I'm unsure about your premise that the first millennium authorities you quote would have necessarily accepted the dogmas of Vatican 1, which was promulgated within a church that had clearly succumbed to heresy by accepting a non-canonical variation of the Nicaeano-Constantinopolitan creed in 11th century. Their arguments that 'the successors of St Peter' would always hold to pure orthodoxy had thereby obviously failed. If they had been confronted with the 11th century reversion of Rome under its German occupation, St Maximus, St Theodore, for example, would have been forced to reassess their thinking, as expressed above. Their logic about the position of the 'successors of St Peter' may therefore be rather contingent upon the record of Rome's faithful orthodoxy up until their time.
Except that’s putting the cart before the horse. According to these fathers, the reason why Rome is protected from error is because of Jesus’ promise to St. Peter. This is very explicit in St. Hormisdas’ formula, for example, where he says that the “effect” of Christ’s divine promise is the Roman Church never erring. So, if the See of Peter ever did err, that would just mean these fathers and ecumenical councils taught a false ecclesiology, at which point why trust whatever else they had to say?
You also fail to consider that, the very Roman Church that these fathers and councils declared to be supremely orthodox, unambiguously taught papal supremacy and infallibility. So by stating that Rome was orthodox in the first millennium, one is already saying that Vatican I is orthodox.
Moreover, if you really think the Filioque is heretical, and these fathers would’ve denounced Rome for teaching it as dogma, then you’re living in lala land. But that’s not the subject of this article.
Luke 22,31-32. Jesus prayed for Peter so that his faith may not fail and Peter had to strengthen his brothers in the faith. This is supposed to be true until the end of time. How can we explain what's happening now with the Holy See ? Since Vatican II which contains the germs of heresy, developped by John-Paul II and increased by Francis, although never proclaimed ex cathedra, heresy is teached by the pope and by bishops and priests. If it is really impossible for the papacy to teach error, does it mean we can say Maranatha and our prayer be answered soon ? The catechism of the catholic church 675 : before the second coming of the Lord, religious imposture and apostasy of the Truth will come, 677 : the Church must follow her Lord in his death. Some of the flock is very worried by these shepherds. Can some fathers or other saints can help to enlighten us about the topic ?
Sorry, I'm just seeing this comment now. Christ's prayer that St. Peter would strengthen his brothers isn't always fulfilled in the literal sense, since even Peter himself failed to do this during the Judaizing controversy (see Galatians 2). As this article intimates, the "logic" of papal infallibility is that the pope cannot do something that would sever his office from the Church, because that would destroy Christ's design of the Church. The consequence of this is that, if there's something the pope could do that *wouldn't* destroy the fabric of the Church, but would still be very bad, it's possible for him to do it. This is why Vatican I limits papal infallibility to "definitive decrees," since, by definition, a definitive decree cannot be dissented from without being an act of schism. If you were forced to choose between schism and heresy, God would be a liar since He's promised to never force us into morally impossible scenarios. However, if the pope issues a "non-definitive decree" then, by definition, it can potentially be dissented from (otherwise it would be definitive). And if it's possible to dissent from such a decree, then God is under no obligation to protect it from error, and so it could contain error, even pernicious error.
This is what the Sixth Ecumenical Council believed happened with Pope Honorius. He was condemned as a teacher of the Monothelite heresy in the exact same breath as St. Agatho's claims to papal infallibility were accepted, talk about theological tension! This same thing happened at the Council of Constantinople 869, wherein Hadrian II confirmed that his predecessor Honorius was a heretic, and that he was lawfully resisted by the Eastern bishops on account of this, and yet, he still affirms papal infallibility. Once again, this is why Vatican I is careful to limit papal infallibility to only the "ex cathedra" or "definitive" modality.
We are certainly living through a dark time in the Church right now, and although I may not agree with your perspective of Vatican II or St. John Paul II, I can tell you that even if your view of those things is correct, it wouldn't falsify the claims of Catholicism. At the end of the day, we have to be as vigilant as the disciples. When Jesus hung dead upon the Cross, His messianic claims would have been almost impossible to defend. All the disciples could do was stay close to our Lady, cling to the promises of the past, and hope for vindication in the future. "Faith is," after all, "the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). If we could *see* exactly how the Church is going to recover from her present distress, then it wouldn't be an act of faith. But faith isn't blind either. We have every reason to believe that the Catholic Church is the indefectible Bride of Christ, God Himself has assured us of both this and His own credibility, and so there's no reason to be anxious. We just have to sit back and practice faith, hope, and love.
For more on this specific topic of papal infallibility and its limits, I highly recommend reading Dr. John Joy's book, "Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility." I apologize if my comment isn't super coherent, I'm writing all of this while I'm very tired haha.
I'm unsure about your premise that the first millennium authorities you quote would have necessarily accepted the dogmas of Vatican 1, which was promulgated within a church that had clearly succumbed to heresy by accepting a non-canonical variation of the Nicaeano-Constantinopolitan creed in 11th century. Their arguments that 'the successors of St Peter' would always hold to pure orthodoxy had thereby obviously failed. If they had been confronted with the 11th century reversion of Rome under its German occupation, St Maximus, St Theodore, for example, would have been forced to reassess their thinking, as expressed above. Their logic about the position of the 'successors of St Peter' may therefore be rather contingent upon the record of Rome's faithful orthodoxy up until their time.
Except that’s putting the cart before the horse. According to these fathers, the reason why Rome is protected from error is because of Jesus’ promise to St. Peter. This is very explicit in St. Hormisdas’ formula, for example, where he says that the “effect” of Christ’s divine promise is the Roman Church never erring. So, if the See of Peter ever did err, that would just mean these fathers and ecumenical councils taught a false ecclesiology, at which point why trust whatever else they had to say?
You also fail to consider that, the very Roman Church that these fathers and councils declared to be supremely orthodox, unambiguously taught papal supremacy and infallibility. So by stating that Rome was orthodox in the first millennium, one is already saying that Vatican I is orthodox.
Moreover, if you really think the Filioque is heretical, and these fathers would’ve denounced Rome for teaching it as dogma, then you’re living in lala land. But that’s not the subject of this article.
Luke 22,31-32. Jesus prayed for Peter so that his faith may not fail and Peter had to strengthen his brothers in the faith. This is supposed to be true until the end of time. How can we explain what's happening now with the Holy See ? Since Vatican II which contains the germs of heresy, developped by John-Paul II and increased by Francis, although never proclaimed ex cathedra, heresy is teached by the pope and by bishops and priests. If it is really impossible for the papacy to teach error, does it mean we can say Maranatha and our prayer be answered soon ? The catechism of the catholic church 675 : before the second coming of the Lord, religious imposture and apostasy of the Truth will come, 677 : the Church must follow her Lord in his death. Some of the flock is very worried by these shepherds. Can some fathers or other saints can help to enlighten us about the topic ?
Sorry, I'm just seeing this comment now. Christ's prayer that St. Peter would strengthen his brothers isn't always fulfilled in the literal sense, since even Peter himself failed to do this during the Judaizing controversy (see Galatians 2). As this article intimates, the "logic" of papal infallibility is that the pope cannot do something that would sever his office from the Church, because that would destroy Christ's design of the Church. The consequence of this is that, if there's something the pope could do that *wouldn't* destroy the fabric of the Church, but would still be very bad, it's possible for him to do it. This is why Vatican I limits papal infallibility to "definitive decrees," since, by definition, a definitive decree cannot be dissented from without being an act of schism. If you were forced to choose between schism and heresy, God would be a liar since He's promised to never force us into morally impossible scenarios. However, if the pope issues a "non-definitive decree" then, by definition, it can potentially be dissented from (otherwise it would be definitive). And if it's possible to dissent from such a decree, then God is under no obligation to protect it from error, and so it could contain error, even pernicious error.
This is what the Sixth Ecumenical Council believed happened with Pope Honorius. He was condemned as a teacher of the Monothelite heresy in the exact same breath as St. Agatho's claims to papal infallibility were accepted, talk about theological tension! This same thing happened at the Council of Constantinople 869, wherein Hadrian II confirmed that his predecessor Honorius was a heretic, and that he was lawfully resisted by the Eastern bishops on account of this, and yet, he still affirms papal infallibility. Once again, this is why Vatican I is careful to limit papal infallibility to only the "ex cathedra" or "definitive" modality.
We are certainly living through a dark time in the Church right now, and although I may not agree with your perspective of Vatican II or St. John Paul II, I can tell you that even if your view of those things is correct, it wouldn't falsify the claims of Catholicism. At the end of the day, we have to be as vigilant as the disciples. When Jesus hung dead upon the Cross, His messianic claims would have been almost impossible to defend. All the disciples could do was stay close to our Lady, cling to the promises of the past, and hope for vindication in the future. "Faith is," after all, "the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). If we could *see* exactly how the Church is going to recover from her present distress, then it wouldn't be an act of faith. But faith isn't blind either. We have every reason to believe that the Catholic Church is the indefectible Bride of Christ, God Himself has assured us of both this and His own credibility, and so there's no reason to be anxious. We just have to sit back and practice faith, hope, and love.
For more on this specific topic of papal infallibility and its limits, I highly recommend reading Dr. John Joy's book, "Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility." I apologize if my comment isn't super coherent, I'm writing all of this while I'm very tired haha.