Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[tqualey]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

I got to hand it to you … when it comes to ALMOST reading a post - and coming away with the wrong idea - you could have brought this up to ‘art form status’!

Actually, as i recall, St. John Chrysostom had asked the Pope to aid him in refuting the Arian heresy. But, that’s another story.

I deny that any of the ECF was ever consider or was in fact infallible. Do you argue with this?

I deny that the majority of ECF considered the Pope not to be the leader of the Catholic Church. Do you argue with this?

I deny that you can come up with ten or twenty ECF that support your position. Do you argue with this (and if so, please produce them … I’ll split the difference and ask for 15 )

You really have misunderstood what I have said previously and would simply recommend that you re-read ti. This post of mine was not an attack on St. John Chrysostom - and considering him going to the Pope for help, it may be that you have not fully understood this great saint… at least when it comes to his relationship with Rome.

God bless

So you deny any possibility that St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis might be correct because it disagrees with your use of Acts 15 as a proof text for papal infallibility? That seems like a rather unsound exegetical principle, does it not? Essentially then there is no argument which is acceptable, because even if faced with ten or twenty fathers who said the same thing as St. John Chrysostom, you would be able to dismiss all of them as simply being wrong.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

I think you have misunderstood Ferde Rombola’s original post and then one that followed. It is your argument that is old and tired - not Sacred Scripture.

You were given the sequence several times - Peter decided and James said, ‘Yes’. Anyone without an axe to grind reading this chapter of the Acts could clearly tell you not only who was involved (the principals) who decided what and how the matter was resolved. This really just falls into the category of reading comprehension.

You know, if it were James who got up and said, ‘Stop bothering the Gentiles!’ and Peter said, ‘Yes!’ - we would really have a much more challenging argument… But, it didn’t happen that way - and, really, that is the take-home message.

God bless

Why do you call Sacred Scripture old and tired? Why do you call St John’s reiteration of what happened old and tired? St James had the cheif rule.
Crystal!

 

[Shiranui117]

I referred specifically to the dietary issues 1 Cor 8 covers some of it, and 1 Cor 10:25… gives an expanded understandig.

For example, whatever meat one buys in the meat market, go ahead and eat it (1 Cor 10:25…) As for the issue of blood, that’s refering to meat that hasn’t been bled out completely before cooking and eating. Even today, that’s a kosher law issue, back in the day, it was a judaizer issue, but it certainly doesn’t apply to Christians then or today, that’s Paul’s point. For another’s conscience who might be weak in faith, Paul’s point is, don’t be a bad example to them and eat meat that was from a sacrifice to an idol. As Paul said, it really means nothing to the one who knows, but to the weak in faith it could be a scandle.

I didn’t make mention of fornication because that’s part of the commandments which no one is going to change…

That reference to 1 Corinthians 10:25 is what I was looking for.

And yeah, no fornication is kind of an obvious rule… >____>

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dcointin,

This is what I meant when I said the majority of the major heresies came from the East and not the West. These heresies were nto randomly distributed - and that means that there was a reason for this disparity. Having their ‘… own way of understanding…’ is a good way to summarize this problem.

God bless

Thank you! I certainly wasn’t suggesting that papal infallibility doesn’t apply to Eastern Catholics, they just seem to have their own way of understanding most dogmas, and I was curious if that was the case with this as well.

 

[Mickey]

It is your argument that is old and tired - not Sacred Scripture.

I have misunderstood nothing…and you and Ferde do not need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Ferde is arguing against Sacred Scripture and St John Chrysotom. And so are you.

You were given the sequence several times

You have been given the sequence several times with patrisitc confirmation. I am sorry that you cannot accept it.

the take-home message.

St Peter spoke. St Paul and St Barnabas spoke. St James spoke and made the judgement (having the chief rule).

That is what Sacred Scripture says.
That is what St John says.

That is the take home message.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Ghosty’s argument in this thread is the heart of the matter for me.

Eastern Orthodox apologists often say that we know an Ecumenical Council from a robber council because it teaches the truth and is accepted by the Church as a whole. But then, whole regions and patriarchates rejected the decisions of councils which are considered Ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox. Some of these led to lasting schisms, with both sides claiming to be the one, true Church. How does a layman know which of these groups is the Church, if not by determining the truth of the argument for himself?

I have personally spent several months researching the Filioque…and I have only just begun to feel comfortable that I even understand the basics. It is certainly important for the Church to understand and teach clearly on these matters…but I am troubled by the idea that such extensive knowledge is necessary for an individual to find and remain in the Church.

I agree with you, and this thread (which was very well-done and charitable, all sides!) has really brought this to the fore for me.

 

[Ghosty]

Hi, Dcointin,

This is what I meant when I said the majority of the major heresies came from the East and not the West. These heresies were nto randomly distributed - and that means that there was a reason for this disparity. Having their ‘… own way of understanding…’ is a good way to summarize this problem.

God bless

Please don’t disparage Eastern Catholics on this thread. Our traditions are different from the Latin, and our theological Patrimony is different, but we are not at all heretics nor are we the instigators of heresy. We are Catholics, and have therefore opposed heresy since the beginning.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ghosty,

I did not disparage Eastern Catholics on this thread or anywhere else.

This is simply a counting exercise - and my count is that there were more major heresies that began in the East than in the West. Here is how I count

The Judiazers (1st Century) EAST

Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries) EAST

Montanism (Late 2nd Century) EAST

Sabellianism (3rd Century) EAST

Arianism (4th Century) EAST

Pelagianism (5th Century) EAST

Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century) EAST

Nestorianism (5th Century) EAST

Monophysitism (5th Century) EAST

Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries) EAST

Catharism (11th Century) WEST

This has noting to do with different traditions, Patrimony or belief. I did not say all Eastern Catholics are heretics nor are all instigators of heresy. This has everything to do with just counting what was there.

God bless

Please don’t disparage Eastern Catholics on this thread. Our traditions are different from the Latin, and our theological Patrimony is different, but we are not at all heretics nor are we the instigators of heresy. We are Catholics, and have therefore opposed heresy since the beginning.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, Ghosty,

I did not disparage Eastern Catholics on this thread or anywhere else.

This is simply a counting exercise - and my count is that there were more major heresies that began in the East than in the West. Here is how I count

The Judiazers (1st Century) EAST

Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries) EAST

Montanism (Late 2nd Century) EAST

Sabellianism (3rd Century) EAST

Arianism (4th Century) EAST

Pelagianism (5th Century) EAST

Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century) EAST

Nestorianism (5th Century) EAST

Monophysitism (5th Century) EAST

Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries) EAST

Catharism (11th Century) WEST

This has noting to do with different traditions, Patrimony or belief. I did not say all Eastern Catholics are heretics nor are all instigators of heresy. This has everything to do with just counting what was there.

God bless

I think it is what you imply that has some people on this board uncomfortable. Perhaps we ought to mention that Protestantism came from the West, and taking that into account, I would say that the East has a far better track record

After all, it has nothing to do with Patrimony or belief, nor am I saying that Western Catholics are heretics or instigators of heresy. I’m just counting the thousands of heretical Protestant denominations which are there.

 

[Ghosty]

tqualey: You said that our having our own understanding of theology is what led to the numerous heresies in the East. How is this anything other than disparaging Eastern Catholics? Do you understand that the Popes have praised our different understandings, and have said we should adhere to them and not to the Latin tradition?

Plus, as Cavaradossi points out, there are innumerable heresies that have arisen from the Western tradition as well, and those heresies are still alive and kicking.

Peace and God bless!

 

[hazcompat]

Saint Seraphim of Sarov

…the grace of the Holy Spirit — without which there is no salvation for anyone and cannot be. For “through the Holy Spirit every soul is quickened, and through its purification, it is exalted and illumined by the Triune Unity in a Holy mystery.” The Holy Spirit Himself settles in our souls, and this occupation of our souls by Him, the All-Ruling, and this coexistence of our spirit with His One Trinity, is granted only through the diligent acquiring, on our part, of the Holy Spirit, which prepares, in our soul and body, the throne for the coexistence of God the All-Creator with our spirit, by the immutable word of God: “And I will walk among you and will be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Lev. 26:12).

peace

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

I got to hand it to you … when it comes to ALMOST reading a post - and coming away with the wrong idea - you could have brought this up to ‘art form status’!

Actually, as i recall, St. John Chrysostom had asked the Pope to aid him in refuting the Arian heresy. But, that’s another story.

I deny that any of the ECF was ever consider or was in fact infallible. Do you argue with this?

I deny that the majority of ECF considered the Pope not to be the leader of the Catholic Church. Do you argue with this?

I deny that you can come up with ten or twenty ECF that support your position. Do you argue with this (and if so, please produce them … I’ll split the difference and ask for 15 )

You really have misunderstood what I have said previously and would simply recommend that you re-read ti. This post of mine was not an attack on St. John Chrysostom - and considering him going to the Pope for help, it may be that you have not fully understood this great saint… at least when it comes to his relationship with Rome.

God bless

Firstly, I highly doubt that St. John Chrysostom appealed to the pope to help combat Arianism. By the time of his ordination to the diaconate in 381, the Council of Constantinople had placed the final nail in the coffin of Arianism in the East.

Secondly, since you seem to be arguing that the pope had real power in terms of Church governance, I would like to invite you to find some canons supporting the idea that the pope possessed his current papal prerogatives in the first millennium. The early church fathers gave the pope much honor, because he was the bishop of the city of Rome, a great center of learning and political power within the empire, but to say that they equated this with leadership and jurisdictional power is untenable.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

There is no doubt that Protestantism is a terrible heresy and one that is totally lodged in the West - and brought about in part by scandelous lives of deacons, priests, and bishops.

I stopped where I did in listing the major heresies becaue The East–West Schism of 1054 seemed like the logical place to conclude without actually mentioning it. This heresy appears to have established some of the intellectual framework for Protestants - about 500 years before Luther - who also refuse to acknowledge the Primacy of Peter. Considering the number of people still involved in this last Eastern heresy, the Body of Christ has been and continues to be truly injured by both East and West.

In my opinon neither has a ‘better track record’ than the other.

God bless

I think it is what you imply that has some people on this board uncomfortable. Perhaps we ought to mention that Protestantism came from the West, and taking that into account, I would say that the East has a far better track record

After all, it has nothing to do with Patrimony or belief, nor am I saying that Western Catholics are heretics or instigators of heresy. I’m just counting the thousands of heretical Protestant denominations which are there.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

There is no doubt that Protestantism is a terrible heresy and one that is totally lodged in the West - and brought about in part by scandelous lives of deacons, priests, and bishops.

I stopped where I did in listing the major heresies becaue The East–West Schism of 1054 seemed like the logical place to conclude without actually mentioning it. This heresy appears to have established some of the intellectual framework for Protestants - about 500 years before Luther - who also refuse to acknowledge the Primacy of Peter. Considering the number of people still involved in this last Eastern heresy, the Body of Christ has been and continues to be truly injured by both East and West.

In my opinon neither has a ‘better track record’ than the other.

God bless

Then why bring up a large list of heresies which arose in the East? What was your purpose in doing so?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

Your emphasis on St. John Chrysostom being agaist the Primacy of Peter is truly misplaced! Here is a link that you may find instructive: philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

Additonally, to try and compare the Catholic Church of the 1st, 5th, 16th and 21st Centuries and expect everything to line up perfectly - especially in terms of Church governance is simply unrealistic. While we can say, yes there was a Pope and the Magisterium but, look how Canon Law developed over time.

Actually, it is I who am waiting for any statements from any Church Father (you had boasted there were 10 or 20 as I recall) to deny the Primacy of Peter. You have worn a small hole in this one paragraph from S. John - but, considering the corpus of his writings - this is hardly convincing. Do you have anything else from a ECF?

Seriously, review that link - and I think you will find that it is your position that is untenable.

God bless

Firstly, I highly doubt that St. John Chrysostom appealed to the pope to help combat Arianism. By the time of his ordination to the diaconate in 381, the Council of Constantinople had placed the final nail in the coffin of Arianism in the East.

Secondly, since you seem to be arguing that the pope had real power in terms of Church governance, I would like to invite you to find some canons supporting the idea that the pope possessed his current papal prerogatives in the first millennium. The early church fathers gave the pope much honor, because he was the bishop of the city of Rome, a great center of learning and political power within the empire, but to say that they equated this with leadership and jurisdictional power is untenable.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Hi, Ghosty,

I did not disparage Eastern Catholics on this thread or anywhere else.

This is simply a counting exercise - and my count is that there were more major heresies that began in the East than in the West. Here is how I count

The Judiazers (1st Century) EAST

Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries) EAST

Montanism (Late 2nd Century) EAST

Sabellianism (3rd Century) EAST

Arianism (4th Century) EAST

Pelagianism (5th Century) EAST

Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century) EAST

Nestorianism (5th Century) EAST

Monophysitism (5th Century) EAST

Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries) EAST

Catharism (11th Century) WEST

This has noting to do with different traditions, Patrimony or belief. I did not say all Eastern Catholics are heretics nor are all instigators of heresy. This has everything to do with just counting what was there.

God bless

Though it had been denied by some historians, there is more and more evidence tracing the line of the Cathari from the Bogomils, through Italy and then into France which would then make the Bogomils, an eastern group of heretics, the patrimony of not only the Cathari but also the Jansenists…And then there are the Arians of Spain who were paid by the Byzantine emperor to leave the east, at which point they moved across the sea to northern Spain, but their influence remained in much of southern Europe.

Also I find it amusing that every splinter group of non-Catholic Christians in Europe and the New World are still blamed upon the Catholics even though each new group moved away from one of the primary groups that formed at the time of the Reformation. How would they then be children of the Catholic Church?..when they are clearly internal off-spring of other protesting groups?

Resumption of communion would do a great deal to anchor the truths of the faith both east and west.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

In my opinion, there is a real difference between Eastern and Western thought. Each one of the heresies that had its origin in the East are far more philosophical than anything coming out of the Protestant Revot in the 16th Century.

For this Western heresy, we find Luther challenging the sale of indulgences … and then other items are tacked on so that they take on a life of their own: 'Scripture Alone", “Grace Alone”, “Faith Alone” all came much later. It did not take a 16th Century ‘rocket scientist’ to look to the East with a 500 year old track record and see what success they had in attacking the Catholic Church.

Getting to the Great Schism of 1054 did not happen by accident - and its effects are with us to this very day. Everything really does have consequences and relationships - none of which may be visible immediately at the time of the act.

By the way, have you read that link I provided? If not, let me provide it again - it really is that important… philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

God bless

Then why bring up a large list of heresies which arose in the East? What was your purpose in doing so?

 

[Elijahmaria]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

For this Western heresy, we find Luther challenging the sale of indulgences … and then other items are tacked on so that they take on a life of their own: 'Scripture Alone", “Grace Alone”, “Faith Alone” all came much later. It did not take a 16th Century ‘rocket scientist’ to look to the East with a 500 year old track record and see what success they had in attacking the Catholic Church.

God bless

I think that “attacking” is a very poor choice of descriptors.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi, Cavaradossi,

Your emphasis on St. John Chrysostom being agaist the Primacy of Peter is truly misplaced! Here is a link that you may find instructive: philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

Additonally, to try and compare the Catholic Church of the 1st, 5th, 16th and 21st Centuries and expect everything to line up perfectly - especially in terms of Church governance is simply unrealistic. While we can say, yes there was a Pope and the Magisterium but, look how Canon Law developed over time.

Actually, it is I who am waiting for any statements from any Church Father (you had boasted there were 10 or 20 as I recall) to deny the Primacy of Peter. You have worn a small hole in this one paragraph from S. John - but, considering the corpus of his writings - this is hardly convincing. Do you have anything else from a ECF?

Seriously, review that link - and I think you will find that it is your position that is untenable.

God bless

No need to look, I’ve already read that cobbling together of patristic proof-texts, and I was rather unconvinced. That there are no canons dedicated to the supposed universal functions of the papacy says a lot more to me than those quotations.

As for St. John Chrysostom, I never claimed that he was against some sort of ‘primacy of Peter.’ St. John Chrysostom, being an Antiochian deacon and priest (only later becoming the bishop of Constantinople) would have certainly believed that Peter was the prince of the apostles and that his bishop, Meletius of Antioch was a successor of Peter. Some of the proof-texts provided on that page have even been so carelessly selected that they support the idea that Chrysostom does not regard Rome’s claim to Peter as being exclusive. Take for example, this one:

In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me (viz. St. Flavian, his bishop) our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.

The statement in blue is the one used by the apologist to explain how Peter is essentially exclusive to Rome. Apparently he stopped reading right there, because in the next sentence in red states just the opposite: that so long as Antioch retains the faith of Peter, Antioch too has Peter, even though they have not his body.

 

[Elijahmaria]

No need to look, I’ve already read that cobbling together of patristic proof-texts, and I was rather unconvinced. That there are no canons dedicated to the supposed universal functions of the papacy says a lot more to me than those quotations.

As for St. John Chrysostom, I never claimed that he was against some sort of ‘primacy of Peter.’ St. John Chrysostom, being an Antiochian deacon and priest (only later becoming the bishop of Constantinople) would have certainly believed that Peter was the prince of the apostles and that his bishop, Meletius of Antioch was a successor of Peter. Some of the proof-texts provided on that page have even been so carelessly selected that they support the idea that Chrysostom does not regard Rome’s claim to Peter as being exclusive. Take for example, this one:

The statement in blue is the one used by the apologist to explain how Peter is essentially exclusive to Rome. Apparently he stopped reading right there, because in the next sentence in red states just the opposite: that so long as Antioch retains the faith of Peter, Antioch too has Peter, even though they have not his body.

That is a well stretched rubber band: It seems to me that St. John is saying that although the bodily successor to Peter has been given over to Rome, that Antioch retains the faith of Peter, and so thereby retaining Peter through the retention of his faith.

That is something quite different from claiming that the successor of Peter remains bodily in Antioch.