D
Duane1966
Guest
You guys must not read my posts. Look at my signature.
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
How odd, since your concept of Magisterial authority means precisely depriving the departed of their voice. Your concept of Magisterial authority, indeed, means only giving voice to the opinions of one man (a far cry from the democracy of the dead). This is why you contrast the two, rather than showing them as having a harmonious coexistence. By the way, contrary to your false claims, Orthodoxy does possess the authority to teach in the present. This authority is exercised every time a synod glorifies a saint or makes judgment on some matter.
G
GKC
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Catholics look to:
Oh, sure, you claim to have authoritative Bishops, etc. but what can they really tell you with certainty? Nothing because they cannot say anything infallibly. And because they have no real personal authority, they must rely on the Fathers. Everything must be filtered through the Fathers. They do this because they have no other basis for binding and loosing.
I previously wrote that Orthodoxy may have Scripture and Tradition and possibly a third element (the “Magisterium of the Dead”), but it is entirely possible that you have no valid Magisterium at all - living or dead.
You took issue with my use of the word “dead” to refer to the Fathers, but now that GK Chesterton has been quoted using the same word, that sorta backfired, didn’t it?
Catholics look to:
- Sacred Scripture - the written word of God
- Sacred Tradition - Chesterton’s “democracy of the Dead”
- the Magisterium - the teaching authority of the Catholic Church
Oh, sure, you claim to have authoritative Bishops, etc. but what can they really tell you with certainty? Nothing because they cannot say anything infallibly. And because they have no real personal authority, they must rely on the Fathers. Everything must be filtered through the Fathers. They do this because they have no other basis for binding and loosing.
I previously wrote that Orthodoxy may have Scripture and Tradition and possibly a third element (the “Magisterium of the Dead”), but it is entirely possible that you have no valid Magisterium at all - living or dead.
P
prodromos
Guest
Our head was, is, and always will be Christ Jesus our Lord and God. Rome may have fallen away but we have never been seperated from our head.
BTW Randy, is it really necessary for you to continue with your attempts at trolling? You seem to be making a concerted effort to attract ad hominem attacks while you yourself seem to be stalking Cavaradossi. It is not particularly mature and is indicative of someone who is losing their argument.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Ah, the puerile turn your posts have taken only goes to show how badly you are losing the argument. You are out of your league, so you post cat pictures. Just like a typical vituperating politician, when you have no remaining recourse to reason, you attempt to take refuge in ridicule others.
I do not accept Chesterton as some infallible authority, and I manifestly do not agree with the idea that the saints are somehow removed from us by bodily death. Their doctrines remain with us as they themselves remain with us and cannot but remain with us because the Church is Catholic. I am simply pointing out that your agreement with Chesterton rings hollow, as you yourself have no room in your sad system for the saints to exercise any sort of authority in the Church. You pay no deference to the Holy Fathers but only to what opinions are fashionable among some bishops living in Rome.
Nothing is exactly what yours can tell you. Even though you claim in vain that they possess the power to teach infallibly, this does not solve the problem presented by your incoherent empiricist system. You cannot ever know with certainty which teachings are infallible without appealing to some sort of infinite regression of infallible statements stating that the previous was infallible or otherwise employing private judgment in attempting to determine if some teaching meets the criteria for being infallible.
No, they do this because the faith of the Fathers is none other than the the Catholic and Orthodox faith. The Church can never be set above and against the Fathers, because to do so would be to fall into heterodoxy by preferring that which is parochial to that which is Catholic.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Amen. Paul wrote:
Colossians 1:15-18
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
The assertion that Rome has fallen away is made due to much misunderstanding on your part, and that will not be corrected with a single post or even a single thread.
However, to be clear, Peter alone received the keys of the perpetual office of Royal Steward that were not given to any other Apostle; Peter alone was told to strengthen the others; Peter alone was commanded to feed and tend Christ’s one flock as His vicarious shepherd on earth. Peter alone was the visible head of the visible Church on Earth.
Now, you can offer any version of history you like, but the end is always the same: the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy are not in full communion with the See of Peter and therefore, they cannot guide their people with the voice of infallible authority.
To justify themselves, the Patriarchs have been forced to teach you that such infallibility is a Catholic novelty. This is false. But rather than raise themselves up (which they cannot do while remaining in schism), they have attempted to pull Rome down. They teach you this, also. But if the authority of the greatest apostle is diminished, then how are the successors of the lessor apostles also not diminished?
Check my posts. In the past week or so, I have been active in about 25-30 threads in several subforums. I have been discussing various disagreements with a number of Orthodox, explaining to the Baha’i that Jesus really did claim to be God, correcting a misguided Catholic who asserted that Matthias was not the Twelfth apostle, contributing to a number of Lutheran-related threads on transubstantiation and the subject of private judgment, and even chatting with you about the genealogy of Jesus.
Cavaradossi has one real focus: me. Check his posts. My use of the catnip images was intended to highlight this, and it was successful in doing so.
One last point: I mentioned to Seraphim73 a few days ago, that seeing the issues addressed in this thread are somewhat like finally solving the Rubik’s Cube. First, there is the “aha” experience of finally understanding the fatal flaw of Orthodoxy; then comes the creeping boredom that results from having solved a puzzle.
The fatal flaw of Protestantism is sola scriptura and its corollary, the absolute right to private judgment, which was necessarily championed by the Reformers in place of Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. Interestingly, the Protestant churches publicly promote private judgment, but in practice, it may not be tolerated. The result, however, has been an explosion in the number of competing denominations teaching conflicting and contradictory doctrines.
The fatal flaw of Orthodoxy is that while it has retained Tradition (and Scripture, of course), it, too, has jettisoned the vital connection to the infallible head of the Church necessary for real authority. This has been replaced by the receptivity theory which, in order to function, requires and encourages private judgment.
Orthodoxy has not experienced the spectacular and tragic fragmentation that characterizes Protestantism, but this has been achieved by rooting itself in the past (ossification) and maintained, in part, by its undeniable ethnic and nationalistic identities. These characteristics combine to make Orthodoxy brittle, and the fault line cracks are evident to anyone willing to look objectively.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Cav, this thead, as the title suggests, is about Orthodoxy; however, you are asking me to explain and defend the Catholic Church, so I am happy to do my best in that regard. I do hope that we can return to the OP at some point before we reach the 1,000-post limit.
The Church of Christ has in its nature the tendency to become and to grow; it has the nature to engulf and develop the truths of revelation; it is to be delved into from time to time to find and pronounce the truths of which the Church is the Pillar.
The Church, as a whole, is infallible, but it is not God-inspired to the extent that it has understood the entire depth of the truths and formulated and proclaimed them to the world. The Church, by nature and duty, from time to time - to settle controversies - formulates, defines, and pronounces some of these revealed truths. In such instances, the Fathers of the Church have assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers have believed that their decisions are infallible.
Surely you must agree with this?
P
prodromos
Guest
All attempts thus far have failed, but by all means keep trying
Since our understanding is that Peter is a “type” of the bishop, the above is not the problem for us you imagine it to be
We believe that only one man is infallible, and that is the God-man Jesus Christ. The Church, which is the body of Christ is infallible by nature of being one with its head, Jesus Christ. The “not in full communion” is nonsense, it is like saying a woman is partly pregnant. I don’t know why the Pope has used such an expression but we are not in communion with Rome, period.
Oh really? Where have they done that?
Your previous statement is, yes.
This is the gospel according to Randy I suppose
So you have too much time on your hands. I have a full time job and a family thus must limit when and where I post.
You happen to be the loudest and most prolific person making posts attacking Orthodoxy on this forum. Our purpose on this forum as previously stated is to correct the misrepresentation of the Orthodox Church by Catholic posters such as yourself so naturally our focus will be on your posts. The squeaking wheel gets the grease so to speak.All you have demonstrated is that you truly do not have a clue about Orthodoxy
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:nope: Posts #1 and #96 are not the “good news” according to me. They contain the “bad news” as reported on Orthodox websites.
Those two posts, along with #233, are still squeaking, and apparently, they will be remain un-refuted and available to anyone with a browser for YEARS to come.
I simply read what Orthodox are saying amongst and about themselves and tried to make sense of it in light of what I, as a member of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church know to be true from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Early Church Fathers, etc.
After awhile, the pieces started falling into place.
T
twf
Guest
I hope the accusation of Randy having no deference for the Holy Fathers was directed at Randy in particular (though I do not necessarily agree with the accusation regardless) and not Catholics in general. The Catechism is overflowing with quotes from the Fathers. Catholics hold the Fathers in the highest regard and their teaching remains part of the infallible ordinary magisterium (that which the popes and bishops have always taught in every place). The constant bickering on this forum narrows in on the one issue of the papal exercise of the extraordinary magisterium- an extremely rarely used vehicle indeed. The extraordinary magisterium has most often been exercised by the bishops as a whole assembled in ecumenical councils… But we are certainly not free to disregard the ordinary magisterium - what the popes and bishops have always taught - starting with the Fathers. Contrary to what some on this forum seem to think, there are no dogmas concerning birth control or the ordination of women. Bl Paul VI and St John Paul invoked the ordinar magisterium - what the Fathers, popes and bishops have alway taught. Cardinal Ratzinger made this clear in the statement issued by the CDF…St John Paul did not exercise the extraordinary magisterium - he cited the authority of the ordinary magisterium.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That seems to be the thrust of Randy’s argument, however. In order to present Orthodoxy as deficient he must make a twofold argument. Firstly, he must devalue what you would call the ordinary magisterium, and secondly, since he cannot devalue the exercise of the extraordinary magisterium when exercised by an ecumenical council (because he at least admits the supremacy of this authority), he must create a sort of positivist scheme in order to argue that only in Roman Catholicism can one know with certainty when the extraordinary magisterium has been exercised. The first, I object to, obviously, because I believe that what you would term the ordinary magisterium is sufficient under most circumstances. The second argument I reject, because I believe that this sort of positivism is seemingly incoherent with both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It is to me, rather wise that the Roman Catholic Church has, to my knowledge, no list of sufficient criteria for a council to be considered ecumenical, but only a few criteria which are considered necessary (something which seems to do considerable harm to Randy’s argument). I shall leave you to be the judge of whether that is an accurate summary of Randy’s thought. Randy, of course, may clarify his views if he so wishes.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Isn’t just the Magisterium #'s 1 and 2 along with the college of bishops?
I thought it was the case that the Pope exercises the infallibility of the Church, and not the other way around? The Church can still be infallible and declare things infallibly without the Pope.
K
Kosta
Guest
The fact that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks & immature taunts does not help your argument. You’re not in a political campaign, my friend; you’re in a theological one.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The validity of an Ecumenical Council is a dogmatic fact, which has been defined as:
“A truth that, though not revealed by God, nevertheless comes under the infallible teaching authority of the Church. The reason for the Church’s competence over dogmatic facts is their close connection with revealed truths. If the Church did not have authority to teach such facts infallibly, the doctrines of revelation would be jeopardized. Examples of dogmatic facts are the valid election of a pope, the validity of an ecumenical council, and the actuality of a canonized saint’s presence in heaven.”
Source: catholicculture.org/cultu…x.cfm?id=33188
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The episcopal college and its head, the Pope
880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”
884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."
885 “This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head.”
886 “The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches.” As such, they “exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,” assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches. The bishops exercise this care first “by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,” and so contributing “to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches.” They extend it especially to the poor, to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.
887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions. The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. “In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit.”
D
dvdjs
Guest
These comments miss the mark entirely. “Magisterial Authority” rigorously enforces the the voice of Tradition. It is not a democracy of the dead - or the living for that matter - but their authority endures and cannot actually be undone. Understanding this point is crucial to understanding Infallibility as the Church understands it, rather than as it is distorted by Her polemical opponents.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That still doesn’t solve the problem. As a dogmatic fact, an Ecumenical Council can only be known as being ecumenical by virtue of the Church’s recognition of the council as such. But such a judgment that a council is ecumenical is not in itself known to have been infallibly declared, and is therefore reversible. For example, though the Council of the Lateran of 649 was convened by the pope and both St. Maximus the Confessor, and Pope St. Martin regarded the council as being ecumenical, the council did not later achieve ecumenical status (i.e., on this matter, the judgment of St. Maximus and Pope St. Martin was mistaken).
The existence of the dogmatic fact, in other words, provides no grounding for knowledge, as knowing with certainty that something is a dogmatic fact is itself dependent on the truth of another proposition (that the judgment which has established something as a dogmatic fact is itself infallible). This leads to an infinite regression of infallible judgments on some matter, the last of which itself cannot be known to be infallible until a judgment is made on the matter. I simply can see no way for you to ground your theory of knowledge (as far as dogmatic matters are concerned) without at some point invoking the idea that the truth of some things (be they dogmas or dogmatic facts) is somehow self-evident, at which point you would be undercutting your argument for the necessity of papal authority.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Perhaps your remarks miss the mark entirely. I do not claim what I wrote to be what Rome teaches on the matter, but only to be the consequence of the arguments made by a single poster.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
What is your understanding of how the Catholic Church recognizes a council as Ecumenical?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Honestly, there seems to be multiple ways. One is a general emergence into the ecclesiastical consciousness of a council’s ecumenical nature. That seems to be what happened with the first three Lateran Councils and the two Councils of Lyons. Fortescue too seems to have had a similar idea concerning the Second Council of Constantinople. Other times (as with Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II) there seems to have been a more instantaneous recognition.
- Status