East-West discussions of Pope St. Clement I

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mort_Alz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m afraid it is circular. We’re asking, “How can I know true doctrine?” We unanimously respond, “We can know true doctrine by listening to the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The next question asks, “There are two churches contesting that position (Catholics-Orthodox), how do I know the true Church?” Catholics respond by saying, “The one who possesses the divine means for unity, the primacy of Peter.”

This is where your response gets circular: the Orthodox respond by saying, “the one that has true doctrine.” (Or the one who remained orthodox). Do you see it yet?

It’s only useless for apologetic purposes to you if you don’t address what I said about it earlier.
*In the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins saw that the people were faced with various errors and heresies of Donatus, Arius, Photinus, Pelagius and others, and gave them this good advice on how they could know with security the true Catholic Faith. Even if it is taught by distinguished men or Prelates, the bad doctrine should not be accepted by Catholics, who should cling to Tradition and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est]. Actually, he stated: "I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.

"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect: That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, first, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, it may be, someone will ask: ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’ The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.

"What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

"But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.

"What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.

“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation*.”

(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434,
ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)
traditioninaction.org/religious/n026rp_Lerins_PreserveFaith.htm

Not a word about the Pope of Rome, but a word about the Councils.
 
We follow the truth that has been handled unto us by our holy fathers and the apostles. And this is how the church works for 2000 years:

From the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): “But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate.”

The Fathers of the 5th oecumenical council didnt need Vigilius opinion to know the truth. And they made it known to him.

Except when you dont even know who possesses it:

File:Western schism 1378-1417.svg - Wikimedia Commons

This schism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries differs in all points from the Eastern Schism. The latter was a real revolt against the supreme authority of the Church, fomented by the ambition of the patriarchs of Constantinople, favoured by the Greek emperors, supported by the Byzantine clergy and people, and lasting nine centuries. The Western Schism was only a temporary misunderstanding, even though it compelled the Church for forty years to seek its true head; it was fed by politics and passions, and was terminated by the assembling of the councils of Pisa and Constance.

From this brief summary it will be readily concluded that this schism did not at all resemble that of the East, that it was something unique, and that it has remained so in history. It was not a schism properly so called, being in reality a deplorable misunderstanding concerning a question of fact, an historical complication which lasted forty years. In the West there was no revolt against papal authority in general, no scorn of the sovereign power of which St. Peter was the representative. Faith in the necessary unity never wavered a particle; no one wished voluntarily to separate from the head of the Church. Now this intention alone is the characteristic mark of the schismatic spirit (Summa, II-II, Q. xxxix, a. 1). On the contrary everyone desired that unity, materially overshadowed and temporarily compromised, should speedily shine forth with new splendour. The theologians, canonists, princes, and faithful of the fourteenth century felt so intensely and maintained so vigorously that this character of unity was essential to the true Church of Jesus Christ, that at Constance solicitude for unity took precedence of that for reform. The benefit of unity had never been adequately appreciated till it had been lost, till the Church had become bicephalous of tricephalous, and there seemed to be no head precisely because there were too many.
There was simply ignorance, and among the greater number invincible ignorance regarding the person of the true pope, regarding him who was at that time the visible depositary of the promises of the invisible Head.
newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
That doesn’t actually refute anything of Vatican I, but only asserts a half of Apostolic Canon 34: namely, that the head cannot do anything without the consent of all. That is totally Catholic, too, and a straw man to say otherwise.
 
In the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins saw that the people were faced with various errors and heresies of Donatus, Arius, Photinus, Pelagius and others, and gave them this good advice on how they could know with security the true Catholic Faith. Even if it is taught by distinguished men or Prelates, the bad doctrine should not be accepted by Catholics, who should cling to Tradition and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est]. Actually, he stated: "I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.

"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect: That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, first, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, it may be, someone will ask: ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’ The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.

"What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

"But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.

"What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.

“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.”

(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434,
ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)
traditioninaction.org/religious/n026rp_Lerins_PreserveFaith.htm

Not a word about the Pope of Rome, but a word about the Councils.
That’s not refuting anything that Catholics teach because Catholics teach the unity of the Pope and the Councils and that council and pope have mutual responsibility to one another.
 
That’s not refuting anything that Catholics teach because Catholics teach the unity of the Pope and the Councils and that council and pope have mutual responsibility to one another.
I disagree.

There is no real mutuality to the arrangement, especially by what the church teaches.
 
That’s not refuting anything that Catholics teach because Catholics teach the unity of the Pope and the Councils and that council and pope have mutual responsibility to one another.
**Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. **
***So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. ***
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

But you didnt adress the issue, st Vincent of Lerins, when asked how to know the truth, didnt mention the office of the Pope, but did mention concils. Silence sometimes speaks louder than words.
 
That doesn’t actually refute anything of Vatican I, but only asserts a half of Apostolic Canon 34: namely, that the head cannot do anything without the consent of all. That is totally Catholic, too, and a straw man to say otherwise.
I think you are not adressing my point here. The fathers of the 5th councils said they would only accept the pope as head if he is orthodox, and if he is not orthodox, he is no longer the head and cuts himself from the church.
 
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
***So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. ***
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

But you didnt adress the issue, st Vincent of Lerins, when asked how to know the truth, didnt mention the office of the Pope, but did mention concils. Silence sometimes speaks louder than words.
Sometimes it does speak louder than words, but it doesn’t prove anything in this case.
 
Also, that quote about the infallible definitions of the Pope is rather unfairly treated. He will only speak from the papal seat if the rest of the Church cannot resolve an issue and thus appeal to him.
 
I think you are not adressing my point here. The fathers of the 5th councils said they would only accept the pope as head if he is orthodox, and if he is not orthodox, he is no longer the head and cuts himself from the church.
I’ll be honest with you, I’m not sure if I have an answer to that. The most I can say is that it has strayed off the topic.
 
I’ll be honest with you, I’m not sure if I have an answer to that. The most I can say is that it has strayed off the topic.
It is not off topic. You asked how do we know the truth, and i post the 5th Oecumenical council and st Vincent of Lerins examples of how to know the truth. The 5th imposed it on Pope Vigilius and didnt need him to know it, and St Vincent of Lerins didnt know he only had to ask the Bishop of Rome but said we should learn it either from councils, either from the holy Fathers or by the holy Tradition believed everywhere from the begining.
 
Also, that quote about the infallible definitions of the Pope is rather unfairly treated. He will only speak from the papal seat if the rest of the Church cannot resolve an issue and thus appeal to him.
Irelevant, once he speaks ex cathedra, even if you dont know when he ever did prior to 1870, his decisions don"t need the consent of the Church, and are of themself to be believed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top