Orthodoxy, Papacy

[steve_b]

No proof. You keep talking about proof. It’s hard to prove anything in NT scholarship–that’s one reason Ferde’s claim that “the passage doesn’t need interpretation” is particularly absurd.

• Since some NT scholarship speculates Matthew copied from Mark, and we agree that speculation can’t be proven, let’s not introduce it
• Why say it’s hard to prove anything in NT scholarship? There’s lots of things we can prove. I don’t accept your premise.

C:

But there are good reasons to believe that Mark was written first and that Matthew used Mark as a source.

We just agreed it’s speculation. Let’s just ignore speculations .

On matters of faith and morals, the CC doesn’t expect Catholics to believe or embrace speculation,
C:

Indeed. That’s why I don’t find this a particularly important point. I mentioned it to be thorough, and because it’s something that Catholic scholars (such as Raymond Brown) typically see the need to address in their discussions of this passage.

Again, Let’s just forget the speculation. It’s not helpful
C:

No, it isn’t. If it were, then it wouldn’t be so controversial among Protestants. Protestantism exists because Scripture is not clear, and it exists in many different forms because Scripture is not clear.

I disagree.

Protestantism exists not because scripture is unclear, but because Satan is sifting.
C:

That is a strong point in favor of Catholicism–usually the first weapon in the Catholic apologist’s arsenal–and hence I find it odd that you and Ferde are arguing for the perspicuity of Scripture. If Scripture were perspicuous, then either Protestantism would not exist or we would all be Protestants, and Protestants of more or less the same sort. (Or, as some silly Protestants think, the people who really believe the Bible would be Protestants of the “right kind” and the ones who follow human traditions wouldn’t! You and Ferde appear to hold the mirror image of that absurd and demeaning view.)

I didn’t say all of scripture is clear and neither did Ferde. And as you know, Peter said some things ARE difficult to understand in scripture. But that doesn’t mean EVERYTHING is difficult to understand. But as Peter concludes, the ignorant and unstable step in and make a mess out of the scriptures, the difficult parts as well as the easy/clear parts…
C:

I do believe that apostolic succession is found in Scripture–most clearly in the Pastoral Epistles. But obviously it’s not perfectly clear, or so many Protestants would not fail to see it.

Let’s look at a most perfect example. When many disciples of Jesus left Him at the bread of life discourse, was Jesus not teaching clearly with them?

Who’s then at fault for those disciples leaving?

• Jesus?
• or the desciples who left?

C:

So Matthias was the successor of Judas specifically?

In this case it was his (Judas) office (bishoprick) another would take. Matthias took Judas office (bishoprick) and he was also chosen because he saw Jesus
C:

What signals this? What characterizes a successor of Judas as distinct from a successor of Andrew or John? If nothing does, plainly Acts 1 is no evidence for Peter having specific successors.

If you consider an apostle having the office of bishop, and Peter’s office is the head bishop of all, what’s the problem?
C:

And you did not answer my point about the number twelve. Since there are far more than twelve bishops, and since all bishops are successors of the Apostles, it follows that what was going on in Acts 1 was something rather different from the succession of apostles by bishops.

Matthias saw Jesus. But at some point in the future, everyone who saw Jesus would dwindle to zero. THAT particular requirement (seeing Jesus) would no longer be there. But everyone they ordain bishop in apostolic succession are valid bishops in apostolic succession. .

 

[Contarini]

That’s absurd. We don’t ‘call ourselves.’ It’s what the world has called the Catholic Church from at least the 4th Century to today.

You have also been called a lot of other names. This is just silly.

How is a body of believers, or anybody or anything to be identified if not by its name?

How about by its doctrines and practices?

You need to make the case that your Church is the same in doctrine and practice with the early Church, and that the Orthodox Church is not. Clearly you can’t do this, or you wouldn’t be embarrassing yourself with this silly argument about names.

If you changed your name, would someone who knew you at 4 and not since think you’re the same person?

I hope they wouldn’t simply go by the fact that I had the same name. I can’t believe you’re saying this. People do change their names, and two people may have the same name.

Enough of this silliness.

There. You just used the term “The Catholic Church.”

I apologize for my courtesy. Be assured that I will attempt not to be so gracious in the future.

Can we put that one to bed at last?

Certainly not by a bunch of quotes from Augustine, whom everyone knows believed in the Filioque and many other theories which are not the dogma of the Church. Besides, Augustine never advocated changing the Creed to reflect this theory.

"It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed

This is indeed interesting. After trying to track this down for a while, I found that it seems to be associated with a scholar named Fr. Johannes Grohe. Fr. Grohe appears to be referring to the Council of Selecia-Ctesiphon, also known as the Council of Mar Ishaq. From this link it appears that his claim is supported by Lamy’s 1860 edition of the acts of the Council. However, in the 1902 edition by Chabot, the version of the Creed used is the original Creed of Nicea itself, which simply says “and in the Holy Spirit.” My browser crashed several times while I was trying to access the French edition (I do not read Syriac), so I am basing my opinion on this unpublished English translation. Certainly it would be nice to see a more authoritative discussion of the matter, but based on the evidence I’ve been able to find it is not clear that your claim is correct. There are spurious versions of the acts of various councils floating around, and since textual scholarship does indeed progress (whatever may be true in other areas of scholarship) I’m going to accept a 1902 version over an 1860 version until further evidence turns up.

If true, the claim would not prove the addition of the Filioque to the Creed to have been correct, but it would indeed cast serious question on the usual Orthodox narrative and make the West’s later actions seem relatively less clearly unjustifiable

The question now is, did the Catholic Church add something or did the Orthodox remove something? It’s clear the filioque was added to the Creed

So there’s actually no question at all, by your own admission.

Yes, indeed let’s put this issue to bed

but all that did was include a doctrine that been left out.

A very odd and unorthodox turn of phrase. This implies that a Creed may be added to at will until it expresses every doctrine believed to be true. But that’s not the function of a Creed. It’s not intended to be exhaustive, but to be the bottom line of orthodoxy–to condemn error rather than state truth in its fullness. (At least, that’s the function of the Nicene Creed–the baptismal creeds which gave rise to the Apostles’ Creed used in the West have a different function, and it’s interesting that the Orthodox don’t use the Apostles’ Creed.)

To recite something as part of the Nicene Creed is to say that those who believe otherwise are heretics. To justify your claim, you must therefore show not only that many people in the fourth century spoke of the double procession of the Holy Spirit (which is clearly true) but that they condemned those who denied it as heretical.

It’s not that it isn’t true and wasn’t believed as true by the Church at that time.

On the other thread where I’ve been hotly debating Catholics recently (Where Did Rome Go Wrong), Catholics have been insisting on a very narrow definition of what counts as something believed or taught by “the Church.” Now you are arguing for a very broad definition, in which if several theologians use a certain kind of language, the theory involved is to be ascribed to the whole Church. Which is it? Do you disagree with your friends on the other thread, or are you just being opportunistic? (If your tactics had not been so consistently shoddy so far I would be reluctant to raise the latter possibility.)

Some people in the fourth century clearly believed in the Filioque. That is an argument against the strong anti-Filioque position associated with Lossky (though not a conclusive argument, since we can find great and venerable Fathers before Nicea who spoke in ways that would not have been orthodox afterwards). It is not, however, an argument relevant to the point I’m arguing. :Whether the Filioque is true or not is above my pay grade. But even a lowly church historian can see that it should never have been added to the Creed by the West simply as a response to particular Western controversies, and in flagrant violation of the decision of Pope Leo III.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

This is indeed interesting. After trying to track this down for a while, I found that it seems to be associated with a scholar named Fr. Johannes Grohe. Fr. Grohe appears to be referring to the Council of Selecia-Ctesiphon, also known as the Council of Mar Ishaq. From this link it appears that his claim is supported by Lamy’s 1860 edition of the acts of the Council. However, in the 1902 edition by Chabot, the version of the Creed used is the original Creed of Nicea itself, which simply says “and in the Holy Spirit.” My browser crashed several times while I was trying to access the French edition (I do not read Syriac), so I am basing my opinion on this unpublished English translation. Certainly it would be nice to see a more authoritative discussion of the matter, but based on the evidence I’ve been able to find it is not clear that your claim is correct. There are spurious versions of the acts of various councils floating around, and since textual scholarship does indeed progress (whatever may be true in other areas of scholarship) I’m going to accept a 1902 version over an 1860 version until further evidence turns up.

If true, the claim would not prove the addition of the Filioque to the Creed to have been correct, but it would indeed cast serious question on the usual Orthodox narrative and make the West’s later actions seem relatively less clearly unjustifiable

That was a local council (which I believe was outside of the empire in Persian territory at the time, not certain).

I have not read the acts of that council (Seleucia-Ctesiphon) in any language, but if we take it (the filioque, in some form of wording) as fact for arguments sake one will notice that the Church of the East (Assyrian/Chaldean) did not in fact keep it (however it was phrased). I think that it is possible they dropped the interpolation because of the council of Ephesus in 431AD, but I don’t know, but they eventually did drop it.

Seleucia-Ctesiphon was also the council that approved of married bishops, that did not last either. I don’t know why they stopped making bishops of married men.

The council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon we are referring to (I don’t know if there were more than one) was before the time of Nestorius, but that church did later become a haven for some ‘Greeks’ who were banned or fled as alleged followers/supporters of Nestorius.

The rest of the east: Greek, Syrian, Copt etc. was not affected by this councils acts (if true) and it did not establish any precedent in the churches of the east in any communion.

The next time the filioque turned up was circa 587 in the proto-Mozarabic church of Spain, so 177 years passed, or roughly 7 to 9 generations of Christians, and it showed up on another margin of Christianity way to the west.

The council of Toledo by no means imposed this change on the entire western church, it was confined to Spain for many years. Eventually the Franks adopted it (the Franks were battling the Muslims in Spain and occupied some territories beyond the Pyrenees, so they were exposed to the Mozarabic church, it’s libraries and it’s practices). What the Franks actually adopted was the practice of reciting the creed in the liturgy. The form of the creed they adopted was the Spanish version, which must have already spread into their areas among the intellectual circles. The common folk were not reciting any creed in the liturgy and most of them probably only knew the Apostle’s creed until this change in the liturgy.

 

[Contarini]

With regard to your catena of quotations, a few points:

You admitted that the Fathers interpreted Matt. 16 in several different ways. So that’s not under dispute. You claimed that the “eventually” came to a conclusion. That’s not something that is reflected in your disjointed catena. I never disputed that they speak on various occasions of Peter being the Rock. Nor did I dispute that the bishops of Rome were understood to be successors of Peter.

To tackle the most important of your quotations (in my opinion–feel free to point out others you think are more important):

Cyprian’s De Unitate exists in two versions. Maurice Bevenot, in the Ancient Christian Writers edition of the treatise, takes the view that the version speaking of “primacy” (the version you quoted) is the first one, and the one lacking those passages is the second. Bevenot believes that Cyprian revised his own treatise to take out the “primacy” passages after he quarreled with the Pope over heretical baptism. However, Bevenot does not think that Cyprian was thinking of Rome specifically when he speaks of the “Chair of Peter.” He makes the entirely reasonable claim that this is what a doctrine looks like in an “undeveloped” form.

Of course, that leaves us Anglicans and Orthodox with some resources for criticizing the later development. You want to deny us that option. But the sheer silliness to which you have resorted with your “they said “Catholic Church” so we must be right” argument indicates that you have bitten off more than anyone can chew. Why not be content with the fact that there is a strong circumstantial case for Roman primacy as the result of Our Lord’s promise to Peter and not just as the result of Rome’s political situation in the ancient world? Modest claims help you better in the long run. But when you indulge in the rhetorical nonsense of claiming that “Jesus lied if Rome is not infallible” or “the passage is so clear it doesn’t need interpretation,” you just annoy the pig, to use my wife’s favorite quote from Lincoln. (My wife thinks that my entire career of arguing on the Internet just annoys the pig, and she is probably right.)

If you insist that it must mean thus and so, then of course I’m going to point out all the other things it could mean. If you argue that this passage from Cyprian must support papal infallibility and the whole raft of modern Roman claims–well, then, I’m entitled to point out that it’s highly possible that the statements favorable to your cause were later interpretations, and that Cyprian’s own later behavior makes it clear that when the chips were down he didn’t think Rome simply had the final say on everything. (Bevenot says, reasonably, that Cyprian was nonplussed by the fact that Rome disagreed with him, because he would have assumed that Rome and Carthage would always agree on everything important.) It’s interesting that the same is true of Irenaeus–you can quote these Fathers speaking as if Rome is always right, but they didn’t *act *that way. Now either they were blazing hypocrites, or they changed their minds quite radically, or they didn’t mean quite what you say they meant.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What also gives me pause about infallibility and the powers that the pope has according to modern claims is the fact that he was not even present at most of the major councils and sent legates in his stead. Why did the Emperor summon councils and why wasn’t the pope at the head of the table? How did the whole Honorius thing go down if the pope had the charisms and sweeping powers claimed by the modern Church? How did the Orthodox and Catholics grow apart so much in their views of Original Sin and soteriology as well as the fioloque and other things if there was such unity and singleminded global leadership? Why did the Council of Constance debate conciliarism vs. papalism if it was understood from day one of the early church through to that 15th century council to be a truth that the pope was universally sovereign and infallible?

With regard to your catena of quotations, a few points:

You admitted that the Fathers interpreted Matt. 16 in several different ways. So that’s not under dispute. You claimed that the “eventually” came to a conclusion. That’s not something that is reflected in your disjointed catena. I never disputed that they speak on various occasions of Peter being the Rock. Nor did I dispute that the bishops of Rome were understood to be successors of Peter.

To tackle the most important of your quotations (in my opinion–feel free to point out others you think are more important):

Cyprian’s De Unitate exists in two versions. Maurice Bevenot, in the Ancient Christian Writers edition of the treatise, takes the view that the version speaking of “primacy” (the version you quoted) is the first one, and the one lacking those passages is the second. Bevenot believes that Cyprian revised his own treatise to take out the “primacy” passages after he quarreled with the Pope over heretical baptism. However, Bevenot does not think that Cyprian was thinking of Rome specifically when he speaks of the “Chair of Peter.” He makes the entirely reasonable claim that this is what a doctrine looks like in an “undeveloped” form.

Of course, that leaves us Anglicans and Orthodox with some resources for criticizing the later development. You want to deny us that option. But the sheer silliness to which you have resorted with your “they said “Catholic Church” so we must be right” argument indicates that you have bitten off more than anyone can chew. Why not be content with the fact that there is a strong circumstantial case for Roman primacy as the result of Our Lord’s promise to Peter and not just as the result of Rome’s political situation in the ancient world? Modest claims help you better in the long run. But when you indulge in the rhetorical nonsense of claiming that “Jesus lied if Rome is not infallible” or “the passage is so clear it doesn’t need interpretation,” you just annoy the pig, to use my wife’s favorite quote from Lincoln. (My wife thinks that my entire career of arguing on the Internet just annoys the pig, and she is probably right.)

If you insist that it must mean thus and so, then of course I’m going to point out all the other things it could mean. If you argue that this passage from Cyprian must support papal infallibility and the whole raft of modern Roman claims–well, then, I’m entitled to point out that it’s highly possible that the statements favorable to your cause were later interpretations, and that Cyprian’s own later behavior makes it clear that when the chips were down he didn’t think Rome simply had the final say on everything. (Bevenot says, reasonably, that Cyprian was nonplussed by the fact that Rome disagreed with him, because he would have assumed that Rome and Carthage would always agree on everything important.) It’s interesting that the same is true of Irenaeus–you can quote these Fathers speaking as if Rome is always right, but they didn’t *act *that way. Now either they were blazing hypocrites, or they changed their minds quite radically, or they didn’t mean quite what you say they meant.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

… Why did the Council of Constance debate conciliarism vs. papalism if it was understood from day one of the early church through to that 15th century council to be a truth that the pope was universally sovereign and infallible?

Now THAT’s a horsefly in the oatmeal right there! :hey_bud:

 

[josephdaniel29]

Now THAT’s a horsefly in the oatmeal right there! :hey_bud:

I’m sure there’s a logical explanation.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You have also been called a lot of other names. This is just silly.

How about by its doctrines and practices?

You need to make the case that your Church is the same in doctrine and practice with the early Church, and that the Orthodox Church is not. Clearly you can’t do this, or you wouldn’t be embarrassing yourself with this silly argument about names.

Edwin, I’m not a silly man, I don’t think silly and I don’t write silly. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it’s silly. It means you don’t get it.

This is not an argument about names and I had assumed you’d be able to connect two dots. The argument is in the implication of the name ‘Catholic Church,’ its longevity as the ‘Catholic Church’ and the absence of any other Church, by any name, descended from Pentecost.

Yes, doctrines and practices are a way to identify the Church. Such have identified the Catholic Church as the Church the Lord came to build, for over 1500 years. That’s my argument. I haven’t insulted you in making it and if you think using “Catholic Church”’ is all it takes to be polite, you’re wrong about that, too.

I don’t agree I have to prove the Catholic Church is the same in doctrine and practice as the early Church. There is very little the same today as it was in the first century and it’s silly to expect anything to be the same. You know enough to understand the Catholic Church doesn’t define doctrine unless and until it’s challenged. Just because a doctrine wasn’t defined for eight hundred years doesn’t mean it wasn’t doctrine in the early Church.

I apologize for my courtesy. Be assured that I will attempt not to be so gracious in the future.

Gracious? I’d say disingenuous. You’re trying to sell the idea the name ‘The Catholic Church’ is insignificant and when you use it to identify the world’s oldest manifestation of the Christian faith, you call it courtesy?? Please!

Certainly not by a bunch of quotes from Augustine, whom everyone knows believed in the Filioque and many other theories which are not the dogma of the Church. Besides, Augustine never advocated changing the Creed to reflect this theory.

There are quite a few more quotes from the ECFs and I don’t know why they didn’t make the cut. My PC, which has my document files, is messed up. I"m using my Mac now and won’t have access to the files until the PC is repaired. I’ll post them for you later this week if you still want to dispute my point.

I guess adding a generally accepted doctrine is changing the creed, but I don’t see it as the sin you and the Orthodox laity do in spite of the prejudicial anathama. BIshop Kallistas Ware, an Orthodox bishop, agrees with me.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Continuing…

Contarini;6872718:

This is indeed interesting… If true, the claim would not prove the addition of the Filioque to the Creed to have been correct, but it would indeed cast serious question on the usual Orthodox narrative and make the West’s later actions seem relatively less clearly unjustifiable

So there’s actually no question at all, by your own admission.

Yes, indeed let’s put this issue to bed

Hahafunny. It puts to bed the notion the filioque is a Catholic invention. Yes, there’s no question the Catholic Church added the filioque to the Nicene Creed. There never was, so I don’t get the chest pounding you’re doing here, especially since the doctrine was not only generally accepted, it can be found in Scripture. Ask me where and it’s 20 points off.

A very odd and unorthodox turn of phrase. This implies that a Creed may be added to at will until it expresses every doctrine believed to be true. But that’s not the function of a Creed.

Really? Isn’t the Nicene Creed an addition to the Apostles’ Creed?

It’s not intended to be exhaustive, but to be the bottom line of orthodoxy–to condemn error rather than state truth in its fullness.

Now THAT’s silly! The Creeds are affirmative enumerations of orthodox Christian doctrine. As such, they should be exhaustive to the extent possible. The only way they condemn error is by omission.

Are you suggesting, as a wild flight of fancy, if the Orthodox and the Catholics agreed a fundamental point of doctrine has been omitted from either Creed, it should not be added?

(At least, that’s the function of the Nicene Creed–the baptismal creeds which gave rise to the Apostles’ Creed used in the West have a different function, and it’s interesting that the Orthodox don’t use the Apostles’ Creed.)

No it isn’t and no they don’t. The Nicene Creed is meant to state what the Church believes about the Deity and our Faith. It is certain it arose in opposition to the Arian heresy, but it doesn’t state negatives.

Catholics recite the Nicene Creed, aloud and verbatim, at Sunday Mass immediately following the homily. What the Orthodox do is their own business.

To recite something as part of the Nicene Creed is to say that those who believe otherwise are heretics.

No it isn’t. It’s’ what I said it is. The Creeds are affirmative statements of faith and doctrine. If there is an inference aimed at those who don’t believe, you have to introduce it because it isn’t in the text.

To justify your claim, you must therefore show not only that many people in the fourth century spoke of the double procession of the Holy Spirit (which is clearly true) but that they condemned those who denied it as heretical.

I don’t must do what you demand I must do. The filioque is found in the Anathasian Creed and the evidence is it predated the Council. Ergo, the Nicene Fathers left it out. It was probably an oversight, but I can’t prove that. To justify your denial, you must disprove all the evidence provided to you.

On the other thread where I’ve been hotly debating Catholics recently (Where Did Rome Go Wrong), Catholics have been insisting on a very narrow definition of what counts as something believed or taught by “the Church.” Now you are arguing for a very broad definition, in which if several theologians use a certain kind of language, the theory involved is to be ascribed to the whole Church. Which is it? Do you disagree with your friends on the other thread, or are you just being opportunistic? (If your tactics had not been so consistently shoddy so far I would be reluctant to raise the latter possibility.)

Not that I’m accountable to them, but absenting specifics, it’s absurd to ask me if I agree with these friends of mine who I’ve never met and whose opinions about subjects unknown to me I’m not aware of.

These gratuitous insults you seem to need to buttress your argument belie the ‘gracious’ tag you’ve applied to yourself, doncha think?

Some people

in the fourth century clearly believed in the Filioque. That is an argument against the strong anti-Filioque position associated with Lossky (though not a conclusive argument, since we can find great and venerable Fathers before Nicea who spoke in ways that would not have been orthodox afterwards). It is not, however, an argument relevant to the point I’m arguing. :Whether the Filioque is true or not is above my pay grade. But even a lowly church historian can see that it should never have been added to the Creed by the West simply as a response to particular Western controversies, and in flagrant violation of the decision of Pope Leo III.

In Christ,

Edwin
That may be why lowly Church historians are lowly. Your claim does two things: it makes a theological presumption which is clearly above your pay grade and it puts a crimp in your and the Orthodox concept of an almighty, all powerful, dictatorial, ham-fisted papacy whose every sneeze is Law.

God bless you, too.

 

[Hesychios]

Some people in the fourth century clearly believed in the Filioque. That is an argument against the strong anti-Filioque position associated with Lossky (though not a conclusive argument, since we can find great and venerable Fathers before Nicea who spoke in ways that would not have been orthodox afterwards)
In Christ,

In light of the Vincentian canon, it says a lot.

What we see here are marginal elements who are using it, as we know the church of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (the later Church of the East/Nestorian) was completely independent of the rest of the church, across the border in Persia, and they did not keep the filioque (if that is what it was) for any length of time but dropped it on their own.

I would like to see the wording to see just what exactly they did say which is called a filioque, since they were not using English, a literal translation into Greek and then English might look a bit different than a dynamic translation into Latin and then English (which may be what we are dealing with).

The filioque can be a good example of a pious opinion when clearly expressed, but should not be taught as a universal Truth, it is much too confusing and easily misinterpreted. The fact that it was dropped into the Creed the way it was is a separate matter completely.

 

[steve_b]

What also gives me pause about infallibility and the powers that the pope has according to modern claims

Let me ask you

• did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly
• did Paul teach fallibly or infallibly
• are the scriptures fallible or infallible
• are the selection of books in the canon a fallible collection or infallible collection
• etc etc

If you say infallible to any, then infallibility isn’t a “modern claim” never before heard of. But If you say infallible to any, did infallibility end somewhere?
g:

is the fact that he was not even present at most of the major councils and sent legates in his stead. Why did the Emperor summon councils and why wasn’t the pope at the head of the table?

• Are canons of councils specifically written down? Yes.
• Can the pope read what the bishops decided on without being there? Yes
• If the pope confirms those canons or rejects certain canons after reading them, how does that effect the pope from confirming or not confirming the bishops decisions infallibly?

g:

How did the whole Honorius thing go down if the pope had the charisms and sweeping powers claimed by the modern Church?

while Honorius was condemned, Pope Leo II said as a qualification to the condemnation, that Honorius didn’t teach heresy. Teach is a major requirement for the issue of infallibility. Sergius and Honorius agreed on silence between themselves in the matter they were discussing. That alone disqualifies this matter as an issue of infallibility.

BTW, Papal infallibility is defined very specifically. If the conditions aren’t met, then it’s not an infallible issue.
g:

How did the Orthodox and Catholics grow apart so much in their views of Original Sin and soteriology as well as the fioloque and other things if there was such unity and singleminded global leadership?

Authority. Clement of Rome identified this as one of the biggie problems when he was asked to settle sedition among the bishops in Corinth.

Clement wrote: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80

ergo strife is over authority at all levels. But for 2000 years, the papacy has been here by the promise of Jesus… And the papacy is vibrant and alive. And the Church is one under the pope.
g:

Why did the Council of Constance debate conciliarism vs. papalism if it was understood from day one of the early church through to that 15th century council to be a truth that the pope was universally sovereign and infallible?

What matters is the result…right? Did the council undo the papacy? Nope!

Speaking of conciliarism EO style forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3904087&postcount=828 Bottomline, each group John mentioned there, has veto power over the whole. What’s obvious then, No ONE is in charge, everybody is equal in vote, and to get everyone together and agree under the EO system, is near impossible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m getting tired and need to get off this forum but I’ll try to answer a bit here and, unlike my usual style, exercise some brevity LOL

First of all, no matter how I answer, you’ll have a way out of it. If I say that Peter was wrong at the Council of Jerusalem you’ll say, “yeah, but he wasn’t teaching infallibly! He was in fact-finding mode!” or something like that. Just like with Honorius. Honorius sent his papal legate, Gaios, to the Cyprus Synod in 634 with a pro-monothelite agenda. There was a whole entourage of anti-monothelite bishops and legates present as well arguing against Honorius’s legate, Gaios. You might think he ‘never taught in an official capacity as pope the heresy of monothelitism,’ but many would say that sending a legate with the agenda of furthering a heresy as official doctrine is just as bad, right? And the emperor went with Honorius’s recommendations, right? He did a lot more than just privately endorse the heresy, he put it in writing and even sent a legate to argue in favor of it.

It’s always fascinating how infalliblity is so poorly-defined in Catholicism. You could take 100 people in the Church at a high level and ask them if ten things are infallible and they’d disagree. Humanae Vitae is considered not infallible doctrine by so many priests I’ve spoken to. I’ve read so many bishops also that think it’s no infallible. And yet to a CAF or EWTN fan it’s the gospel infallible truth. So many Catholics think that only the Immaculate Conception and Assumption statements are the only two infallible statements and yet others say if an anathema is attached it’s infallible. Others say that when the pope words it a certain way it’s infallible, yada yada. You guys can bend this any way you want it when you want it to be infallible or not. It’s what attracts many to Catholicism–an argument you can never use because you can use infallibility as your doomsday weapon in an argument and shape it to fit or remove it and say something’s not infallible if it doesn’t need to apply.

I would give anything if you’d buy “The Primacy of Peter” by the late great John Meyendorff, the amazing Orthodox priest and theologian. The three Orthodox priests/professors that wrote that book together poke a thousand holes in your theories using history, the Fathers, reason, and church polity of the earlier times coupled with the Orthodox view of infallibility.

It makes one wonder why it took all the way until the first Vatican Council to decide on infallibility!? over 1700 years later it’s finally debated? Not buying it…at least not at this point…

And shoot, why would the Holy Spirit allow Honorius to take a heresy THAT FAR to the brink and allow him to send a legate and be a proponent of a heresy to the degree that he was later anathemized!? That charism the Church claims is a really elastic charism if it can be stretched that far to the brink!

Let me ask you

• did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly
• did Paul teach fallibly or infallibly
• are the scriptures fallible or infallible
• are the selection of books in the canon a fallible collection or infallible collection
• etc etc

If you say infallible to any, then infallibility isn’t a “modern claim” never before heard of. But If you say infallible to any, did infallibility end somewhere?

• Are canons of councils specifically written down? Yes.
• Can the pope read what the bishops decided on without being there? Yes
• If the pope confirms those canons or rejects certain canons after reading them, how does that effect the pope from confirming or not confirming the bishops decisions infallibly?

while Honorius was condemned, Pope Leo II said as a qualification to the condemnation, that Honorius didn’t teach heresy. Teach is a major requirement for the issue of infallibility. Sergius and Honorius agreed on silence between themselves in the matter they were discussing. That alone disqualifies this matter as an issue of infallibility.

BTW, Papal infallibility is defined very specifically. If the conditions aren’t met, then it’s not an infallible issue.

Authority. Clement of Rome identified this as one of the biggie problems when he was asked to settle sedition among the bishops in Corinth.

Clement wrote: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80

ergo strife is over authority at all levels. But for 2000 years, the papacy has been here by the promise of Jesus… And the papacy is vibrant and alive. And the Church is one under the pope.

What matters is the result…right? Did the council undo the papacy? Nope!

Speaking of conciliarism EO style forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3904087&postcount=828 Bottomline, each group John mentioned there, has veto power over the whole. What’s obvious then, No ONE is in charge, everybody is equal in vote, and to get everyone together and agree under the EO system, is near impossible.

 

[josie_L]

• Are canons of councils specifically written down? Yes.
• Can the pope read what the bishops decided on without being there? Yes
• If the pope confirms those canons or rejects certain canons after reading them, how does that effect the pope from confirming or not confirming the bishops decisions infallibly?

The pope’s confirmation was necessary in order to validate ecumenical decisions, here are just a few examples of the fathers expounding the role of Rome vis a vis an ecumenical synod:

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516):

“Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that ‘such a** step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’”** (Macedonius, Migne PG 108:360a [Theophan Chronogr, pages 234-346])

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828), writes:

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles." (St. Nicephorus, Niceph Cpl pro s imag c 25)

St. Theodore the Studite (c. 759-826):

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (St. Theodore the Studite, Migne PG 99:1420)

St. Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, writes:

We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

 

[josie_L]

It makes one wonder why it took all the way until the first Vatican Council to decide on infallibility!? over 1700 years later it’s finally debated? Not buying it…at least not at this point…

It took more than 1500 years to formally delineate biblical canon. . . . . . . .

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Speaking of conciliarism EO style forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3904087&postcount=828 Bottomline, each group John mentioned there, has veto power over the whole. What’s obvious then, No ONE is in charge, everybody is equal in vote, and to get everyone together and agree under the EO system, is near impossible.

I would delete “near”.

That was my experience when I got earnestly involved with Orthodoxy. My new acquaintances assured me that theirs was the true Church established by Christ. The true Church happened to be an Old Calendar church under ROCOR’s authority (ROCOR = Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), some 3 hours driving distance from my city of New Orleans. Although there was a Greek Orthodox church, and an Antiochian Orthodox church, right there in the city, those were “not really Orthodox”. Their main offense was that they adopted the New Calendar. Smaller but still significant offenses were the presence of pews in both churches, and musical instruments in the Greek EO church. Thus, the Old Calendar EO folks with ROCOR would rather drive 3 hours, two states away in Alabama, than attend those local “fallen away from true Orthodoxy” churches. At that time, they were also out of communion with the Moscow Patriarch’s churches. Later, when ROCOR and the MP reestablished communion, ROCOR said that they don’t want anything to do with the World Council of Churches, but they understand and agree that the MP should remain part of it, because… because otherwise the EP of Constantinople would gain higher power and influence, remaining part of the WCC while the MP would withdraw. In other words, the MP should stay part of the WCC in order to compete with and antagonize the EP’s influence. Before anyone jumps to condemn me - I’m not inventing this stuff. This is what ROCOR said. And ROCOR, it seems to me, stays as a body with its own structures intact and apart from the MP, after reestablishing communion with the MP. At that time I was considering converting to Orthodoxy (I was thinking that the papacy was some human invention ). Since I grew up in Romania, the question came up which church should I attend if I visited my family in Romania. I was told to attend the Romanian EO Church. Although, on the other hand, they were also clearly fallen away from true Orthodoxy. You see, the Romanian EO Church is also a New Calendar Church. I didn’t even dare to ask whether the Romanians had pews in their churches, whether they used musical instruments. :banghead:

 

[Hesychios]

… My new acquaintances assured me that theirs was the true Church established by Christ. The true Church happened to be an Old Calendar church under ROCOR’s authority (ROCOR = Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), some 3 hours driving distance from my city of New Orleans. Although there was a Greek Orthodox church, and an Antiochian Orthodox church, right there in the city, those were “not really Orthodox”.

And what does that prove? All over Chicagoland Catholics are passing by other Catholic parishes to reach the SSPX chapel, and sometimes these types are the first ‘Catholics’ an inquirer will come to know…

Little anecdotal stories like this are not helpful at all.

 

[josephdaniel29]

And what does that prove? All over Chicagoland Catholics are passing by other Catholic parishes to reach the SSPX chapel, and sometimes these types are the first ‘Catholics’ an inquirer will come to know…

Little anecdotal stories like this are not helpful at all.

And lets not forget the various sedevacantist groups that accept the authority of the pope but believe the last several have been heretics and therefore not real popes at all. I’m sure they would assert that they are the “true” Catholic Church and that world Catholicism has apostacized.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Nine_Two]

It took more than 1500 years to formally delineate biblical canon. . . . . . . .

But it had been accepted without formal definition before that.

We have records of major Catholic entities, such as the Sorbonne publicly contradicting the idea of Papal infallibility without the Church trying to take any actions to censure them.

 

[Nine_Two]

And what does that prove? All over Chicagoland Catholics are passing by other Catholic parishes to reach the SSPX chapel, and sometimes these types are the first ‘Catholics’ an inquirer will come to know…

Little anecdotal stories like this are not helpful at all.

Especially since, as the poster noted, ROCOR at that time was not on good terms with the other Orthodox churches, and was not recognized as being Orthodox by most. It only makes sense that they would feel likewise. The poster is basically saying that if there is one break away group that doesn’t recognize the main body, they both must be wrong. By this logic the Catholic Church is also wrong.

 

[steve_b]

First of all, no matter how I answer, you’ll have a way out of it. If I say that Peter was wrong at the Council of Jerusalem you’ll say, “yeah, but he wasn’t teaching infallibly! He was in fact-finding mode!” or something like that.

I asked simple questions.

did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly
did Paul teach fallibly or infallibly
are the scriptures fallible or infallible
are the selection of books in the canon a fallible collection or infallible collection
etc etc

Well?
g:

Just like with Honorius. Honorius sent his papal legate, Gaios, to the Cyprus Synod in 634 with a pro-monothelite agenda. There was a whole entourage of anti-monothelite bishops and legates present as well arguing against Honorius’s legate, Gaios. You might think he ‘never taught in an official capacity as pope the heresy of monothelitism,’ but many would say that sending a legate with the agenda of furthering a heresy as official doctrine is just as bad, right? And the emperor went with Honorius’s recommendations, right? He did a lot more than just privately endorse the heresy, he put it in writing and even sent a legate to argue in favor of it.

Define the requirements that the Church says are required for infallibility. The Church names them and the requirements are specific and necessary, NOT general or non specific.
g:

It’s always fascinating how infalliblity is so poorly-defined in Catholicism.

Only fascinating for controversialists. Probably because they haven’t read the requirements.
g:

You could take 100 people in the Church at a high level and ask them if ten things are infallible and they’d disagree. Humanae Vitae is considered not infallible doctrine by so many priests I’ve spoken to. I’ve read so many bishops also that think it’s no infallible. And yet to a CAF or EWTN fan it’s the gospel infallible truth. So many Catholics think that only the Immaculate Conception and Assumption statements are the only two infallible statements and yet others say if an anathema is attached it’s infallible. Others say that when the pope words it a certain way it’s infallible, yada yada. You guys can bend this any way you want it when you want it to be infallible or not. It’s what attracts many to Catholicism–an argument you can never use because you can use infallibility as your doomsday weapon in an argument and shape it to fit or remove it and say something’s not infallible if it doesn’t need to apply.

Again,

What are the requirements for infallibility?
g:

I would give anything if you’d buy “The Primacy of Peter” by the late great John Meyendorff, the amazing Orthodox priest and theologian.

Really? shaw:
g:

The three Orthodox priests/professors that wrote that book together poke a thousand holes in your theories using history, the Fathers, reason, and church polity of the earlier times coupled with the Orthodox view of infallibility.

What theory of mine did Meyendorff poke 1000 holes in?
g:

It makes one wonder why it took all the way until the first Vatican Council to decide on infallibility!? over 1700 years later it’s finally debated? Not buying it…at least not at this point…

Jesus didn’t convince everyone He spoke to face to face. Who am I, when I don’t convince someone
g:

And shoot, why would the Holy Spirit allow Honorius to take a heresy THAT FAR to the brink and allow him to send a legate and be a proponent of a heresy to the degree that he was later anathemized!? That charism the Church claims is a really elastic charism if it can be stretched that far to the brink!

I don’t defend Honorius. But neither do I accuse him of something he didn’t do. Again, Look up the specifics the Church teaches are necessary for infallibility for the pope. If these Aren’t there, your argument falls apart. I want to see you list them.