I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
And this interpretation escaped the Church for a thousand years and could not be implemented/enforced until after the Great Schism?
Who am I to argue with [all] he big boys?
- Status
Who am I to argue with [all] he big boys?
R
rcwitness
Guest
It can never be enforced without the willfull consent of the faithfull. It is constantly being rejected, just as Christ’s authority was constantly being rejected.And this interpretation escaped the Church for a thousand years and could not be implemented/enforced until after the Great Schism?
Who am I to argue with [all] he big boys?
S
steido01
Guest
So the faithful were willfully rejecting a necessary belief for a millenia and a half?
I’ve got to be missing something here. Can you explain the idea again?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
So this teaching was hidden for a thousand years?
Isn’t this what Catholic apologists love to ask Protestants about the Solas (For 1,500 years (Fill in the blank Sola) was absent?
We can substitute the 1,500 with a 1,000 and 1,700 years… I see a dangerous path here.
Your comment sounds as if you are saying that Non-Catholics are rejecting Christ’s authority. Is this the case? Are the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, et al all rejecting Christ’s authority?
I feel very uncomfortable writing this, one of the ten commandments is hitting me hard
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I’m wondering the same thing…So the faithful were willfully rejecting a necessary belief for a millenia and a half?
I’ve got to be missing something here. Can you explain the idea again?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Show me where the faithfull were rejecting what the bishop of rome was trying to officially lead the whole Church to do, and yes, i will show you a christian who is rejecting the authority of Christ.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Please give a specific example of the faithfull righteously rejecting the popes official pronouncement for the whole Church.So the faithful were willfully rejecting a necessary belief for a millenia and a half?
I’ve got to be missing something here. Can you explain the idea again?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
And the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Antioch, the Bishop of Constantinople, the Bishop of _______. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.
You are still not addressing my questions.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Let’s not answer questions with questions please.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Im NOT suggesting that any Pope should act outside the council of bishops when discerning how to handle any given situation at hand, but that he is able to. No other bishop is able to act on his own regarding Teaching the whole Church.
Neither do I feel that the Church denies the ability for any bishop, priest, layman or young child to be able to correct, compel or influence the pope to make his mind or change his mind. In fact, its more the opposite. The popes do take council from the whole Church.
You and Steido are claiming the Church rejected that the pope had authority to excercise universal pastoral direction on the whole Church on matters of faith and morals when specifically and unmistakably declared as successor of Peter for 1000 yrs just because the doctrine had not been formally articulated. The burden of proof should be on you. Im a young Catholic without much education, and I mean that in all humility. Trust me, I understand your struggle, but I understand it in the sense that our Church history gets very complicated at times and these accusations require lots of attention and research. For example, the issue of Pope St Victor did not seem what it was being made out to be after looking into it myself. If the holy Scriptures can be so easily twisted, how much more the interpretations of how the complicated matters of popes and councils have played out in times when political influence was overbearing.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
You cannot reject what did not exist. It was not there for the first 1,000 years, so it’s impossible to reject. We are not claiming that.
I have given you plenty of proof in several threads including this very same thread as well, I am not going to repost them. The fact is that those documents and Church history can not be refuted.
The facts is that this is something the Western Church exercised [after] the schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
What you said above: [direction] — is consistent with early Church history, there is obviously a leadership and primacy present. While Supreme, Absolute, Immediate, and Universal are absent.
In Lumen Gentium, Dictatus Papae is reinforced:
**unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.
Dictatus Papae was **new **at the time.
So for a 1,000 years this interpretation was completely absent. And it renders any Church Council [ineffective] against the single authority of the Pope. And this needed to be reinforced because of the Investiture Controversy. The background to the Investiture Controversy was to free the Roman papacy from the control of Roman factions and give that control back to the Church. Keeping in mind that what the Bishop of Rome was declaring at this time was without the other Catholics in the Eastern Sees. That’s right, Ignatius clearly says that wherever the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church is. Ignatius did not specify a single Bishopric See for the Church to be there. Other Non-Orthodox Churches have also retain Apostolic Succession, as such they are part of the Catholic Church but not in union with the Bishop of Rome.
And this development has worked for the Western Church for the most part. Until you take into consideration the Reformation.
Now let’s please stay with the facts and not bring personal struggles or ad hominems (not saying you are, but others have been in other threads) to the table. It doesn’t matter what I believe because I am not the subject of discussion, I’m just another dude on the internet. Let’s stay in subject.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is very true, Dave. However the promises made by Christ create a different quality to the authority He appointed over His Church.
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.
18 “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” John 14:16–21
12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." John 16:12–16
These are not promises made to any authority previously. Jesus did not intend for authority to be taken from any of His Apostles who made mistakes. If this were the case, they all would have disqualified themselves when they abandoned him in the garden.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is really very simple Don. Jesus put Peter in charge of the feeding and care of His sheep, and he passed this responsibility on to his successor, and they to theirs, until the present day.
The fact that the sheep refuse the food and guidance does not make him any less responsible.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Very simple (emphasis added)? But the fact that the CCC has 1,000 pages or so might give a different impression.
S
steido01
Guest
The answers have meandered away from the question Jose [and I] are considering. I’m not necessarily arguing against the pastoral role assigned to Peter.
Where is the practice and proof of the universal, immediate jurisdiction of the Pope in the early Church? Why was this not “accepted by the sheep” until modern times, but now mandatory to believe for salvation?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Hey bro,
I totally agree that you and J should pose this question and come to terms one way or the other about it. But this thread wasnt to address that, and even though I didnt start that debate, I was asked to start another thread about it.
If either of you do start a thread, please let me know, I’d love to share thoughts, teachings and yes, facts
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m not sure what you’re saying…John Cassian made the connection.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Non sequitur.Very simple (emphasis added)? But the fact that the CCC has 1,000 pages or so might give a different impression.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I don’t know who Jose is, and I’m completely lost as to what Isaiah 45 is trying to drive at…he appears frustrated at having to repeat things he has posted in previous threads but I was not a part of those discussions, so his brevity now prevents me from understanding his position.
That said, sure, there is an obvious example.
*]The Apostle John died around the year AD 100.
*]Around AD 96, the Corinthian Church had internal problems, but they did not address them to John. Instead, they wrote to Clement of Rome, who as the successor of Peter, did not hesitate to intervene in what was a local matter.
*]The Corinthians received his letter warmly - so much so, in fact, that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was considered Sacred Scripture for many years afterward.
*]The Bishop of Rome exercised his authority outside of his own immediate diocese; that authority was not only consulted but was accepted by another diocese - despite the fact that an apostle was still alive and available for consultation.
*]Thus, the successor to the office of the Royal Steward outranked another steward who was appointed before him. The Chief Steward was above all.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I am Jose :tiphat:
What you present says nothing about what Dictatus Papae establishes and Lumen Gentium affirms in regards to the Church Catholic practice in Her first 1,000 years, where both principle are absent. Further, it doesn’t present why it is now necessary as a condition of salvation and after the Schism — without the Whole Catholic Church. And how after a thousand years it became a requirement of the faith to be affirmed in order to obtain salvation. Again, something absent in those first 1,000 years.
More, it wasn’t Peter alone at Rome but with Paul and when we read Romans, the Church was already established and known about in the whole world when neither one of them had made it there yet.
The primacy if Peter is unquestionable. But it is not Sola Cephas,. This Primacy is not alone, but **with **the others (Mark 1:36, Acts 2:14, Acts 15). The Rock is not the cause or first cause of the Church, because that is only Christ. As Paul says in Eph 2:20 [We are fellow members of the household of God - CHURCH] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. Peter being that first rock but not the only rock, as a rock by itself cannot make a foundation.
As for my other posts - I’m sure you know you can search within the specific thread exclusively by the username and filter only the posts by the user you are interested in
. That way you don’t have to go through all the pages in the thread. :tiphat:
- Status