Drawn to Catholicism...but have reservations.

[itsjustdave1988]

Serafin,

The problem at this juncture is identifying just who the heretic and schismatics are? Us poor Protestants are so confused with the competing claims between you and the Orthodox! Its kind of like a divorced couple each claiming an intact home and custody of the kids.

I went about studying the matter for myself. When I read the letter from Anatolius to Pope Leo I (which CCEL suspiciously summarizes without actually showing the content), it seemed clear to me that the Eastern Bishops used to believe the Roman Pontiff had jurisdictional authority over the universal Church, thereby truly presiding as St. Ignatius of Antioch asserted in AD 110.

I found the testimony of St. Ignatius compelling, since he actually knew St. John the Apostle and learned his orthodoxy directly from him. When he states the Church in Rome presides, I doubt he was interjecting something new. Centuries later (cf. Ephesus, Chalcedon), it becomes ever more clear what “presides” meant in the intervening centuries. St. Irenaeus (AD 189) tells us it meant that “all the faithful of the world” must agree with the Church of Rome. If one does not maintain unity with the Chair of Peter, they have broken communion with the orthodox tradition, according to St. Irenaeus. Nobody disputed this position then. I don’t understand why an orthodox Christian would dispute this position now.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You should note that the reasons given by both Ignatius and Ireneus for their statements did not include any mention of an infallible pope!

St. Irenaeus gave the reason. He said: “For with this Church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all churches must agree” This was not disputed.

However, other opinions of St. Irenaeus were disputed. It seems evident to me that the Church was quick to dispute heterodox opinions. Yet, nobody hoping to be considered orthodox disputed the primacy of Rome in the early Church. The later assertion that it was ONLY a primacy of honor is refuted by the Bishops at Chalcedon.

According to Anglican patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly,

[For the early Fathers] the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles …

. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (Early Church Doctrines, 37, emphasis added).

We have a choice. We can hold fast to the faith of our fathers or we can make up our own religion. I prefer the former.

God bless,

Dave

 

[Serafin]

itsjustdave1988]St. Irenaeus gave the reason. He said: “For with this Church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all churches must agree” This was not disputed.

Dave:

The status of the Church at Rome and its privileged position in the early Church is not a matter of dispute, we can all read! However, no quote you have cited from the early church fathers attributes infallibility to the Bishop of Rome…and of course there are the things you have not cited…which add color to the story. “Superior origin” as in…Peter and Paul were martyred there…does not imply “present infallible bishop”. The whole concept of Ecumenical Councils gathered to ascertain Christian truth and combat heresy is for all practical purposes a mute point if all we need to be protected from heresy is to have the bishop of Rome make an infallible pronouncement.

What is disputed is the authority of said church to unilaterally change Apostolic doctrine with the pronouncement of its new dogmas including that of Papal Infallibility. This is a concern that is not unique to Anglicans and is the major stumbling block to Christian unity.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[hawkeye]

People want the Pope to change this law and that law, but he can’t as he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

It would be nice to have this law and that law relaxed, but if it’s going against the Holy Spirit, then thats not possible.:tiphat:

 

[Serafin]

itsjustdave1988:

Serafin,

I went about studying the matter for myself. When I read the letter from Anatolius to Pope Leo I (which CCEL suspiciously summarizes without actually showing the content), it seemed clear to me that the Eastern Bishops used to believe the Roman Pontiff had jurisdictional authority over the universal Church, thereby truly presiding as St. Ignatius of Antioch asserted in AD 110.

I wonder if any of those Eastern Bishops ever thought the pope infallible?

I found the testimony of St. Ignatius compelling, since he actually knew St. John the Apostle and learned his orthodoxy directly from him. When he states the Church in Rome presides, I doubt he was interjecting something new

.

Papal infallibility is a new interjection…which neither St. John nor Ignatius seem to know a thing about!

Centuries later (cf. Ephesus, Chalcedon), it becomes ever more clear what “presides” meant in the intervening centuries. St. Irenaeus (AD 189) tells us it meant that “all the faithful of the world” must agree with the Church of Rome. If one does not maintain unity with the Chair of Peter, they have broken communion with the orthodox tradition, according to St. Irenaeus. Nobody disputed this position then. I don’t understand why an orthodox Christian would dispute this position now.

The Church which “presides in love” used to be a name for the Church of Rome. That was then, prior to the Filioque and later papal claims of universal jurisdiction which to the Orthodox meant Rome had broken with Orthodox tradition…things evolve as you well point out. Dave, the highest ofice in your church, for a time, was in the hand of scoundrels and other sundry characters …it does something to credibility which your apologetics have not been able to dismiss.

For less dispute…adopt a less dogmatic policy about infallibility and jurisdiction …and see!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[twf]

Serafin: I think others have done a very adequate job of demonstrating that the moral disposition of an individual pope has no bearing on the authority of the office (the high priest, though condemning Jesus to death, still spoke by the Spirit…and the Pharisees, though condemned by Christ, still had binding authority over the Jews).

It is true that ‘infallibility’ is not explicit, but we must keep in mind the concept of the development of doctrine. As time went on, the Spirit guided the Church into a fuller understanding of the deposit of faith regarding the papal office. (The fact that the pope ratified the canons of the ecumenical councils in itself speaks volume…if ecumenical councils are infallible, then it is logical that the one who must ratify the canons to make them binding must also possess the gift of infallibility).

*Supreme authority without checks and balances can be as evil as no authority at all. As far as Anglicans go the one bright note is that they can change institutionalized error should they awaken and God will it so. In contrast, you seem to be stuck with dogmas not of your generation’s making… that you have no choice but to accept, defend even against common sense and call it the deposit of faith! *
We can correct errors in the way the Church is organized, but only within the limited scope of those facets that are of human origin. The office of bishop, with the successor of St. Peter as their head, is of divine origin. No matter how much we may dislike it, we can not dispute it. I reject the notion that papal infallibility goes against common sense.

 

[ZoeTheodora]

For less dispute…adopt a less dogmatic policy about infallibility and jurisdiction …and see!

And see what? The Gene Robinson consecration? Bishop Spong? The toleration of gay unions (complete with a liturgy for same-sex marriage)? The deterioration of England, center of Anglicanism, into a largely post-Christian nation?

Thanks but no thanks.

ZT

 

[Serafin]

Hi:

Thank you for your comments. In this particular topic it does not seem we are going to agree !

Serafin: I think others have done a very adequate job of demonstrating that the moral disposition of an individual pope has no bearing on the authority of the office (the high priest, though condemning Jesus to death, still spoke by the Spirit…and the Pharisees, though condemned by Christ, still had binding authority over the Jews).

I do not accept the premise that Jesus taught his disciples that the Pharisees had binding authority over the Jews. These are the words of Peter and John to those same authorities found in the book of Acts 4

" 18Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God…”

Sometimes authority has to be questioned, and when wrong confronted, that is what Jesus did! The history of the Church would perhaps be a little bit less dark if people would have questioned the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair and many other things that the competent “authorities” in the RCC and separated Christian Communities have allowed. I respectfully restate that :
Supreme authority without checks and balances can be as evil as no authority at all!

We can correct errors in the way the Church is organized, but only within the limited scope of those facets that are of human origin. The office of bishop, with the successor of St. Peter as their head, is of divine origin. No matter how much we may dislike it, we can not dispute it. I reject the notion that papal infallibility goes against common sense

With all due respect to the bishop of Rome it seems to me and many other Christians that some of the definitions regarding the papal office are of human origin reflecting the historical-political development of a different time in history. This we do have a right to dispute and to attempt to change. I respect your excercise of common sense but, do not concurr.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement…:

“It is true that ‘infallibility’ is not explicit, but we must keep in mind the concept of the development of doctrine…”

Doctrine does develop but in the case of infallibility it seems more like a mutation. Non RCC Christians look to the council at Jerusalem described in the book of Acts as a model for the Spirit guiding the Church in the definition and clarification of doctrine. There, Peter had a key role as witness to the truth of God but it was James who seemed to have the final word…the ratifying role.

As time went on, the Spirit guided the Church into a fuller understanding of the deposit of faith regarding the papal office. (The fact that the pope ratified the canons of the ecumenical councils in itself speaks volume…if ecumenical councils are infallible, then it is logical that the one who must ratify the canons to make them binding must also possess the gift of infallibility).

Some Councils were called Ecumenical but later rejected. It is only in retrospect that we have called councils such.Infallibility is not necessarily implied by the Pope’s ratification of the Councils, that is your take on it which we, respectfully do not agree with.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

ZoeTheodora:

And see what? The Gene Robinson consecration? Bishop Spong? The toleration of gay unions (complete with a liturgy for same-sex marriage)? The deterioration of England, center of Anglicanism, into a largely post-Christian nation?

Thanks but no thanks.

ZT

1. You might see more than you expect, after all infallibillity was not as “explicitly understood” in the first millenium of Christianity. The Church seemed to manage…
2. Granted…Spong , Robinson et al…are a sad symptom of our time, lack of faith, a rejection of Scripture and Anglican/Christian Tradition in western, secularized societies. :bigyikes:

However, might I remind you that there have been heretics and other quite shady characters as bishops even in the highest office of many Christian communities boasting Apostolic Sucession and valid sacraments, including the “One True Church” at certain times in history… we will all survive I am sure! Where Anglicanism fails to correct itself people will rightly leave and go serve God elsewhere…as many have left the RCC for one reason or another. :whacky:

1. post-Christian England is no different that post Christian Italy or Spain. I wonder what mass attendace is in the Diocese of Rome?

Your solution to the problem has been tried and alas…not helpful

Thanks but no thanks!

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

Hi guys and gals:

Let me get this clear…

Do you actually believe that we understand better than S. Peter himself what the “power of the keys” and Jesus’s statement about “the Rock” meant for him and his sucessors?

If Peter was granted the “charism of infallibility” would he have known it? How about the other apostles and elders and the rest of the church of his time?

Blessings

Serafin

 

[MaryLynne]

Thepeug:

Hey, everybody. I’m new to this forum, and I have a LOT of questions about Catholicism, so I hope you can help me out . I was raised an Episcopalian, and I still attend that church with my family when I go home, but over the last few months I have begun to yearn for a return to the “ancient” church. I’m attracted to Catholicism because of the sense of unity that it promotes, as well as the idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I attend a Catholic Church here at school (UNC-Chapel Hill…go Tarheels!) that I absolutely love; partly because it is so similar to an Episcopal service, partly becuase it is a service that is geared towards college students, and partly because the priest is an awesome guy.
Peace,
Chris

Welcome Chris…and Peace of our Lord be with you.

I’m a fellow (well, woman actually ) Tarheel, originally from NC, but now in California for the past 22 years. I came into full communion with Christ in His Church 7 years ago, and would love to share with you whatever questions you might have. I post on speroforum.com/forum/ for the past 2 1/2 years, and have enjoyed refuting all of the false claims against the Church as well as helping those who are honestly seeking communion in Christ’s Church. I hope that I can be of any help to you in any questions that you might have. God bless you, Lynne

 

[MaryLynne]

Serafin:

Hi guys and gals:

Let me get this clear…

Do you actually believe that we understand better than S. Peter himself what the “power of the keys” and Jesus’s statement about “the Rock” meant for him and his sucessors?

If Peter was granted the “charism of infallibility” would he have known it? How about the other apostles and elders and the rest of the church of his time?

Blessings

Serafin

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matt 16:16-17 (RSV) . . . I believe so, as Jesus said and did many other things that are not in scripture…and Jesus promised that the gates of ‘error’ would NOT prevail His Church.

 

[Spider-man]

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matt 16:16-17 (RSV) . . . I believe so, as Jesus said and did many other things that are not in scripture…and Jesus promised that the gates of ‘error’ would NOT prevail His Church.

Nothing in the above quote says that error cannot enter the church–just that the church would not be defeated.

We know that even during the times of the apostles there was error in the church.

 

[Serafin]

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matt 16:16-17 (RSV) . . . I believe so, as Jesus said and did many other things that are not in scripture…and Jesus promised that the gates of ‘error’ would NOT prevail His Church.

Dear Mary… thank you for the quote but it does not adress the particular question I asked!

I am sure Jesus had …acne, played hide and go seek, turned clay birds into real ones, did and said plenty of things that are not in Scripture . Unfortunately you and I are not privvy to what those things were and have to rely mainly on the Apostolic witness of Scripture.

As for the Church and error…of course it will not prevail but…please; at one time most of the bishops of the Church were Arrian… and in very dark times there were at least two different people claiming to be Pope! Error did not prevail but at certain times it sure had its day!

So then; did Peter know he was given the gift of infallibility? How about the rest of the gang? Any examples of where it was excersized it or even mentioned?

Blessings

Serafin

 

[MaryLynne]

Serafin:

As for the Church and error…of course it will not prevail but…please; at one time most of the bishops of the Church were Arrian… and in very dark times there were at least two different people claiming to be Pope! Error did not prevail but at certain times it sure had its day!

sorry I didn’t specify that there can be no error on ‘faith and morals’ …not on whether the earth was flat or round. Peace.

 

[MaryLynne]

Serafin:

So then; did Peter know he was given the gift of infallibility? How about the rest of the gang? Any examples of where it was excersized it or even mentioned?

you mean in scripture?

 

[MaryLynne]

Serafin:

As for the Church and error…of course it will not prevail but…please; at one time most of the bishops of the Church were Arrian… and in very dark times there were at least two different people claiming to be Pope! Error did not prevail but at certain times it sure had its day!

isn’t that why Church called the Council of Nicea in 325? Arius was a deacon and taught, by disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, that Christ was less than divine, that he was a creature made by God. I understand that he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him. Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

 

[Serafin]

MaryLynne:

isn’t that why Church called the Council of Nicea in 325? Arius was a deacon and taught, by disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, that Christ was less than divine, that he was a creature made by God. I understand that he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him. Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

Yes…praise God!

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

ZoeTheodora:

And see what? The Gene Robinson consecration? Bishop Spong? The toleration of gay unions (complete with a liturgy for same-sex marriage)? The deterioration of England, center of Anglicanism, into a largely post-Christian nation?

Thanks but no thanks.

ZT

Dear Zoe:

I found this in another thread and though it would be a nice gift to you .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Hint: This is not your local CEC or Episcopal Church.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Thepeug]

MaryLynne:

Welcome Chris…and Peace of our Lord be with you.

I’m a fellow (well, woman actually ) Tarheel, originally from NC, but now in California for the past 22 years. I came into full communion with Christ in His Church 7 years ago, and would love to share with you whatever questions you might have. I post on speroforum.com/forum/ for the past 2 1/2 years, and have enjoyed refuting all of the false claims against the Church as well as helping those who are honestly seeking communion in Christ’s Church. I hope that I can be of any help to you in any questions that you might have. God bless you, Lynne

Mary Lynne,

Good to see another Tarheel around here! Thanks for the link to the spero forums. There seems to be some informative stuff over there; I’ll definitely check it out.

In Christ,

Chris