I came across the Protestant who claims, since Popes are only infallible when speaking from the chair of Peter, and since no chair carpented before the late 9th C. exists, this means that Popes are not infallible.
No joke, here is the article:
Sitting in the Chair of Peter
Beggars All : Reformation and Apologetics | FRIDAY, JULY 09, 2010
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/sitting-in-chair-of-peter.html
Here is a quote from Keating involving Boettner:
Then comes the blooper. Boettner says, "Infallibility is not claimed for every statement made by the pope [true enough], but only for those made when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, seated in his papal chair, the chair of St. Peter, and speaking in his official capacity as head of the church." At the end of the sentence is an asterisk, which takes the reader to this footnote: "A scientific commission appointed by pope Paul VI in July, 1968, to investigate the antiquity of the 'Chair of St. Peter' . . . reported in early 1969 that the chair dates from the late ninth century . . . ." The point is that Peter's real chair does not exist, so a Pope cannot sit in it. Since, by official decree of Vatican I, he is infallible only when sitting in Peter's chair, he cannot issue infallible definitions at all. The Catholic Church is refuted by its own archaeology!
Boettner entirely misconstrues the meaning of ex cathedra. ...
So Boettner considered and Keating dismissed the idea that the material chair in which St. Peter himself sat is a requirement.
Now, John Bugay (on that blog) pretended to defend Boettner by quoting* Optatus of Mileve ...
We must note who first established a see and where. If you do not know, admit it. If you do know, feel your shame. I cannot charge you with ignorance, for you plainly know. It is a sin to err knowingly, although an ignorant person may be blind to his error. But you cannot deny that you know that the episcopal seat ["cathedra"] was established first in the city of Rome by Peter and that in it sat Peter, the head of all the apostles, wherefore he is called Cephas. So in this one seat unity is maintained by everyone, that the other apostles might not claim separate seats, each for himself. Accordingly, he who erects another seat in opposition to that one is a schismatic and a sinner. Therefore, Peter was the first to sit in that one seat, which is the first gift of the Church. To him succeeded Linus. Clement followed Linus. Then Anacletus Clement ... [he gives the list of popes down to his own time]. After Damasus, Siricius, who is our contemporary, with whom our whole world is in accord by interchange of letters in one bond of communion. Do you, if you would claim for yourselves a holy church, explain the origin of your seat. (Cited in Shotwell and Loomis, "The See of Peter," pgs 111-112, writing to the Donatists.)
So, my dear John Bugay, are you saying Caiaphas had no infallibility when officiating in the Temple, because it was not the one which materially was built in the time of King Solomon? St. John seems to have disagreed with you then:
John 11:51
And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.
It would seem that infallibility worked even if the temple was restored materially in other stones later on, than those used by Solomon or even by Ezra.
A chair or cathedra has a double meaning. Part of it is the material object, part of it is the authority it symbolises, tied to a specific succession of authority bearers. If the material object is replaced by another material object, the chair in this more important sense remains the same.
If St. Edward's chair was not woodworked on the orders of St. Edward of Wessex, but on the orders of Edward I of England, does this mean that any monarch crowned in it is ipso facto not the monarch of England? Hardly.
Or if I stand on a soap box in Hyde Park one day, and continue to stand there week after week, am I no longer speaking from my soap box if one day that soap box breaks and I use another one? Hardly.
But for some reason, when it comes to the Vicar of Christ, when it comes to an office that's supposed to be tied to Christ's promise about perpetual assistance to His Church, all of a sudden a phrase involving a reference to a material object is supposed to become meaningless, if the material object is replaced!
Such people seriously think the New Covenant weaker than the Old one was. Despite Matthew 28 being a permanent covenant, up to Doomsday, and Deuteronomy 28 being a conditional one, involving the promise of a permanent one. Yes, Caiaphas was able to validly sacrifice for the sins of the people up to when Jesus had made His eternal sacrifice, in the Last Supper and on Calvary. Even if "the temple" had twice needed rebuilding or similar building projects, under Ezra and under Herod.
The solution is, if I stand on "my soap box" in Hyde Park, it seriously doesn't matter if it's the same soap box I began standing on, and if I share it with a younger apprentice who takes it over after me, it also doesn't matter if he replaces it, he would still be standing on my soap box, if I had had the talent and will to form a school of speakers in Hyde Park. The episcopal chair functions as such, even if the material chair is replaced by a newer artifact. I hope you believe the Gospel of St. Matthew functions as Gospel of St. Matthew, even if you are not holding His autograph! (I hope, I'm not quite reassured ...)
Hans Georg Lundahl
Pompidolian Library, Paris
St. Thomas Aquinas
7.III.2024
* Omitting the bolds and italics.
