Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello david; Here is a little history trivia for you; The first 30+ Popes who succeeded Peter were all MARTYRED. Secondly the centuries you ask for, the Catholic Church was under severe persecution. The Jews and the pagan Caesars new very well who to seek out to try and wipe out Christianity, it was the Popes and the bishops.

The Catholic Saint Iraneus was very bold to list the Successors of Peter in the Popes, or bishops of Rome if you prefer? but he was speaking to Pseudo Christians to prove the True Catholic Christian church Jesus founded and proving to them if they do not follow or have Apostolic succession from Peter there teachings are not from Jesus Christ. St. Iraneus did not see it necessary to list all the successors of the Apostles, but only the most important who was pre-eminent from Peter and Paul from who succeeded Pope Linus… Pope Clement who later addressed the Corinthian Church from a “great letter” which addressed a Church discipline (correction) to the Corinthian Church while the apostle John still lived who was much closer to the Corinthians than Pope Clement. Your batting averages need not ever apply to a Catholic Church which is under persecution, again you try and fit a foreign ideology that did not exist among these Apostolic Catholic Christians.

=david ruiz;7227531] Perhaps ,but the most previous post said it began slowly in 2nd .and more in third century ,which fits Tertullian,so let’s move on forward please. You also fail to address tertulian 's denial of succession ,and that he also wrote Jesus is the Rock .So I agree with him 2 out 3 and you agree with 2 out of 3 (that’s .666 batting average-ikes).I can not fault him too much because in a miniscule sense Jesus did build his church ,and upon Peter ,the most famous Apostle of the Gospels and had lead role many times, but also upon the other apostles and prophets as scripture tells us twice.I believe Tertullian goes no further ,no passing on of keys ,Petrine gifts or successor role ,in exact fashion of Peter. I have answered Tertulian ,now you ?

You were incorrect in stating that no one listed the Popes who succeeded from Peter. Again St. Iraneus proved the Church founded from listing the successors of Popes from Rome where Peter and Paul were martyred to prove to pseudo Christians the Apostolic Church, when there was no need to list all of the apostolic successors, only the one from Rome proved the Catholic Church from Jesus Christ.

Apostolicity -not sure what that is ,Authenticity -absolutely .Iraneus list bishops ,not popes from 3 cities ,to show carerful handling of truth with worthy elders. In Rome ,it was from Peter and Paul ,then to Linus. What was I incorrect on ?

It may be better to say; You are ignorant of Apostolic succession, because we have not touched on the dogma of Apostolic succession from Scriptures. I have only answered to your objections, without explaining Apostolic succession. From what I gather from you here, you have no clue what it is, other than what you have been misinformed of this unbroken biblical Sacred Apostolic Tradition. We need not speak of Tertullians personal opinions outside of Catholicism, which endangered his salvation and repented.

I am more comfortable telling any eastern Church member because they will agree with Apostolic succession. I find a more clearer understanding of the Papacy between an Orthodox not in communion with the Pope who understands Catholicism, than with a Protestant who rejects Catholicism all together, and argues from a foreign mindset to these ancient writers from Apostolic times. Sorry but your Waldenses, Albigenses did not exist yet for another 12OO years or more, so these need not apply to your proposed early centuries.

Let us see , I do not believe in papal succession.Tell Tertulian (200A.D. ), that his same thought was foreign and unheard of or new.Tell that to the early eastern churches or to the Waldesnes, Albigeneses etc., etc., in those early centuries.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Your comment below qualifies my comment about the clarity discussing Catholic Apostolic biblical teachings and Traditions, between Orthodoxy than with Protestants who lack the sanctity and understanding from these Catholic understandings of the mysteries and revelations from God. When the new Protestant faiths, have invented their belief systems from an unheard of opinion or self interpretation of the scriptures. No wonder you don’t follow apostolic succession, because your faith has left it over 1600 years after the resurrection, while the Rock maintained its Apostolic succession these past 2000 years since the resurrection.

This is silly .I could be silly and ask how are you going to qualify Apostolic Traditional teaching as infallible ? You correctly reply, "Cause God said it would be ".Well, God also said His Word, His Scripture would also be infallible.The term Apostolic traditional teaching is a Catholic term . I prefer Apostolic Teaching ,which may have included minor tradition ,OR became traditional in itself (preaching of the gospel ,of a Risen Savior etc.) .For sure they taught ,and they wrote. What they wrote (by God), I take it to be as if they are with us today , fully authoratative. By faith , you may include tradition ,which we know can not contradict scripture. We are in the same boat there. ,Alleluia. Agreed, except catholic with a small “c” . See,we are close. Remember too, Jesus holds the keys , and He watches and shepherds His churches , as in Revelations . Because of free,and Revelations will , some may depart and the candlestick is removed from that church.

Let us be clear every Apostolic successor bishop is vicar among his flock. The Pope is vicar over the whole of Christendom, who alone Jesus gave the keys to bind and loose, feed, tend the flock of Jesus Christ world wide until the Lord returns for His bride. The Holy Spirit is who guarantees the infallibility of the Apostolic succession, Traditions and teachings revealed by Jesus himself. The Holy Spirit is never inferior to Jesus Christ as you falsely imply as being a Vicar to Christ, this is blasphemy against the blessed Trinity which the Catholic Church handed down to your founders of Protestantism. The Scriptures record there is only “One Faith, One baptism, One Lord”. Outside of this revelation from sacred scripture since the Apostolic succession as mentioned by the early Church Fathers, are pseudo or come from another spirit.

Peace be with you

Only half, and half your door also-no succession . I know,there is a growing (evolving-sorry ,had to say that) number of supporting writings -so to detractors. No need to go further.We have our foundation all talked out ,I think. Agreed, if you apply your loose use of vicar , saying all bishops /elders are that . I would add that the Holy Spirit , has a bigger role though ,a very unique dispensation ,unparallelled in “His story”.

]

It is a shame that we have two different approaches from understanding what “evolves” from the mustard seed that Jesus planted, and the “evolving” which transpires from man made theologies such as protestantism. I pray one day you see this light.

Thank-you for the evolving admission.Rest is good too ,except for "in the popes. That is strictly Catholic ,by Catholic faith.Thank-you

 

[david_ruiz]

David, if you don’t mind me asking, to what Protestant denomination do you belong exactly? I’m not sure if I’ve asked before?

not really sure. Was there something called Four Square ,in southern calif -70’s ? First-saving church had some background to that .We liked calvary chapel ,in costa mesa,then attended an Assembly of God (Lomita,Ca.),then N.Y. church for many years ,and now it’s a strictly non-denominational -probably a cross between baptist and pentecostal(been there 28 years -same annointed pastor). See, I only tapped 3or 4 of the 50,000 possibilities (that tongue-in -cheek is not for you, but possibly for others listening in).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the problem is that there is no precedent for the pope being “vicar of all of Christendom” before the Great Schism? We look back pre-schism and see conciliar Christianity with emperors often calling a council. Bishops met, prayerfully debated, argued, came to conclusions under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and made declarations. Each bishop was equal, had equal votes, and the pope didn’t override or jump over the jurisdictions of other bishops? All bishops were equal for the most part and we hear Ignatius of Antioch tell us how the Bishop is Christ for his flock. Each bishop. Not just the pope. The idea that the pope is bishop of all bishops over the rest was an idea that steadily ran the East away from the West. 1054 was just an official date; the break had been steadily fracturing for years before. The Early Church believed that each parish Church, each diocese, was a microcosm of Christianity. The fullness of the Eucharist, the priesthood, the episcopacy, Christ Himself, existed at the diocesan level. Meyendorff refers to it as Eucharistic ecclesiology. Orthodox Christians would say that your comment about the bishops merely being shepherds of a flock UNDER the universal supremacy of the pope is a distortion of history and no such thing existed under the sun until after the schism when the pope was truly the only game in town in the West.

History does funny things. Think of it. The patriarchates of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria are kept together. Rome departs. The barbarians long ago had helped to divide an already-divided Roman Empire. In the East these four patriarchates cooperate together as a brotherhood of Christians. In the West there is only one game in town—the papacy. The popes spread Catholicism through guys like Clovis and Charlemagne into Germany, France, England, Ireland, Scotland, the nordic lands, spain and portugal, on and on and on. The pope was the sole patriarch of vast, vast lands. Meanwhile the eastern patriarchs are surrounded by Islam and fight for their lives to hold on. History had a lot to do with how the Catholic Church gained power in the West, rose in dominion, and steadily made claims to a universal authority that the East claimed it never had. The Orthodox to this day have a compelling argument as history appears to be more on their side. The fact that infallibility was only defined a hundred years ago or so is only more compelling evidence against it.

Your comment below qualifies my comment about the clarity discussing Catholic Apostolic biblical teachings and Traditions, between Orthodoxy than with Protestants who lack the sanctity and understanding from these Catholic understandings of the mysteries and revelations from God. When the new Protestant faiths, have invented their belief systems from an unheard of opinion or self interpretation of the scriptures. No wonder you don’t follow apostolic succession, because your faith has left it over 1600 years after the resurrection, while the Rock maintained its Apostolic succession these past 2000 years since the resurrection.

Let us be clear every Apostolic successor bishop is vicar among his flock. The Pope is vicar over the whole of Christendom, who alone Jesus gave the keys to bind and loose, feed, tend the flock of Jesus Christ world wide until the Lord returns for His bride. The Holy Spirit is who guarantees the infallibility of the Apostolic succession, Traditions and teachings revealed by Jesus himself. The Holy Spirit is never inferior to Jesus Christ as you falsely imply as being a Vicar to Christ, this is blasphemy against the blessed Trinity which the Catholic Church handed down to your founders of Protestantism. The Scriptures record there is only “One Faith, One baptism, One Lord”. Outside of this revelation from sacred scripture since the Apostolic succession as mentioned by the early Church Fathers, are pseudo or come from another spirit.

Peace be with you

]

It is a shame that we have two different approaches from understanding what “evolves” from the mustard seed that Jesus planted, and the “evolving” which transpires from man made theologies such as protestantism. I pray one day you see this light.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t follow you david, I revealed this to you to prove to you that there can be only one Church founded by Jesus Christ which has not been overtaken by heretical groups such as Arians, Nestoriuos who went out into Arabia and revealed a pseudo Christianity and not the authentic Catholic Apostolic Church. This was stated what transpires from those believing to be the true church of Jesus Christ and cause conflict and misunderstandings of the True Christianity Jesus gave His Catholic Church.

=david ruiz;7227943]
I like some of this, heard it before , that Christianity was a mess around him .“In a sense it was a revolt against the idolatry of the christian world,a judgement on a corrupt and degenerate church”-Ungers .Could the pope have done better ? Gregory was gone .Sabinian was not well liked ,campaigning and simony was a problem, and it took a year to replace Sabinian (607), just before Mohammad turned prophet. I would not be so sure Rome was totally innocent , for indeed unity and truth was needed, but she certainly did a few things to tick people off wrongly earlier , in my opinion , and we ALL paid for it dearly down the road, as you stated.

The Waldenses were invented by Peter Valdes better known as from history as “Waldo”, These followers of “Waldo” began in the 11OO’s a.d. during the time of St. Francis of Assisi. who went out to help them and teach them the true way of poverty and fasting, which “Waldo’s” took to a fanatical extreme which attached to themselves the name of “poor preachers” which never took.

Your Albigensians also known as Manicheans were dualists, this new 1100 a.d heretical belief believed that God did not take on flesh and Jesus never suffered for our sins nor did Jesus rise from the dead. These suicidal fanatics and self starving individuals also began during the 1100’s a.d.

Now if you want to attach your protestantism to these heretical Catholics who disobeyed their bishops, then by all means be my quess. But these are never close to protestantism, someone has decieved you. Where did you get these catholic heretics existing in the 2nd century??? you have my whole attention here!!! Please give me your sources because they Lie and would very much like to expose such trickery of history.

What of the Waldenses ,Albigenses,some beginning in 2nd century .I do not agree with all there dogma ,but a lot was already reformatory.

 

[po18guy]

NOVEL ? I believe when the church changed presbyter /elder to mean something different,and started the latin term /usage of priest in 2nd century ,that was a twist ,novel…The rest is your catholic interpretation.

Yes. Novel, as in novelty, as in “new”. “Priest” (today) and “Presbyter” (Book of Acts) are exactly the same. Both were ordained by the laying on of hands from the Apostles or their hands-on ordained successors. Please cite your source for the 2nd century “change”.

Nowhere does Jesus say go make laity of all men and nations.

Take another look at what Jesus said, and to whom He said it. An awful lot of His teaching was directed only at the twelve. Look at the power and authority he gave only to the twelve. Assuming that individuals somehow have the authority of the Apostles is the danger of Do-It-Yourself Christianity. The bible has become the everyman’s “Heaven Depot”. But, there’s no building code used in these “remodels” of the Gospel.

A disciple is one who learns from someone to be like ,and do what that someone is. Hey ,sew up that middle wall of partition, the veil in the temple, torn in two at His death, so that we can not go into the holy of holies ,except for the priest. Shoot , we are right back where we started, with Judaism- where is the NEW thing scripture promised ?

For some reason, in 1,977 years, your fear has not been realized. Have you redefined what something “new” is? God becoming man and shedding His Blood for our redemption is the “new”. Every Goober with a thrift-store bible preaching heresy is not. Jesus founded an authoritative, Apostolic Church. It exists today because it has existed ever since Jesus founded it on Peter. You have the freedom to disagree. You also have the freedom to be wrong.

Once separated from Church authority and made subject to the individual human ego, the bible is a foundation of sand. Tens of thousands of disagreeing denominations are proof of this.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It appears you need a class of 101 in the definitions of Vicar as applied to all bishops, Popes and parish Pastors. Secondly you have succumbed to Orthodox terminology that never exists in Catholicism; such as “the pope is bishop over all the bishops”? “Pope being Vicar of all Christendom”? Here in lies your confusion of arguments from the Orthodox position. These definitions do not exist in Catholicism, they are invented by protestants and Orthodox to win favor of their false belief’s that the Pope is a superhuman above all humans. You should take a breather and exhale, because you have been given allot of hot air buddy.

No one argues with St. Ignatius, all bishops are equal including the bishop of Rome and all of these are Vicar to their provinces. Since when did you start believing that the Pope rules over each bishopric? Someone has deceived you my friend. You and the Orthodox are placing an argument against Catholicism that does not exist in your misinformed minds. Catholics don’t believe in such a Pope as you describe here, this is ridiculous and Iam surprised you fell for such false accusations. I will conclude that your commentary does not apply to Catholicism but to the figment of an Orthodox imagination of the Pope.

History does not serve the Western Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, they haven’t existed that long and you take that to the bank, just research their liturgy and you will find in them that It is not Orthodoxy but Anglican. Now the Orthodoxy from 1054, are allot closer than seem to imply from history. These Orthodox, a True Orthodox knows that you cannot have a Catholic church without Peter. These Western Orthodox have been influenced from their protestant days and only repeat their protests only from the 15Th century but with a new painted face.

Before you can side with which Orthodox has history on its side, you might take a look at which Church has never succumbed to heresy, heretics, and has been around since the resurrection. Then learn what Vicar, Pope, Infallibility means without influence from those who misunderstand these Apostolic revealed teachings supported by all three, scriptures, Sacred Tradition and Early church Fathers.

Your case is most entertaining to say the least, but I think a session of Catholic 101 is in order.

=gurneyhalleck1;7228022]I think the problem is that there is no precedent for the pope being “vicar of all of Christendom” before the Great Schism? We look back pre-schism and see conciliar Christianity with emperors often calling a council. Bishops met, prayerfully debated, argued, came to conclusions under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and made declarations. Each bishop was equal, had equal votes, and the pope didn’t override or jump over the jurisdictions of other bishops? All bishops were equal for the most part and we hear Ignatius of Antioch tell us how the Bishop is Christ for his flock. Each bishop. Not just the pope. The idea that the pope is bishop of all bishops over the rest was an idea that steadily ran the East away from the West. 1054 was just an official date; the break had been steadily fracturing for years before. The Early Church believed that each parish Church, each diocese, was a microcosm of Christianity. The fullness of the Eucharist, the priesthood, the episcopacy, Christ Himself, existed at the diocesan level. Meyendorff refers to it as Eucharistic ecclesiology. Orthodox Christians would say that your comment about the bishops merely being shepherds of a flock UNDER the universal supremacy of the pope is a distortion of history and no such thing existed under the sun until after the schism when the pope was truly the only game in town in the West.

History does funny things. Think of it. The patriarchates of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria are kept together. Rome departs. The barbarians long ago had helped to divide an already-divided Roman Empire. In the East these four patriarchates cooperate together as a brotherhood of Christians. In the West there is only one game in town—the papacy. The popes spread Catholicism through guys like Clovis and Charlemagne into Germany, France, England, Ireland, Scotland, the nordic lands, spain and portugal, on and on and on. The pope was the sole patriarch of vast, vast lands. Meanwhile the eastern patriarchs are surrounded by Islam and fight for their lives to hold on. History had a lot to do with how the Catholic Church gained power in the West, rose in dominion, and steadily made claims to a universal authority that the East claimed it never had. The Orthodox to this day have a compelling argument as history appears to be more on their side. The fact that infallibility was only defined a hundred years ago or so is only more compelling evidence against it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In response to Gabriel of 12’s post:

I’m blown away by this post, Gabe. It’s not your usual, charitable, warm style. It’s more biting, grumpy, and bitter than most. First of all, let’s call a spade a spade. You’re a smart guy, I like to think I have a few brain cells myself. Let’s not insult each other hear with the “you need a crash coarse” or “you need papacy 101 classes bud!” type openers. I was shocked that you’d address me that way. I have too much respect for you as a long-time poster here and overall good guy to try and bait you with that nonsense. Telling me I’m full of hot air, not cool either. And implying I’m an entertainer with empty arguments is equally disappointing to me. Insults and patronizing me never wins me over. But I digress.

Bottom line is this: The pope IS bishop over all bishops. You know that full well. Bishops need approval from the papacy to function on so many levels. Papal approval, papal appointments, papal decrees, papal power in general rules over the other bishops. Bishops in the Catholic Church cannot unilaterally act on so many levels. They don’t share the freedom that bishops in the early church were allowed. You cannot look me in the eye (well technically you can’t anyway since we’re online) and tell me that my Bishop, John Steinbock, of Fresno, CA is equal to the pope? He has the same powers as the pope? Can my bishop issue an encyclical that is binding on all Catholics? Can my bishop ordain all these other bishops? Can my bishop move bishops around the world? Can my bishop issue infallible statements binding on the other bishops? no, no, and no. My bishop is a servant of the pope in a lesser bishopric, pure and simple. Catholicism doesn’t function like the Church did at Nicea. Not even close. Do you see a secular power like that of Constantine requesting a council?

I’m appauled that you would declare I have a “misinformed mind” and that I have “fallen for” a pack of lies. So to review from your vantage point I’m misinformed, stupid, easily-duped, and in need of education from Gabriel of 12?

I am also perplexed that you chose not use the usual Catholic triad of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium? Instead you created a new one: Scripture, Tradition, and Early Fathers? That’s a new one… Apparently after arguing for the centrality (and yet not central?) of the papacy the early fathers have usurped the magisterium for prominence!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I also find it fascinating that you look at the bishop of Rome as PETER and yet you do not let the other 11 apostles’ origins transfer to their modern counterparts? The Orthodox do have a See founded by Peter in that of Antioch. And yet the other eleven don’t transfer, just Peter’s? If each See’s descendent gets credit for being the same as its progenitor, then I would say the other eleven Sees, the other patriarchates, were left behind by Peter, right? Rome excommunicated the East (in a most shameful way) and walked away. What of the other eleven apostles? What of the other patriarchates? From your characterization they’re all lost sheep without the true ultimate Shepherd in “Peter” and yet oddly enough for over 1,000 years they’ve done very well surviving Islam, Communism, social uphevals, etc. They never had a Reformation or a Luther/Calvin type, they never had a Vatican II style ruining of their liturgy, they never changed their liturgy to include Protestant-style trappings, they never changed their Church polity or had to declare themselves infallible 1800 plus years after the fact, never changed the rules of engagement, and have stayed quite consistent quite frankly. They still possess the deposit of faith without a heap of innovations…and all without a papacy. Imagine that But then again, what would an uneducated, bloviating, hot-air-laden goober like me know about such matters… I’ll go sign up for the Christianity 101 course after I learn my alphabet

It appears you need a class of 101 in the definitions of Vicar as applied to all bishops, Popes and parish Pastors. Secondly you have succumbed to Orthodox terminology that never exists in Catholicism; such as “the pope is bishop over all the bishops”? “Pope being Vicar of all Christendom”? Here in lies your confusion of arguments from the Orthodox position. These definitions do not exist in Catholicism, they are invented by protestants and Orthodox to win favor of their false belief’s that the Pope is a superhuman above all humans. You should take a breather and exhale, because you have been given allot of hot air buddy.

No one argues with St. Ignatius, all bishops are equal including the bishop of Rome and all of these are Vicar to their provinces. Since when did you start believing that the Pope rules over each bishopric? Someone has deceived you my friend. You and the Orthodox are placing an argument against Catholicism that does not exist in your misinformed minds. Catholics don’t believe in such a Pope as you describe here, this is ridiculous and Iam surprised you fell for such false accusations. I will conclude that your commentary does not apply to Catholicism but to the figment of an Orthodox imagination of the Pope.

History does not serve the Western Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, they haven’t existed that long and you take that to the bank, just research their liturgy and you will find in them that It is not Orthodoxy but Anglican. Now the Orthodoxy from 1054, are allot closer than seem to imply from history. These Orthodox, a True Orthodox knows that you cannot have a Catholic church without Peter. These Western Orthodox have been influenced from their protestant days and only repeat their protests only from the 15Th century but with a new painted face.

Before you can side with which Orthodox has history on its side, you might take a look at which Church has never succumbed to heresy, heretics, and has been around since the resurrection. Then learn what Vicar, Pope, Infallibility means without influence from those who misunderstand these Apostolic revealed teachings supported by all three, scriptures, Sacred Tradition and Early church Fathers.

Your case is most entertaining to say the least, but I think a session of Catholic 101 is in order.

 

[elvisman]

I have also heard that initially coming out of Egypt they were supposed to be a kingdom of priests .This changed after their sin ,and a tribe was designated to be priests.I do not see why Christ would use a stand -in model of the O.T. for a perfect new beginning in the N.T…yes we are too obey our elders. yes ,our belief’s better be in line with paul and peter also (succession)

Hey David:
They WERE a kingdom of priets. I already laid it out for you:
**There were three levels of Priests: Aaron, the High Priest, the Levitical or ministerial Priesthood, and the rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers. **

’Nuff said?

 

[elvisman]

NOVEL ? I believe when the church changed presbyter /elder to mean something different,and started the latin term /usage of priest in 2nd century ,that was a twist ,novel…The rest is your catholic interpretation. Nowhere does Jesus say go make laity of all men and nations .A disciple is one who learns from someone to be like ,and do what that someone is. Hey ,sew up that middle wall of partition, the veil in the temple, torn in two at His death, so that we can not go into the holy of holies ,except for the priest. Shoot , we are right back where we started, with Judaism- where is the NEW thing scripture promised ?

The veil being torn down the middle had more to do with the fact that Jesus was opening the gates of Heaven and less to do with the Holy of Holies itself.

As for your charge that the Catholic Church somehow changed the meaning of "presbyter" simply because it referrred to it in the language of the day (Latin) is completely ludicrous. “Priest” is merely a translation of “Presbyter”.

The Kingdom of God is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom and, as such has a hierarchy - regardless of whether you approve of it or not.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I also find it fascinating that you look at the bishop of Rome as PETER and yet you do not let the other 11 apostles’ origins transfer to their modern counterparts? The Orthodox do have a See founded by Peter in that of Antioch. And yet the other eleven don’t transfer, just Peter’s? If each See’s descendent gets credit for being the same as its progenitor, then I would say the other eleven Sees, the other patriarchates, were left behind by Peter, right?

I’ve had Catholics on this forum explain to me that the successor of Peter (and by that they mean the pope exclusively), is indeed the only bishop to inherit actual, personal apostolic authority. That is why Rome is called the Apostolic See, totally ignoring the fact that fathers such as St Augustine clearly refer to Rome as an Apostolic See.

I’ve also had a Catholic on this forum explain to me that Pope St Clement’s personal authority was greater than that of the Holy Apostle John. They cite as evidence the fact that the Corinthians chose to take their issue to St Clement in the imperial capital instead of writing to the nearly 100 year old Apostle in Anatolia. Even with the historical uncertainty of the exact dates of St Clement’s papacy, St John’s death and the date of the letter I find this claim to be completely ludicrous.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed! Let’s look at it this way. I teach sixth grade. I work with two other teachers, Mike and Sarah (let’s say). I’m grading the sixth grade writing assessments and have a 4-point rubric: 1, 2, 3, and 4. 4 being the highest score. Well I’m assessing a child and am caught between a 2 and a 3. I’m not sure how to score just one paper. I talk to the other teacher and he is as confused as I am on the issue so we ask the third teacher to be a tie-breaker. Is that third teacher BETTER than me? Nope. Is that third teacher HIGHER in stature or rank than me? Nope. And here’s the deal, that same day Mike and Sarah can’t agree on how to grade a child so guess who they come to? ME! So now do I have a primacy of power at sixth grade over those two? Bottom line is that sometimes we need second opinions, outside sources, etc. Sometimes judges recuse themselves in certain cases and ask another judge to intervene. Sometimes a judge himself is behaving corruptly and you need other judges to judge the judge!

The same was with the early Church. The pope was often asked to judge matters of ecclesiastical importance. Sometimes other bishops deferred to him due to his stature and gridlock within their own areas, sometimes they sought his wisdom, often he was asked to be a final word on something, and frequently his opinions, insights, and judgments were highly-regarded and sought. The pope was the bishop of the greatest city in the Roman Empire—ROME. And he was the bishop of Peter’s great See. It would be like being the mayor of New York and a Kennedy at the same time!

I think Catholics often assume that when Rome had the final word on something or made a decision for another diocese or patriarch, that somehow everyone understood him to be THE final authority and judge, jury, and final voice on every single thing, the president of all bishops, the end. “Rome has spoken” doesn’t really necessarily mean what some folks in here think it means…

I’ve had Catholics on this forum explain to me that the successor of Peter (and by that they mean the pope exclusively), is indeed the only bishop to inherit actual, personal apostolic authority. That is why Rome is called the Apostolic See, totally ignoring the fact that fathers such as St Augustine clearly refer to Rome as an Apostolic See.

I’ve also had a Catholic on this forum explain to me that Pope St Clement’s personal authority was greater than that of the Holy Apostle John. They cite as evidence the fact that the Corinthians chose to take their issue to St Clement in the imperial capital instead of writing to the nearly 100 year old Apostle in Anatolia. Even with the historical uncertainty of the exact dates of St Clement’s papacy, St John’s death and the date of the letter I find this claim to be completely ludicrous.

In Christ
Joe

 

[elvisman]

I’ve had Catholics on this forum explain to me that the successor of Peter (and by that they mean the pope exclusively), is indeed the only bishop to inherit actual, personal apostolic authority. That is why Rome is called the Apostolic See, totally ignoring the fact that fathers such as St Augustine clearly refer to Rome as an Apostolic See.

I’ve also had a Catholic on this forum explain to me that Pope St Clement’s personal authority was greater than that of the Holy Apostle John. They cite as evidence the fact that the Corinthians chose to take their issue to St Clement in the imperial capital instead of writing to the nearly 100 year old Apostle in Anatolia. Even with the historical uncertainty of the exact dates of St Clement’s papacy, St John’s death and the date of the letter I find this claim to be completely ludicrous.

Agreed! Let’s look at it this way. I teach sixth grade. I work with two other teachers, Mike and Sarah (let’s say). I’m grading the sixth grade writing assessments and have a 4-point rubric: 1, 2, 3, and 4. 4 being the highest score. Well I’m assessing a child and am caught between a 2 and a 3. I’m not sure how to score just one paper. I talk to the other teacher and he is as confused as I am on the issue so we ask the third teacher to be a tie-breaker. Is that third teacher BETTER than me? Nope. Is that third teacher HIGHER in stature or rank than me? Nope. And here’s the deal, that same day Mike and Sarah can’t agree on how to grade a child so guess who they come to? ME! So now do I have a primacy of power at sixth grade over those two? Bottom line is that sometimes we need second opinions, outside sources, etc. Sometimes judges recuse themselves in certain cases and ask another judge to intervene. Sometimes a judge himself is behaving corruptly and you need other judges to judge the judge!

The same was with the early Church. The pope was often asked to judge matters of ecclesiastical importance. Sometimes other bishops deferred to him due to his stature and gridlock within their own areas, sometimes they sought his wisdom, often he was asked to be a final word on something, and frequently his opinions, insights, and judgments were highly-regarded and sought. The pope was the bishop of the greatest city in the Roman Empire—ROME. And he was the bishop of Peter’s great See. It would be like being the mayor of New York and a Kennedy at the same time!

I think Catholics often assume that when Rome had the final word on something or made a decision for another diocese or patriarch, that somehow everyone understood him to be THE final authority and judge, jury, and final voice on every single thing, the president of all bishops, the end. “Rome has spoken” doesn’t really necessarily mean what some folks in here think it means…

Sorry - but you’re BOTH wrong about Augustine. He indeed spoke of the primacy of the Pope:

---

St. Augustine
“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (John 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.”
St. Augustine*** (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith***

---

*“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church…’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus…” St. Augustine of Hippo (“Letter 53,” 412 A.D.) ***

---

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?"
(“Against the Letters of Petilani” c. 402 A.D.)

 

[josephdaniel29]

Sorry - but you’re BOTH wrong about Augustine. He indeed spoke of the primacy of the Pope:

---

St. Augustine
“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (John 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.”
St. Augustine*** (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith***

---

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church…’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus…" St. Augustine* of Hippo (“Letter 53,” 412 A.D.) *

---

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?"
(“Against the Letters of Petilani” c. 402 A.D.)

Listen, we can play the St Augustine quote game all you want. He certainly made other statements about actual events that weren’t so flattering to the Bishop of Rome.

And by the way, not one of those quotes says a word about the Bishop of Rome being infallible or having universal jurisdiction. St Augustine was a prolific writer; he had ample opportunity to express a belief in infallibly and universal jurisdiction but never did.

 

[schaick]

The bible is church-based. I can agree with that. The early church selected those writings which accurately reflected the beliefs and practices of the established church. … .

There would be no Church without the message, the Good News, GOD’s Word and WORD. Absolutely no need for the Church Jesus built- we would be either jewish, pagans, whatever without the Good News message from GOD.

So actually the Church came after GOD’s message, Word. It is the Church that is based on the Word and WORD [Jesus] of GOD.

A person either heard or hears the WORD or Word believes- is called out and is baptized making what is called the ecclesia, the Church.

When you think about it **everything **came **after **and is based on GOD’S Word-

3 And God said, “Let there be light,”

 

[elvisman]

Listen, we can play the St Augustine quote game all you want. He certainly made other statements about actual events that weren’t so flattering to the Bishop of Rome.

And by the way, not one of those quotes says a word about the Bishop of Rome being infallible or having universal jurisdiction. St Augustine was a prolific writer; he had ample opportunity to express a belief in infallibly and universal jurisdiction but never did.

Wrong.
the following quote DOES speak of universal jurisdiction:

*“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church…’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus…” St. Augustine of Hippo (“Letter 53,” 412 A.D.) ***

What part of WHOLE Church do you not understand?

 

[schaick]

ALL** Christians – Catholic and** Protestant - believe that the Holy Spirit and not man who decided the canon of Scripture. The Church declared the canon but it was GOD who ordained it.

---

Therefore – you are dead wrong when you say that it is not infallible. God doesn’t make mistakes.

I never said that.

As a true Bible thumper, Bible the final authority type Christian I believe the Bible to be GOD’s infallible Word.

You have misunderstand what I was saying:

Almost all Catholics say it was the Catholic Church that decided the canon.

I was saying, In the “list” of infallible statements made by the Catholic Church there are only 2 statements listed as being infallible:
Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary

The canon of the Bible is not on the list.

**Actually the canonized list of what is Scripture is not recognized as an infallible statement by the Catholic Church, the canon is not on any list of infallible statements.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Wrong.
the following quote DOES speak of universal jurisdiction:

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church…’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus…" St. Augustine* of Hippo (“Letter 53,” 412 A.D.) *

What part of WHOLE Church do you not understand?

He said that St Peter “represented” the whole Church, not that he ruled the Church or was infallible. Of course that’s saying nothing about the fact that Augustine was talking about St Peter personally, not the bishops of Rome exclusively.

Try again.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My subject matter was addressing the false pretense from your Orthodox position, not you personally. My comments never come close to the negativity expressed by some Orthodox views who protests Peter’s Chair. My intentions was never to insult you, but to make clear my opposition to the misunderstanding views from some of the Orthodox position in regards to Vicar, Pope and infallibility. The Orthodox position you mentioned does not view a reality to the topics, it is this view to which I reference full of hot (negative) air, not addressing you personally.

In response to Gabriel of 12’s post:

I’m blown away by this post, Gabe. It’s not your usual, charitable, warm style. It’s more biting, grumpy, and bitter than most. First of all, let’s call a spade a spade. You’re a smart guy, I like to think I have a few brain cells myself. Let’s not insult each other hear with the “you need a crash coarse” or “you need papacy 101 classes bud!” type openers. I was shocked that you’d address me that way. I have too much respect for you as a long-time poster here and overall good guy to try and bait you with that nonsense. Telling me I’m full of hot air, not cool either. And implying I’m an entertainer with empty arguments is equally disappointing to me. Insults and patronizing me never wins me over. But I digress.