible, though, so the teachings of any man (other than Jesus) are not infallible. The written word of God is perfect and without error, and that written word tells us some of the things that were said in and issued from the Jerusalem council (not that the apostles were likely to have considered it a formal gathering in the sense that the word "council" is now being used by many), but the Bible does not record everything about that council, nor does it anywhere state or suggest that the council was graced by God with infallibility.

 

Well I am reading my King James Bible and it has acts 15 titled as the Jerusalem council and the Jerusalem decree. They sent out a letter to all the churches to teach the doctrine that salvation is through grace and not the law, therefore gentiles did not need to keep the law.
What part of this is not a “formal gathering” as you say?
Here is the decree of the Jerusalem council:

“Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment— it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:24-29‬ ‭

Can you genuinely say the apostles “felt lead by the Holy Spirit” to decree this, and they did not feel their teaching was infallible? Or if you don’t like that word, doctrinally correct?
When they felt lead by the Holy Spirit when writing scripture, was that a different “feeling” than when at the council orally decreeing doctrine ?
Do you not believe the holy spirit was guiding the apostles in their mission to spread the gospel? The whole of Pentecost happened for a reason.

So you think the Bible is infallible, but not the teachings of the apostles?
Why would God make an infallible book but leave the apostles in the dark?
I honestly did not know that was the Anglican position, if it even is.
christianity is not based on a book, it’s based on the incarnate son of God. The scriptures are infallible, but the apostles who wrote them were as well.
You say only God is infallible, but do you really think God took over the apostles body when they were writing their letters or something?
Clearly God used men to spread his gospel, and one of the ways he did this was through the scriptures.
But the Bible is written by the apostles in the power of the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit make sure there’s no doctrinal error in the letters of Paul or Peter or James, but somehow they’re shooting in the dark without certainty when speaking to people directly?
Also where in the Bible does it ever say the prophets or apostles could teach false doctrine? It seems the complete opposite to me.

Do you think only the written part of the council of Jerusalem was infallible, and everything else doctrinally dubious?

I personally don’t know how you can believe this. If the apostles are preaching erroneous doctrine, and they contradict each other as you say, then that’s not a movement from God, just a bunch of fanatics. The truth of the gospel was always infallible and always the same as declared by all of the apostles.
Paul was just as infallible when writing his letters as when he was saying the same thing face to face with people.
There’s no need to have an aversion to saying men can, by the power of the Holy Spirit, our God, be infallible. You already believe a collection of letters, gospel accounts, psalms, prophetical writings, are infallible, which were written by fallible men. It’s really not that far fetched to believe those same men were also kept from preaching doctrinal error orally by the Holy Spirit.

If it’s as you say, the apostles should’ve just locked themselves in a hut and written theological treatises because only their writings are infallible, instead of going out and preaching the gospel, lest they mistakenly preach heresy and lead Christians astray.