Turretinfan’s Error
Turretinfan is an apologist that works under the anticatholic James White of Alpha Omega Ministries. I believe turretinfan to be a more reasonable person that White, I've met TF him a few times in paltalk. A few months ago, on the AlphaOmega site he was trying to refute an argument about the Papacy. One of Turretinfan's claims is wrong.
Turretinfan first makes a statement where Rufinius is mentioned in his Canon of Nicae, however Rufinius was excommunicated before he wrote his work, and he corrupted the text, was ignorant of Greek and generally disliked. See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
Canon 6 of Nicae is stating it is customary for the Pope to recognize Alexandria’s Patriarchial jurisdiction including Pentapolis and Libya.
His second point is:
"A second weakness is that even if there is evidence of an eventual widespread jurisdiction of the papacy in the West, there is not corresponding evidence that the papacy had "the final word in matters of faith." In fact, as late as 1418, the "ecumenical" Council of Constance stated that: “legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.” According to the Council of Constance, ecumenical councils, not the pope, had the final say in matters of faith." source
The error is that the Catholic Church never recognized the session he quotes here, since it was convoked by the antipope John XXIII. The Sessions that are valid, are Sessions 14 onward. This section Turretinfan quotes if from Session 4—30 March 1415.
The weakness in Turretinfan's argument is that the section quoted is not <I>really</I> the Council of Constance. On my page on Constance I distinguish between the valid and invalid sessions. The valid sessions are at the top of the page, in black with a blue background, to see the invalid sessions scroll down to the italicized blue font.
Turretinfan goes on (still referencing the illegitimate portion of Constance):
A third
weakness is that even if there were evidence both of teachings of universal
disciplinary jurisdiction (which there is not) and universal "final
say" in matters of faith (which there is not), it would not follow that
the early church fathers viewed the bishop of Rome as infallible in himself.
In other words, one could still reject the portion of Vatican I's definition:
"such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by
the consent of the church, irreformable." In
a hypothetical world in which the bishop of Rome has "veto" authority
over even ecumenical councils (contrary to what the Council of Constance said),
the bishop of Rome would still not be infallible in himself, but only by the
consent (as expressed by the council) of the church. He could prevent a
definition from being made, but he could not make one
himself, much as the American President can veto laws, but he cannot legislate.
Notice he says
“which there is not”, however these are inaccurate too:
"Bishop Gaudentius
said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of
sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by
the sentence of these neighboring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter
in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render
a decision as to this."—Council of Sardica,
Canon IV (A.D. 343/344),in NPNF2,XIV:418
"None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgment of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn."—Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus and bishops of Macedonia, in GILES, 231
Notice the last is addressed to a bishop in the EAST. To see more of the so called non existent evidence for papal primacy go here
I noticed Turretinfan uses William Webster’s work, here is one website that has a response to some of Webster’s claims http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_chry.htm
I doubt Turretinfan really investigated the matter of Papal Primacy much, but rather I think he simply read mostly arguments against it.