Church Teaching and possible schism

[Randy_Carson]

What did St. Cyprian actually believe?

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, 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 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

“Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel, by way of assigning the episcopal dignity and settling the plan of His Church…[quotes Matthew 16:18f]…From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church flows on through the changes of times and successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this has indeed been established by divine law, I marvel at the rash boldness of certain persons who have desired to write to me as if they were writing their letters in the name of the Church, ‘since the Church is established upon the bishop and upon the clergy and upon all who stand firm in the faith.’” (Cyprian, Letter 33 (27), 1 to the Lapsed, c. AD 250)

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewehre is scattering.” (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)

“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; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

“There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another.” (Cyprian, Letter 66 (69), 8 to Florentius Pupianus, c. AD 254)

What say you, Noma?

 

[Damascus]

Hi Noma,

Will you keep us updated on your status regularly? Looking at your laundry list of issues with the CC it occured to me that you may very well come up with a list for the Orthodox Church if given enough time. So, let us know every so often and I’ll just bet given enough time we will be reading some more threads here about the problems you have discovered in Orthodoxy.

Since you have only been attending Divine Liturgy for a short period of time its just too early yet to find all the pitfalls there may be in Orthodoxy just yet.

At least you will have the sacraments. Godspeed.

 

[GoldenArrow]

And, for the record, I do accept the assumption of Our Most Holy Mary, Mother of God

The Dogma of the Assumption is BASED upon the FOUNDATION of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In fact, the Dogma of the Resurrection of Our Lord is also based on the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If you deny the Immaculate Conception, then you MUST deny BOTH the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Assumption of Mary. Not only that, you MUST ALSO deny Our Lord’s Sacrifice at Calvary if you deny the Immaculate Conception.

Why do I say this?

Let’s get back to basics. The Baltimore 3 Catechism and Mass by Father Connell says this:

“62. Was any human person ever preserved from Original Sin?
The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin in view of the merits of her Divine Son; and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.
a). In the first instant of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary possessed the fullness of sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost. She was, however, subject to pain and suffering as was her Divine Son.*
b). By a special privilege of Almighty God, Our Blessed Mother was free throughout her life from all actual sin, both mortal and venial.
Scripture:
“I will put emnity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed: he shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel” (Genesis 3:15)
“And when the angel had come to her, he said, ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessd art thou among women.’”(Luke 1:28).”

• I also say that the Sacrifice at Calvary means nada if Christ didn’t suffer.

In the beginning, the Old Immaculate Eve was formed from the rib of the Old Immaculate Adam. In the fullness of time, the Immacuate New Adam was formed from the pure, virginal womb of the immaculate New Eve. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the new in this manner.

Mary HAD TO suffer the effects of Original Sin because her Son HAD TO suffer and die. Mary HAD TO suffer the effects of original sin because the reason she was preserved free of original sin was because of the foreseen merits of an infinite suffering. The two are one flesh. If the New Adam HAD TO suffer and die, then the New Eve also must suffer and die ( though the latter is not dogmatically declared).

And so if both died, then both were raised.

Church tradition (with a little “t” because it’s not doctrine) says that Mary died and then was resurrected through the power of God. Afterward, she was Assumed into heaven through the power of God. None of this would be possible had she not been preserved of original sin.

The two are one flesh. If the mother is not free of the stain of original sin, then neither is the Son. If the Mother wasn’t Assumed into Heaven, then neither did the son Ascend — because if the Immaculate Conception didn’t happen, then Christ was born with Original Sin.

And if Christ was born of Original Sin, then where is the Spotless Lamb?

Do you see how the denial of one Dogma makes the rest fall like dominoes? Where does the last domino fall? At Calvary. Mary HAD TO suffer the effects of original sin, and so did Christ. If Christ did not suffer the effects of original sin, then he didn’t suffer at Calvary.

The truth is, Christ HAD TO be formed of a spotless womb to be a Spotless Sacrifice, but also Christ HAD TO suffer the effects of Original Sin in order to Redeem mankind! Mary and Jesus were preserved from Original sin whilst suffering its effects — and this is a Divine Mystery beyond the capacity of the human mind to fully understand.

If we look back to Old Testament times, Enoch and Elijah were also Assumed and Translated into Paradise because they’d washed themselves with foreseen merits of the Blood of the Lamb. The two men were washed of their sins. This example teaches that being Assumed into Paradise requires at the very least that one be free of sin.

All the more for someone who is Assumed into Heaven! One must be cleansed of Original Sin for that. So, the dogma of the Assumption rests upon the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If you deny one, you MUST deny the other.

My point is: Dogmas are not singulars. Dogmas are dependent and founded upon others. One good example is the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, for it explains WHY Christ suffered, and WHY Mary suffered. It explains the reasons for Mary being raised from the dead and the reason for her Assumption, and also the basis for Christ’s Resurrection (of His Own Power) and Christ’s Glorious
Ascention into Heaven.

I hope this clears up part of your confusion.

I’ll get to the Papacy issue later.

God Bless!

 

[GoldenArrow]

I also think you may be confusing Original Sin with the Preternatural Gifts of Adam and Eve.

Again, a review of the basics, Baltimore Catechism and Mass Number 3 by Father Connell:

52. What was the chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?
The chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God was Sanctifying Grace, which made them children of God and gave them the right to Heaven.
a). Sanctifying Grace is a supernatural gift which is a sharing in the nature of God Himself and which raises men to the supernatural order, conferring on them powers entirely above those proper to human nature.
b). Together with Sanctifying Grace God gave Adam and Eve the supernatural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Scripture: “For just as by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted just” (Romans 5:19).

53. What other gifts were bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?
The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death**."
a). These gifts are not supernatural or above all created natures, but they are preternatural, that is, beyond the powers of human nature, though not above all created natures.
b). If Adam had not sinned, these gifts would have been transmitted to all men as the possession of human nature.
Scripture;
“He created of him a helpmate like to himself: he gave them counsel, and a tongue, and eyes, and ears, and a heart to devise: and he filled them with the knowledge of understanding. He created in them the science of the spirit: he filled thier heart with wisdom, and shewed them both good and evil.” (Ecclesiasticus 17: 5-6)"
“Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world and through sin death, and thus death has passed unto all men because all have sinned — for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” (Romans 5:12-13).

** God can bestow upon a creature or a God-Man whatever He Wills, so therefore, God could bestow upon Jesus and Mary SOME of the preternatural Gifts, but he was not obligated to bestow all. In fact, if God had bestowed all the preternatural gifts upon Jesus and Mary, then it would render Christ’s Passion and Death impossible.

Original sin is not something in and of itself. Rather, Original Sin is the ABSENCE of Something. What is that something? Sanctifying Grace.

Sanctifying Grace raises men to the supernatural order, but the presence of Sanctifying Grace from birth does not guarantee the presence of all the preternatural gifts. The presence of Sanctifying Grace, on the other hand, DOES guarantee the infusion of the Infused Virtues, but not the preternatural gifts.

To put it another way. In order to possess the preternatural gifts, one must possess Sanctifying Grace from the moment of Conception (being conceived free of Original Sin); but the possession of Sanctifying Grace does not guarantee the possession of the preternatural gifts.

I hope this makes sense.

God Bless!

 

[Seagirt]

Dear noma,

Please understand that the Church distinguishes between what is called FORMAL schismatics, heretics, etc, and MATERIAL schismatics, heretics, etc. Essentially, a formal schismatic, etc, is a person who is morally culpable for his obstinat refusal to either join or remain with Rome. A material schismatic, etc, on the other hand, is someone who is not Catholic but is not fully culpable for their separation, such as, their conscience does not permit them to join because they msitakenly but innocently convinced that Catholicism is not entirely true.

Which one of these categories you fall into, that is, formal or material, is not something I can know, or, in fact, anyone in this board could know. We judge objective actions but not subjective motives. I only hope and pray that you fall in the material category.

But there still remains the issue that even if you are just sincerely forming conscience and follow it, there is the objective reality that you are leaving the fullness of truth. If you join the Orthodox (and you are only materially in schism), your chances of being saved will be far better, as you will have all seven sacraments in your community and the general guidance of Oral Tradition to help in the interpretation of Scripture. If you join a Protestant community (again, innocently), your plight will be worse, as you will only have at most the sacraments of baptism and marriage available, and no longer have the protection of Oral Tradition, but only the Written Tradition, which makes finding truth far more difficult, seeing as, without Oral Tradition, you will be far more likely to misinterpret it than if you were Orthodox.

I pray that you do everything in your power to form your conscience and follow it. If you do that, there is a possbility that with time and experience, and by the grace of God, you can find your way home back to the fullness of faith.

I will put you in my general prayers.

with love,
scott

THIS IS PROBABLY OFF THREAD- BUT WHY IS THERE SUCH A WIDE SPECTRUM OF CATHOLIC OPINION AND THOUGHT?— WE HAVE EVERYTHING FROM THE WANDERER TO RICHARD MCBRIEN AND RICHARD ROHR AND MICHAEL FOX AND CALL TO ACTION CALLING THEMSELVES CATHOLIC.! THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CATECHISM.
PAULIST PRESS PUBLISHES VERY DIFFERENT BOOKS THAN TAN PUBLICATIONS. DISCUSS PLEASE !

 

[Damascus]

All caps is a no no with most mods here.
Secondly Call to Action has already been discussed here and they are considered banned. Tequillamac has posted on that already.

Stop shouting.

I’d love to indulge this bashfest of the Catholic Church but I gotta run now.

This is too boring.
Seagirt.

 

[Randy_Carson]

THIS IS PROBABLY OFF THREAD- BUT WHY IS THERE SUCH A WIDE SPECTRUM OF CATHOLIC OPINION AND THOUGHT?— WE HAVE EVERYTHING FROM THE WANDERER TO RICHARD MCBRIEN AND RICHARD ROHR AND MICHAEL FOX AND CALL TO ACTION CALLING THEMSELVES CATHOLIC.! THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CATECHISM.
PAULIST PRESS PUBLISHES VERY DIFFERENT BOOKS THAN TAN PUBLICATIONS. DISCUSS PLEASE !

With over a billion Cathoics after 2,000 years, you don’t expect a little diversity?

Sheesh, Protestants have only been around 500 years, and look at how many splinter groups they’ve created!

 

[mark_a]

And there you have it:

“authority-free zone”?

the perfect description of what most people-who-need-someone-to-be-angry-with is looking for.

 

[Damascus]

IMHO its a basic inability to accept true authority and obedience.

 

[spauline]

THIS IS PROBABLY OFF THREAD- BUT WHY IS THERE SUCH A WIDE SPECTRUM OF CATHOLIC OPINION AND THOUGHT?— WE HAVE EVERYTHING FROM THE WANDERER TO RICHARD MCBRIEN AND RICHARD ROHR AND MICHAEL FOX AND CALL TO ACTION CALLING THEMSELVES CATHOLIC.! THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CATECHISM.
PAULIST PRESS PUBLISHES VERY DIFFERENT BOOKS THAN TAN PUBLICATIONS. DISCUSS PLEASE !

this is a somewhat legitimate concern, in the sense that much confusion and poor catechesis and priestly formation has taken place since the Council. The reality of course, is that much of what passes as “Catholic opinion” is just ignorant dissent. Yeah, most Catholics in this country ignore Catholic teaching on life and sexuality issues. But are they really culpable for this totally? Unfortunately, I’d say that because VII made so many discplinary changes, that catechists became confused that maybe Catholicism was then unsure about DOCTRINE. As consequence, people began to mistakenly think that because discipline is mutable, maybe then also is doctrine.

Some points I would like to make: sure, you read the 1917 Encyc, and it will point out, in no uncertain terms, everything that is wrong and bad about non-Catholic religions, whereas VII and the CCC tries to stress any goodness that might be present in them. Again, I would refer to above comment on FORMAL versus MATERIAL schismatics, heretics, etc. I think that VII has raised the awareness in modern times that many, if not most, of the devout adherents to non-Catholic religions would fall under the MATERIAL category, and not formal. Consequently, I think the modern Church is then trying to recognize where goodness and salvific elements exist so as to emphasize the persons of non-Catholic persuasion who are not culpable for their errors can be saved, even though they have varying deficiencies in their beliefs and means of grace.

So that is one reason why I think you can look at earlier statements that would condemn things in other faiths, like Muslims, and yet the Catechism emphasizes those positive elements that can save these persons. But I still think that the Church still recognizes, and proclaims, that the fullness of the means of salvation still lies exclusively with the CC.

I think that in time, as catechesis improves, and more in depth explanations and presentations of the great depth and beauty of Catholicism are presented to the children of the Church, things will improve so that more and more Catholics will be knowledgable and faithful to the whole of magisterial teaching.

Does this help? I know more could be said, but I don’t have the full time right now.

and just for the record, I think even since antiquity, the possibility of MATERIAL heretics was recognized, it just fell by the way side in Middle Ages, I think because there was just a common assumption that person who are objective error are fully culpable subjectively for their errors, whereas, with modern psychology and dialogue, it is being discoverd that most persons who are in error but search for God dilligently are nevertheless in good faith subjectively, it’s just that we need to gently dialogue with them so they can come to see the fullness of beauty and truth.

 

[mark_a]

BUT WHY IS THERE SUCH A WIDE SPECTRUM OF CATHOLIC OPINION AND THOUGHT?—

That’s what its all about. That’s where all the good stuff comes from.

We all want to be heard and we all want to influence, but in the end we submit to authority that teaches about the sanctity of life, right down to a microscopic unimplanted fertilized egg.

Yes, I realize I’m off-topic too.

 

[TomBosco]

Hi Noma,

I have no ida who you are but here is my two cents. Out of love and a desire to see you go to Heaven I am writing this. (According to Jesus the road is narrow, wide is the road that leads to Hell. The Pope didn’t say that, Jesus did! Not everyone will go to Heaven according to the Lord Himself) The bottom line is this: The Catholic Church makes the claim that it is the one that was established by Christ. If you believe this, you will accept its teachings. If you are really considering the anglican or lutheran churches, you are only trying to find a “religion” that suits you and not what was established by Christ. Things do not have to make sense to us for us to believe them. People do not rise from the dead or concieve without sex but we believe these things happened. The world is pro contraception and it has lead to a rampant societal slavery to sexual sin and a demaning of the human person. The Church once again was right in the face of massive pressure to conform. Think about if everyone took the three divorces like the Orthodox supposedly allow or even had one divorce for that matter. What a world we would have! Broken homes are not the teaching of the Lord. Jesus taught no divorce and we need to believe what he taught. The teachings of Christ are perfect and Holy and only found in their fullness in the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope only guards the faith and does not create new dogma. His infallibility is only regarding faith and morals in his official capacity. Think about the absurd conclusion you drew that infallibaility is the spirit speaking where two or more are gathered. There would be no truth on Earth if that was the case. There needs to be a central authority from Christ and Peter was it. It was preserved in the Church through the ages. If you leave, you will eventually come back. The truth will draw you back. Save yourself the trouble and do not leave. I do not know what advice your priest is giving you but make certain it is in line with Church teaching. It is obvious you want to walk in your own ways right now. Try obedience to the faith because it works wonders for the spiritual life. Jesus said, “if you love me you will obey my commands.” How do we know his commands? Do we shop around for a church that we ike and say, “these are his commands because I like them”. These commands are the moral teachings of the Catholic faith as handed down from the apostles, not whatever you want them to be. Anyone who is attracted to the doctrine of universal salvation (everyone winds up in Heaven) is most likely doing things that they know are mortally sinful and they can not imagine themselves repenting or have loved ones who are living sinful lifestyles. I could be wrong about that in your case but if I am not, just go to confession and repent.

Your brother in Christ, Tom

 

[GoldenArrow]

Quotes from the Church Fathers on THE PRIMACY OF PETER’S APOSTOLIC SEE

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

**“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? ****This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” **Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the** heretical** dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

MORE quotes from the Church Fathers on this subject can be found here:
from: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[GoldenArrow]

From the Church Father’s. PETER’S SUCCESSORS CLAIM PRIMACY OVER THE CHURCH

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons.” Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret’s EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).

“We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry…Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church…I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus,** to the Roman Church as to the head of your body**…And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons.” Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).

“Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth.” Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400).

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated … by bishops … as you have done, the example of ancient tradition … For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived …** that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)**…you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

Many, many more quotes on this subject can be found here. The above was only a sampling:
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#scripture_I

 

[Santos]

So Mary, like all of us except Christ, must have borne the consequences of original sin.

One of the most beloved Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church is St. Symeon the New Theologian, who was the abbot of St. Mamas in Constantinople. He is one of three great Fathers whom the Orthodox Church has granted the title of “Theologian”, because according to the Orthodox Church he is one of a few, in the history of Christianity, to ‘know’ God. The other two Theologians are St. John the Evangelist, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus.

You believe the Orthodox Church to be Christ’s True Church, then do not differ in faith from St. Symeon who is believed to have ‘known’ God, and who is a Father of the Orthodox Church.

“…being Himself at once God and man, His flesh and soul were and are holy - and beyond holy. God is holy, just as He was and is and shall be, and the Virgin is immaculate, without spot or stain, and so, too, was that rib which was taken from Adam. However the rest of humanity, even though they are His brothers and kin according to the flesh, yet remained even as they were, of dust, and did not immediately become holy and sons of God.” - St. Symeon the New Theologian, Discourse XIII in On the Mystical Life.

The rib which was taken from Adam without spot or stain gives to us the Mother of Christ, a *woman who did not bear the consequences of original sin, therefore did not die according to those consequences of sin but was taken body and soul into heaven (Assumption).

*woman of Gen 3:15 whose enmity with Satan and sin is absolute.

You believe in a half truth (Assumption “minus” the Immaculate Conception). A lesser truth, but then again, this is what you get when you leave the Catholic Church.

 

[GoldenArrow]

In this post, I’ll address issues of Infallibility.

From the Baltimore 3 Catechism and Mass by Father Connell:

163. What is meant by the infallibility of the Catholic Church?
By the infallibility of the Catholic Church is meant that the Church, by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, cannot err when it teaches or believes a doctrine of faith or morals.
a). Infalliblity, especially papal infallibility, is a doctrine often misunderstood and derided by those outside the Church. The term “infalliblity” is often distorted to mean impeccablity, that is, freedom from all sin. The Church has never held that the Pope cannot sin.
b). It is unthinkable that an institution established by God for the salvation of souls could lead men to error and turn them away from God. If the Church could and did err in matters of faith or morals, it would not be a true teacher; it would fail in its ministry of sanctification and would not lead men to salvation but would be responsible for their condemnation.
c). A doctrine of faith or morals is a truth revealed by God dealing with what we must believe or what we must do in order to be saved.
d). The Church cannot change its defined teachings on faith and morals, though it may restate them more clearly and more completely.
e). We know that the Church is infallible in matters of faith or morals because Christ promised that He would be with the apostles and their successors in thier work of teaching until the end of time. It would be impossible for Christ to be with the official teachers of the Church and permit them to teach error.
Scripture:
“And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth.” (John 14:16).
“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you.” (John 14:26).

164. When does the Church teach infallibly?
The Church teaches infallibly when it defines, through the Pope alone, as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and bishops, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful.
a) The Holy Father must intend to use his supreme, apostolic authority when he teaches infallibly.
b). The Pope can teach without speaking infallibly; for example, he does this in encyclical letters. Catholics must accept such teachings, not on faith, but in obedience to the authority of the Pope and in respect for his wisdom.

 

[Damascus]

Look at Magicsilence’s sig line. Bishop Kallistos Ware says its not a heresy to accept the IC dogma.

 

[GoldenArrow]

** Originally Posted by noma**
So Mary, like all of us except Christ, must have borne the consequences of original sin.

Original Sin is not a something. Original sin is a nothing. It is an absence of Sanctifying Grace.

Though both Jesus and Mary were born in Sanctifying Grace, they both still bore some of the effects of Original Sin. One effect of Original Sin is loss of the preternatural gifts. So, Jesus and Mary did bear the CROSS of losing at least one preternatural gift: suffering and death.

It was required that this was so. Without suffering and death in the humanity of Christ, all of us would be lost. There would be no Redemption. There would be no death of Christ on the Cross. There would be no Resurrection. There would be no Ascention. If Christ possessed all the preternatural gifts in his pre-resurrected humanity, then we would have no Church!

I’ll repeat it again. Both Jesus and Mary bore some of the effects of Original sin (suffering and death) as crosses. Mary carried her cross in her heart, pierced by daggers. Christ carried His cross on his back, his hands and feet pierced by nails and his heart pierced by a lance.

The same with Christ’s Bride. She, too, though cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb, cleansed of Original Sin at Baptism, carries the cross of suffering and death. She will continue to do so until the Parousia. On that day she will rise to meet her bridegroom in the fullness of Glory, when all the Just are Resurrected into the image and likeness of the Risen Christ.

I really hope all this helps you find your way home.

Now I must rest. Fingers are getting tired! LOL!!!

God Bless!

 

[GoldenArrow]

This is a good quote pertinent to the discussion:
Romans 13: 1-2

“Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.”

 

[spauline]

Dear noma,

I also echo what Tom Bosco said above about artificial birth control. If you only knew how crucial this teaching is and central to the foundation of the family, which is itself the foundation of human civilization, you would be Catholic in a heart beat. For the mystery of human sexuality is itself a catechetical reality of the Trinity itself. It manifests by its very bodily language the inexhaustible mystery of the Infinite Love of Persons in God’s very nature. The love between husband and wife must be totally self giving, a reckless and unselfish, complete abandoning one’s love to other, and fully receiving the love of the other. To put up artificial barriers to this love is lying with the body, and it is a grave sin. For if the father and mother do not speak the full language of love when they come together, how can they offer totally selfless love to their children?

Amen, as Tom Bosco put it, contraception has truly erupted into the total sexual degradation of modern times. If the societies that have embraced artificial birth control do not repent and come to the bosom of Christ and His Church for healing and strength, these socieities will collapse.

I would just hope and pray that before you leave, read at least some literature that elaborates on JPII 's theology of the body. It may save you from making an unneccessary wrong turn on your journey to God. For once you realize the unimaginable importance of experiencing sexuality in accord with the mystery of the Christian religion, and how artificial birth control destroys this reality and attacks love at its root, you will really wonder why only Rome held its ground on this, whereas practically all the Protestants, and now some Orthodox, have abandoned this crucial moral.