Thankyou very much Marduk for such an excellent response.
mardukm:
As far as St. Chrysostom is concerned, I am not sure what you are referring to.
St John Chrysostom Homily 44 on Matthew (quoted from
newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm ):
"And this is hence especially manifest. For while He yet talked to the people, it is said, one told Him, Your mother and Your brethren seek You. But He says, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?
And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done.
For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, While He yet talked to the people; as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?
And what was it they wished to say? For if it were touching the doctrines of the truth, they ought to have propounded these things publicly, and stated them before all, that the rest also might have the benefit: but if about other matters that concerned themselves, they ought not to have been so urgent. For if He suffered not the burial of a father, lest the attendance on Him should be interrupted, much less ought they to have stopped His discourse to the people, for things that were of no importance.
Whence it is clear, that nothing but vainglory led them to do this; which John too declares, by saying, Neither did His brethren believe in Him; (John 7:5) and some sayings too of theirs he reports, full of great folly; telling us that they were for dragging Him to Jerusalem, for no other purpose, but that they themselves might reap glory from His miracles. For if thou do these things, it is said, show Yourself to the world. For there is no man that does anything in secret, and seeks himself to be manifest;** when also He Himself rebuked them, attributing it to their carnal mind.** That is, because the Jews were reproaching Him, and saying, Is not this the carpenter’s son, whose father and mother we know? And His brethren, are not they with us? they, willing to throw off the disparagement caused by His birth, were calling Him to the display of His miracles.
For this cause He quite repels them, being minded to heal their infirmity; since surely, had it been His will to deny His mother, He would have denied her then, when the Jews were reproaching Him. But as it is, we see that He takes so great care of her, as even at the very cross to commit her to the disciple whom He loved most of all, and to give him a great charge concerning her.
But now He does not so, out of care for her, and for His brethren. I mean, because their regard for Him was as towards a mere man,
and they were vainglorious, He casts out the disease, not insulting, but correcting them."
mardukm:
I don’t think I charged Valentine with having an “agenda,” much less call his supposed agenda “evil.” Can you please cite the section where I stated that?
Sorry I misread the second time I read your posting.
mardukm:
Truth does not depend on consensus. Wouldn’t you agree? Please just stop for a moment and think about it.
Agreed. But I feel that the Holy Spirit works through the whole church to develop a consensus. Great theologians were developed from almost every patriarchate to defend the truth - not just the popes. St Athenasius is just 1 example - and he was only a deacon at the time. God may work through anyone to convince the church of God of the truth.
mardukm:
The Pope has NEVER defined a single doctrine “without the Church?”
True. But that doesnt mean it is not theoretically possible. Have you read the last sentence of the decree of vatican 1?
“therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and **not from the consent of the Church **irreformable.”
mardukm:
That’s just basic ecclesiology 101 from Apostolic Canon 34. I don’t understand why that is so objectionable to the EO. I can understand if the Protestants object to it, but I don’t understand why the EO would object to the Apostolic Canon.
We dont reject Apostolic Canon 34. We just dont accept the Pope as having universal jurisdiction OVER the church. We accept his rite to call an Ecumenical council and to recieve appeals from different parts of the church, but we do not believe he has a special charisma from God which protects him from error (whether its the same infallibility as the church, or not).
The main reason I personally rejected this is the hierarchy of the church. What seperates a deacon from a priest? The charisma of consecrating the Eucharist (just 1). What seperates a priest from a bishop? The sacramental role of ordaining a priest.
If the Pope has a charisma which other bishops dont have, then this means he CEASES to be a bishop. he is something ABOVE a bishop in the chain.
Yes different bishops have different jurisdictional roles. I am not talking about the ADMINISTRATIVE differences between bishops (Metropolitan, Patriarch, etc…), I am talking about SACRAMENTAL differences. I believe all bishops to possess the same sacramental authority recieved directly from Christ (even though different bishops have different administrative responsibilities).
The idea of a universal pope seems to set-off this rule by stating there is a bishop which has a SACRAMENTAL value that other bishops do not have.
mardukm:
As a matter of fact, THE SO-CALLED EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL ASSERTED THAT A POPE CANNOT BE JUDGED UNJUSTLY OR HASTILY.
Lets not get into the 8th Ecumenical council.
Wasn’t Pope Liberius excommunicated hastily during the arian controversy and excommunicated by Rome herself because Rome believed him to be a heretic. Pope Felix became pope until he died a Martyr’s death. Then Pope Liberius succeeded his second reign after he was discovered to be orthodox in his belief.
Interesting case.
Also a similar thing happened during Pope Vagilius’ reign as well. And these were local councils which deposed the popes hastily.
mardukm:
If and when he is proven to be a heretic, the Catholic Church already has the means within its laws to enact the judgment. As noted, by virtue of the law itself, the Pope will cease to be a member of the Catholic Church. When there is no Pope, the interim is governed by the Cardinal Camerlengo who acts in the capacity of a purely administrative HEAD for the Church. As such, he can apply the existing laws of the Church on the person who is no longer Pope.
Thankyou very much, this is what I was asking. Ok, this makes sense now.
In regards to your reasons why I can not accept papal infallibility… add:
- Lack of patristic evidence. If infallible papal pronouncements were not needed for the first 1700 years, why would they be needed now?
- The apparant lack of a monarchy in the early church. Matters of faith and morals were always determined by councils, rather then appeals to any 1 person.
Let me finish with a quote from St Vincent of Lerins:
[22.] Why does he say Though we? why not rather though I?
He means, though Peter, though Andrew, though John, in a word, though the whole company of apostles, preach unto you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Tremendous severity! He spares neither himself
nor his fellow apostles, so he may preserve unaltered the faith which was at first delivered. Nay, this is not all. He goes on Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. It was
not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. Though we, he says, or an angel from heaven. Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is:
Even if that were to happen which cannot happen, — if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.” **(Chapter 8 “Commonitory” taken from
newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm) **
Thankyou very much Mardukm, you have been very informative.
mardukm:
