A compelling non-Catholic argument

[jmcrae]

What about individual leaders i.e. bishops and priests who may have erred in their writings?

If they were not teaching what the Church teaches, then it has nothing to do with the Church, other than the fact that they have to be corrected and disciplined so that they won’t teach their personal opinions as if it were Church teaching.

Why limit ourselves just to moral or doctrinal statements?

Because these are the only two things that are protected from error. Everything else is up for grabs.

The early church did not teach the marian doctrines. Those came about much later.

Show your evidence for this. For example, if the statement “Mary is the New Eve” is not a Marian doctrine that leads logically to ideas about the Immaculate Conception, etc., then please explain what the Early Fathers were talking about when they used this phrase.

Your church erred in the inquisitions, condemning Joan of Arc and Pope Honarius who was condemned as a heretic.

These are sins; not doctrinal errors. No one in the Catholic Church is protected from sinning.

 

[xmormon]

Hi all,

I’ve been exchanging emails and conversations with a nondenominational pastor who leads a “house church” in his garage. I really enjoy talking with him because he doesn’t make the typical touchy-feely arguments of fundamentalists, but rather, addresses things in a logical, rational, and ultimately reasonable manner.

Have you ask your pastor ‘friend’ who wrote the first Bible? Where was the First Bible written? Who decided what would be put into and left out of the Bible. The Bible is his authority well who were the earthly authors. Who has the right to interpret it? Certainly it couldn’t be all people, if so there would be as many correct interpretations as there are people and God would be mighty confusing. The Bible itself says “knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men, but holy men spake as they were moved upon by the holy spirit.” (2 Peter) Why did the Roman Catholic church make the Bible? Because they were already the authors from the apostles on down? Why did they have the correct early writings? Because God wanted them to have it? Why did the book survive even though there was so much persecution and many attempts to destroy it? Because God wanted it to? Bottom line The Roman Catholic Church is Christ’s original church protestants (which is what your pastor ‘friend’ is) look at The Book Tom Sawyer and say even though the author Mark Twain said canoe’s were made to go down the river, my interpretation 1600 years later is canoe’s are made to go through the trees. Interpretation who has the right? The ones who wrote the Book period.

 

[Orionthehunter]

What about individual leaders i.e. bishops and priests who may have erred in their writings?

Why limit ourselves just to moral or doctrinal statements? The early church did not teach the marian doctrines. Those came about much later.

Your church erred in the inquisitions, condemning Joan of Arc and Pope Honarius who was condemned as a heretic.

Bishops Priests, and other Catholics are not protected from the charism of infallibility. In fact the Pope is not even protected by his charism when he speaks or writes outside of the Chair of Peter or not “ex cathedra”.

Furthermore, nobody is protected with grace to be impeccible.

You seem to keep missing this point.

While this is not a Marian thread so I want to stay away from arguing when Marian doctrines began. But I do want to say that the Church teaches that God is revealing Himself to us all the time and w/o pause. Because of this, the Church on occassion has to clarify this developing revelation such that there is not confusion. One good example was when the Church declared the doctrine of the Trinity to make sure people understood that Jesus and the Holy Spirit was God and condemn the heresy of Arianism. I believe this was at Nicea in 325.

 

[guanophore]

What about individual leaders i.e. bishops and priests who may have erred in their writings?

Jesus did not promise that individuals would be preserved from error. He has not taken away the free will of people. People can choose to sin. Individuals can be protected from error only to the extent they embrace the teachigs of the Church, to whom the promise was made.

Why limit ourselves just to moral or doctrinal statements?

That is the limit of Jesus’ promise to the Church. It is wrong to presume too much, such that individuals are “once saved, always saved” for example.

The early church did not teach the marian doctrines. Those came about much later.

Yes, the early Church did teach them. That is where our doctrines came from. That is why they are found in Scripture. If these beliefs did not belong to the Church, they would not be found in Scripture, because Scripture is the record of what the early church believed.

Your church erred in the inquisitions, condemning Joan of Arc and Pope Honarius who was condemned as a heretic.

I don’t believe that you can show that any of these things were part of the Church Teaching, but I am open to hearing it.

Do you think the Church was wrong about Joan of Arc? Do you realize that Joan of Arc believed that some of her “voices” came from Saints that are in heaven? I thought you didn’t believe in the communion of saints? Don’t you agree that she was listening to demons?

 

[protestantman]

Since the aspect of history came up, I have done some research.
Below I will show some of my findings. All of these documents are Historically relevant. They are concerning the issue of Papal Infallibility. Read them carefully, as they make it clear that based on the History of the Catholic Church, the idea of Papal Infallability is not even accepted by the majority of Popes. Especially none before Vatican 1.

It may jolt Catholics to hear it, but "the great Fathers of the Church saw no connection between the verse which Jesus addressed to Peter and the Bishops of Rome. Not one of them applies “Thou art Peter” to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They’re not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the keys. . .
The surprises do not stop there. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith – or the Lord in whom Peter has faith – which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the Church from Nicea in the fourth century to Constance in the 15th agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, a rock on which the church rests.
Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as church documents do today, of an “inheritance”. There’s no hint of an abiding Petrine office. Insofar as the Fathers speak of an office, the reference is to the episcopate it in general. All bishops are successors to all the apostles.
What, then, becomes of the promises said to be made via Peter to his “successors”, the Pope’s? Do not popes inherit infallibility and worldwide jurisdiction from Peter?
The first problem about infallibility is that the new Testament makes it plain that Peter himself made tremendous errors both before and after Jesus died. When, for instance, Jesus insisted that he had to go up to Jerusalem where he would be crucified, Peter protested so much that Jesus called him a “satan” in his path. Some Catholic theologians have suggested that these words, “Get thee behind me Satan”, should be added to the Petrine text already inscribed around Michelangelo’s dome (i.e.“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevailed against it.”)
Link to rest of long document.

 

[xmormon]

Your church erred in the inquisitions, condemning Joan of Arc and Pope Honarius who was condemned as a heretic.

Do you know about the inquisitions out side of Hollywood history. Hollywood has a tendency to tell Catholic history the exact opposite of the way it occurred. For starters consider the first crusades have you ever heard that two-thirds of Christian lands had allready been conquered and The Pope called out the crusaders as a last ditch effort. It would take days to tell the actual historical truth about why these things happened and how necessary they were in the violent world of that time. True some used these powers corruptly but the original intent from the church was to save lives and preserve Christianity. For in depth true history go to www.Catholic.com and search Inquisition and Crusades. If you are honest you will be surprised…

 

[protestantman]

. . . In spite of this, in the first three centuries, only one of the Fathers, Irenaeus, connects Rome’s primacy with doctrine. Not even he relates this personnally to the Bishop of Rome.

    In all the Greek Fathers (of the Church) there is not one word about the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, no suggestion he had jurisdiction over them.  No one, Greek or Latin, appeals to the Bishop of Rome as final and univeral arbiter in any single dispute about the faith.  As a point of fact, no bishop of Rome dared decide on his own a matter of faith for the church.
  When the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility, it claimed it was the ancient and constant faith of the Church.  In fact, the first statement on personal infallibility came from Pope Leo the Great in 457: 'By the power of the Holy Spirit he needs no human instruction and is incapable of doctrinal error.' It is clear and precise.  But there's a snag. Leo was referring not to himself but to the new Roman Emperor.
    In Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350, Brian Tierney showed that the doctrine of papal infallibility was invented by enemies of the papacy between 1280 and 1320 in an attempt to limit the power of the reigning pontiff.  The more rebellious they became, the more they exaggerated the infallibility of past popes. 
    No pontiff ever claimed that he personally could propound dogmas, that is, irreformable doctrines to be held by all Catholics.  Popes were chiefly interested in their supremacy. Integral to this was ultimate authority in doctrine and discipline.
    Why didn't they want infallibility as well?  Partly because history showed beyond question that many popes had been heretics and apostates.  There was also a more important political reason: it would limit their personal power.  How?  If they were infallible, so were their predecessors.  If a predecessor had spoken infallibly they would be bound by what he said.  Popes held that only Christ could not err.  This meant that they were only bound by scripture and definitions of Councils which interpreted scripture. 
    Incidentally, to suggest that the pope was above General Councils makes nonsense of the whole history of the early and medieval Church.  The pope had no choice but to accept the doctrinal decisions of the early Councils, especially the first four, for a Council is greater than a pope.  Popes could err; Councils could not. 
    When Pope John XXII (1316-34) heard that some upstart Franciscans had proposed papal infallibility, he was furious.  They were accusing him of being a heretic for denying his own infallibility when no pope had ever claimed it.  What John XXII's foes were implying was he had contradicted his infallible predecessors, therefore, he should be removed from office and handed over to his own Inquisition to be burnt.
    In his Bull, Quia quorundam of 1324, John XXII quoted those who said, 'What the Roman Pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it.' This was a lie, he said, and inspired by the 'Father of lies'.  He was not infallible.  He, the Pope, retained the right, in principle, to be a heretic, like anyone else, but he didn't intend to exercise this right by espousing the new heresy of papal infallibility.
    The first pope to hear of papal infallibility called it insane, the teaching of the devil. 
    Like all medieval popes, John XXII saw that papal infallibility would make him not the equal of his predecessors but their inferior, for he would only be able to teach some things with their consent.  This violated a basic legal principle that an equal cannot bind an equal.  Papal absolutism demanded that a pope be answerable to God and no one else. Far from his predecessors being necessarily free from error, every pope had a duty to say that popes had erred but their heresies had been corrected by Councils and popes after them.

 

[protestantman]

In 1931, Pope Pius XI, Cardinal of the Society of Jesus, Robert Bellarmine, a Saint and a “Doctor of the Universal Church”, saying about him :

    "God in his great providence has from the beginnings of Christ's Church even up to more recent times continually raised up men distinguished by learning and holiness to defend and illuminate the truths of the Catholic faith and opportunely to repair the damage inflicted by heretics on those same Christian truths. Among these men *, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Church, of the Society of Jesus, is without the slightest doubt to be counted. Even from the days of his most holy death he was called “an outstanding man, a distinguished theologian, an ardent defender of the faith, the hammer of heretics” and he was also declared to be “as pious, prudent and humble, as he was generous to the poor”.

    Among the gems this "Doctor of the Universal Church" taught are the following:

whatever the pope commands, however evil or ridiculous, has to be obeyed, as if it is virtue itself. Whatever the pope does, even when he deposes an emperor ( or Prime Minister or President ?) on the most frivolous pretext, has to be accepted by Catholics who henceforward have to obey the pope and not the emperor."

Pages 217 through 219 of the book, Vicars of Christ, shows how Cardinal Bellarmine explained how he advised Pope Sixtus’ successor to publish blattant lies when a new version of the Bible which Sixtus had personally translated, to correct the many serious mistakes he had made in it. In order to preserve the undeserved “honor of Pope Sixtus”, he gave this sage and holy advice, which the pope followed. "This result could be achieved by removing inadvisable changes (i.e. errors made by the pope) as quickly as possible, and then issuing the volume with Sixtus’ name upon it, and a preface stating that owing to haste some errors had crept into the first edition through the fault of printers and other persons (rather than their true author, Pope Sixtus).
In 1964 Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control which met from 1964 to 1966. It was a two-part commission. One consisted of 64 lay persons, the other 15 clerics, including Pope John Paul II, then a Polish Cardinal. Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission, to determine on how the Church can change its position on birth control without undermining Papal Authority. After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining Papal Authority, but that the Church should make this change anyway because it was the right thing to do. The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics 9 to 6 for change. We know this because one or more of the Commission members released the details without permission to an Italian newspaper and a French newspaper.
Pope Paul did not act immediately on the Commission’s report. A minority report was prepared, co-authored by the man who is now Pope John Paul II, which observed:
"If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches

in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated),
in 1951 (Pius XII’s address to the midwives, and
in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died).
It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error."
(continuing “This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.”
(Translation: “If anybody thinks that we are going to admit being dead wrong for so long, they are crazy!”)*

 

[protestantman]

Even the limited definition of papal infallibility to ex-cathedra [a] pronouncements on faith and morals can be shown to be inconsistent with the historical evidence. Let us look at a few examples.

Pope Liberius and the Arian Controversy
Our first example is Pope Liberius (who was pope from 352 to 366). Elected pope during the height of the Arian controversy, he was sent into exile by Emperor Constantius II (337-361) for refusing to condemn Athanasius. While in exile his morale collapsed. He then condemned Athanasius and accepted an alternative creed to the Nicene Creed. This alternative creed rejected the Nicene formula for the Son being “one in being with the Father” and suggested that the Son is lower than the Father. This is clearly a non-orthodox formula. It was only after the declaration that Liberius was allowed to return to Rome. After the death of Constantius II in 361, Liberius reverted back to Nicene orthodoxy. However the point has been made. Here is one pope whio made a pronouncement of faith which is today looked upon as heretical.[5]

Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters Controversy
Next on our list is Pope Vigilius (in office, 537-555). We will have more to say about his character later. Our interest here is in his position with respect to the “Three Chapters Controversy”. The Emperor Justinian (483-565), in his effort to win over the monophysites, condemned as heretical the “Three Chapters”: which stands for the Christological speculations and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d.428), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. c458) and Ibas of Edessa (d.457). The three chapters wrote on the “two natures” of Jesus: a concept not condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon (451). As emperor, he ordered all the bishops throughout Christendom to endorse his condemnation.
Vigilius, at first, refused to give his approval to Justinian’s edict. He was forcibly brought to Constantinople, and, seeing the emperor’s determination on the matter, agreed to condemn the Three Chapters. This met with disfavor by the western church. A synod of African Bishops excommunicate him for his condemnation. In an effort to placate the western church, Vigilius withdrew his condemnation. This, again, met with imperial disfavor. The pope was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Seeing that recalcitrant bishops were either jailed, deposed or exiled by the emperor, Vigilius decided to safe his own hide. He informed the emperor that he had been misled by the devil to withdraw his condemnation of the Three Chapters! In other words he said, the devil made him do it; sounds familiar? He was then allowed by the emperor to return to Rome to resume office. The Three Chapters Controversy was one of the historical evidence brought forward by some bishops in the First Vatican Council to oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility. .[6]

Pope Honorius and Monothelitism
The case of Pope Honorius I who was pope from the year 625 to 638 is enough to prove this point. Honorius I agreed with the bishop of Constantinople that Jesus had only one will. This doctrine, called monothelitism was later declared heretical by the Council of Constantinople in the year 681. Here then, is a case where a pope made a pronouncement on a matter of faith (concerning the nature of Jesus) which was subsequently condemned as heretical. In fact the newly appointed pope, Leo II (pope from 682 to 683), publicly condemned Honorius II for undermining the faith of the Church. [7]
The Catholic Church today is still as dogmatic as ever in holding on to this doctrine. In 1970 the Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Kung (b.1928), generally regarded as one of the most brilliant Catholic thinkers of the modern era, published a book entitled Infallible?. In the book, Kung argued that the doctrine of papal infallibility was disproved by both biblical and historical evidence. It was a book that did not win him any friends in the Vatican. And when he summoned to Rome for a formal interrogation of his views, Kung, perhaps wisely, refused to go.

On December 18th 1979, Pope John Paul II announced that Kung is no longer qualified to teach Roman Catholic doctrine. Kung was sacked as the head of the Department of Theology at the University of Tubingen. He was told that he was no longer a Catholic theologian and was forbidden to write and publish again. [8]

 

[protestantman]

I hope that this sufficiently satifies the historical requirements for this belief. The Idea of Papal infallibitity is neither Biblicaly nor Historically supported. The clearest evidence is that anyone who has stood against this, has either been excommunicated, killed, or Convinced to recant. The Roman Catholic Churches History is probably not brought up anymore, as it would contradict what they teach now.

 

[xmormon]

I hope that this sufficiently satifies the historical requirements for this belief. The Idea of Papal infallibitity is neither Biblicaly nor Historically supported. T

Hold on there maybe you haven’t studied quite enough yet. The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

The rejection of papal infallibility by “Bible Christians” stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation. (quoted from Catholic Answers) @ www.Catholic.com go there and visit for much, much more real historical evidence.

 

[sodak]

I hope that this sufficiently satifies the historical requirements for this belief.

No, it doesn’t. Nor does it “jolt” us. Our Church has been slandered and lied about many times.

You are cherry picking, and then trying to draw conclusions. Please publish your sources. Where did you cut and paste this from?

 

[guanophore]

It may jolt Catholics to hear it, but "the great Fathers of the Church saw no connection between the verse which Jesus addressed to Peter and the Bishops of Rome.

Actually, what I find jolting is how many people are misled by calumny!

Not one of them applies “Thou art Peter” to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They’re not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the keys. . .

The claims of the successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome down through the centuries are so explicit and numerous that it would be superfluous to give more testimonies. In addition to this list of the successors of St. Peter who exercised the Primacy of Jurisdiction over the universal Church, the testimony of the early Fathers of the Church and of the ecumenical Councils also confirms this point as well. Again we have recourse to the testimony of history.

St. Ignatius the Martyr (died 110), writing to the Romans, said that the Church of Rome is the head of the other churches.

St. Irenaeus said that it would be a lengthy matter to enumerate the successors of all the churches; but that by showing the traditional teaching of the Church of Rome, we refute the heretics, for it is necessary that every church agree with the Church of Rome because of its higher authority.

CYPRIAN:

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

 

[CentralFLJames]

Since the aspect of history came up, I have done some research.
Below I will show some of my findings…

I have a request protestantman. If you are going to spam us with cut and paste from an ultra anti-catholic site that mocks the Catholic Church at least give your references. I don’t think you should be wanting to plagiarize this spew of hate and take credit for somone else’s works. I found this exact material at this anti-catholic site:
liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/papalinfallibility.html



James

 

[guanophore]

    The surprises do not stop there.  For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith -- or the Lord in whom Peter has faith -- which is called the Rock, not Peter.  All the Councils of the Church from Nicea in the fourth century to Constance in the 15th agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, a rock on which the church rests.

I am surprised that you would be taken in by this drivel, protestantman. Perhaps if you are able to follow the rules here, and you stick around long enough, you will learn the truth of your own family history.

When Peter made his confession of faith,Jesus grafted Peter into His own Rockiness. That is why the NT says that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone. It is an error to try to separate Peter from Christ as the Rock, or to separate Peter from the rest of the Apostles.

     Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as church documents do today, of an "inheritance".  There's no hint of an abiding Petrine office.  Insofar as the Fathers speak of an office, the reference is to the episcopate it in general.

Your anti-Catholic Source is mistaken, protestantman.

When we investigate the early centuries of the Christian era, we find how St. Peter’s successors in Rome exercised the power of “the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” “to bind and to loose.”

Pope St. Clement, writing to the Corinthians in 96 A.D., while St. John the Apostle and Evangelists was still alive, warned certain disturbers among the Corinthians not to disobey what Christ had commanded them through him, thus claiming clearly the authority of the Vicar of Christ, the right to command the whole Church as the successor of St. Peter.

In the second century, Pope St. Victor I (189-198) commanded the bishops of Asia to celebrate Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome, and he threatened them with excommunication if they refused obedience.

In the third century, Pope St. Callistus (217-222) declared against the Montanists that by virtue of the Primacy which he held as successor of St. Peter, he had the power to forgive even the greatest sins.

Pope St. Stephen I (254-257) commanded the Asiatic and African Churches under pain of excommunication not to re-baptize heretics.

In the fourth century, Pope St. Julius I (337-352) taught that difficulties arising among the Bishops were to be decided by himself as the Supreme Judge.

Pope Siricius (384-399) taught that the Universal Church had been committed to his care as to the one who had inherited the Primacy from St. Peter.

The claims of the successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome down through the centuries are so explicit and numerous that it would be superfluous to give more testimonies. In addition to this list of the successors of St. Peter who exercised the Primacy of Jurisdiction over the universal Church, the testimony of the early Fathers of the Church and of the ecumenical Councils also confirms this point as well. Again we have recourse to the testimony of history.

St. Ignatius the Martyr (died 110), writing to the Romans, said that the Church of Rome is the head of the other churches.

St. Irenaeus said that it would be a lengthy matter to enumerate the successors of all the churches; but that by showing the traditional teaching of the Church of Rome, we refute the heretics, for it is necessary that every church agree with the Church of Rome because of its higher authority.

St. Cyprian called the Church of Rome the “principal Church and the source of unity.”

At the Council of Ephesus in the year 431, Philip, the Legate of the Pope, made the following statement to which the Fathers of the Council unanimously agreed: “No one doubts, indeed it was known to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation stone of the Church, received from Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, the Keys of the Kingdom, and to him was given the power of binding and loosing. He [Peter] lives and exercises judgment even to this day and forever in his successors… His successor and representative in that office, Pope Celestine, has sent us to this synod.”

The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (451), writing to Pope St. Leo, stated that in the Council he presided through his legate as the head over the members; they speak to him as sons to their father; as to the successor of Peter and the interpreter of the Faith; as to the one to whom the care of the whole Church has been entrusted; and they beg him to honor and affirm their decrees by his decision.

The Third Council of Constantinople (680) addressed the Pope as The Archbishop of the Universal Church.

The Second Council of Nice (787) addressed the Pope as the one whose See is preeminent because it possesses the Primacy of the whole world.

 

[CentralFLJames]

All the Councils of the Church from Nicea in the fourth century to Constance in the 15th agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, a rock on which the church rests. Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as church documents do today, of an "inheritance". There's no hint of an abiding Petrine office. Insofar as the Fathers speak of an office, the reference is to the episcopate it in general. All bishops are successors to all the apostles.

I am not sure I should be addressing my comments to you or to the original anti-catholic author you copied and pasted from (Peter De Rosa). Should I assume you are not he and you have his permission? Or did you arrive at the material by way of Google to miss the prominent copyright notices posted all over the main page on the liberalslikechrist.org web page who hosted the material?

Anyway, don’t you find it a tad bit contradictory that the author makes anti-papal assertions while using the pedigree of the Catholic Councils that had been convened by papal authority and papal succession had been ongoing up through the period referenced for 1,400 years? Who does the author think authorized the councils and signed off on the official decrees?

Its pretty amusing that the original author would try to beat us senseless with a papal mitre (and other evidence of papal authority) while trying to make the case that the great Fathers of the Church saw no connection in scripture to any notion of a pope…

Dismissed. Next case please…
James

 

[Orionthehunter]

Since the aspect of history came up, I have done some research.
Below I will show some of my findings. All of these documents are Historically relevant. They are concerning the issue of Papal Infallibility. Read them carefully, as they make it clear that based on the History of the Catholic Church, the idea of Papal Infallability is not even accepted by the majority of Popes. Especially none before Vatican 1.]

Protestantman, “David” wrote the synapsis from a book by Peter de Rosa. Do you also think we should read the other book by Mr. de Rosa?
The Fatal Flaw of Christianity: He Did Not Rise From the Dead and the Dogma of Original Sin Is Pure Invention

amazon.com/Fatal-Flaw-Christianity-Original-Invention/dp/B000LUFPJK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205155200&sr=1-3

Did you go look at some of the other stuff “David” has at “catholicarrogance.org”/liberalslikechrist.org? I will give the guy credit, he has worked really hard to create a great deal of lies. His hatred of the Church is pervasive. Such hate is not of Christ.

Protestantman, one should not bear false witness against your neighbor. This is in Scripture. Do I need to quote it for you or are you familiar with it?

I don’t think it puts to rest anything accept in the future, you should probably vette your sources a little better if you want any credibility around here.

 

[Church_Militant]

Protestantman, “David” wrote the synapsis from a book by Peter de Rosa. Do you also think we should read the other book by Mr. de Rosa?
The Fatal Flaw of Christianity: He Did Not Rise From the Dead and the Dogma of Original Sin Is Pure Invention

amazon.com/Fatal-Flaw-Christianity-Original-Invention/dp/B000LUFPJK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205155200&sr=1-3

Did you go look at some of the other stuff “David” has at “catholicarrogance.org”/liberalslikechrist.org? I will give the guy credit, he has worked really hard to create a great deal of lies. His hatred of the Church is pervasive. Such hate is not of Christ.

Protestantman, one should not bear false witness against your neighbor. This is in Scripture. Do I need to quote it for you or are you familiar with it?

I don’t think it puts to rest anything accept in the future, you should probably vette your sources a little better if you want any credibility around here.

[SIGN]Well said![/SIGN]
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[pneuma07]

.

For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith – or the Lord in whom Peter has faith – which is called the Rock, not Peter. L]

Dear Protestantman,

 I do hope  you are going to have time to address posts 357 and 438 above now.  :)

It is not difficult to show that;

• The bolded part of the quoted statement,
  concerning the unspecified class “the Fathers”, is false.
• The rest of the statement is misleading.

Blessings.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I hope that this sufficiently satifies the historical requirements for this belief. The Idea of Papal infallibitity is neither Biblicaly nor Historically supported. The clearest evidence is that anyone who has stood against this, has either been excommunicated, killed, or Convinced to recant. The Roman Catholic Churches History is probably not brought up anymore, as it would contradict what they teach now.

I will assume that you no longer stand by this statement. Please correct me if you still rely upon the writings of “David” and Peter de Rosa.

Here is some other history (or as I like to say His Story) that is indisputable.

1. The Mass and Real Presence was the first act of the Apostles in collective worship and communion even before Pentecost. It predates universal access and use of full Scripture. And Catholics continue that same collective worship and communion (Mass) today. Since the Scripture writings had yet been put to pen, they told the Stories of Jesus life, ministry and teachings orally. (Hmmm, Oral Tradition also predates Written Scripture but that is another issue)
2. What was to become the Bible began as readings at the Mass.
3. As travel between the different communities expanded, they exchanged their various texts (Corinthians to Galatians etc.). Some believe that all communities didn’t have full access to all of Scripture until the late 200’s or early 300’s while others think it occurred a century earlier. My research leads me to believe that it substantially occurred earlier w/ some remote communities maybe getting full access later.
4. When the Bible was canonized in the late 300’s, the general test the Church used was to select those Gospels and Letters which had been universally accepted over time.
5. The principle people associated with personally impacting the selection of the Canon was Justin Martyr (end of First Century), Origen (early 200’s), Athanasus (late 300’s), and Augustine (late 300’s). All of these people were strong advocates for Papal Authority.

The reason I list people across time until official Canonization by the Church is that non-inspired scripture kept leaking into use by errant communities (similar to the errant interpretations that has been exponentially occurring in the last 100 years?) and the Church in its authority needed to stamp it out. Finally, to stamp out these errant texts permanently, the Church did it formally with its full Authority that rested in Pope. I hope that you appreciate that such “stamping out” of errancy was formally done by the Church or who knows what “your Bible” might look like today. It is ironic that you put so much faith in the fruit of Authority you so doggedly deny.

In summary, the Mass and the Eucharist predates the use of the entire New Testament, the proclamation of Scripture (Liturgy of the Word) was the precurser to the receipt of the Eucharist (Liturgy of the Eucharist) in the Mass, and that the same Authority that canonized the Bible did so in the context of the Mass and the Eucharist.

In other words, Scripture flowed from the Mass and Eucharist and the denial of the source of Scripture is a denial of the ultimate Author as He used the mystical Body of Christ in the Mass to give you your Bible.