Steve…Show me where Jesus promises infallibility to Peter and NOT also to the other apostles? I am sure you will admit Jesus did promise infallibility to the Apostles…So show me WHERE Jesus conditions that infallibility on being in communion with Peter? Where does he say that? He never does.
The Catholic Church has never given up the teaching that EVERY country is bound to follow the laws of God as proposed by the Church. The Church has publicly opposed every immoral laws set by any State. This is the dogma of the Church. In the middle ages, the Church was commonly and irrevocably mixed in with the State, since the State often worked under the notion of “divine-right rule.” In today’s world, there are hardly any “divine-right rulers” (except, I think, the Pope for the Vatican State).
AND…Just to prove the fact that your understanding of Cyprian is TOTALLY FALSE…here is just ONE of many quotes that disprove your assertion:
Well said. As the official Relatio of Vatican 1 stated, the infallibility of the Church was not given to Peter alone and from there distributed to the others, but rather that infallibility was given to the whole Magisterium.
I read through his statements, and Cathoholic did not say “the promises made to the other Apostles are conditional and purely dependent on Peter.” The teaching is that infallibility is promised to the whole body of bishops together, not individually or separately. Not even the Pope has an “individual” infallibility separated from the Church or the College. What the Pope can do is exercise the infallibility of the Church PERSONALLY in an EXTRAordinary manner. But this in NO WAY means he is detached from the infallibility of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium possessed by the College, nor the infallibility of the Church as a whole, when he is personally exercising the infallibility in that extraordinary manner. It is not the concept of one being dependent on the other, but the idea of infallibility invested in the whole. The only one on Whom the Church actually depends for infallibility is God Himself and God alone.
Agreed. In fact, Pastor Aeternus does not mention the keys in the Chapter on Infallibility, but only in the chapter on the Primacy.
I agree with you here, but I think you might be misinterpreting brother Cathoholic.
Dear Marduk,Dear Jinc,
I’m sure you have already noticed the strange mindset of Absolutist Petrine advocates. They say that the Pope does not have absolute power, but whenever anyone else but them says it, they will immediately challenge it.
So do not rest easy just because they make the claim to agree that the Pope “does not have absolute power.” In fact, Absolutist Petrine advocates mean something different from how the rest of the world would understand that statement. Absolutist Petrine advocates make the claim only in relation to God. They will say things like “of course the Pope does not have absolute power, because only God has absolute power.” In truth, in relation to the rest of the world, Absolutist Petrine advocates do indeed believe that the Pope has absolute power. This is, however, not the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church.
Continue to combat the errors of the Absolutist Petrine advocates. You will have many Catholics on your side - not to mention the ecclesiastical Magisterium. Of course, there still seems to be one or two things about the papacy that is preventing you from becoming Catholic. I suppose only prayer can help at that point.
Blessings
I absolutely disagree with this. Show me a single Magisterial document that states “the Pope can act of his own accord.” In opposition to this statement, our Canons state the Primacy is only exercised “in accord with the needs of the Church.” The idea that the Pope’s exercise of the primacy depends solely on what he wants is certainly not Catholic teaching. If the Pope is only acting of his own accord, he is abusing his authority and we need not follow him, particularly if his commands are tearing down the Church.
If you want to accuse the Church herself of Gallicanism, that’s up to you.
Yes, you did, because you had not read the entire thread and merely assumed things about what I stated that were not true, and were already covered earlier in the thread.
This question shows the confusion present, but enables the realization that Christ has provided His Church with His Supreme Vicar who is charged with approving and promulgating all definitions to develop the understanding of the truths given to His Church.
After the reality of Peter’s primacy and infallibility (post #283) how obtuse to continue in the fantasy that the other Apostles taught anything contrary to communion with St Peter their head!
How obtuse!
The way you are presenting that is utter non-sense.
OK. Fine. Then change that to a “democratic Episcopal process”, change it to an “Episcopal majority”, change it to whatever you want, but you know exactly what I mean and you have NOT addressed the issue. Not ONCE.
What’s the answer to that question Mardukm?
There is no question of a mere “saying”; the truth from Vatican I, and Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25, is that the Popes’, “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.”
Nowhere in your response did you refute my first point. So, again, where do you find any Pope in the 2,000 year history of the Church claiming to be able to teach anything infallibly other than that which has ALREADY been taught or revealed? Where? You can’t do it because it has never happened. The Pope is limited to teaching that which has already existed. He, along with the bishops, can refine teachings already present and to some extent expand upon them, but he cannot create new teachings spontaneously as you suggest he can. And if he can, please show one example of a Pope claiming this? Please also explain why every Pope, whenever they find themselves teaching any particular document, ALWAYS claim that whatever they are teaching is Apostolic in origin? If they have the power to essentially teach anything infallibly, why does its origins mean anything?
Once again (for whatever reason you keep doing this), I am not disputing Peter’s role as the “Head of the Church.” The issue is JUST HOW POWERFUL was he in relation to the other Apostles. None of the evidence you suggest from scripture says anything about Peter’s power over the other Apostles. In fact, Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for his position on gentiles.
That’s a fair question.
Marduk,
They never were not in communion with Peter – you cannot show us where they clamed to be separate because they didn’t have the prerogatives so clearly given by Christ Himself to Peter which you have been quite unable to refute. They never even tried to establish any Church separate from Peter’s authority.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled.
I’ll have a go!
Then be clear and don’t say “The Pope can act of his own accord.” Because that’s what that statement means. It means that het can act without taking into account anything else but his own concerns. Simple as that. You should not be saying things that non-Catholics can EASILY misinterpret.
I did address the issue. I gave you the correct definition of “democratic process.” This prompted you to clarify yourself, which is how rhetoric works. Read through the thread as I suggested earlier. You will have your questions answered. Better yet, there is a search function. You can do a search with my name and pull up all my posts within a certain time period.
I answered him earlier in the thread. He said my answer was very good and agreed with most of it, but he admitted he still has to ponder it. Again, the problem here is that you jump into conversations without reading the context of what went on before.
, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.
I think perhaps you misunderstand the Church’s doctrine of collegiality (the High Petrine view). Collegiality does not put the Pope behind the College, but puts the Pope WITHIN the College.
