J
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
I merely copied from 2 sources, what I found for “kathistemi”.
Here was 1 of those sources.
Lexicon Results
Strong’s G2525 - kathistēmi
καθίστημι
Transliteration
kathistēmi
Pronunciation
kä-thē’-stā-mē (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
From κατά (G2596) and ἵστημι (G2476)
TDNT Reference
Vines
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to set, place, put
a) to set one over a thing (in charge of it)
b) to appoint one to administer an office
c) to set down as, constitute, to declare, show to be
d) to constitute, to render, make, cause to be
e) to conduct or bring to a certain place
f) to show or exhibit one’s self
1) come forward as
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 22
AV — make 8,[ make ruler](http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria= make ruler*+G2525) 6,[ ordain](http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria= ordain*+G2525) 3,[ be](http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria= be*+G2525) 2,[ appoint](http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria= appoint*+G2525) 1,[ conduct](http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria= conduct*+G2525) 1,[ set](http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria= set*+G2525) 1
S:
The purpose of bringing up those names, was to make a point. Did Jesus conversations with those apostles, ever do for them what Jesus would do for Peter? No
S:
duely noted
S:
not at the same time, that’s true
S:
duely noted.
S:
One could argue if they kept the true faith, they never would have fractured into squabbling ethnic groups, all dividing from the chair of Peter. One could ask, what might have happened if they remained united to each other and the chair of Peter. Didn’t Jesus warn, a house divided against itself falls?
Ever hear the phrase “better the turban than the tiara of the pope”? That was the sentament in Constantinople, and they got their wish.
S:
Do you consider scripture, scripture? Do you consider the canon of books an accurate collection? If you say yes, then it’s evidence you believe in the Claims of the Catholic Church who gave us scripture, and gave us the canon of scripture in 381.
Bishops have full authority in their own particular Church. They don’t have authority in any other bishop’s Church. The pope has full authority over the entire Church. It’s just that this kind of conversation always winds up in a conversation about the chair of Peter.
S:
The only time I talk about it is to quote from scripture, a fair reference to warnings where appropriate. They’re there, for a reason…true?
S:
why the constant comparison between father and dictator? Or equating rule with a dictator.
S:
I think this highlighted portion of a quote from Gregory answers this question.
Epistle 9:20 (emphasis mine)
For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish, who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.
newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Do you see the mindset here in an actual event, not in theory?
S:
Benedict XVI contradicts your understanding, & where does Bp John show he’s outside of his Church, or disagreeing with his Church, or the pope?
S:
Peter didn’t stay in Antioch. He went to Rome.
Re: Gregory, look at the quote above, [Epistle 9:20] to see how he viewed his see vs others.
Also, how did the East Regard Antioch and Alexandria? The were immediately demoted behind Constantinople because of the emperor. Muslims can’t be blamed for that. Obviously Antioch didn’t have any particular Petrine preference in the East, and politics took center stage.
S:
(to be cont)
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
(cont)
“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”
Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:344
S:
S:
Opening address from Ignatius
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html
Ignatius wrote 6 letters to 6 Churches.
BTW, Ignatius identifies the Church as the Catholic Church. (letter to Smyrna)
S:
source of priestly unity by Cyprian?
“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”
Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:344
S:
And No pope ever taught heresy.
S:
Re: Church of Rome holds the presidency?
Opening address from Ignatius
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html
Ignatius wrote 6 letters to 6 Churches.
BTW, Ignatius identifies the Church as the Catholic Church. (letter to Smyrna)
S:
Keep in mind, at this time
- Corinth needed quick resolve for their sedition of bishops. Rome is a long way away from Corinth.
- at the time of this sedition, the apostle John is still alive either in Ephesus or on Patmos. Either place, is closer to Corinth than Rome. Ask yourself, why not ask a sitting apostle, instead of going to the bishop of Rome?
- Athens, mentioned in Acts, is a stones throw from Ephesus. Why not ask them for help, they have valid bishops and could get there quick?
- If you read Ignatius letter above to the Romans, he refers to this episode. If the East is the East and the West is the West, Corinth is in the East, and they should have gone to Antioch not Rome, following your argumentation. Obviously, things aren’t as you think
S:
That’s a political argument that has no traction. The Emperor at the time was trying to eradicate the Church. They were killing Catholics right and left.
S:
That point has traction. And the blood of the martyrs is the seedbed of the Church.
S:
It’s time to resurrect a quote
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John.
Irenaeus writes “Against Heresies” Bk 3 Ch 3 vs 2-3- “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, 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 by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. 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 tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
- “the apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded*** Anacletus***; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. ***Alexander ***followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
It came from- the apostles Peter and Paul
- and apostolic tradition faithfully handed down to his time
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Ahh, you got it from the KJV. Now everything is clear
</jab at the KJV’s badness>
Ahh, now I catch your drift.
So then, what do you make of Gregory’s statements about Alexandria, Antioch and Rome all having the same Petrine See?
I think that is due more to politics than faith, and you have to agree. The Muslims kinda forced everyone into their little “cliques.”
Ahh, yes. I remember that.
…wat
BTW, IIRC, the first person to list the full canon of Scripture was the Patriarch of Alexandria in 367. (I forget his name, but that’s pretty darn specific >_>)
Right. So the Pope can do stuff no other bishop can, i.e. have authority in another bishop’s diocese.
Yeah, but those can lead to ugly tangents, as Orthodox can bring those against Catholics and vice-versa if either side felt like it. Then everything goes to Hell in a handbasket from there. So I like to avoid bringing stuff like that up; hopefully no one has to worry about hellfire anyway…
I’m trying to make the point about how ruling like a father and ruling like a dictator aren’t all that different outside of how they act. I’m trying to show that a father and a dictator have the same level of authority, even if how they decide to exercise that authority, and how much of that authority they exercise, differs.
You DID say that the Pope rules like a father over the entire church, right?
Admittedly, I’m not sure I can find a way around this one. All I can do is provide words of Gregory’s to the contrary.
Oh, I wasn’t implying that. I was just saying that the Melkites are a separate church from the Roman church, is all. Note the un-capitalized c there.
Also, again, Benedict disagrees with me, why do I care? Hence why he’s the Roman Catholic Pope, and I’m not Catholic.
And?
Alexandria was a bigger deal than Antioch because it was a MUCH larger city. It also helped that, when the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of thought came into conflict, the Alexandrians were often able to upstage the Antiochians. For example, Cyril(Alexandrian) curbstomped the Nestorians(Antiochene) at Ephesus. Had the two schools not exaggerated their differences and instead looked at how their ideas complimented each other, we would have arrived at our miaphysite/dyophysite and dyothelite Christologies without anyone getting anathemized.
That listing comes from the Second Ecumenical Council? That particular canon detailing the listing wasn’t accepted by Rome for centuries? Any of that ringing a bell? :ehh:
Maybe if I put in the names and leave out the pronouns…
“And yet Rome refused to accept that canon for hundreds of years. Later on after Rome started having a rivalry with Constantinople, Rome decided to use the canon and started shouting ‘HA! You’re(Constantinople) inferior to us(Rome)!’”
S
Shiranui117
Guest
If the character limit cooperates, I fully intend to reply to both pneuma’s posts and John7 in one fell swoop. LEEEROOOOOOYYYYYY JJJJJEEENKINS
Thank you, Google Translate, for telling me what that Latin meant… (._.)
To attempt to put it simply and to the point (something I’m bad at, lol) Apostolic Tradition is its own thing that we can look at. We don’t need to have someone as a “beacon” for it; the Apostolic Tradition is its own beacon that shines through the people that live and believe it, like a lantern shining through a window. We don’t need the window to see the lantern; the lantern shines on its own, with or without the window.
The point is, ANYONE should be able to tell you whether or not Rome or your cousin keeps to the Apostolic Tradition, provided they bother to learn both the Apostolic Tradition, and what Rome or your cousin teach, practice and believe.
You’ll probably ask “Well, how do people who aren’t Orthodox or Catholic know which of the two Churches is right?”
I’d say, if non-Catholics and non-Orthodox 110% empirically knew which of those two Churches kept the Apostolic Tradition, then this schism wouldn’t still be going on to the extent that it is.
It’s messy, it’s ugly, it causes a lot of headaches, but it’s how it works. A lot like life, or various other things in life.
And I completely forgot the fast leading up to the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, ROFL :blushing:You make IMHO an excellent point here Shiranui. Indeed the Roman See is Peter PLUS Paul.And that the Roman Church has always remembered reminded that.
Indeed we read in Eusebius that the presbyter Gaius witnesses to two aediculae having been erected in the II century, one on Vatican hill, and the other one towards Ostia, to mark and celebrate the areas where Peter and Paul respectively had glorified God with their deaths. On those places St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s basilicae were respectively built in the IV centuries.
Rome has to our day Peter AND Paul as its patron saints. The feast is June 29th. The recent Pauline year proclaimed by the present Pope solemnly celebrated that date.
Inherent honor, yeah. You’ll understand if I take the whole “Peter and Paul died here, therefore Rome is infallible!” with a little more than a grain of salt, right?That Rome is the see where both Peter and Paul glorified the Lord with their deaths …that is precisely “something inherent” Shinanui
tbc
Thank you, Google Translate, for telling me what that Latin meant… (._.)
I don’t quite understand the question in bold, but I’ll try to answer it. A council looking at a doctrinal matter? Curious onlookers? People without an opinion in a controversy concerning what the true faith is?
Basically, yeah
Mmmhmmmm
People that check his faith against the Apostolic Tradition and find that it matches.The only problem being: says who, that my cousin keeps to Apostolic Tradition ?
My problem with this is, you don’t necessarily to see someone who lives out Apostolic Tradition in the present day to know what the Apostolic Tradition is. We have access to the writings, liturgies, practices, teachings and experiences of the Church that make up Apostolic Tradition.But then … we have to discern whether that beacon is such because of “something inherent”, otherwise… and so on ad infinitum.
To attempt to put it simply and to the point (something I’m bad at, lol) Apostolic Tradition is its own thing that we can look at. We don’t need to have someone as a “beacon” for it; the Apostolic Tradition is its own beacon that shines through the people that live and believe it, like a lantern shining through a window. We don’t need the window to see the lantern; the lantern shines on its own, with or without the window.
Anyone who can look through the Apostolic Tradition, look at what Rome teaches, and concludes that they are without a shadow of a doubt the same thing. This is a scientific method sorta thing.
The point is, ANYONE should be able to tell you whether or not Rome or your cousin keeps to the Apostolic Tradition, provided they bother to learn both the Apostolic Tradition, and what Rome or your cousin teach, practice and believe.
You’ll probably ask “Well, how do people who aren’t Orthodox or Catholic know which of the two Churches is right?”
I’d say, if non-Catholics and non-Orthodox 110% empirically knew which of those two Churches kept the Apostolic Tradition, then this schism wouldn’t still be going on to the extent that it is.
It’s messy, it’s ugly, it causes a lot of headaches, but it’s how it works. A lot like life, or various other things in life.
lol, u trollin
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Okay, phew, last post for this round.
[The Apostolic See of the West was necessarily all this in the eyes of an unambitious faithful Western co-bishop; but the letter itself proves that it was not the See of one who had any authority over or apart from his co-bishops. Let us not read into his expressions ideas which are an after-thought, and which conflict with the life and all the testimony of Cyprian.]
Also regarding the bolded part, Cyprian was referring to when the Romans shot down a request for support from a representative of Privatus.
“But the deceitfulness of that crafty man could not be hid from us even before we had your letters; for previously, when from the company of that very wickedness a certain Futurus came, a standard-bearer of Privatus, and was desirous of fraudulently obtaining letters from us, we were neither ignorant who he was, nor did he get the letters which he wanted. We bid you heartily farewell in the Lord.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.xxix.html
So, “to whom faithlessness could have no access” means “from whom heretics weren’t able to get help.”
“. . .unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name”
Yeah, Ignatius was talking about Rome’s regional presidency. He never said a word about Rome having presidency over all the churches worldwide.
It seems you decided to leave off what Schaff himself said about that:
[The Apostolic See of the West was necessarily all this in the eyes of an unambitious faithful Western co-bishop; but the letter itself proves that it was not the See of one who had any authority over or apart from his co-bishops. Let us not read into his expressions ideas which are an after-thought, and which conflict with the life and all the testimony of Cyprian.]
Also regarding the bolded part, Cyprian was referring to when the Romans shot down a request for support from a representative of Privatus.
“But the deceitfulness of that crafty man could not be hid from us even before we had your letters; for previously, when from the company of that very wickedness a certain Futurus came, a standard-bearer of Privatus, and was desirous of fraudulently obtaining letters from us, we were neither ignorant who he was, nor did he get the letters which he wanted. We bid you heartily farewell in the Lord.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.xxix.html
So, “to whom faithlessness could have no access” means “from whom heretics weren’t able to get help.”
Honorius sure did agree with heresy, though.
Are you talking about this part?
“. . .unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name”
Yeah, Ignatius was talking about Rome’s regional presidency. He never said a word about Rome having presidency over all the churches worldwide.
So what? The Orthodox Church calls itself the Catholic Church as well. Let’s not go down the semantic rabbit hole.
no matter how this is sliced, when you see what people do, this is already the beginning of the understanding of the papacy of the early Church “during” apostolic times, for the see of Rome
Actually, it seems St. Clement had been to Corinth before, and likely went there with Paul. He was friends with St. Paul, so naturally the Corinthians would look to the friend of their father. The below quote is from Schaff’s intro to Clement’s epistle.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html
". . .He seems to have been at Philippi with St. Paul (a.d. 57) when that first-born of the Western churches was passing through great trials of faith. There, with holy women and others, he ministered to the apostle and to the saints. . . He was possibly in some public service, and it is not improbable that he had visited Corinth in those days. From the apostle, and his companion, St. Luke, he had no doubt learned the use of the Septuagint, in which his knowledge of the Greek tongue soon rendered him an adept. . .
. . .After the death of the apostles, for the Roman imprisonment and martyrdom of St. Peter seem historical, Clement was the natural representative of St. Paul, and even of his companion, the “apostle of the circumcision;” and naturally he wrote the Epistle in the name of the local church, when brethren looked to them for advice. St. John, no doubt, was still surviving at Patmos or in Ephesus; but the Philippians, whose intercourse with Rome is attested by the visit of Epaphroditus, looked naturally to the surviving friends of their great founder; nor was the aged apostle in the East equally accessible. All roads pointed towards the Imperial City, and started from its Milliarium Aureum. But, though Clement doubtless wrote the letter, he conceals his own name, and puts forth the brethren, who seem to have met in council, and sent a brotherly delegation (Chap. lix.). The entire absence of the spirit of Diotrephes (3 John 9), and the close accordance of the Epistle, in humility and meekness, with that of St. Peter (1 Pet. v. 1–5), are noteworthy features. **The whole will be found animated with the loving and faithful spirit of St. Paul’s dear Philippians, among whom the writer had learned the Gospel. **"
So, IOW, it was actually EASIER for the Corinthians to get a message to Clement via imperial roads than it was to sail a letter to St. John, and they knew him as a friend of St. Paul and as a visitor to their church.
Hardly the beginnings of a Papal monarchy.
The Emperor was killing Christians during the time of the Ecumenical Councils? :ehh:
Wait. You just said that both Peter and Paul being martyred at Rome has nothing to do with Rome being preeminent and honored.
What is this I don’t even.
K, so Linus got made bishop to take care of Rome, and people should agree with Rome since all the Churches hold to the Apostolic Tradition.
It’s not like without the Roman Church, the Apostolic Tradition would be lost. Yes, Irenaeus received the Apostolic Tradition from the Apostolic Succession of Rome, but that’s because Irenaeus was of the Roman Church. Others under the jurisdiction of, say, Athens, received the Apostolic Tradition from the Apostolic Succession of their bishops.
Yep, the Apostolic Tradition received by and handed down from all of the churches.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Hi Cavaradossi !
You have a valid point.
Consider please that besides exercising more “direct rule” over the churches of something like half of Christendom, he would affirm without any ambiguity his rule over all churches, which he stated to be jure divino:
"it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches " Book III, 30
Indeed he authoritatively overruled in appeal judgments expressed on presbyters from regions of Asia:
Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople.
…we have wondered much why those who were deputed by you as judges in a matter of faith against John, presbyter of the church of Chalcedon, believed report, disregarding truth, and would not believe him when he distinct professed his faith; Book VI, Letter 15
No need to remind how he would reprimand the mentioned Patriarch John on the issue of the “ecumenical” title.
Even for his friend Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, he could give charitable directions:
…he added that he had procured ordination by bribes and gifts; for he acknowledged that this custom had prevailed in the holy Alexandrine Church. On hearing this I was amazed, and exceedingly surprised that the tongue of the most holy and blessed man the lord Eulogius, which recalls so many heretics to the Catholic faith, has not extirpated simoniacal heresy from the holy Alexandrine Church. And who will there be whose exhortation or correction will be able to amend this, if his great and admirable teaching shall have left it without amendment?
Wherefore, for the absolution of your soul, for the increase of your reward, that your works may be in all respects perfect before the eyes of the tremendous Judge, you ought to make haste utterly to pull up and eradicate simoniacal heresy… Book XIII, letter 41
In Christ
P7
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Shiranui,
then no need to remind you that they go together then.
What about seeing that "inherent something " ( which is not just that they died, but that they glorified the Lord with their deaths ! ) as just a first solid stone on which the house can be built ?Inherent honor, yeah. You’ll understand if I take the whole “Peter and Paul died here, therefore Rome is infallible!” with a little more than a grain of salt, right?
The point being that this "potior principalitas " of the Roman see, whether you translate “pre-eminence” or whatever, is “an inherent something”, which is taught by a prominent and early father ( with Eastern roots) .
Code:You see that Rome in the approach you described above gets just nothing, not even a super-conditional assent.So this all seems IMHO to boil down to the assumption that ANYONE can individually in principle check what is sound Apostolic Tradition.
Now, re-examine please all the objections you have ever considered against Sola Scriptura.
Then, after due discernment, tell me please: don’t they fit here ?
Before replying "Wait a minute, what are you saying, we are speaking about Sacred Tradition, nothing to do with Sola Scriptura at all ", let us take note that we are dealing with Tradition as a collection of documents in this approach. Which are not "Tradition per se ", neither for a Catholic, nor for an Orthodox. Documents are rather “witnesses to Tradition” as Cardinal Congar would put it, and most Orthodox scholars would probably agree. If i go just by texts I simply do not have the general context to receive them, which is the life of the Church ( whatever it is according to me ).
The largely individualistic approach which is described above has seemingly no other solution than going by texts. So it is qualitatively IMHO of the same kind as Sola Scriptura.
The difference being in quantity.
Yes, it’s messy indeed. If it really “works” like this.
Isn’t it that I do not need to get to know everything by my private judgment elevated to test of orthodoxy, but rather first and essentially something that allows to discern which Apostolic Church has the best claim to be trusted, or which ecclesial paradigm is most solid ( self-consistent, explicative, simple, beautiful …or what you want ) ?
In Christ
P7
S
steve_b
Guest
When I said “Cyprian writes(mid 200’s) Church of Rome is the Chair of Peter, and the source of priestly unity” you asked for the source. So I gave the exact quote from Cyprian. Why would I care what Schaff has to say?
"to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access**."** Epistle 54 [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm)
the underlined answers your request, and of course giving the epistle number. . Cyprian is writing that to pope Cornelius.
there was an anti pope at the time Cyprian and Cornelius are communicationg.
Ep 40 Cyprian to Cornelius
newadvent.org/fathers/050640.htm
Ep 48 Cyprian to Cornelius about Novatian (anti pope)
newadvent.org/fathers/050648.htm
S:
.]
I think Schaff’s protestant bias is coming out there. You realize, Cyprian would have branded Schaff a heretic also, just like he did Novatian.
S:
Privatus was well known as a heretic, that everbody knew about. newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm
S:
We know Honorius didn’t define anything or teach anything regarding the will of Jesus, because 40 years after Honorius died no one knew that Honorious and Sergius were talking about this.
S:
There’s another comment/request Ignatius makes later in his letter. He knows he’s going to die. His see will be vacant. So he says
CHAPTER 9
9:1 Remember in your prayers the church which is in
Syria, which hath God for its shepherd in my stead.
Jesus Christ alone shall be its bishop, He and your
love.
S:
It’s not semantics. Ask someone where the Catholic Church is in town, they won’t be directing that person to the Orthodox.
S:
So?
S:
- That’s the biggest stetch I’ve seen yet. You mean to tell me Paul didn’t have other bishops he worked with in Greece in particular, and that whole region of the world in general?
- Have you looked at a road map of the area? There’s Corinth on the East coast of Greece, to Rome, on the West coast of Italy? Imperial road or not, look at the diatance by road. This map doesn’t even show the point above Macedonia where one can turn left and go south through Italy.
- Athens mentioned in Acts is ~50 miles from Corinth. Look where Ephesus & Patmos, are in relationship to Corinth. Corinth is a seaport. it should be a snap to get to Patmos or Ephesus to see St John. Would one ignore driving throughThessolonika so they can get to Rome to see Clement because he’s a friend of Pauls and no other reason?
S:
I’m talking about the 1st 3 centuries. The 1st ecumenical council is early 4th century.
S:
Read it again
You said “It also helped that it was the old capital of the Empire,” to which I said that has no traction. Now Peter and Paul dieing in Rome, that has preeminent honor for Rome.
S:
sheesh! Go back and read it againS:
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Irenaeus and Polycarp were from Smyrna in the East. Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, and to the Church at Smyrna.
Did you miss the point that Irenaeus credits Peter and Paul and all the faithful bishops down to his day for the teaching that all must agree with Rome.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
The Church grew stronger through the blood and faith of martyrs, both locally and worldwide, yes. But how do you get from “Peter and Paul died in Rome” to “the Pope is infallible in XYZ circumstances (except when he’s not) and the Roman Church has full authority over every other church as if they were just dioceses under the omophor of the Pope”? To me, that is an extreme logic jump.Dear Shiranui,
What about seeing that "inherent something " ( which is not just that they died, but that they glorified the Lord with their deaths ! ) as just a first solid stone on which the house can be built ?
But can you prove that he believed in Papal/Roman authority as it exists in the RCC+ECC’s today?
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.
Not what I was implying. I was saying, if it is clear what Apostolic Tradition is, and if it is clear what any given church or person teaches, then it is possible to judge whether the two link up. It’s not about deciding what isn’t Apostolic Tradition and what is.So this all seems IMHO to boil down to the assumption that ANYONE can individually in principle check what is sound Apostolic Tradition.
Or, do we not even have a clear way of figuring out what the Apostolic Tradition is, and who best embodies and lives out that Tradition?
Then we can say the same thing for any of the churches. How do we know that the Church in Antioch or Rome holds to the Apostolic Tradition? The only way out of this is to take for granted that one given Church holds faithfully to the Apostolic Tradition.The largely individualistic approach which is described above has seemingly no other solution than going by texts. So it is qualitatively IMHO of the same kind as Sola Scriptura.
The difference being in quantity.
Simply put, if it is indeed impossible to examine objectively whether anyone holds to Apostolic Tradition, then we have to just pick a Church or denomination on blind faith, and it’s impossible to tell who DOES hold to Apostolic Tradition.
So, as I said above, how do we examine which church best matches any of these criteria you put in parentheses?
C
chypmonk
Guest
Well done:thumbsup:When I said “Cyprian writes(mid 200’s) Church of Rome is the Chair of Peter, and the source of priestly unity” you asked for the source. So I gave the exact quote from Cyprian. Why would I care what Schaff has to say?
"to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access**."** Epistle 54 [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm)
the underlined answers your request, and of course giving the epistle number. . Cyprian is writing that to pope Cornelius.
there was an anti pope at the time Cyprian and Cornelius are communicationg.
Ep 40 Cyprian to Cornelius
newadvent.org/fathers/050640.htm
Ep 48 Cyprian to Cornelius about Novatian (anti pope)
newadvent.org/fathers/050648.htm
I think Schaff’s protestant bias is coming out there. You realize, Cyprian would have branded Schaff a heretic also, just like he did Novatian.
Privatus was well known as a heretic, that everbody knew about. newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm
We know Honorius didn’t define anything or teach anything regarding the will of Jesus, because 40 years after Honorius died no one knew that Honorious and Sergius were talking about this.
There’s another comment/request Ignatius makes later in his letter. He knows he’s going to die. His see will be vacant. So he says
CHAPTER 9
9:1 Remember in your prayers the church which is in
Syria, which hath God for its shepherd in my stead.
Jesus Christ alone shall be its bishop, He and your
love.
It’s not semantics. Ask someone where the Catholic Church is in town, they won’t be directing that person to the Orthodox.
So?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYf2S8m92cYodPA4KImSPE0KDQXyFEhKjZdTEZ_POCWPjRB0TY
- That’s the biggest stetch I’ve seen yet. You mean to tell me Paul didn’t have other bishops he worked with in Greece in particular, and that whole region of the world in general?
- Have you looked at a road map of the area? There’s Corinth on the East coast of Greece, to Rome, on the West coast of Italy? Imperial road or not, look at the diatance by road. This map doesn’t even show the point above Macedonia where one can turn left and go south through Italy.
- Athens mentioned in Acts is ~50 miles from Corinth. Look where Ephesus & Patmos, are in relationship to Corinth. Corinth is a seaport. it should be a snap to get to Patmos or Ephesus to see St John. Would one ignore driving throughThessolonika so they can get to Rome to see Clement because he’s a friend of Pauls and no other reason?
I’m talking about the 1st 3 centuries. The 1st ecumenical council is early 4th century.
Read it again
You said “It also helped that it was the old capital of the Empire,” to which I said that has no traction. Now Peter and Paul dieing in Rome, that has preeminent honor for Rome.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Irenaeus and Polycarp were from Smyrna in the East. Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, and to the Church at Smyrna.
Did you miss the point that Irenaeus credits Peter and Paul and all the faithful bishops down to his day for the teaching that all must agree with Rome.
My 2 cents is, around 400AD, Pope Leo 's Dogmatic Letter to Flavian, one of the most important documents in the history of the Church. This is the famous letter which, when read aloud at the dogmatic Council of Chalcedon, caused all of the fathers of the council (more than 600) to rise to their feet and proclaim: “This is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the apostles; Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.” ewtn.com/library/councils/chalcedo.htm#1
Pope Zosimus taught to the whole world against Pelagianism:
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Having received the Acts of the Council of Carthage, Zosimus sent to all the bishops of the world his famous “Epistola tractoria” (418) of which unfortunately only fragments have come down to us. This papal encyclical, a lengthy document, gives a minute account of the entire “causa Caelestii et Pelagii”, from whose works it quotes abundantly, and categorically demands the condemnation of Pelagianism as a heresy. The assertion that every bishop of the world was obliged to confirm this circular by his own signature, cannot be proved, it is more probable that the bishops were required to transmit to Rome a written agreement; if a bishop refused to sign, he was deposed from his office and banished.” newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
Dave Armstrong is a devotee to Newman’s theory of developments, which is an error. The Faith is Apostolic: “believed always and everywhere”. It does not evolve as Newman says in his book.
The magesterium does not create doctrine it protects it from error.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Alright, after looking in Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Church,” I found this:
"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”"
So, one thing to note from the bold, is that all the Apostles were equal in power according to Cyprian. That pokes some holes in your idea(and if you’re right, then your church’s as well) that Peter had authority over his brother Apostles.
What to take away from the underline, is that Jesus put forth Peter as the first among the Apostles, a first among equals, as a symbol of unity, but not the actual source of it. The source of the Church’s unity is the Apostolic Tradition and the adherence to it.
Such is the context in which Cyprian said that Rome is the source of priestly unity. A symbolic source, but not the actual source.
Congratulations, you proved my point. Privatus wasn’t able to get help from Rome. That’s the reason Cyprian said that Rome was a church “to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Get it now? He was talking about how Rome shot Privatus down. He was talking about that one instance.
Then what about Honorius being condemned as a heretic?
And? Ignatius asks the Romans to pray for the church in Syria, and says that God, Jesus and the love of the Romans will be its bishop. What part of that says “You guys have full authority over the church in Syria from here on out”?
So, ITT, conventional language=truth?
My mailing address says I’m in city X(true name withheld), I commonly say I live in city X, but in reality, I live in township Y(true name withheld), which is outside of city X.
So based on your logic, I do in fact live in city X, in spite of the road map and local government telling you and me otherwise.
It’s the same idea here. Just because the Orthodox Church is commonly known as the Orthodox Church, means that they are therefore not the Catholic Church? I’m going to call b… You know what I’m getting at here.
…So that’s pretty much a huge reason why the Corinthians wanted to write to him, because Clement was one of their contacts who could help them out. Yeesh, do you not know what a contact is? (an acquaintance, colleague, or relative through whom a person can gain access to information, favors, influential people, and the like)
- That’s the biggest stetch I’ve seen yet. You mean to tell me Paul didn’t have other bishops he worked with in Greece in particular, and that whole region of the world in general?
- Have you looked at a road map of the area? There’s Corinth on the East coast of Greece, to Rome, on the West coast of Italy? Imperial road or not, look at the diatance by road. This map doesn’t even show the point above Macedonia where one can turn left and go south through Italy.
Do you have any idea how unpredictable the ocean is? They could get headwinds, freak storms, hit a reef… There are all sorts of ways to get messed up on the ocean. Heck, Paul even got shipwrecked a time or two just getting from Judaea to Rome.
It’s just so much more reliable to take an overland route to Rome than it is to weave through dozens of islands to get to Patmos or Ephesus.
I think you missed the part where it was pointed out that Clement had been to Corinth. I.e. He personally knew a lot of people in that area, and vice-versa. So of COURSE they’re going to go to Clement, because they know him personally, and he had been there with Paul in Corinth when things were getting started there!
Oh, I thought you were talking about during the time of the 2nd Ecumenical Council.
Not what you said.
I said, "and that both Peter AND Paul were martyred there. "
You said, “That point has traction. And the blood of the martyrs is the seedbed of the Church.”
It’s right in your post.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9630551&postcount=163
I think you need to read it again, buddy.
Though, this was at a time when being from the East or the West hadn’t taken on the connotations that it would later on.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Irenaeus and Polycarp were from Smyrna in the East. Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, and to the Church at Smyrna.
You’re running those two sentences together. Rome had received the Apostolic Tradition from their Apostolic Succession (much like every other church in Christendom), put in a period. Afterwards, he says that everyone should agree with Rome because everyone else received the Apostolic Tradition as well.
There’s no teaching that says everyone has to agree with Rome in the passage below. Read it carefully.
[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 by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. 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 tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Everyone should agree with Rome because everybody received the same Tradition.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
On this note, you’re forgetting that the Fathers of the council first scrutinized Leo’s letter, and only THEN did they proclaim it as such.
Also, that little snippet from EWTN conveniently leaves this out:
This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.
They praised it because it agreed with Cyril.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
This is actually not true. The acts make it clear that the reading of the Tome of Leo during the second session was interrupted several times, and that the fathers only spoke the line that ‘Peter has spoken through Leo’ after determining that the Tome was in accordance with the faith of Cyril and of Nicaea. And even then, there were still dissenters in the 4th session (the session devoted to voting on whether the Tome of Leo taught the right faith) who opposed the theology of the Tome as being Nestorian.
Yet the evidence to support this conclusion is scant, since the original document survives only in fragments. It begs the question, is the scenario that the bishops of the world had to submit to Rome a written agreement true? What evidence can be found to justify that conclusion?
S
steve_b
Guest
I didn’t ignore your post. I can only get to 1 maybe 2 posts a day.
As to the passage I quoted,
What led up to the event? The apostles were hold up behind locked doors in fear of the Jews. Thinking they’re probably next on the platter. Peter had enough of that and said I’m going fishing. The other apostles followed. Now they’re all in Peter’s boat fishing all night. The next morning, THAT’S when Jesus collects all of them around Him again. THAT’S when Jesus singles Peter out AGAIN and reminds Peter what His job is that he’s been groomed for, in the past 3 years…
After all
- Simon alone had his name changed to Rock by Jesus.
- Simon alone received the keys from Jesus
- In the upper room at the last supper, Simon was told by Jesus that he is to be the one to strengthen his brothers through the sifting of Satan. Simon is the one to rule (hegeomai) thereby ending the argument the apostles were having over who was the greatest among THEM.
- Simon is to feed tend rule our Lord’s sheep
Cyril isn’t denying the Role of Peter. And since Jesus said specifically to Peter in front of all the apostles, (and Satan was there in the room too) I’m praying for you Peter that your faith won’t fail you, can you imagine what the others were thinking hearing that? Satan is going to sift all of them like wheat and Jesus says He is praying for Peter? Can’t you just hear the followup, Hey Lord what about us? What are we chopped liver?
How come it’s always Peter getting all the bennies? It wouldn’t be far fetched to think like this, given that Jesus just broke up the argument they were having about who is the greatest among THEM… But then, Satan was already sifting. He got them into the argument. And don’t ya know Satan loves to get people into arguments over authority
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Shiranui,
I’d guess we should just work by incremental evidence here. We probably can agree on this rationale.
(In alternative we could follow a short road. If there is a fundamental authority established by the Lord in the person of Peter, so as He established the Apostolic College, and if that authority, so as this college, by analogy is in existence somewhere because the college of those with apostolic authority did not cease right after Peter to have a head, do you have obvious or serious alternatives to Rome for that somewhere?).
So I claim most explicitly that the seminal event of the glorification of God by both Peter and Paul by their deaths in Rome is not the Papacy. Noone is asked to jump that long.
It is IMHO an excellent foundational step. Isn’t it ?On the second I respond that I cannot and don’t want to prove that much.
On the contrary I believe that the application/management of the gift of the Petrine ministry that the Church received from the Lord, is a never ending story (until His second coming, that is
), as our understanding of the depositum fidei is .Irenaeus for what we can get, however, witnesses to a very early explicit presence of the principle “Look at Rome to get to know the soundest Apostolic Tradition”, and that on the basis of an “inherent” status of that church. He is not just saying that Everyone should agree with Rome because everybody received the same Tradition
Rather, IMHO: " If anybody preserved Tradition, and in as much as they preserved it, then they agree with Rome necessarily, since that is the pre-eminent locus of the Apostolic Tradition". I am open to different readings here, but we cannot explain away IMHO the acknowledgment of the *potior principalitas * as an “inherent something” in connection with the preservation of the depositum fidei in Rome.
If there is no consensus even on a single passage form Book III ch. 3 of Adversus Haereses by St. Irenaeus, then probably it is not that clear what Apostolic Tradition (AT) is.
My point is that I cannot master the entire corpus of the witnesses to Tradition, that there is no more exegetical consensus than on Scriptures, and that the litmus test for AT definitely is not me. That does not mean we cannot discern the Church , and receive from her the sound AT. That is what Apostolic Succession is about, after all, isn’t it ?
Put it like this: you don’t have to be the best architect or lawyer in your city, you have just to find him/her.For example, since the topic is ecclesial infallibility, you may go back to post #52 and offer your best opinions on letter a)
In Christ
P7
S
Shiranui117
Guest
If you don’t mind, I’ll put out a list of premises for you to look at; this will help me ground myself in this discussion.
1: Jesus gives Peter the keys
2: The Apostles were later given the same powers and authority that Peter had, as St. Cyprian noted
3: Peter was set forth by Christ as a symbolic head and source of Apostolic unity, as first among equals
4: Rome, though only one of the three sees connected with St. Peter, arose as the pre-eminent See in the Church
5: A large source of the Roman Church’s honor was the fact that both Peter and Paul were martyred there
6: The Patriarch of Rome was later bestowed some powers of arbitration, and the Roman Church itself was relatively free from heresy
7: The Roman Pope later began to hold the same role as Peter, that is, of a symbolic head of the Church
I say we proceed from there. Does this seem fair to you?
If you mean the foundational step is from the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, yes. I hope you can forgive me if I have difficulty following you; this feels to me like a completely different topic and style of discussion that I’ve been having with steve b up until now, and I need a wee bit to adjust.So I claim most explicitly that the seminal event of the glorification of God by both Peter and Paul by their deaths in Rome is not the Papacy. Noone is asked to jump that long.
But how do we define this Petrine ministry? How is it separate from the general ministry of the Apostles?On the second I respond that I cannot and don’t want to prove that much.
On the contrary I believe that the application/management of the gift of the Petrine ministry that the Church received from the Lord, is a never ending story (until His second coming, that is
I think there’s room for agreement between your interpretation and mine. Yes, Rome is/was the pre-eminent Church, and as long as everyone holds to the same Apostolic Tradition, everyone should agree with Rome, if Rome is pre-eminent and holds to the Apostolic Tradition.
The role of the Roman Church in Apostolic Tradition is one of the very few areas on which we do not have agreement among the Apostolic Churches (EO, RCC, OO).
Other subjects, such as the role and definition of the Sacraments, how liturgies should be performed, Trinitarian theology, Christology, what the Ecumenical Councils anathemized and clarified, etc. are very clear.
So the next question is, “how do we find who the best architect or lawyer in town is?” How do we discern which Church is the true one?My point is that I cannot master the entire corpus of the witnesses to Tradition, that there is no more exegetical consensus than on Scriptures, and that the litmus test for AT definitely is not me. That does not mean we cannot discern the Church , and receive from her the sound AT. That is what Apostolic Succession is about, after all, isn’t it ?
Oh man, I’ll give it a shot.For example, since the topic is ecclesial infallibility, you may go back to post #52 and offer your best opinions on letter a)
Meaning, that in the Church, truth will always win out over error? Agreed.
If this infallibility is inherent, I’m not sold.
If this infallibility is along the parameters that I set out in post 54, then of course I’ll agree
For reference, here are my premises:
1: A given person teaches the true faith correctly.
2: The definition of “infallible” is to be without error.
3: The given person has taught the true faith without error.
4: Therefore, the person was infallible in their teaching, since they were without error.
I take it that these “organs” are implied to have inherent infallibility. If that’s the case, then I think we should hold off on this part of your question until we agree whether or not anyone has inherent infallibility.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Shiranui,
that’s fine.
- OK
- Allow me to propose not to accept as our settled authority just an interpretation of a particular stage in the life and works of one Church Father. (St. Cyprian as you know can be cited as extolling Petrine/papal ministry. Then he happened to have a different view on the thorny issue of lapsed and validity of baptisms by heretics. He experienced then in a certain way what we would call now a cognitive dissonance. )
- Was Peter a head and source of unity, or was he a symbol ?.
The *primus inter pares * concept has to be broken down IMHO to get somewhere. Of course they were equal under many points of view. Wasn’t Peter also personally given by the Lord in Luke 22 the special task to confirm his brothers ? That looks like a necessarily active task BTW, whereas a symbol looks like something passive.
4 and 5 . the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul and their relics were not seen as mere source of honor.
To my poor knowledge there was full acknowledgment of the unique role of Rome in the other two petrine sees. I invite you to consider under this point of view, for Antioch St. Ignanius’ letter to the Romans, and for Alexandria St. Athanasius work “On the Opinion of Dionysius”, ch. 13 .
- The Council of Sardica around 343 disciplined a universal appellation jurisdiction which the Roman See was already exercising.
From the IV to the IX The Apostolic See, as it was consistently and unambiguously referred to in those centuries, was the visible bastion of orthodoxy against any imperial heresy of the day and the acquiescence to it of so many patriarchs ( and yes, there was at least one materially heretic letter by a Pope ). Is this picture unfair ?
Nothing to do here with the Petrine special task to confirm his brothers ? - I repeat that symbol is passive, whereas the Apostolic See would teach and act.
it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches Book iii, letter 30. Gregory the Great.
This is Pope Gregory around 600 AD. You could ask our Eastern Orthodox brothers whether he was a saint or an heretic.
Or consider these words From the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo.
And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have steadfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth ( letter 98 in Leo’s epistolary, all quotations are here from New Advent Fathers ).
By whom was Leo set as the mouthpiece of Peter ? Is the Council meaning that they have to check every day whether Leo leads them into error, and then at dinner time acknolwedge him again as the mouthpiece of Peter for today, or… the Ecumencial Council tells us that it is an inherent prerogative, (as such to be regarded as jure divino ) . If so, isn’t the Council teaching papal infallibility ?
OK. I hope I can go on later. today In Christ.
P
pneuma07
Guest
You’re most welcome. Forgive my style.
What about feeding the Lord’s sheep and confirming the brothers ( John 21, Luke 22 ), all of them ?
It is not. How can we separate the college and its head ?
Code:
Yes. The gist of the message is that since it is pre-eminent Rome is supposed to hold the AT.Thanks for this refreshing and so true remark.
In debating with Protestant brothers it can be so enlightening to show the degree of consensus we have within the Apostolic home ! Somebody imagines that the seven Sacraments are just a medieval novelty. Then you can show that the CC the EOCs and the OOCs all hold the same seven Sacraments/Mysteries.
Our unassailable commonality is IMHO what makes Apostolic Christianity ( or i’d dare say Christianity ) so credible. Unfortunately someone can retort " But some Orthodox underline that they are so different from you, how come ?"
Now, what you call "the RCC and ECCs ", with its clear explicit orientation to read as fruitful complementarities the diverse theological traditions ( small t ), about which we could see together beautiful examples, seems to be better equipped from this POV ( the other communions have OTOH the advantage that there is no particualr anti-orthodox DNA in Protestantisms ) . And if we remember that “Catholic” comes from κατά, meaning among something else “about, or according to” and όλος, meaning “whole”, and therefore conveys the idea of “according to the whole, all-embracing”, then reading and embracing complementarities rather then stressing differences deserves IMHO the name “Catholic” most.
OK. End of the excursus.
Good, let’s see what happens this way.
Yes, meaning that the Church of any age remains faithful to his Lord. So we concur that the Church is (inherently, I presume ) indefectible.
If this infallibility is inherent, I’m not sold.
If this infallibility is along the parameters that I set out in post 54, then of course I’ll agree
It looks like we need here to fix a definition of “infallibility”.
Infallibility is not the quality of one who got it right. He did not fail in that case. Period. Yesterday I did not die, but I am not immortal. Infallibility is the quality of being uncapable of erring. Ecclesial infallibility refers to being uncapable of authoritatively teaching error.
The indefectibility of the Church without ecclesial infallibility is IMHO a very abstract gift. It is wonderful that we know that somehow Jesus’ message goes on. But, as for us now, how and where can we attain His message ?
That is why I believe He left us ecclesial infallibility, ie an infallibility of His visible living Church, which is expressed through visible living organs.
In Christ
P7.
- Status