Cornerstone of our Catholic Faith: 2 Thess 2:15

[Lincoln7]

Now, if this really is your perspective - that the early church made the proper decisions, then you’d have to include the deuterocanonical books. There were six different councils starting in the 3rd century that included those books.

I am referring specifically to the canon of the new testament… However we both know that the tradition regarding the apocryphal books position is quite variegated amongst the early church… Following the sixteenth century Cardinal, Cajetan, on the apocrypha;

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

books.google.co.uk/books?id=PhYXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA48&dq=Yet,+they+may+be+called+canonical,+that+is,+in+the+nature+of+a+rule+for+the+edification&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Yet%2C%20they%20may%20be%20called%20canonical%2C%20that%20is%2C%20in%20the%20nature%20of%20a%20rule%20for%20the%20edification&f=false

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

I’m still confused by what you say.

Only Peter was given those keys. The binding and loosing authority is something else.

Indeed he was, my position is that whilst Peter was in essence a first amongst equals, certainly a leader in the church, the other Apostles possessed the same authority.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

In Servitude,

And, as for a papacy debate, I’d like to know of an example where a past Pope has made a ruling on faith and morals and the Church decided to reject that ruling. Or, when a following Pope had overturned a previous ruling on faith and morals. I think that would be required to demonstrate the lack of authority.

Pope Honorious and his Monophysite doctrines would be one fine example, indeed, to quote the nineteenth century Church historian Philip Schaff; “But the most notorious case of an undeniably official indorsement of heresy by a Pope is that of Honorius I. (625–638), which alone is sufficient to disprove Papal Infallibility, according to the maxim: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. This case has been sifted to the very bottom before and during the Council, especially by Bishop Hefele and Père Gratry. The following decisive facts are established by the best documentary evidence:…”(1). It is continued in the link.

Your interpretation of this scripture is at odds with what is written.

I would respectfully disagree; Peter speaks and the council goes silent, quite rightly given Peters vision from God concerning gentile inclusion in the covenant people… Then as the text states, Paul and Barnabas lecture the silent members of the council, followed by James closing it with his judgment. Yes, Peter is a pillar here, a leader… But so are the other Apostles who participate at Jerusalem.

Odd then how the Church fell in line with the Pope’s decision rather than follow Cyprian. Again, a person who has strongly held beliefs is upended by authority.

They followed the bishop of Rome in this matter, “Pope” wasn’t even as yet a title for the roman bishop… But yes they do follow him, but what is clear from Cyprians refusal to submit or change his opinion; he had no idea from ether scripture, or from tradition, which is the focus of this thread, that the bishop of Rome was in any way his authoritative superior.

The early Popes had to assert their authority, and did so. To argue that the Church was running as Protestant Churches run today would be at odds with history. We’d have at least 30,000 denominations of Christianity by the end of the 5th century if that was the case.

Think about it. In order for your point to be correct, there were people running their own private church leading their flock, giving sermons- and then some guy in some foreign place comes in and says, “Sorry, your church is my church. You’ll have to follow what I say.” And then, poof, sudden unity! What history shows that this happened not just once, but hundreds if not thousands of times? Clearly, this would be documented repeatedly as surely some would have rebelled.

Indeed, and often when the bishop of Rome did extend his authority out of his own region, he is rebuked, one need look no further than Ireneaus and his rebuking of Victor, Bishop of Rome, following his attempted interference in the ecclessial matters of the Asian churches regarding calendar dates. Irenaeus, the very one often quoted for his comment on the presidency of love of the Roman church… Clearly his view of his own quote has the roman church presiding in love in its own territory, not that of other church bodies. (2).

Your argument in your second paragraph I don’t quite understand, forgive me. I’m unsure however how it demonstrates as false my position of a second century evolution of a monarchial bishop amongst the Roman congregations?

Kind regards

Lincs

1 & 2 - Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Philip Schaff, m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.vi.xiii.html

 

[Koineman]

What’s interesting to me is that I sent this to a relative who is an evangelical, and, (worse) is married to an ordained evangelical preacher. Maybe I’m misspeaking about ‘ordained,’ the man has a doctorate from his seminary school.

My cousin was hurling Rev 22:18-19 at me, apparently with the idea that it wipes out “tradition” as being an addition to scripture.

Someone may have already pointed this out, but that is a commonly abused Bible passage, and the kind of use your cousin made of it is easily refuted. It does not defend Sola Scriptura, not by a long shot. The intention of that passage was to warn anyone from adding to the prophecies of the book of Revelation itself, not the entire Bible, as is made plain by the use of the words, “the words of the prophecy of this scroll.” Also, the very same passage can be used against such an argument, since v. 19 warns against taking anything away from the book. If that is talking about all of Scripture, then the verses regarding good tradition are not to be “taken away” by ignoring them.

 

[in_servitude]

I am referring specifically to the canon of the new testament… However we both know that the tradition regarding the apocryphal books position is quite variegated amongst the early church… Following the sixteenth century Cardinal, Cajetan, on the apocrypha;

i) Synod of Hippo 393AD
ii) Synod of Carthage 397AD
iii) Latin Vulgate written by St. Jerome 406AD
iv) Synod of Carthage 417AD
v) The Ecumenical Council of Florence 1442AD

These all include the deuterocanonical books. So, if we’re to conform ourselves to the early church, one might want to take another look those OT books.

As for the NT, it is simply false to say that the early church members universally found Revelations to be inspired. There were bishops that prohibited the book from use in their churches. Some make the point that arguments over the book of Revelations contributed to divisions within Eastern church communities.

 

[in_servitude]

Pope Honorious and his Monophysite doctrines would be one fine example, indeed, to quote the nineteenth century Church historian Philip Schaff; “But the most notorious case of an undeniably official indorsement of heresy by a Pope is that of Honorius I. (625–638), which alone is sufficient to disprove Papal Infallibility, according to the maxim: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. This case has been sifted to the very bottom before and during the Council, especially by Bishop Hefele and Père Gratry. The following decisive facts are established by the best documentary evidence:…”(1). It is continued in the link.

Yes, this is one of the three often sited “proofs” for the falsehood of infallibility. I think all three come from Lorraine Boettner’s book “Roman Catholicism,” the font from which most every anti-catholic point seems to come.

These three “proofs” have been dispatched convincingly, in my opinion.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

In regard to the one objection that you site, the following can be said:
**Honorius did not teach error (which would violate the principle of infallibility), but he was at fault for not putting an end to a heresy quickly. **

I would respectfully disagree; Peter speaks and the council goes silent, quite rightly given Peters vision from God concerning gentile inclusion in the covenant people… Then as the text states, Paul and Barnabas lecture the silent members of the council, followed by James closing it with his judgment. Yes, Peter is a pillar here, a leader… But so are the other Apostles who participate at Jerusalem.

Lecture? I think you’re reaching on this one. What the scriptures state is:
Acts 15:12

The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

Describing signs doesn’t sound like Paul and Barnabas are lecturing their peers.

They followed the bishop of Rome in this matter, “Pope” wasn’t even as yet a title for the roman bishop… But yes they do follow him, but what is clear from Cyprians refusal to submit or change his opinion; he had no idea from ether scripture, or from tradition, which is the focus of this thread, that the bishop of Rome was in any way his authoritative superior.

Your point about the official title of “Pope” seems weird. Anyway, it would not surprise me to find bishops that are willing to argue with the Pope, even today. The first bad apple in the Church was Judas. It started at the beginning, and will continue through the end.

Indeed, and often when the bishop of Rome did extend his authority out of his own region, he is rebuked, one need look no further than Ireneaus and his rebuking of Victor, Bishop of Rome, following his attempted interference in the ecclessial matters of the Asian churches regarding calendar dates. Irenaeus, the very one often quoted for his comment on the presidency of love of the Roman church… Clearly his view of his own quote has the roman church presiding in love in its own territory, not that of other church bodies. (2).

Rebuke, eh? Did Ireneaus say, “You don’t have the right?” If Victor was not relevant, then why would Ireneaus bother writing at all? Rather, Ireneaus knew that Victor could do what he threatened to do.

 

[BobCatholic]

Indeed he was, my position is that whilst Peter was in essence a first amongst equals, certainly a leader in the church, the other Apostles possessed the same authority.

Regards

Lincs

So the keys, in your opinion, given to Peter, have no real meaning then?

 

[Lincoln7]

In Servitude,

Yes, this is one of the three often sited “proofs” for the falsehood of infallibility. I think all three come from Lorraine Boettner’s book “Roman Catholicism,” the font from which most every anti-catholic point seems to come.

These three “proofs” have been dispatched convincingly, in my opinion.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

In regard to the one objection that you site, the following can be said:
Honorius did not teach error (which would violate the principle of infallibility), but he was at fault for not putting an end to a heresy quickly.

Schaffs “Creeds of Chrisendom” predates said work by Boettner by over 50 years…

The whole “guilty of nothing but failure to act” idea, seems at odds with the sixth Ecumenical councils verdict; “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius,”

And again; “*And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” *(1). ‘Confirmed his impious doctrines’ doesn’t sound at all to me like he is guilty only of failure to act, but of teaching the heresy itself.

Lecture? I think you’re reaching on this one. What the scriptures state is:

it’s the student in me! If you prefer describe or even “gave audience” as the old KJV puts it I’m happy, what it shows is that Peter isn’t the only one who speaks any form of argument. Again; certainly a leader and pillar, but so are others, indeed as Paul states; “and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” (Gal 2:9)

Describing signs doesn’t sound like Paul and Barnabas are lecturing their peers.

Again depends what we both think of as ‘lecture’… I think of quiet people listening to some others give a mildly long talk. But as I’ve said above, it’s hardly massive in our discussion.

Your point about the official title of “Pope” seems weird. Anyway, it would not surprise me to find bishops that are willing to argue with the Pope, even today. The first bad apple in the Church was Judas. It started at the beginning, and will continue through the end.

I state it as people tend to use the word “pope” for early bishops of Rome with the idea that these men possessed all the authrotiy a pope now does, and indeed was the universally recognised head of all the churches. The bishops at the Sixth Ecumenical council certainly argued with a pope, rightly too…

Rebuke, eh? Did Ireneaus say, “You don’t have the right?” If Victor was not relevant, then why would Ireneaus bother writing at all? Rather, Ireneaus knew that Victor could do what he threatened to do.

Your position is critiqued here; triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html

Regards

Lincs.

1 - Sixth Ecumenical Council, Session 13, m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.viii.html

 

[Lincoln7]

So the keys, in your opinion, given to Peter, have no real meaning then?

Calvin on the Matthew verses specifically are here; m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lii.html

Lincs

 

[JaKael02]

Calvin on the Matthew verses specifically are here; m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lii.html

Lincs

Lincs,

Hey again! I enjoy the advanced apologetics of yours. You have taugh me much about Calvin. Please again, consider my Eucharist proposal.

However, below I want to add an extension of this conversation by proposing my question regarding the interpretation.

Matthew 16:18
“And I will give thee the keys”

My question:
Why is it “They are invested” when Jesus was referring to Peter alone? (I understand that all the apostles were invested with a power of binding and loosing, but not how this applies to Jesus giving the keys to Peter alone.)
And

How did Calvin create the extension from “And I will give thee the keys” — to — “the ministers of the Gospel are porters, so to speak, of the kingdom of heaven, because they carry its keys…”

Commentary:
Here Christ begins now to speak of the public office, that is, of the Apostleship, which he dignifies with a twofold title. First, he says that the ministers of the Gospel are porters, so to speak, of the kingdom of heaven, because they carry its keys; and, secondly, he adds, that **they are invested **with a power of binding and loosing, which is ratified in heaven. 440The comparison of the keys is very properly applied to the office of teaching; as when Christ says (Luke 11:52) that the scribes and Pharisees, in like manner, have the key of the kingdom of heaven, because they are expounders of the law. We know that there is no other way in which the gate of life is opened to us than by the word of God; and hence it follows that the key is placed, as it were, in the hands of the ministers of the word.

Source:
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.lii.html

 

[in_servitude]

Yes a successor is appointed to the apostolic office, I don’t debate an apostolic office, I do debate a papacy…

I asked previously, “Who holds this office today?”

Now, your position has been stated that the scriptures authenticate themselves. That, just by the words that are written, it becomes obvious what is “God breathed” and what is man made. The thought that comes to mind in this is the implicit assumption that Satan, the Prince of Lies, is busy doing something other than attacking the Church. For a protestant, it seems impossible for Satan to influence someone to write something that is close enough to what would appear “God breathed” but is in fact infested with error.

Thanks to this discussion, I have put my finger on the thing that’s been in the back of my mind but could never quite extract: the fanciful notion about Sola Scriptura is a bible that is inspired by God, written by God (through people), and then discerned by people without any impact by Satan.

Of course, we **know **that Satan was very busy in the earliest of churches. It was his destructive force that precipitated the Pauline letters. Had the churches that Paul started been running like a finely tuned machine, there would be no need for his letters. My opinion is that the notion that we need no authority but our own sensibilities precludes the reality of a world under siege by the evil one.

The “no authority” theology of the protestants gives rise to clearly observable evil dressed in the clothes of Christianity. There is that evil church that is all about “God hates XYZ.” There is another church that I see advocating abortion as the redemptive decision.

 

[Lincoln7]

James, indeed, good to discuss things.

Why is it “They are invested” when Jesus was referring to Peter alone? (I understand that all the apostles were invested with a power of binding and loosing, but not how this applies to Jesus giving the keys to Peter alone.)
And

How did Calvin create the extension from “And I will give thee the keys” — to — “the ministers of the Gospel are porters, so to speak, of the kingdom of heaven, because they carry its keys…”

I suppose it is because Calvin appears to view the power of the keys as binding and loosing, something which all the Apostles and ministers of the gospel receive; the ability to preach forgiveness of sins thanks to the blood of Christ on the cross, which brings forgiveness for those who it was made for and who trust in it, or not, for those who would not repent, as per Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18, John 20:21-23. Albert Barnes, whose commentary often appears on here, thanks to it being so easily available online, outlines Peter as receiving the keys here as symblosing the role of Peter in being the first to preach the gospel after the coming of the Holy Spirit, of opening the doors of the gospel to the world. The “power of the keys” (binding and loosing), are given to them all equally. - bible.cc/matthew/16-19.htm

I fear however this is now a papacy in scripture debate, the thread is on tradition, history.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

In Servitude,

I asked previously, “Who holds this office today?”

I think the role of the twelve was unique. Not the role of Apostle, for there are clearly many others.

As I’ve said already here; with no monarchial episcopacy in Rome prior to the mid second century, I can’t accept the apostolic succession idea you are implying here. Certainly not as well as naturally, as a Protestant, I view the CC as having departed from apostolic doctrine.

Now, your position has been stated that the scriptures authenticate themselves. That, just by the words that are written, it becomes obvious what is “God breathed” and what is man made. The thought that comes to mind in this is the implicit assumption that Satan, the Prince of Lies, is busy doing something other than attacking the Church. For a protestant, it seems impossible for Satan to influence someone to write something that is close enough to what would appear “God breathed” but is in fact infested with error.

Thanks to this discussion, I have put my finger on the thing that’s been in the back of my mind but could never quite extract: the fanciful notion about Sola Scriptura is a bible that is inspired by God, written by God (through people), and then discerned by people without any impact by Satan.

Of course, we know that Satan was very busy in the earliest of churches. It was his destructive force that precipitated the Pauline letters. Had the churches that Paul started been running like a finely tuned machine, there would be no need for his letters. My opinion is that the notion that we need no authority but our own sensibilities precludes the reality of a world under siege by the evil one.

The “no authority” theology of the protestants gives rise to clearly observable evil dressed in the clothes of Christianity. There is that evil church that is all about “God hates XYZ.” There is another church that I see advocating abortion as the redemptive decision.

Before addressing anything here specifically; this thread risks becoming yet another on sola scriptura and canon development, rather than tradition as claimed in the CC. I’ve already given my view on where the papacy is demonstrated as foreign to the tradition of the early church, yet this response appears to be attacking a not entirely accurate view of canon recognition as held in Protestantism, rather than positively affirming tradition with evidence, all with respect.

Regards

Lincs

 

[in_servitude]

I think the role of the twelve was unique. Not the role of Apostle, for there are clearly many others.

As I’ve said already here; with no monarchial episcopacy in Rome prior to the mid second century, I can’t accept the apostolic succession idea you are implying here. Certainly not as well as naturally, as a Protestant, I view the CC as having departed from apostolic doctrine.

So, I suppose you think that it was an office, but then the office was somehow abandoned later in time. It was somehow critical to fill the office vacated by Judas. But somewhere between then and now, that office dissolved. It’s an interesting theology.

Before addressing anything here specifically; this thread risks becoming yet another on sola scriptura and canon development, rather than tradition as claimed in the CC. I’ve already given my view on where the papacy is demonstrated as foreign to the tradition of the early church, yet this response appears to be attacking a not entirely accurate view of canon recognition as held in Protestantism, rather than positively affirming tradition with evidence, all with respect.

Post #14 - Lincoln7

I hold to traditions, I simply place them under scripture and test them too it. They are not held as its equal, for it is God Breathed.

You introduced the Sola Scriptura meme - and that’s what I’ve been discussing. I’ve always had something bugging me when protestants toss out the “God breathed” quote in order to bypass the authority of Sacred Tradition. And, I’m glad that I’ve finally able to grasp how that whole argument denies the spiritual warfare that we’re engaged in.

Post #47 - Lincoln7

And again; “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (1). ‘Confirmed his impious doctrines’ doesn’t sound at all to me like he is guilty only of failure to act, but of teaching the heresy itself.

Why not quote the actual heresy from Honorius. Rather than quote people accusing him of heresy, why not quote the actual heresy? What were Honorius’s words that cause you to declare his heretical teaching?

Post #47 - Lincoln7

Your position is critiqued here; …

Read it yourself. It does not critique my position. Geez. It does not show where Ireneaus declared that Victor did not have the authority. The following is the thesis of that article:

… there’s no reason to conclude that Victor claimed papal authority to begin with.

You’d need to show where Ireneaus declares that Victor does not have the right.

 

[Lincoln7]

In Servitude,

So, I suppose you think that it was an office, but then the office was somehow abandoned later in time. It was somehow critical to fill the office vacated by Judas. But somewhere between then and now, that office dissolved. It’s an interesting theology.

So you don’t think the original 12 were in some way unique? That’s all I’m saying.

Why not quote the actual heresy from Honorius. Rather than quote people accusing him of heresy, why not quote the actual heresy? What were Honorius’s words that cause you to declare his heretical teaching?

The people doing the accusing are an ecumenical council, so you can’t deny their verdict unless you deny the infallibility of the council. But indeed, Honorius procalimed; “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1). Hence why the ecumenical council denounced him, not for failure to act, but for teaching officially a heretical view, hence it’s condemnation of him as “Pope of Old Rome”.

You’d need to show where Ireneaus declares that Victor does not have the right.

I see it as the whole reason Ireneaus writes his letter; telling the bishop of Rome he has no right to do as much to these churches, which are outside his own jurisdiction.

You introduced the Sola Scriptura meme - and that’s what I’ve been discussing. I’ve always had something bugging me when protestants toss out the “God breathed” quote in order to bypass the authority of Sacred Tradition. And, I’m glad that I’ve finally able to grasp how that whole argument denies the spiritual warfare that we’re engaged in.

But which tradition? Orthodox tradition or Catholic?

If your remarks on spiritual warfare are referring back to your last post, I should say a few things; I’m unsure why you think SS means the church has no authority? I’m advocating for a far more rounded view than that of catholic apologetics, which say the magisterium is the only thing that has a role in all this. Maybe you should get hold of ‘canon revisited’ by Dr Kruger, it is designed to answer the epistomalogical question of “how do you know” specifically.

Regards

Lincs

(1) - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.viii.html

 

[in_servitude]

So you don’t think the original 12 were in some way unique? That’s all I’m saying.

??? First, the original 12 included Judas as selected by Christ. Second, the apostles included the replacement for Judas. Third, Paul, being an apostle, was also unique, but not part of the revised set of 12.

The whole concept of an “office” is one where people come and go, but the office remains. In your definition of office, it dies with the people holding that office.

The people doing the accusing are an ecumenical council, so you can’t deny their verdict unless you deny the infallibility of the council. But indeed, Honorius procalimed; “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1). Hence why the ecumenical council denounced him, not for failure to act, but for teaching officially a heretical view, hence it’s condemnation of him as “Pope of Old Rome”.

An ecumenical council is just a council until ratified by a Pope. This was discussed already as pointed out in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I see it as the whole reason Ireneaus writes his letter; telling the bishop of Rome he has no right to do as much to these churches, which are outside his own jurisdiction.

Well, your claim then falls to pieces. You’re unable to demonstrate that Ireneaus rejects the papacy. Additionally, there are plenty of recordings of previous and past “holders of the keys” asserting authority.

But which tradition? Orthodox tradition or Catholic?

I’m too dense to get the point of the question.

If your remarks on spiritual warfare are referring back to your last post, I should say a few things; I’m unsure why you think SS means the church has no authority? I’m advocating for a far more rounded view than that of catholic apologetics, which say the magisterium is the only thing that has a role in all this. Maybe you should get hold of ‘canon revisited’ by Dr Kruger, it is designed to answer the epistomalogical question of “how do you know” specifically.

#1 Sola Scriptura is a direct attack on the Church - a way to side step Sacred Tradition. A person adhering to SS can easily say, “If I don’t want to go to church on Sunday, show me in my bible where it says I have to.” The Church admonishes those who willfully skip out on Mass/Communion - and does so through the authority passed down by Sacred Tradition. SS allows a person to make up whatever rules they want. As a child, I wasn’t allowed to make up my own rules in my father’s house. I suspect the same will be true in Our Father’s House, too. That is the answer to “why” I see the same linked.

#2 As far as your recommendation on what I might read, the main problem is the fundamental argument. The whole concept of a rudderless church being tossed about in a violent sea of spiritual warfare is essentially senseless. A person would have to make that concept sensible before I’d go down the road finding ways to attack the guiding lighthouse that is the Church.

 

[ahs]

The people doing the accusing are an ecumenical council, so you can’t deny their verdict unless you deny the infallibility of the council. But indeed, Honorius procalimed; “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1). Hence why the ecumenical council denounced him, not for failure to act, but for teaching officially a heretical view, hence it’s condemnation of him as “Pope of Old Rome”.

I think you are misrepresenting the facts about Honorius and what happened thereafter. This blog that Catholic Dude provided in another thread will help clarify to some extent:

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-would-mr-robinson-do-did-st.html

 

[JaKael02]

James, indeed, good to discuss things.

I suppose it is because Calvin appears to view the power of the keys as binding and loosing, something which all the Apostles and ministers of the gospel receive; the ability to preach forgiveness of sins thanks to the blood of Christ on the cross, which brings forgiveness for those who it was made for and who trust in it, or not, for those who would not repent, as per Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18, John 20:21-23. Albert Barnes, whose commentary often appears on here, thanks to it being so easily available online, outlines Peter as receiving the keys here as symblosing the role of Peter in being the first to preach the gospel after the coming of the Holy Spirit, of opening the doors of the gospel to the world. The “power of the keys” (binding and loosing), are given to them all equally. - bible.cc/matthew/16-19.htm

I fear however this is now a papacy in scripture debate, the thread is on tradition, history.

Kind regards

Lincs

Lincs -

Fair enough. I’ll personally message you so we do not derail this thread into a papacy in scripture debate.

Thank you,

James

 

[Lincoln7]

In Servitude,

I have precious little time ATM to reply, and some of our discussion is going a bit circular, I’ve said my bit, people can weigh it…

I will focus on this however, and how it relates to the Honorius case;

An ecumenical council is just a council until ratified by a Pope. This was discussed already as pointed out in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Did the councils themselves have any knowledge of this idea?

But, ok, to proceed then; what was stated by every bishop of Rome after this condemnation of Honorius as a heretic by the council? Schaff notes; "The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” (1). As Such, said verdict was ratified by a great many popes, popes who had no knowledge of infallibility of the papal office.

Regards

Lincs

1 - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiii.html

 

[Pwrlftr]

But, ok, to proceed then; what was stated by every bishop of Rome after this condemnation of Honorius as a heretic by the council? Schaff notes; "The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” (1). As Such, said verdict was ratified by a great many popes, popes who had no knowledge of infallibility of the papal office.

Hi Lincoln,

I know the above wasn’t addressed to me but I’m not so sure what you are trying to prove/demonstrate with Honorious. Honorius commited a papal error and was condemned as a heretic by later councils and in the papal oath. That is all true but, so what?