E
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
No. As I have told Anthony many times (but he conveniently ignores), the quotes that he pastes are not pointing to the doctrine of supremacy/ infallibility as was defined by the post schism Latin Church.
Was St Peter a great and Holy Apostle?
Yes.
Was there a great deal of respect for the bishop of Rome (the capital of Christianity)?
Yes.
Remember, Rome used to be Orthodox.
The error that Anthony, (and many others), always make—is to retroactively read the 1870 dogma into the patristic quotes.
If the Early Fathers were alive today, they would be apalled that Anthony is using their quotes to justify an alien doctrine that was never known to the undivided Church.
E
East_and_West
Guest
I think my dear brother Mickey, who I greatly admire, has just demonstrated what I am talking about.
M
Mickey
Guest
**St Cyprian of **Carthage
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.
St Augustine
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
St Augustine
Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (*Sermon *229).
St Hilary of Poitiers
A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles…whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar–Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?..And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built…that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven…The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth…Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20.
Joseph Ratzinger
Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
M
Mickey
Guest
I said nothing of forgeries!
E
East_and_West
Guest
My post does not only refer to forgeries:I said nothing of forgeries!
“OH, our EO brothers and sisters jump through hoops to explain this away. One thing they like to do is claim that the quotes of the Fathers that support the Papacy were forged. Then they say, “Well these quotes really only mean a Primacy of honor.” Then you ask them what that means and you find out that a “Primacy of Honor” is really a primacy of nothing.”
When I quoted you, I was talking about jumping through hoops to explain the Papacy away even though it is defended by the Fathers. I completely understand why you do it. You have zeal for your faith and I do admire your zeal.
Many Blessings Brother
M
Mickey
Guest
I admire your faith and zeal also and I understand why you must jump through hoops to support the innovations.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_8_8.gif
Peace and blessings brother
A
anthony022071
Guest
No. As I have told Anthony many times (but he conveniently ignores), the quotes that he pastes are not pointing to the doctrine of supremacy/ infallibility as was defined by the post schism Latin Church.
The quotes show that the belief in papal infallibility was not unknown,despite what the claim the Orthodox claim. I’ve posted quotes showing papal supremacy over the other churches many times before. Do you want to see them yet again? Of course they don’t show fully worked out Roman doctrines.
Was St Peter a great and Holy Apostle?
Yes.
The greatest of the apostles,in fact. The Head.
Was there a great deal of respect for the bishop of Rome (the capital of Christianity)?
Yes.
The Eastern churches who had the orthodox faith also had a great deal of deference and obedience toward the bishop of Rome as well.
Remember, Rome used to be Orthodox.
With a small “o”. The faith was called orthodox,but the Church was called Catholic. Rome was considered the very fount of orthodoxy. But then Photios happened. There was no entity named the Orthodox Church prior to the Great Schism.
The error that Anthony, (and many others), always make—is to retroactively read the 1870 dogma into the patristic quotes.
It’s more the case that the Orthodox unreasonably act like it’s a scandal that Catholics believe in doctrines which were not fully defined in the writings of the pre-schism Fathers,even though the same beliefs are to found in their writings.
Catholics recognize the historical reality of development of doctrine. The Orthodox make an exception for Palamite theology and hesychastic doctrine,which did not exist before Gregory Palamas. They don’t call it development of doctrine,but that’s what it is.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I think mickey you are looking for the word written **infalibility **.No. As I have told Anthony many times (but he conveniently ignores), the quotes that he pastes are not pointing to the doctrine of supremacy/ infallibility as was defined by the post schism Latin Church.
Was St Peter a great and Holy Apostle?
Yes.
Was there a great deal of respect for the bishop of Rome (the capital of Christianity)?
Yes.
Remember, Rome used to be Orthodox.
The error that Anthony, (and many others), always make—is to retroactively read the 1870 dogma into the patristic quotes.
If the Early Fathers were alive today, they would be apalled that Anthony is using their quotes to justify an alien doctrine that was never known to the undivided Church.
the word is based on a conclusion that was read from texts related to the primacy of the chosen St Peter.
something like Theotokos, Trinity, Eucharist and so forth. words created by us to identify what we believe is a revelation of what the author intended to say.
i hope i am saying this right. if anybody have anymore thoughts on this jump in.
A
anthony022071
Guest
You’re right. In the case of infallibility,when hundreds of Eastern bishops say “[We agree that] in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion is always kept immaculate. . . ." (see post 19) that is a good indication that papal infallibility was accepted throughout the Church. “Always kept immaculate” means no errors of doctrine.
And that is what the doctrine of papal infallibility is about.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
thanks.
i also think they get confused with the word because they believe what we are saying is that the pope is an infallible man. when what it means is that he is the chosen one by the Lord to fight for and to keep the Truth within the Church in matters of Moral and Faith. with so many people with access to the Bible who knows what can happen. we have seen to much already. Sola Scripture has proven dangerous. It is understanble taht the Lord would have a leader to lead His Church whom would be protected from err. if the Lord chose the Church of Rome for that leader to be, so be it. i just dont understand all the fuss about it. i dont see how the pope is hurting anyone, on the contrary, the world, although resisting this Church, yet they show respect and reverence for her. because they know what she represents.
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Popes can become heretics:
“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.” – Pope Innocent III, Sermon 4.
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)” - Pope Adrian VI, quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908.
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him” - Pope Pius IX, Letter to Bishop Brizen.
These quotes clearly allow Popes to err in matters of faith, and thus show that praise and appeals to the unfailing faith of Rome and her bishop in the ancient Church cannot be interpreted in an absolute sense. You may argue that these examples of praise and appeals were limited to the infallible papal office. However, this puts us in the awkward situation of admitting that the papal responses to these appeals go down in history as conventional doctrinal responses of an orthodox bishop and not uniquely, papal dogmatic definitions, as would be required of any pre-Schism exercise of papal infallibility, and the praise never had application in any dogmatic definitions from Pre-Schism Popes. Judging from this, it is clear that these quotes of praise to Rome refer neither to the Bishop of Rome never erring (as this is contradicted by the papal quotes listed above) nor to praise and appeals to an infallible papal office (as this is contradicted by the lack of evidence that the responses to these appeals were in form of dogmatic definitions or that dogmatic definitions were ever offered or claimed the power to be offered by the Pope in the ancient Church). Seeing that your hermeneutic of interpretation has been proven incorrect, it would be better to interpret these quotes in the Orthodox fashion, viz., as quotes of praise to a see known for its orthodoxy and don’t carry additional ecclesiological significance. To argue otherwise, is to face the brick wall of history, which contradicts any other assertions.
God bless,
Adam
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Oh boy my favorite game…dueling quotes. Now it’s my turn.
St Cyprian
For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another (council of Carthage 256 AD)
St Cyprian
But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles (The Epistles of Cyprian Letter LXXIV.6)
St Cyprian
Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church
Origen
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? (Origen commentary on Matthew)
St Augustine
Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, **their decisions might be reversed **(Confessions)
St John Chrysostom
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now” (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1)
St John Chrysostom
Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI)
St Basil
Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier than ever. If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on,** what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it**, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus, when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy. Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphæus (i.e. the Pope)— nothing, indeed, about ecclesiastical affairs except gently to suggest that they know nothing of what is going on here, and will not accept the only means whereby they might learn it.
Ok that was fun! Who’s next?
Yours in Christ
Joe
St Cyprian
For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another (council of Carthage 256 AD)
St Cyprian
But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles (The Epistles of Cyprian Letter LXXIV.6)
St Cyprian
Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church
Origen
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? (Origen commentary on Matthew)
St Augustine
Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, **their decisions might be reversed **(Confessions)
St John Chrysostom
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now” (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1)
St John Chrysostom
Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI)
St Basil
Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier than ever. If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on,** what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it**, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus, when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy. Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphæus (i.e. the Pope)— nothing, indeed, about ecclesiastical affairs except gently to suggest that they know nothing of what is going on here, and will not accept the only means whereby they might learn it.
Ok that was fun! Who’s next?
Yours in Christ
Joe
G
grandfather
Guest
Mickey, You are making a statement that is not relevant to the question you were asked. That is why the question was asked more than once. The question you were asked has nothing to do with papal infallibility, or history. It has to do with whether you believe it is possible to know truth. You were not asked about the mechanism for knowing it, councils, scripture, popes or anything else.And once again, here is my answer. Papal infallibility is an innovation of the post schism Latin Church. That is Church history.
If it is possible to know truth with certainty then there has to be some infallible mechanism for the ascertation, whatever that mechanism is. Anyone who makes any statement with the claim that it is true, must believe in infallibility as a general conept. This does not mean the pope is infallible, but that infallibility has to exist, or truth can not be known.
The question and its answer is not about theology, nor does it have anything to do with any historical theological dispute related to popes, or councils.
Do you understand this?
W
w_stewart
Guest
Do you pray for the dead whose souls are in hell or in heaven?
Why do you pray for the dead?
M
Mickey
Guest
LoL. That has nothing to do with the odd 1870 dogma.
M
Mickey
Guest
Of course not. The “worked out Roman doctrines” is a synonym for innovations.
M
Mickey
Guest
The Holy Orthodox Church knows that the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church (led by the Holy Spirit) are universally authoritative–by consensus. The Bishop of Rome never established a dogma on his own or declared the authority to establish a dogma apart from the Council. The idea of a supreme infallible pontiff who claims the power to teach infallibly outside of an Ecumenical Council if necessary, and who claims to be the supreme leader of the Universal Church—was never known or believed in the undivided Church of the first millennium.
The odd 1870 dogma is retroactively forced onto the early Church by Roman Catholic apologists.
Do **you **understand this?
G
grandfather
Guest
Yes. It says you believe in infallibility. You believe in the infallibility of the seven councils. Whatever was said there is infallibly true, because it was said there.
M
Mickey
Guest
Amen. Now you are beginning to understand.
- Status