Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas

[Byzman]

Whoa Trigger, Honorius reigned 13 years. DO you know everything that occured during his pontificate? And it is a bit of a mistake to try to apply dogmatics from the First vatican council to 7th century Rome.

1. A dogmatic decree is not binding until it goes into effect.
2. The conditions for an ex cathedra statement were only defined in 1870
3. Therefore there have been no true ex cathedra statements by a Pope until 1870.
4. Meaning that this is the first time a Pope would FORMALLY be speaking infallibly
5. Which means that there were no formally infallible Papal definitions until 1870
6. Which means that this is a novelty in the Church
7. If it is a novelty, then on what basis does it adhere to tradition? Where do the Fathers teach the Teachings of Pius IX?: Ex Cathedra, only on matters of Faith and Morals, and papal infallibility in general. I defy you to find a single father in the entire first 10 centuries of the church who EVER held this notion, not even its POPES. Find me ONE and I will convert.
8. Meaning Honorious’s Heresy is just as serious as ever.
   TO meet you on your own ground with your own definitiosn: The condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:

The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his **official capacity as pope **and **not **as a private theologian.

He is condemned for following after and **confirming **the heresy of montheletism.

He is condemned for ***actively disseminating and propagating ***heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.

However you cannot seriously apply these late innovations to the 7th century. I think that you amke a big mistake to try and fit the early church in a 19th century papal frame.

Where does it say Honorius “actively” propagted heretical teachings? Nowhere! What it does say is that Satan “the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will… has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris.” What this is saying is that Satan “actively” used these men for heretical teachings. Not that Honorius actively was propagating and dissemenating heretical teachings throughout the whole church.

 

[Addai]

Whoa Trigger, Honorius reigned 13 years. DO you know everything that occured during his pontificate? And it is a bit of a mistake to try to apply dogmatics from the First vatican council to 7th century Rome.

1. A dogmatic decree is not binding until it goes into effect.
2. The conditions for an ex cathedra statement were only defined in 1870
3. Therefore there have been no true ex cathedra statements by a Pope until 1870.
4. Meaning that this is the first time a Pope would FORMALLY be speaking infallibly
5. Which means that there were no formally infallible Papal definitions until 1870
   .

A bit of a side question here. Infallibility is defined as a “Charism” a gift of the Holy Spirit like all the other ones including the supernatural ones of healing and prophecy. When you consider it in that light it seems a bit strange to not have it officially operating until recent times. I understand about “theological development” But this seems like a contradiction when you consider it according to the Canon of St. Vincent etc.

If it were to exist I would think that it would have existed before but in a more undefined way. Like new popes should be able to pin point some occasions where the popes of the past were speaking in an ExCathedra Way. The term Excathedra literally means from the (bishop’s) chair. Certainly there were many occasions in which popes addressed issues for the entire church then what has occured on two in the last century and a half.

Concerning points 2-4, the Catholics do hold the 1854 statement of the Immaculate Conception as an infallible declaration.

this is the kind of thing I was talkin about! thanks!

I also thought some Catholic writers like James Likoudis when talking about Ecumenical counsels and infallibility link their authority to the pope presiding or signing off on them…

 

[Byzman]

A bit of a side question here. Infallibility is defined as a “Charism” a gift of the Holy Spirit like all the other ones including the supernatural ones of healing and prophecy. When you consider it in that light it seems a bit strange to not have it officially operating until recent times. I understand about “theological development” But this seems like a contradiction when you consider it according to the Canon of St. Vincent etc.

If it were to exist I would think that it would have existed before but in a more undefined way. Like new popes should be able to pin point some occasions where the popes of the past were speaking in an ExCathedra Way. The term Excathedra literally means from the (bishop’s) chair. Certainly there were many occasions in which popes addressed issues for the entire church then what has occured on two in the last century and a half.

this is the kind of thing I was talkin about! thanks!

I also thought some Catholic writers like James Likoudis when talking about Ecumenical counsels and infallibility link their authority to the pope presiding or signing off on them…

No, Catholics always beleived in Papal Infallibility. Although it was declared Dogma in 1870…the Charism of Papal Infallibility always existed. It just did not start in 187O and and existed from on then. Alot of people mistakenly think that because Papal Infallibility was proclaimed Dogma in 1870, that everything the Pope taught to the whole Church prior to then, it was not infallible. This is far from the truth. In fact it is based on Scripture and Holy Tradition that this Dogma was proclaimed. If it wasnt believed throughout the centuries, than this would be a unorthodox doctrine added to the faith. The Church knowing that this belief existed for all time proclaimed Papal Infallibility as Dogma, this too can also be seen for the Assumption of Mary…the belieft always existed.

 

[mardukm]

Whoa Trigger, Honorius reigned 13 years. DO you know everything that occured during his pontificate? And it is a bit of a mistake to try to apply dogmatics from the First vatican council to 7th century Rome.

No one is applying the First Vatican Council (such a thing only exists in your own mind, not in reality). 13 years! Wow! Perhaps you should be an apologist for the Catholic Church. 13 years, and not a single bishop called for the convention of the Sixth Ecumenical Council had a single clue that the Western See was infected with monothelitism! Her head bishop must have been doing something right (), though he could have done better.

1. A dogmatic decree is not binding until it goes into effect.
2. The conditions for an ex cathedra statement were only defined in 1870.
3. Therefore there have been no true ex cathedra statements by a Pope until 1870.

There are several pronouncements by Popes prior to 1870 that are ex cathedra decrees because they meet the conditions.

1. Meaning that this is the first time a Pope would FORMALLY be speaking infallibly.

Did the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s DOGMA that icons and images are holy and acceptable mean that it was ONLY at that point that icons and images were allowed to be used?

1. Which means that there were no formally infallible Papal definitions until 1870.

Nope. It just means papal infallibility was not formally defined until 1870. It does not mean that the belief did not exist in the Church from the beginning. St.Paul himself gave the earliest witness to this belief when he visited St. Peter, and St. Peter ALONE, in order to ensure that his (St. Paul’s) own teaching was not in vain.

1. Which means that this is a novelty in the Church.

An empty claim with no proof.

1. If it is a novelty, then on what basis does it adhere to tradition? Where do the Fathers teach the Teachings of Pius IX?: Ex Cathedra, only on matters of Faith and Morals, and papal infallibility in general. I defy you to find a single father in the entire first 10 centuries of the church who EVER held this notion, not even its POPES. Find me ONE and I will convert.

Your premise “IF it is a novelty” is false, so the rest of your argument is invalid.

1. Meaning Honorious’s Heresy is just as serious as ever.
   TO meet you on your own ground with your own definitiosn: The condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:

No it doesn’t, because Honorius never taught it publicly - otherwise, his name would have been included in the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s initial list of heretics.

The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his **official capacity as pope **and **not **as a private theologian.

Yes, he was condemned as a heretic, and yes, he was acting in an official capacity when her responded to Sergius, but can you please give an exact quote (i.e., any evidence) where it says that Honorius taught monothelitism publicly (I know you have misinterpreted a statement that “Satan has been active” to mean that “Honorius had been active” )?

He is condemned for following after and **confirming **the heresy of montheletism.

True. But the inaction of a bishop can be truly said to be confirming a heresy. Some of the earliest canons insist that the defense of orthodoxy and the stamping out of heresy is a grave obligation of any bishop. If any bishop does not do this, he is excommunicated for not fulfilling his DIVINE obligation.

He is condemned for ***actively disseminating and propagating ***heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.

False. Once again, can you give an exact quote that says this?

However you cannot seriously apply these late innovations to the 7th century. I think that you amke a big mistake to try and fit the early church in a 19th century papal frame.

Like I said, we’re just using pure logic and the evidence before us. You’re the one pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Blessings

 

[NoWings]

No, Catholics always beleived in Papal Infallibility.

Then why did the Old Catholics schism if it was so universally held?

 

[mardukm]

Then why did the Old Catholics schism if it was so universally held?

Not a single bishop of the Vatican Council participated in or caused a schism from the Catholic Church.

BTW, the Old Catholics were in schism long before the Vatican I Council. It’s just that some who disagreed with the definition joined the Old Catholics.

The Old Catholic schism has led to the same heresies that the Anglican communion has immersed itself. The only Old Catholic Church that has remained orthodox (Polish National Catholic Church) has actively sought re-union with the Catholic Church since the 1980’s, and currently has official pastoral agreements for limited intercommunion with the CC.

Blessings

 

[luckyfredsdad]

No, Catholics always beleived in Papal Infallibility. Although it was declared Dogma in 1870…the Charism of Papal Infallibility always existed.

**Dear Friend “Catholics always believed in Papal Infallibility”?

Prove it from Revelation, Scripture or the Seven Ecumenical Councils or the fathers of the First three Centuries!**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

[TE]

Not a single bishop of the Vatican Council participated in or caused a schism from the Catholic Church.

**Of course not! The Schism occured at the Council of Trent 1545/64 or there abouts when most of the catholic Bishops of Northern Europe acceded to a Coup detat and joined the Roman Catholic Church!
The Old Catholics rejoined the Catholic Church at a later date!
**

 

[Apophatic]

Byzman;5198831:

No, Catholics always beleived in Papal Infallibility. Although it was declared Dogma in 1870…the Charism of Papal Infallibility always existed.

**Dear Friend “Catholics always believed in Papal Infallibility”?

Prove it from Revelation, Scripture or the Seven Ecumenical Councils or the fathers of the First three Centuries!**

Actually there is quite a lot.

Mattew: to Peter(singular throughout in the Greek) → I give you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.

Look up the meaning of having the keys in history and the Jewish culture of the time. The Kingdom of Heaven is God’s reign in and through the Church here on earth and in Heaven, since we are there too.

John: to Peter(also singular), Do you love me… Feed My sheep… Tend My flock… Feed My lambs.

The Greek word often translated as “tend” is also used in the context of “to govern”. Jesus made Peter the shepherd in His physical absence by turning over governance of the earthly flock so that there is a visible representative. There is a lot of scripture that used similar language about Prime Ministers to the King, Joseph and Pharaoh, for one example.

Paul: went to Peter to confirm what he was teaching was correct.

Clement to the Corinthians(80AD-ish): " If you disregard the words the Holy Spirit has spoken through us, you will be in no small danger[of your salvation]"

He knew he was speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit. There is a letter from the Corinthians to the Pope about a hundred years later that praises this letter and tells that it is still occasionially read out at Mass.

Inagitius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans(107AD):" Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. [emphasis mine]

By this greeting, do you not think that he considered Rome something special? Read the greetings from his other six letters and see the difference.

Irenaeus of Lyons*, Against Heresies(178AD): on how to tell if your bishop is a heretic or not, “we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome”

and later in the paragraph
“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

There is much more in the 200s as well and later, but I will leave that up to you.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;5254320:

Actually there is quite a lot.
Mattew: to Peter(singular throughout in the Greek) → I give you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven

**All very nice, but Christ was speaking to Peter and Peter was an apostle, nowhere does it mention that he was Bishop of Rome! So how does it apply to Peter rather than all the apostles? How does it concern the Bishop of Rome?

Authority in the Catholic Church lies with Christ’s revelation, the Holy Fathers in Council,[seven of them,] and the Greek fathers of the early centuries. That is the Magisterium of the Church as pointed out by S.Vincent of Lerins!******

 

[antgaria]

Authority in the Catholic Church lies with Christ’s revelation, the Holy Fathers in Council,[seven of them,] and the Greek fathers of the early centuries. That is the Magisterium of the Church as pointed out by S.Vincent of Lerins!

Woh… woh… easy there… stop being so authoritative in your answers. You just ignored everything that Apophatic wrote, and then blasted out an answer so ridiculous, that not only will you get our Latin brothers worked up, but have also in the process completely disregarded us Syriacs and our Coptic brothers too. “Greek fathers”? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that statement made.

Also, St. Vincent was not saying what you claim he was saying. Have you read the text? Are you referring to his statements on the development of knowledge? In regards to the fathers {never said to be Greek} he only states that what they sowed should be reaped as true fruits and not instead weeds gathered. That is a fact, and it is also asserted by Catholics that the Catholic Church does not introduce novelty. What St. Francis said is in line with what St. John of the Ladder said, and all that with what St. John the Evangelist said… which at the root is what was taught by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. There is no conflict. Whatever was sown by the Fathers, the “same ought to advance and go forward to perfection.”

And what he says about councils is basically a definition of what they do or are entitled to do. First, let’s just get it straight here, he is not referring to the Ecumenical Councils only, but any council of fathers {local councils met to fight against local heresies}. Second, at his time there weren’t all that many of the Ecumenical ones {Constantinople II took place in the 6th century way after his death}. Now back to the point, St. Vincent is only affirming that the councils of the holy fathers did not introduce any new novelty as novelty, but rather, the Church, “roused by the novelties of heretics”, “consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition.”

No where in that is seen any indication that he is setting up a hierarchy of authority, and no where do I see any reference or denial of the papacy. And after all, as Apophatic pointed out, there is plenty of fathers material to support the primacy of Rome… not to mention all the liturgical things and otherwise that have been posted and re-posted many times over.

As for the “Greek fathers” comments… here’s what I found from St. Vincent…

And lest Greece or the East should seem to stand alone, to prove that the Western and Latin world also have always held the same belief, there were read in the Council certain Epistles of St. Felix, martyr, and St. Julius, both bishops of Rome. And that not only the Head, but the other parts, of the world also might bear witness to the judgment of the council, there was added from the South the most blessed Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and martyr, and from the North St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan.

I think you should spend more time listening to your Catholic brothers rather than just having your own uninformed ideas and spouting them out with the emphatic zeal you seem to have. Zeal misguided is nevertheless misguided.

Peace

 

[luckyfredsdad]

John to Peter,”Do you love me…Feed My sheep…Tend My flock…Feed My lambs.

Apophatic!

**Dear Friend,

 When Christ told the Disciples of His forthcoming death at Jerusalem, Peter immediately rejected the Doctrine of the Cross and received from Our Lord and Saviour a terrible rebuke. “Get thee behind Me, Satan; Thou art a stumbling block unto Me ; for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men.”   Where was the infallible leadership at that time, not from a mere bishop but from an Apostle! Further, one for whom the leadership is claimed!!!

It was when Peter was forgiven his terrible blunder of contradicting Christ that the commission to,feed the sheep, tend the flock and to feed the lambs was given to him and he was admitted back in to Our Lord’s confidence!
At Vatican One there were three sayings quoted in favour of Peter’s prerogatives, no words of Our Lord are even appealed to in proof of the Bishop of Rome!

S.Augustine wrote,
“What was enjoined to Peter, not Peter alone,but also all the other Apostles heard and held preserved.”
“When it is said to him, S.Peter,] it is said unto all, ,‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’”

S.Gregory Nazianzen; “But Jesus received him and by a triple question and confession healed the triple denial.”

S.Cyril of Alexandria; “Wherefore did he ask the question of Simon only?Although the other disciples were standing by?..Peter overwhelmed with excessive terror, thrice denied the Lord- Christ heals the ill effects of what has happened and demands in various terms the triple confession…

Immediately after this restoring of Peter’s apostolic function we find him in trouble again through his impetuosity and receiving another rebuke from Christ. Concerning Peter’s query about S.John,”Lord and what shall this man do?” The answer showed it was not Peter’s business, If I will that he tarry till I come , what is that to thee! [JohnXX1. 21, 22.]
**

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother luckyfredsdad,

John to Peter,”Do you love me…Feed My sheep…Tend My flock…Feed My lambs.

Apophatic!

**Dear Friend,

 When Christ told the Disciples of His forthcoming death at Jerusalem, Peter immediately rejected the Doctrine of the Cross and received from Our Lord and Saviour a terrible rebuke. “Get thee behind Me, Satan; Thou art a stumbling block unto Me ; for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men.”   Where was the infallible leadership at that time, not from a mere bishop but from an Apostle! Further, one for whom the leadership is claimed!!!

It was when Peter was forgiven his terrible blunder of contradicting Christ that the commission to,feed the sheep, tend the flock and to feed the lambs was given to him and he was admitted back in to Our Lord’s confidence!
At Vatican One there were three sayings quoted in favour of Peter’s prerogatives, no words of Our Lord are even appealed to in proof of the Bishop of Rome!

S.Augustine wrote,
“What was enjoined to Peter, not Peter alone,but also all the other Apostles heard and held preserved.”
“When it is said to him, S.Peter,] it is said unto all, ,‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’”

S.Gregory Nazianzen; “But Jesus received him and by a triple question and confession healed the triple denial.”

S.Cyril of Alexandria; “Wherefore did he ask the question of Simon only?Although the other disciples were standing by?..Peter overwhelmed with excessive terror, thrice denied the Lord- Christ heals the ill effects of what has happened and demands in various terms the triple confession…

Immediately after this restoring of Peter’s apostolic function we find him in trouble again through his impetuosity and receiving another rebuke from Christ. Concerning Peter’s query about S.John,”Lord and what shall this man do?” The answer showed it was not Peter’s business, If I will that he tarry till I come , what is that to thee! [JohnXX1. 21, 22.]
**

All true. St. Peter can represent every bishop, and the whole Church, for that is his God-appointed role. And it is the role handed down to the bishops of Rome. It is a role that no other bishop possesses, and no other bishop has ever claimed. The hierarchical order of God’s people has been evident since OT times. Let’s take Moses as an example. God made Moses the leader of the people, socially, potically and religiously. Did that detract from the High Priesthood of Aaron and his sons? No. God’s order for the Church depends on love and respect, not on force and fear. In such a setting, though Moses was clearly the “Pope” of the people, this did not detract from the authority of Aaron or the other priests (unless they were seen to contradict God). This has been God’s order for his people since OT times, an hierarchical order inherited by the Catholic Church; this has been the way of it in the Catholic Church since her inception in the upper room, faithfully adhered to by the Church down through the ages; and that is the way of it even now in the Catholic Church.

But notice what happened when Korah (a member of the priesthood) sought to reject Moses’ authority - with the same rationale that all non-Catholics use (read Numbers 16:3). 'Nuf said.

So nothing you have written here detracts from the papacy in any way.

Now, would you like to address the great points that brothers Antgaria and Apophatic have presented?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Wildkit]

Dear brother luckyfredsdad,

All true. St. Peter can represent every bishop, and the whole Church, for that is his God-appointed role. And it is the role handed down to the bishops of Rome. It is a role that no other bishop possesses, and no other bishop has ever claimed. The hierarchical order of God’s people has been evident since OT times. Let’s take Moses as an example. God made Moses the leader of the people, socially, potically and religiously. Did that detract from the High Priesthood of Aaron and his sons? No. God’s order for the Church depends on love and respect, not on force and fear. In such a setting, though Moses was clearly the “Pope” of the people, this did not detract from the authority of Aaron or the other priests (unless they were seen to contradict God). This has been God’s order for his people since OT times, an hierarchical order inherited by the Catholic Church; this has been the way of it in the Catholic Church since her inception in the upper room, faithfully adhered to by the Church down through the ages; and that is the way of it even now in the Catholic Church.

But notice what happened when Korah (a member of the priesthood) sought to reject Moses’ authority - with the same rationale that all non-Catholics use (read Numbers 16:3). 'Nuf said.

Marduk,…EXCELLENT!!!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

All true. St. Peter can represent every bishop, and the whole Church, for that is his God-appointed role. And it is the role handed down to the bishops of Rome. It is a role that no other bishop possesses, and no other bishop has ever claimed.

So nothing you have written here detracts from the papacy in any way.

Now, would you like to address the great points that brothers Antgaria and Apophatic have presented?

Blessings,
Marduk

**Dear Friend,

I’m not unaware of what S. Peter can do from his exalted position! The question, that neither yourself or your band of brothers have answered is, where is your proof from Scripture, or Tradition, that the pope plays any part in this scheme of things.

A load of disjointed quotes regarding S.Peter taken at random is not enough they have to be to the point at discussion, S.Peter and the papacy! Or does infallibility stretch to members of this board as well as to Rome?**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Woh… woh… easy there… stop being so authoritative in your answers. You just ignored everything that Apophatic wrote, and then blasted out an answer so ridiculous, that not only will you get our Latin brothers worked up, but have also in the process completely disregarded us Syriacs and our Coptic brothers too. “Greek fathers”? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that statement made.

**Authoritive in my answers?

Well maybe! But the answers do not stem from my wit, they have their provenance in the tradition of the Church. Whereas you do not put forward answers to the questions , only a smokescreen to blind others from the truth!

You ask why Ecumenical Councils? Hammond wrote just before he died “no General Council,’ truly such 1. Duly assembled, 2. Freely celebrated and 3. universally received either hath erred or ever shall err, in matters of faith.” Note , Bishop Ware in his book on The Orthodox Church says virtually similar things! Local Councils are part of the mechanics of the Church and play their part, but The Ecumenical Ones are what the orthodox refer to as the Seven pillars of the Faith!
Even the Arcic report on Authority [1981.] backs up the claim.

You are right when you say the ,“Catholic Church does not introduce novelty?”
Who then introduced the glaring novelties of Jurisdiction and Infallibility? **

 

[antgaria]

You ask why Ecumenical Councils? Hammond wrote just before he died “no General Council,’ truly such 1. Duly assembled, 2. Freely celebrated and 3. universally received either hath erred or ever shall err, in matters of faith.” Note , Bishop Ware in his book on The Orthodox Church says virtually similar things! Local Councils are part of the mechanics of the Church and play their part, but The Ecumenical Ones are what the orthodox refer to as the Seven pillars of the Faith!
Even the Arcic report on Authority [1981.] backs up the claim.

You are right when you say the ,“Catholic Church does not introduce novelty?”

I’m sorry, but there must be some kind of language disconnect here. I never did ask “why Ecumenical Councils.” Nor did I question the role of general councils or bishops. I agree with their roles. I questioned your ridiculous assertion that it was **only **the seven councils and the Greek fathers of the early church that were authoritative.

I then proceeded to demonstrate what St. Vincent of Lerins said did not match what you claimed he said, and challenged you to show me otherwise if I had missed something.

Claim all the church tradition you want, but it does not mean that you are in-line with Tradition. Just the idea that only the “early” {lets forget about the use of Greek} fathers are authoritative is an incomplete view of what the Holy Spirit is and the promise made to the Church.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church always… it’s not like there was the early fathers and then suddenly God said “that’s enough, go do things on your own now, good luck.” Revelation was given through Christ to His apostles {much of which was written}, and the Church only developes the understanding that it has always had never creating novelties.

Again, I think there’s a language disconnect or something. You don’t seem to ever address any of the questions or challenges posed to you, either from Apophatic or from Mardukm. I think first things first look at things honestly, and then answer them, seeing why it is that you refuse to refute anything they say, but ramble on authoritatively without cause.

And don’t bother answering anything I said… only if you would refute my interpretation of St. Vincent, please specify the specific verses were you are getting your interpretation from, and perhaps I can understand why you stated that emphatic statement.

 

[mardukm]

Dear luckyfredsdad,

I’m not unaware of what S. Peter can do from his exalted position! The question, that neither yourself or your band of brothers have answered is, where is your proof from Scripture, or Tradition, that the pope plays any part in this scheme of things.

A load of disjointed quotes regarding S.Peter taken at random is not enough they have to be to the point at discussion, S.Peter and the papacy! Or does infallibility stretch to members of this board as well as to Rome?

This is the whole inconsistency of the non-Catholic position (as far as apostolic Christians are concerned, anyway - responses to Protestants are of a different order). It is obvious that St. Peter had a special prerogative among the Apostles - i.e., to be the confirmer of the brethren. And for this, Jesus promised him a special prayer. Besides this special role within the Church, the Holy Spirit grants many and other varied and specialized gifts, some to the Church as a whole, some to individuals, some to bishops, etc. Now, all this is for the upbuilding of the Church.

Apostolic Christians recognize the principle of Apostolic succession. The special graces and prerogatives that the Apostles possessed for the upbuilding of the Church was passed down to the Church down through the ages because - simply put - the Church constantly needs to be edified, i.e., built up (that is, until the Lord returns). Now, we all recognize that St. Peter had some special role among the brethren. In my journey to Catholicism, I could no longer rationalize my previous position that this special role is claimed by non-Catholic apostolic Christians to have disappeared. Jesus Himself established this role for St. Peter for the benefit of the whole Church. If Jesus in His Divine Wisdom understood that the Apostles needed this specialized role among their number, far be it from me to deny Jesus’ established order. Slowly, but surely, it did not make any more sense to me why I should deny in the Church today a role that Jesus himself had established among the Apostles. If we are to fully and faithfully claim to adhere to the principle of apostolic succession and apostolicity, then we must reflect the order of the Church (as much as possible) as evinced in Scripture. The only Church that FULLY and faithfully reflects that order today is the Catholic Church.

Now, I would ask you - since you are an apostolic Christian (though I am not certain if you are of the low-Church or high-church brand of Episcopalianism) and also since you do recognize St. Peter’s special role among the Apostles - ,what reason do you have for claiming that this special role has somehow disappeared in the Apostolic Succession? Note, that I am not asking you why it should exist (since you have already admitted that it existed among the Apostles), but rather why you think it has disappeared.

You claim it is not found in Tradition, but that is just an uninformed opinion which many who have more time than me here can correct you on. For now, I would just like to point out for your recollection the several places in Tradition (some of them from Ecumenical Councils) where it is specifically claimed that when the bishop of Rome has decreed something, it is as if St. Peter himself had spoken.

So much for the headship of the bishop of Rome.

On the matter of papal infallibility, others I’m sure can answer you sufficiently from Tradition. As far as Scripture is concerned, my personal favorite is Luke 22: 31-32, where Jesus informs us that St. Peter is to be the confirmer/strengthener of the faith of his fellow apostles. My understanding revolves around the definition of “the faith” that St. Peter is to confirm/strengthen. Is this referring merely to trust in God (the usual Protestant understanding), or is “the faith” referring to BOTH trust in God AND belief (together with the content of that belief). This latter is the Catholic definition of the word “faith.” Jesus’ special prayer for Peter to retain his “faith” - the faith that is to be confirmed by Peter - is, to me, the main scriptural support for the doctrine of papal infallibility. Jesus’ is not going to expect Peter to confirm his brethren in the faith if Jesus was not going to give St. Peter the ability to do so. In other words, on his own, Peter would very likely not be able to confirm anyone (as Scripture demonstrates by St. Peter’s less-than-perfect actions). That Jesus charged him with this role means that Jesus would enable him to do it. That is papal infallibility. The Church’s infallibility is another (though not unrelated) matter.

A corollary support for the idea that St. Peter is to confirm the brethren in the FAITH - as in, trust AND belief - is found in Acts 10, where God, through St, Peter, informs the Jewish Church that the Gentiles are to be let in. This, would, for all intensive purposes, be regarded as the first papal, infallible decree (unless one wants to count Peter’s confession ).

Blessings,
Marduk