Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[mardukm]

The teaching of the Church is crystal clear on the supreme authority of the Pope which is often misrepresented by some. The pope has, by Christ’s mandate, final authority in defining teaching on faith and morals, challengeable by no one.

It is challengeable by no one NOT because “the Pope said so,” but only because the Pope, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, has PRIORLY determined the agreement of the Church and the bishops BEFORE making the decree.

Challenging it would be tantamount to challenging what you already believe. The Pope in his definitions proposes NOTHING NEW to the world that is not already contained in the Sacred deposit of Faith to which all other bishops also have access.

Blessings

 

[MilesVitae]

You won’t find that evidence because there is none. It is not the Church that teaches or claims this, but merely Absolutist Petrine advocates and other detractors of the papacy. I’ll tell you what. Present to us evidence from a MAGISTERIAL source (not popular apologetics or singular theologians) which supports your claim - that Peter was infallible ALONE separated from the Apostles, or the Pope is infallible ALONE separated from the Church or his brother bishops, and we can discuss it from there. Seriously consider this - or rather, seriously REconsider your position if you cannot find the evidence for your claim aside from the meanderings of popular apologists and singular theologians.

Marduk, just a thought.

Those who are familiar with this topic are likely to understand what you mean, but I think there is a need to make sure we are being clear when we explain this matter, so there is no misunderstanding on either side. There is a sense in which one might say the Pope has infallibility “apart” from the rest of the Bishops - in the sense that the Pope is the only bishop who can individually define for the universal Church, outside of a council. I’m not saying it would be really correct to describe this as him “acting apart” from the rest of the Church, but that is what someone who uses such terminology might mean - whereas to someone who hears “he is not infallible apart from the rest of the bishops” it may sound, for instance, as though he is only infallible by their consent (in the sense excluded by VI), etc.

 

[Abu]

mardukm #181
It is challengeable by no one NOT because “the Pope said so,” but only because the Pope, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, has PRIORLY determined the agreement of the Church and the bishops BEFORE making the decree.

As wrong as always because you continue to contradict Vatican I and II:
Crystal clear:
From Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”

All faithful Catholics assent to that reality, and they know that consultation is on-going and is the norm, but your fetish against the plain truth that “his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable” is absolutely ludicrous.

That is precisely why the Pope’s definitions of dogma and doctrine are unchallengeable – because the Pope has defined.

Get real.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, it depends on what kind of mindset informs your beliefs about the papacy - an Absolutist Petrine mindset (sola papa error) or a High Petrine mindset (collegiality). It’s obvious that for people like Abu, who claim that there is no necessity for the Pope to be in agreement with the sensus fidei (which the Church teaches is infallible) in his ex cathedra decrees, then we can be sure that there is no misunderstanding here. Abu and those like him do not conceive of the term “apart” as meaning “distinct” or “unique,” but really has the sense of “unilateral” and “separated from.”

Blessings

Marduk, just a thought.

Those who are familiar with this topic are likely to understand what you mean, but I think there is a need to make sure we are being clear when we explain this matter, so there is no misunderstanding on either side. There is a sense in which one might say the Pope has infallibility “apart” from the rest of the Bishops - in the sense that the Pope is the only bishop who can individually define for the universal Church, outside of a council. I’m not saying it would be really correct to describe this as him “acting apart” from the rest of the Church, but that is what someone who uses such terminology might mean - whereas to someone who hears “he is not infallible apart from the rest of the bishops” it may sound, for instance, as though he is only infallible by their consent (in the sense excluded by VI), etc.

 

[Abu]

mardukm #184
It’s obvious that for people like Abu, who claim that there is no necessity for the Pope to be in agreement with the sensus fidei (which the Church teaches is infallible) in his ex cathedra decrees, then we can be sure that there is no misunderstanding here.

Such continued denigration of the Church’s clear teaching shows once again the selfist emphasis so evident in mardukm.

1. The *sensus fidei *is infallible ONLY when the faithful assent. Fr. James T O’Connor translating and commenting on Bishop Vincent Gasser’s relatio of Vatican I notes: “Indeed, the proper exercise of the infallibility of the entire People of God necessitates ‘a faithful submission to the Magisterium’ if that body of the faithful is to believe, penetrate more deeply, and apply more thoroughly the faith entrusted to the saints. If the teaching of the Pope and bishops is not included in the ‘universal consent about matters of faith and morals’ then one does not have a sensus fidelium, a consensus among all the faithful. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that determining the sensus fidelium is not a matter of poll taking or of sociological reports.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 1986 p 106].

Vatican I & II: “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
That expresses finality with no possibility of a contrary definition, which some try to limit to the approval of others. That’s their problem. The Holy Spirit protects His Pope, and thus His Church, from teaching error in doctrine.

The doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council can be infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

Any misunderstanding is now wilful as the Church’s teaching has been made clear.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Such continued denigration of the Church’s clear teaching shows once again the selfist emphasis so evident in mardukm.

1. The *sensus fidei *is infallible ONLY when the faithful assent. Fr. James T O’Connor translating and commenting on Bishop Vincent Gasser’s relatio of Vatican I notes: “Indeed, the proper exercise of the infallibility of the entire People of God necessitates ‘a faithful submission to the Magisterium’ if that body of the faithful is to believe, penetrate more deeply, and apply more thoroughly the faith entrusted to the saints. If the teaching of the Pope and bishops is not included in the ‘universal consent about matters of faith and morals’ then one does not have a sensus fidelium, a consensus among all the faithful. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that determining the sensus fidelium is not a matter of poll taking or of sociological reports.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 1986 p 106].

Vatican I & II: “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
That expresses finality with no possibility of a contrary definition, which some try to limit to the approval of others. That’s their problem. The Holy Spirit protects His Pope, and thus His Church, from teaching error in doctrine.

The doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council can be infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

Any misunderstanding is now wilful as the Church’s teaching has been made clear.

Except you’re forgetting one thing Abu. One VERY IMPORTANT thing.

The Pope, as a member of the Faithful, can only be infallible when he is OBEDIENT to the infallible Magisterium of the Church himself, and Sacred Tradition. Why? because that is the ONLY way he can share in the Sensus Fidelium.

You quoted and said it yourself above.

Unless you are SEPARATING the Pope from the Church, or the Faithful? You’re not doing that I hope.

 

[jinc1019]

There are no other Apostolic Sees other than Rome!

“APOSTOLIC SEE. Title given to Rome since the first Christian centuries. It applies to the Pope and the persons and offices directly under his authority. It implies that, as successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, he has the primary duty of extending the Christian faith to all the world.”
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Thus the mere claims of other sects, and even of the various separated Orthodox Churches to parity, are hollow against the reality that is Christ’s Church founded on St Peter with His authority and teaching dogma and doctrine infallibly.

Do you still doubt Peter’s authority and the evidence?

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Is it not time to face the facts of reality and listen to Christ who founded His Church on St Peter – His Supreme Vicar with His authority to teach infallibly on faith and morals? Your progress in truth has been very welcome and impressive.

Hi Abu,
I don’t think you are correct. An Apostolic See is simply an episcopal throne established by an apostle. There are several. Just becomes Rome claims to be the only one (if it did she does), does not make it so.

Further, as I already suggested, I do believe in Peter’s supremacy. The question is…What kind of supremacy? How much power and authority did Peter truly have? None of your biblical quotes definitively answer that question.

 

[jinc1019]

I read it.

putting your mind at ease, It doesn’t appear so to me.

your post #155 continues

Ever see a 2000 year old Redwood tree? The seed that such a tree comes from is the size of a pepper flake. All that is necessary to produce such a tree is in that tiny seed.

here’s what a 2000 + year old Redwood tree looks like.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7144137&postcount=84

with some of these trees they fell, they count rings going back to 1st and 2nd century B.C. That’s right, some of these trees were 200 years old when Jesus was born. Over 2000 years, it weathers fire, drought, floods, pollution, pests, governments, you name it. That stuff all comes and goes.

Given that God created both the redwood tree & the Catholic Church, and both are here 2000 years later, only the Catholic Church is worlwide, what’s REALLY your question?

you’re not helping yourself here.

No pope has ever taught heresy. That’s fact.

It doesn’t mean a pope can’t have wrong ideas. By the Holy Spirit, he is prevented from teaching wrong ideas to the entire Church for the entire Church to believe.

All the what-ifs don’t help. The Church is 2000 years old. Give a specific example.

Steve,
You offer absolutely no support in favor of your position. Although it’s true the Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years, so has the EO church, and they disagree with many of the Roman claims. Further, Islam has been around for 1,400 years, does that mean their religion is accurate? What about Buddhism? The list goes on and on. Time can be supporting evidence, but not to the extent you are giving it.

Further, your suggestion (based on the Redwood analogy) appears to be that the power of the pope can grow. This, however, flies in the face of your own argument about Peter’s office. If Peter’s successor inherited an office, and on that basis alone, the authority Peter had, how can he inherit MORE than the office that Peter had? You are essentially arguing that the modern pope has more authority than Peter, not the same, and there is absolutely NO REASON, from either the Bible or history, to believe that should be the case.

 

[jinc1019]

Then why did you ask your question this way?

The difference between the Catholic Church and all the others that have committed grave errors is that they don’t claim to be perfect on “faith and morals” and they don’t claim to have supreme authority over all other Christians and they don’t claim to be “infallible on faith and morals.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11667108&postcount=160

What do you mean by perfect then?

I meant exactly what I said. The Catholic Church does claim to have perfect, which is to say INFALLIBLE, teachings on faith and morals. Are you suggesting they don’t? That would violate much of what the Catholic Church teaches. When it comes to “faith and morals,” the Church believes it is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. No other church affords this authority to one man (in the case of the Pope speaking ex cathedra) like the Catholic Church does.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Jinc, I think your points, as always, are well considered but I’m still concerned especially what you say on this issue:

I do agree, and in fact, so does the Catholic Church. The Pope has no infallible authority in disciplinary matters, only in doctrinal ones, and so could not even in principle order you to violate your conscience in such a way.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (art. 1782) states: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’” Though, it is true, a person’s conscience must be properly formed.

In doctrinal matters, you’ve made a reasonable point. However, it has never occurred in Church history that a Pope has preached an article to be held infallibly and as faith (on a matter of faith and morals) which is contrary to the faith. As Catholics, we believe the Pope is protected from doing this by a special charism of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, it cannot happen. And I would count the evidence of history in its favour, as well as certain biblical passages.

Having said that, I want to reiterate again that the Pope cannot declare anything infallibly on matters of discipline, so he cannot command anyone to behave immorally or contrary to their conscience, even if it concerns a matter of faith.

Again, I would put it back to you: what is your alternative? Would you prefer the Protestant route, with thousands of segregations and denominations? Or would prefer the Orthodox route, which is essentially effete in achieving any form of doctrinal and moral consensus? If the doctrine of papal infallibility is true, then it forestalls the problem you mentioned. However, I do think you need to consider its merits and legitimacy based on theological rather than practical arguments.

All the best to you.

I don’t disagree with the first half of your post. The second half, however, MAY be flawed. Why? Because you argue that the Pope and the Catholic magisterium has never taught anything that has contradicted the faith. But the Eastern Orthodox bishops disagree. They would say the Catholic Church most certainly has, especially in regards to the filloque (sorry about spelling), supreme papal authority, and supreme papal infallibility.

Also, I don’t agree that the Catholic Church has always held that it doesn’t have supreme authority and power over temporal matters or discipline in general. Read up on the “Donation of Constantine.” The Catholic Church argued for centuries that it had authority over all the earth, not just in matters of faith and morals.

 

[mardukm]

Hi Abu,
I don’t think you are correct. An Apostolic See is simply an episcopal throne established by an apostle. There are several. Just becomes Rome claims to be the only one (if it did she does), does not make it so.

Further, as I already suggested, I do believe in Peter’s supremacy. The question is…What kind of supremacy? How much power and authority did Peter truly have? None of your biblical quotes definitively answer that question.

Well said, Jinc1019. If you’ll notice, the idea that Rome is the only Apostolic See is a popular Catholic apologetic. But it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church (you certainly will not find such claims from Magisterial documents). The more responsible Catholic apologists will not claim that Rome is the ONLY Apostolic See, but that among the Apostolic Sees, Rome has the primacy.

Again, I ask you to carefully distinguish between Catholic apologetics, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. I suspect that your reservations against the Catholic Church are pertaining mainly to popular Catholic Apologetics, and not the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. If you have questions in order to distinguish the two, CAF is a good place to ask. But -please, please, please -exercise the spiritual fruit of understanding in your assessment of the Catholic Church. Do not be so quick to rely on Catholic apologetics OR ESPECIALLY, the descriptions of NON-Catholics in order to judge the Catholic Church. If you feel that there is something “off” in what you hear from Catholics, come on here and ask. I assure you that the Catholic Church has maintained the ancient Apostolic Traditions (with a capital “T”) in all her dogmatic teachings. And I, or others, will prove it to you, if you ask.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jinc1019]

Dear Jinc1019,

As an Oriental Catholic (not a Latin Catholic), my answers to your concerns might be different from a Latin Catholics.

The problem here, jinc, is not the powers that the Pope possesses, but the powers that the Pope is imagined and pretended to possess according to the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates and other detractors of the papacy (yes, I believe that Absolutst Petrine advocates are in fact detractors of the papacy because their position formally promotes what the papacy formally and doctrinally stands against - disunity). A perfect example of this “imagined power” is the example you give here (and others you enumerate below). The fact is, the Pope does not confirm every bishop in the world. He only confirms bishops in the Latin Catholic Church. Patriarchs, Major Archbishops and Metropolitans of sui juris Churches confirm their own bishops. What the Pope does is give a collegial assent to non-Latin bishops. “Assent” and “confirm” are two very different animals. If you need an explanation of the difference, let me know.

We don’t need to give evidence for something the Catholic Church does not teach nor claim. The authority of Peter that is passed on to the Pope can only be exercised in communion with the College of bishops. Absolutist Petrine advocates (and other detractors of the papacy) imagine and pretend that the Pope’s personal authority is a UNILATERAL authority. It is not. The Church herself does not teach nor conceive that the Pope’s authority is just “his way.”

You won’t find that evidence because there is none. It is not the Church that teaches or claims this, but merely Absolutist Petrine advocates and other detractors of the papacy. I’ll tell you what. Present to us evidence from a MAGISTERIAL source (not popular apologetics or singular theologians) which supports your claim - that Peter was infallible ALONE separated from the Apostles, or the Pope is infallible ALONE separated from the Church or his brother bishops, and we can discuss it from there. Seriously consider this - or rather, seriously REconsider your position if you cannot find the evidence for your claim aside from the meanderings of popular apologists and singular theologians.

What many Catholics believe, and what the Church teaches are, unfortunately, not always aligned.

The Pope has no authority to force us to submit to something immoral or destructive of the Church. That’s a given. Where have you obtained this other “imagined power” of the Pope? It can’t be from a Catholic source, as is evident from the fact that every single Catholic who has responded to you has stated what I have just stated.

Blessings

Mardukm,
As always, I appreciate your time (as well as everyone else).

I think the problem we have is that I remain unconvinced that your view of the Pope and his powers are true, which is to say that the Catholic Church actually teaches what you say it teaches. I would, however, very much like to understand this. Where can I find the evidence you suggest makes your argument? Are there specific councils, specific church documents, etc. that make your claim clear? I think it is a rather important point but I haven’t been able to find anything on the issue. I will admit, however, that your point about non-Latin Catholic churches in communion with Rome is true and accurate (and curious to me).

If you could point me in the direction of good sources that promote your point (even if the direction is vague), I would greatly appreciate it and I think it would be of great assistance to me.

Justin

 

[jinc1019]

The teaching of the Church is crystal clear on the supreme authority of the Pope which is often misrepresented by some. The pope has, by Christ’s mandate, final authority in defining teaching on faith and morals, challengeable by no one.

From Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”

As is glaringly evident falsification occurs when withheld assent is driven to misrepresent.

Mardukm,

This passage quoted by Abu is precisely what I am talking about and what I believe the Catholic Church officially teaches. Obviously, you disagree…but it seems spelled out very clearly here.

 

[jinc1019]

It is challengeable by no one NOT because “the Pope said so,” but only because the Pope, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, has PRIORLY determined the agreement of the Church and the bishops BEFORE making the decree.

Challenging it would be tantamount to challenging what you already believe. The Pope in his definitions proposes NOTHING NEW to the world that is not already contained in the Sacred deposit of Faith to which all other bishops also have access.

Blessings

Mardukm,
I am considering your position carefully, but I am still not convinced.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t disagree with the first half of your post. The second half, however, MAY be flawed. Why? Because you argue that the Pope and the Catholic magisterium has never taught anything that has contradicted the faith.

But the Eastern Orthodox bishops disagree. They would say the Catholic Church most certainly has, especially in regards to the filloque (sorry about spelling), supreme papal authority, and supreme papal infallibility.

Well, I was not Eastern Orthodox, but Oriental Orthodox, and I grew up with the same misconceptions of Catholic teachings as EO. I joined the Catholic Church, not out of a rejection of anything from my Coptic Orthodox Faith, but merely out of a rejection of my prior misconceptions of Catholicism (after I started reading Magisterial source documents, instead of depending on non-Catholics to tell me about the Catholic Church).

Also, I don’t agree that the Catholic Church has always held that it doesn’t have supreme authority and power over temporal matters or discipline in general. Read up on the “Donation of Constantine.”

The Donation of Constantine has never been used by any Pope to aggrandize their authority in the ecclesiastical sphere (some did so in the political sphere). The only one of whom I am aware that used the Donation in an ecclesiastical context was Pope St. Leo IX. However, he specifically asserted that the Donation, while being a witness to the papal claims, was not the source of them, nor added anything to them. The consistent claim of all Popes down to this day that in the ecclesiastical sphere, the prerogatives of the Papacy are from Christ and Christ alone.

The Catholic Church argued for centuries that it had authority over all the earth, not just in matters of faith and morals.

Be careful to distinguish between the political claims of Popes in the secular sphere, on the one hand, from their ecclesiastical claims, on the other. The former has never been a dogma of the Church, though the latter has.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jinc1019]

Well said, Jinc1019. If you’ll notice, the idea that Rome is the only Apostolic See is a popular Catholic apologetic. But it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church (you certainly will not find such claims from Magisterial documents). The more responsible Catholic apologists will not claim that Rome is the ONLY Apostolic See, but that among the Apostolic Sees, Rome has the primacy.

Again, I ask you to carefully distinguish between Catholic apologetics, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. I suspect that your reservations against the Catholic Church are pertaining mainly to popular Catholic Apologetics, and not the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. If you have questions in order to distinguish the two, CAF is a good place to ask. But -please, please, please -exercise the spiritual fruit of understanding in your assessment of the Catholic Church. Do not be so quick to rely on Catholic apologetics OR ESPECIALLY, the descriptions of NON-Catholics in order to judge the Catholic Church. If you feel that there is something “off” in what you hear from Catholics, come on here and ask. I assure you that the Catholic Church has maintained the ancient Apostolic Traditions (with a capital “T”) in all her dogmatic teachings. And I, or others, will prove it to you, if you ask.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm (and fellow posters),

I greatly appreciate the encouragement and support. I actually agree Mardukm that my reservations largely come precisely from the location you suggest they do. However, that doesn’t, on its face, make those concerns incorrect.

I would very much like to know what the authority and role of the Pope is, since that apparently is the crux of the issue. I will be starting another forum on the authority of the Pope immediately to discuss that issue specifically.

 

[mardukm]

I think the problem we have is that I remain unconvinced that your view of the Pope and his powers are true, which is to say that the Catholic Church actually teaches what you say it teaches. I would, however, very much like to understand this. Where can I find the evidence you suggest makes your argument? Are there specific councils, specific church documents, etc. that make your claim clear? I think it is a rather important point but I haven’t been able to find anything on the issue. I will admit, however, that your point about non-Latin Catholic churches in communion with Rome is true and accurate (and curious to me).

If you could point me in the direction of good sources that promote your point (even if the direction is vague), I would greatly appreciate it and I think it would be of great assistance to me.

A good place to start is the official Relatio of Vatican 1 by Bishop Gasser (just google it). Bishop Gasser was the OFFICIAL spokesman of the Commission De Fide, which was charged by the Pope to formulate the Decrees of Vatican 1. His Relatio is the proper, Magisterial interpretation of the Decree of Vatican 1 on “papal” infallibility, which basically demolishes the Absolutist Petine position of the SSPX and certain Catholics. The Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists (such as Archbishop Manning of England) voted placet for the Decree on the Infallibility, but, as noted by Dom Cuthbert Butler in his seminal work The Vatican Council:1969-1870 (written in the early 1930’s), Manning had issued a Pastoral to his flock directly contradicting the interpretation of the official Relatio on several points. Other NEO-ultramontanist bishops did the same thing. This is why these Absolutist Petrine exaggerations/aberrations still exist in the Catholic Church today, and why many imagine that the Absolutist Petrine aberrations are the teaching of the Catholic Church. Abu’s pov, as you will no doubt agree, is evidence of the existence of these aberrations today.

There is also another important source - Bishop Zinelli, who was the relator of the Commision De Fide’s intentions regarding the Decree on the Primacy. That, as well, demolishes the typical Absolutist Petrine exaggerations about the primatial authority of the Pope.

If you will google these sources, I’m certain you will have an eye-opening experience.

As mentioned to another poster, we have the Acts of the 7 Ecum Councils which we diligently study to find out about the actual intentions of Fathers when they promulgated their decrees. So it is strange that there are those who refuse to acknowledge the importance of the Acts of Vatican 1, and focus myopically on the Decrees as if they were the be-all and end-all of the whole matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Steve,
You offer absolutely no support in favor of your position. Although it’s true the Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years, so has the EO church, and they disagree with many of the Roman claims.

I don’t find “Eastern Orthodox” in the creed. They certainly are NOT one. They are NOT in union with Peter or the Churches in union with Peter. Which means they are NOT the Catholic Church.

When I showed you the 2000 + year old Redwood Tree, for 2000 years it grew true to form. Everything necessary to grow that tree was in that one seed it came from. One doesn’t find that tree producing apple trees and mustard bushes, etc etc from itself. One doesn’t expect to pick oranges from it. The example was simple. Look at the question you asked, and look at the answer given.
j:

Further, Islam has been around for 1,400 years, does that mean their religion is accurate?
What about Buddhism? The list goes on and on. Time can be supporting evidence, but not to the extent you are giving it.

Secular examples aside,

theologically speaking, Jesus is the seed that the Catholic Church comes from. [Genesis 3:15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis Chapter 3)

Gen 3:15, considered the proto evangelium, tells us it’s the “seed” Jesus coming from “the woman” Mary in the future to repair what has been damaged by sin.

Then we have the results after Jesus has come.[Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:17 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Apocalypse (Revelation) Chapter 12)

Like bookends containing the story inbetween
j:

Further, your suggestion (based on the Redwood analogy) appears to be that the power of the pope can grow. This, however, flies in the face of your own argument about Peter’s office. If Peter’s successor inherited an office, and on that basis alone, the authority Peter had, how can he inherit MORE than the office that Peter had? You are essentially arguing that the modern pope has more authority than Peter, not the same, and there is absolutely NO REASON, from either the Bible or history, to believe that should be the case.

• Any disagreement that the Catholic Church grew in stature as time rolled on? No.
• Any disagreement that when the Catholic Church fills the world the pope’s stature increases also? No

Peter is still over the entire Church just like the 1st century.

 

[steve_b]

I meant exactly what I said. The Catholic Church does claim to have perfect, which is to say INFALLIBLE, teachings on faith and morals.

I would just say,

in Ch 3, the issue of infallible & infallibility is described. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

a word search of the document shows how often each word is used and how it is used.

infallible = 1
infallibility = 5
perfect = 43 times

Because I’ve posted this document before, that describes infallibility, when you said “perfect” to describe infallibility, I wasn’t following you… I was thinking something else. That’s why I asked you to define what you meant.
j:

Are you suggesting they don’t? That would violate much of what the Catholic Church teaches. When it comes to “faith and morals,” the Church believes it is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. No other church affords this authority to one man (in the case of the Pope speaking ex cathedra) like the Catholic Church does.

I don’t care about what other “churches” say.

Jesus said He will build His Church. He only builds one. All you’re saying here is that you don’t believe His Church

 

[MilesVitae]

• Any disagreement that the Catholic Church grew in stature as time rolled on? No.
• Any disagreement that when the Catholic Church fills the world the pope’s stature increases also? No

Peter is still over the entire Church just like the 1st century.

I share Jinc’s concern that a “development” of the papacy implies that the Pope now has more power than he did in the early Church. This, to me, seems highly problematic - how could the Pope possibly possess more authority (intrinsic to his office) than he did in the beginning? I think that there can be a “development” in that the Pope exercises regularly authority he may not have needed to exercise prior (although had), as the terms in which we think about the Pope’s power have shifted (we probably speak in far more juridical terms than the earliest days of the Church), he puts more emphasis on his authority for various reasons, canonical procedures become more regularly formalized, etc. But the Pope can’t develop more authority than Peter had. What are your thoughts?