Authority of the Catholic Church

[Marc_Anthony]

The entire Church WAS the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Heliotropium]

To me its always been clear that the Church has authority and this is one of many reasons for why I returned. The Apostles Epistles to the Churches are a sign of the authority! In these writings to Christians they tell them how they should conduct themselves and to turn to the Church when the Apostles are delayed to always know how to act since the Church is the pillar of truth! Nowhere in scripture does scripture give itself authority!

The plain and simple truth is Jimmy is doing exactly what Christ askes of us to do with our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith!

“And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” Matthew 18:17

Notice Christ doesn’t say consult scripture! Note Christ says Church not Churches! Logically you could not settle doctrinal squables if the church is this invisible body that encompasses all denominations and conflicting doctrines! No there is One Church and One Faith and we are called to that Faith and to submit to it.

True Bible Christians are Catholic

 

[larkin31]

Larkin, you may want to keep an eye out for a book being released in June called “Mere Churchianity” by the late, great Michael Spencer (aka the Internet Monk) (who passed away during Holy Week). It deals very much with this exact issue: how the quarrels and disagreements among Christians look to people outside the Church.

Here’s a link to the first chapter which was released last week - enjoy! multnomahemails.com/wbmlt/pdf/SneakPeek_Mere%20Churchianity.pdf

(Note this is a PDF file - if you’d prefer, just bookmark the link at Amazon and keep an eye out for it.)

Thanks!

And I love your freakshow carnie-man quote!

 

[josie_L]

Christ is risen!

The Orthodox do not accept the Supremacy of the Pope because it was never a doctrine of the undivided Church. It came about in the late Middle Ages. If this was the power of the Pope of Rome in the first millenium, then the Patriarch of Constantinople would have taken that power for himself after the schism when he became the primus inter pares for the Orthodox; yet, he didn’t.

Not sure what you’re talking about St. Peter’s burial place. I hear of Orthodox going there all the time to venerate his relics (and those of St. Paul). In fact, the Russian Orthodox have a cathedral in Rome.

The filioque is another whole set of problems. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus anathematized anyone who would add to the Creed. Rome simply did not have the authority to do so. When they did, the Orthodox see Rome as removing itself from Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew

We did not add to the creed, i.e., the filioque is simply another aspect of the Holy Trinity that was emphasized at a time when Arianism was denying the divinity of Christ.

 

[Nicea325]

**The Orthodox do not accept the Supremacy of the Pope because it was never a doctrine of the undivided Church. **

And neither was the doctrine of the Trinity,Incarnation,Canon until the 4th century. Where are the protests there? What year did the doctrine of the Trinity get officially defined? Did it make it false because it was not official until 300 years later?

It came about in the late Middle Ages.

Absolutely historically false. There is plenty of history prior to the Middle Ages. Time to do some research.

** If this was the power of the Pope of Rome in the first millenium, then the Patriarch of Constantinople would have taken that power for himself after the schism when he became the primus inter pares for the Orthodox; yet, he didn’t. **

Not exactly! Simply because he chose not to follow the same path does not prove no such power ever existed.

Not sure what you’re talking about St. Peter’s burial place. I hear of Orthodox going there all the time to venerate his relics (and those of St. Paul). In fact, the Russian Orthodox have a cathedral in Rome.

That no other city for the past 2,000 years has made the claims that Peter was buried else where.

The filioque is another whole set of problems. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus anathematized anyone who would add to the Creed. Rome simply did not have the authority to do so. When they did, the Orthodox see Rome as removing itself from Orthodoxy.

Hhmmm? And what authority did Constantinole have to make itself the second See,next to Rome, when one already existed?

 

[josie_L]

The Creed was the result of two Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea I and Constantinople I). Ironically, neither were called by the Pope of Rome, but by Emperors of the Roman Empire.

It doesn’t matter if an emperor called the councils (although a few were initiated by the pope) in the end he had no say about what would be declared dogma (although emperors attempted to impose their doctrinal views many a time in the East).

It was the ENTIRE Church that is responsible for the Creed, not the See of Rome. The Orthodox Church operates today in the same way that the Church did when Rome was in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy.

And that is exactly how the Catholic Church operates today.

Of course Roman Catholics see this differently, and I can (and do) respect their opinions even if I disagree.

The supremacy (universal jurisdiction) of the Pope does not deny bishops their God-given role of shepherding the flock.

 

[activeCatholic]

You ask for Protestant responses Jimmy B but as a Catholic I find the attempts to prove an unbroken line of Popes from Peter onwards a little difficult to swallow. There are gaps, there was the Avignon diversion and I believe our Orthodox friends have their own take on things in which we Catholics broke away leaving the Orthodox as the true inheritors of Peter’s mantle.

But even if the proof were incontovertible, what difference does it make? We could have handed the title down in unbroken sequence and yet have gone seriously wrong in belief along the way. I believe that is the view of many Protestants. It is present day teaching and observance that are important not one-upmanship over who is the true successor of Peter.

Good post. I myself don’t believe the Scriptures indicate one Church over the other.

 

[Third_Day]

Good post. I myself don’t believe the Scriptures indicate one Church over the other.

Christ established only ONE Church. What other Church was there?

 

[Harpazo]

We did not add to the creed, i.e., the filioque is simply another aspect of the Holy Trinity that was emphasized at a time when Arianism was denying the divinity of Christ.

Josie, that’s hogwash, and we both know it. The Church of Rome indeed added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431:

These things having been read aloud, the holy Council then decreed that no one should be permitted to offer any different belief or faith, or in any case to write or compose any other, than the one defined by the Holy Fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea, with Holy Spirit. As for those who dare either to compose a different belief or faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatever, they, if Bishops or Clergymen, shall be deprived as Bishops of their Episcopate, and as Clergymen of their Clericate; but if they are Laymen, they shall be anathematized. In an equally applicable way, if any persons be detected or caught, whether Bishops or Clergymen or Laymen, in the act of believing or teaching the things embodied in the exposition (or dissertation) presented by Charisius the Presbyter concerning the inhomination (i.e., incarnation) of the Only-begotten Son of God, or, by any chance, the unholy and perverse dogmas of Nestorius, which have even been subjoined, let them stand liable to the judgment of this holy and Ecumenical Council. As a consequence, that is to say, the Bishop shall be deprived of his Episcopate, and be left deposed from office, while the Clergyman likewise forfeit his Clericate. If, on the other hand, any such person be a Layman, let him too be anathematized, as aforesaid.

I’m not sure if it gets any clearer. Yet it does. During the Patriarchate of Pope Leo III in the early 800s, he had the Nicene Creed carved into two silver shields–sans filioque, mind you–and placed above it an inscription in Latin “HIC LEO POSVI AMORE ET CAVTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI.” Now Rome has the filioque in its creed. If that’s not an addition, I really don’t know what is.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nicea325]

Christ established only ONE Church. What other Church was there?

There was no other church until centuries later.

 

[larkin31]

There was no other church until centuries later.

There was, however, disagreement and dispute from the very beginning.

 

[Nicea325]

Josie, that’s hogwash, and we both know it. The Church of Rome indeed added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431:

I’m not sure if it gets any clearer. Yet it does. During the Patriarchate of Pope Leo III in the early 800s, he had the Nicene Creed carved into two silver shields–sans filioque, mind you–and placed above it an inscription in Latin “HIC LEO POSVI AMORE ET CAVTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI.” Now Rome has the filioque in its creed. If that’s not an addition, I really don’t know what is.

In Christ,
Andrew

And you are not being honest either and looking at it from a historical point of view. Yes it was added but you are overlooking a lot.

The Nicene Creed was created to fight heresies, and heretics didn’t stop inventing new ones after it was penned. Even if the Nicene Creed was sufficient to meet the theological challenges of its own day, changing circumstances might call for the creation of new creeds or even a revision of the Nicene Creed itself—for example, if heretics found an insidious way of misinterpreting some of its clauses.

Indeed, that’s how we got the Nicene Creed: It is a revision done in 381 by one ecumenical council (Constantinople I) of a **previous creed written in 325 by another ecumenical council (Nicaea I). **Heretics were misinterpreting the former creed’s clause concerning the Holy Spirit, so the fathers of Constantinople I revised it to prevent them from doing so.

So it can easily said the Orthodox are guilty of changing it too.

Hence, it thus seemed that the Church’s magisterium has the authority to revise creeds of this nature. The question was whether it did so in the most prudent manner.

 

[Nicea325]

There was, however, disagreement and dispute from the very beginning.

True,but that is why Christ left Apostles as the defenders of orthodoxy. Plus he did promise the Holy Spirit to guide and teach them the truth. Didn’t matter if there existed 1,000 opinions or views,there is only ONE Truth.

 

[activeCatholic]

Christ established only ONE Church. What other Church was there?

Christ did not establish an institution, nor do I necessarily believe He established a certain Church

 

[Nicea325]

Christ did not establish an institution, nor do I necessarily believe He established a certain Church

Not in its current state of form,of course not! Did Christ also leave us a Bible? Of course not. All came out of need and growth.The Church is a living organism and it was going to grow as Christ intended it to grow. Why even bother say: Go and preach to ALL nations…

I seriously doubt Jesus expected to have underground church and remain stagnant until His return.

 

[activeCatholic]

Not in its current state of form,of course not! Did Christ also leave us a Bible? Of course not. All came out of need and growth.The Church is a living organism and it was going to grow as Christ intended it to grow. Why even bother say: Go and preach to ALL nations…

I seriously doubt Jesus expected to have underground church and remain stagnant until His return.

I seriously doubt Christ wanted what is called catholic now. I believe He intended Christians only and man made an institution

 

[Harpazo]

**The Orthodox do not accept the Supremacy of the Pope because it was never a doctrine of the undivided Church. **

And neither was the doctrine of the Trinity,Incarnation,Canon until the 4th century. Where are the protests there? What year did the doctrine of the Trinity get officially defined? Did it make it false because it was not official until 300 years later?

Was filioque defined in a conciliar setting with the entire Church? The Trinity most certainly was.

It came about in the late Middle Ages.

Absolutely historically false. There is plenty of history prior to the Middle Ages. Time to do some research.

It is indeed a development of the Middle Ages. To say otherwise would be false. See below.

** If this was the power of the Pope of Rome in the first millenium, then the Patriarch of Constantinople would have taken that power for himself after the schism when he became the primus inter pares for the Orthodox; yet, he didn’t. **

Not exactly! Simply because he chose not to follow the same path does not prove no such power ever existed.

In seeing how the Church operated before the Schism and afterwards proves precisely that no such powers were granted to the Pope of Rome. He assumed them for himself. The Church of Cyprus was granted Autocephaly by an Ecumenical Council. This meant it was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch and could operate freely, managing its own affairs without the interference from other bishops or Patriarchal Churches. The same was done for Alexandria at an Ecumenical Council as well.

Not sure what you’re talking about St. Peter’s burial place. I hear of Orthodox going there all the time to venerate his relics (and those of St. Paul). In fact, the Russian Orthodox have a cathedral in Rome.

That no other city for the past 2,000 years has made the claims that Peter was buried else where.

I don’t even know what the issue with this is. I don’t know of a single Orthodox nor have I heard of one contesting of the burial place of Ss. Peter and Paul.

The filioque is another whole set of problems. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus anathematized anyone who would add to the Creed. Rome simply did not have the authority to do so. When they did, the Orthodox see Rome as removing itself from Orthodoxy.

Hhmmm? And what authority did Constantinole have to make itself the second See,next to Rome, when one already existed?

An Ecumenical Council, of course! Being an Ecumenical Council, it had acceptance and recognition from the entire Church.

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon:

Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him. (Ap c. XXXIV; c. III of the 2nd and c. XXXVI of the 6th.)

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nicea325]

I seriously doubt Christ wanted what is called catholic now. I believe He intended Christians only and man made an institution

He intended Christians to each determine what His Church ought to be? A loose-knit church? I seriously doubt it!

 

[Harpazo]

And you are not being honest either and looking at it from a historical point of view. Yes it was added but you are overlooking a lot.

The Nicene Creed was created to fight heresies, and heretics didn’t stop inventing new ones after it was penned. Even if the Nicene Creed was sufficient to meet the theological challenges of its own day, changing circumstances might call for the creation of new creeds or even a revision of the Nicene Creed itself—for example, if heretics found an insidious way of misinterpreting some of its clauses.

Indeed, that’s how we got the Nicene Creed: It is a revision done in 381 by one ecumenical council (Constantinople I) of a **previous creed written in 325 by another ecumenical council (Nicaea I). **Heretics were misinterpreting the former creed’s clause concerning the Holy Spirit, so the fathers of Constantinople I revised it to prevent them from doing so.

So it can easily said the Orthodox are guilty of changing it too.

Hence, it thus seemed that the Church’s magisterium has the authority to revise creeds of this nature. The question was whether it did so in the most prudent manner.

I don’t follow. How am I being dishonest and how did the Orthodox change the Creed?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
The Orthodox do not accept the Supremacy of the Pope because it was never a doctrine of the undivided Church.

And neither was the doctrine of the Trinity,Incarnation,Canon until the 4th century. Where are the protests there? What year did the doctrine of the Trinity get officially defined? Did it make it false because it was not official until 300 years later?

**Was filioque defined in a conciliar setting with the entire Church? The Trinity most certainly was. **

Issue here is doctrine,not the filioque. Two seperate issues. Fact is there was NO OFFICIAL doctrine of the Trinity until **300 years LATER ** and defined due to the circumstances. And why ?Arianism.Does it mean the East did not accept it because it was not official doctrine? .

Quote:
It came about in the late Middle Ages.

Absolutely historically false. There is plenty of history prior to the Middle Ages. Time to do some research.

It is indeed a development of the Middle Ages. To say otherwise would be false. See below.

WRONG! To BELIEVE otherwise is false and in deep denial. I am not going to seat here and writes scores and scores of writings from both west and eastern church fathers. Go your local library and check out the church fathers from the first 800 years and tell me if they REJECTED or DENY the existance of the Primacy of Rome.

Quote:
If this was the power of the Pope of Rome in the first millenium, then the Patriarch of Constantinople would have taken that power for himself after the schism when he became the primus inter pares for the Orthodox; yet, he didn’t.

Not exactly! Simply because he chose not to follow the same path does not prove no such power ever existed.

In seeing how the Church operated before the Schism and afterwards proves precisely that no such powers were granted to the Pope of Rome. He assumed them for himself. The Church of Cyprus was granted Autocephaly by an Ecumenical Council. This meant it was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch and could operate freely, managing its own affairs without the interference from other bishops or Patriarchal Churches. The same was done for Alexandria at an Ecumenical Council as well.

Very biased and lack of knowledge of early church history. Again,time to do your homework.

Quote:
Not sure what you’re talking about St. Peter’s burial place. I hear of Orthodox going there all the time to venerate his relics (and those of St. Paul). In fact, the Russian Orthodox have a cathedral in Rome.

That no other city for the past 2,000 years has made the claims that Peter was buried else where.

I don’t even know what the issue with this is. I don’t know of a single Orthodox nor have I heard of one contesting of the burial place of Ss. Peter and Paul.

Issue is many claim he never went to Rome.

Quote:
The filioque is another whole set of problems. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus anathematized anyone who would add to the Creed. Rome simply did not have the authority to do so. When they did, the Orthodox see Rome as removing itself from Orthodoxy.

Hhmmm? And what authority did Constantinole have to make itself the second See,next to Rome, when one already existed?

**An Ecumenical Council, of course! Being an Ecumenical Council, it had acceptance and recognition from the entire Church.

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon:

Quote:
Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him. (Ap c. XXXIV; c. III of the 2nd and c. XXXVI of the 6th.) **In Christ,

I know the Council. You’ve missed the point. There already existed ANOTHER See much older.