Yes. And we know that the Orthodox Church which is 2000 years old with apostolic succession recites the creed…and she is orthodox…and she is catholic.
No it doesn’t. You posted something without citation…and I am fairly certain it does not have patristioc origin.
Here is a better question. Why did it take more than 1800 years for Rome to define this “infallibility?”
I’m sure you’ll give it the old college try.
Agreed. Same with the Catholic Church - right?Yes. And we know that the Orthodox Church which is 2000 years old with apostolic succession recites the creed…and she is orthodox…and she is catholic.
Now if you want to talk about some protestantization analogies…I have tons of them relating to my long time in the Roman Catholic Church…but I don’t think you want to talk about that.
I’m not getting into this fray, but I have to say that exact question recurs to me constantly. No, I’m not going to elucidate on that for a variety of reasons, but I will make a reference to something [post=10183508] I posted[/post] recently in another thread.
Dooesn’t the church to which you belong believe the same thing, minus the papacy; just the ecumenical councils?
Indeed. And I said that about 100 posts ago. But your compadres insisted on attempting to prove that somehow the supreme infallible papacy of the ultramontanists was taught by the ECF’s.
Sorry. My Church does not teach that the bishop of Rome is supreme…nor infallible (ex-cathedra). This was an innovation that was championed by the ultramontanists and promulgated by Pius IX in1870. And so this brings us back to the original question. Did the Orthodox Church ever submit to the Pope?
I agree with you malphono. It is very disturbing. It was disturbing to me while in communion with Rome…and it is still disturbing to me.I’m not getting into this fray, but I have to say that exact question recurs to me constantly. No, I’m not going to elucidate on that for a variety of reasons, but I will make a reference to something [post=10183508] I posted[/post] recently in another thread.
I think that the Church is more akin to a parliamentary federation such as Canada. I illustrated from the Catechism in earlier posts in this thread that while the Pope is Vicar of Christ throughout the Church Universal, each bishop is also a true vicar of Christ as head of his particular church, and not a mere vicar of the pope. In Canada, the Prime Minister, as head of the federal government, presides over the Queen’s Canadian ministry and exercises executive power throughout Canada. In each province, the Premier is not a deputy of the federal Prime Minister, but also a First Minister of the Queen in his or her own right, and exercises executive power throughout his or her province. The federal prime minister has a greater scope of authority that the provincial premiers, but both receive their mandate and authority directly from the same monarch… for the good of the nation, the Prime Minister can institute certain federal polices, but he won’t interfere in the day-to-day policies of the provincial Premiers in matters of health care, education, or other areas of provincial responsibility…the same goes for the Pope and bishops.
Ehow is pretty cool; the following sums it up fairly well:
To be fair you have been a little snarky at times, as well. LOL…I agree with you malphono. It is very disturbing. It was disturbing to me while in communion with Rome…and it is still disturbing to me.
And I am very close to getting out of this fray myself. I have been in this fray too many times.
It start to get very snarky.
Agreed. As you know I never said that.
Let’s try it again; I will rephrase it:Why did it take 300 years for the Church to define the Trinity? 300 years is a long time to “put off” defining such a fundamental mystery of the Christian faith. I don’t think this is a valid argument. The Church moves very slowly and has only gradually defined and articulated the deposit of faith entrusted to the saints. For a Catholic, Our Lord already alluded to infallibility when He promised St. Peter that He, the Divine Savior, had prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. A number of Fathers, East and West, speak of the indefectibility of the faith of Peter for the prayer of the Savior cannot be without fruit. St. Irenaeus alerady tells us in the second century that Rome is the Church with which all of the churches must agree. Papal infallibility is not a central tenant of the faith - it is rarely, rarely, rarely, rarely, rarely exercised… there were other far more important dogmas to sort out in previous centuries. Only two dogmas have been infallibly defined by a pope (arguably a couple of others - but I think every other case people point to as an exercise of papal infallibility was simply a reiteration of dogmas defined by councils)…the vast majority of the Church’s dozens of “infallibly” defined dogmas were promulgated by ecumencial councils - the bishops and pope acting in concert - which is the normative means through which the Church exercises her infallibility.
OK. If you don’t mind me asking, why, in your opinion, did it take so long to officially define?