Papal prerogatives

[ForeverAdam]

I was talking about the church before the schism.

That is immaterial. Your Church claims that papal infallibility was always believed by your Church before 1870. Therefore, any time before this date is fair game for critique.

Those are stupid and irresponsible things for clergy to say. A local church cannot reject as incompatible a doctrine of the pope and still be in communion with Rome. A local church cannot define for itself that the authority of a council is superior to that of the pope. Matters of doctrine are not dependent upon the consent of the whole church to be binding.

These statements were accepted by large numbers of Roman Catholics before 1870 without as much as a peep from the Pope, the Cardinals, or anyone else. You’re putting the cart before the horse by saying that these beliefs were heresy. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they were such things when your own pre-1870 Magisterium never condemned these beliefs. We’re not looking for your opinions in 2007, we’re looking for examples of the Latin Church upholding the supposed “perpetual” belief in the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff before 1870. So far we’ve not seen evidence of a Church defending her immemorial teachings against heretics. Rather, we just see evidence of a new and false teaching growing in popularity until it finally gets official approval from the Latin Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Montalban]

These statements were accepted by large numbers of Roman Catholics before 1870 without as much as a peep from the Pope, the Cardinals, or anyone else. You’re putting the cart before the horse by saying that these beliefs were heresy. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they were such things when your own pre-1870 Magisterium never condemned these beliefs. We’re not looking for your opinions in 2007, we’re looking for examples of the Latin Church upholding the supposed “perpetual” belief in the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff before 1870. So far we’ve not seen evidence of a Church defending her immemorial teachings against heretics. Rather, we just see evidence of a new and false teaching growing in popularity until it finally gets official approval from the Latin Church.

God bless,

Adam

I may have missed this, so if you’ve already mentioned it I apologise - but didn’t the debate in the 1870 Council call upon a ‘tradition’ of people who had argued against Papal Infalibility?

In Whelton’s book “Two Paths” he cites Johannes Teutonicus, and the English canonist Alanus (p125) as opposing papal infalibility

Further he claims one Pope argued against infalibility - because it would restrict the actions of a pope to decisions made prior to his reign - the pope he names is John XXII when he revoked a bull by Pope Nicholas III

Pope John XXII in 1324 argued against the infallible doctrinal decisions of his predecessor.
To justify contradicting another pope, John produced his Bull Qui quorundam (1324), a dogmatic assertion of doctrine made to the entire Church and thus infallible by today’s rules. In it John XXII reviled the doctrine of papal infallibility as “the work of the devil”
wayoflife.org/fbns/beast09.htm

This seems an odd way of putting it that he can infallibly say he’s not infallible.

Have a look at the arguments made aginst this innovation at the 1870 Council…

john3-16.connectfree.co.uk/pope.html

It makes mention of one pope I’ve mentioned a bit here for various reasons…
“John XXII (1319), who denied the immortality of the soul, and was deposed by the holy Ecumenical Council of Constance”

 

[anthony022071]

I have given you proof of what the Catholic Church believed in 1825.

Those Irish clergymen were probably so eager to placate the British government,which had a history of persecuting the Irish Catholics and would have been suspicious about the influence of Rome upon the them,that they lied under oath.

If they really believed what they said and practiced that kind of liberty,they should have been thrown out of the church. Their views were not representative of the Catholic Church. Had those beliefs been widespread throughout the church,there would have been far more division and disorder in the Church,and local churches would have felt free to act upon that

Those are the beliefs of the Catholic Church prior to the Vatican I declaration on papal infallibility which made them illegal for Catholics and now they are almost completely buried (although Mardukm is trying to resurrect them ) But with statements like that, made by senior Catholic Bishops under oath and to the British Parliament, well… it certainly proves that infallibility and papal supremacy were not accepted as ancient and unquestionable beliefs in the 19th century.

It only proves that those bishops did not accept papal infallibility and supremacy. They were either cowardly liars,or were lacking in fidelity to the point of being potential heretics. Their opinion does not trump the opinion of Rome. They did not have any legitimate liberty to reject doctrines from the pope. If they were willing to reject the doctrines coming from Rome,then they would not really be in communion with Rome,and thus they would not be in communion with the church as a whole.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Those Irish clergymen were probably so eager to placate the British government, which had a history of persecuting the Irish Catholics and would have been suspicious about the influence of Rome upon the them, that they lied under oath.

You have no proof whatsoever of this. Once again, we’re not interested in your opinions, we’re interested in what the Latin Church of the late-18th and early 19th centuries believed regarding papal infallibility. Until you can show us that your Church condemned such statements and made an attempt to silence the mouths of these bishops (like your Church did to other heretical upstarts), then the evidence shows that papal infallibility was NOT a teaching of your Church before 1870. Teachings are defended, but new and false opinions cannot silence those who reject them. Remember that.

If they really believed what they said and practiced that kind of liberty, they should have been thrown out of the church.

If papal infallibility was the teaching then, they would have been thrown out of the Church and their works placed on the Index of Forbidden Books simply on the basis of uttering such blasphemous heresy, irregardless of whether they believed it or not. However, this was never done or even attempted. The evidence shows that papal infallibility was not a teaching of the Latin Church before 1870. An already-believed doctrine is defended at all costs and your Church has shown no hesitancy in defending her teachings at the drop of a hat. However, new and false opinions that are still seeking official approval cannot marshal that kind of response.

Their views were not representative of the Catholic Church. Had those beliefs been widespread throughout the church, there would have been far more division and disorder in the Church, and local churches would have felt free to act upon that.

You’re assuming that papal infallibility was the teaching of your Church before 1870. However, you’ve given no evidence that this is so. On the contrary, all the evidence shows that papal infallibility was just an opinion that was unable to silence those who rejected it.

It only proves that those bishops did not accept papal infallibility and supremacy. They were either cowardly liars, or were lacking in fidelity to the point of being potential heretics.

And yet your Church never said anything to them, not even a small reprimand. This is not an example of the defense of an already-believed teaching but a legit debate in your Church of a new and false opinion.

Their opinion does not trump the opinion of Rome. They did not have any legitimate liberty to reject doctrines from the pope. If they were willing to reject the doctrines coming from Rome, then they would not really be in communion with Rome, and thus they would not be in communion with the church as a whole.

You’ve yet to prove that the teaching of papal infallibility was coming from Rome before 1870. Quit assuming things that you have yet to prove. That’s fallacious reasoning and it has no place in serious discussions.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Montalban]

Those Irish clergymen were probably so eager to placate the British government,which had a history of persecuting the Irish Catholics and would have been suspicious about the influence of Rome upon the them,that they lied under oath.

If true - were they rebuked at the council for having done this?

And you’re missing the point of the many churchmen prior to this council who also voiced an opinion against Infallibility - they that were also not condemned

 

[w_stewart]

If true - were they rebuked at the council for having done this?

And you’re missing the point of the many churchmen prior to this council who also voiced an opinion against Infallibility - they that were also not condemned

1. Can Orthodox Churches teach heretical doctrine?
2. If not, who determines that a teaching is heretical or not?

Please enlighten me.

 

[anthony022071]

You have no proof whatsoever of this. Once again, we’re not interested in your opinions, we’re interested in what the Latin Church of the late-18th and early 19th centuries believed regarding papal infallibility. Until you can show us that your Church condemned such statements and made an attempt to silence the mouths of these bishops (like your Church did to other heretical upstarts), then the evidence shows that papal infallibility was NOT a teaching of your Church before 1870. Teachings are defended, but new and false opinions cannot silence those who reject them. Remember that.

This is anachronistic thinking. Papal infallibility wasn’t even defined as doctine in the late 18th and early19th centuries,so why are you asking for proof of condemnation from those times? And it is not very likely that the pope would have even been aware of what those Irish clergymen had said.

If papal infallibility was the teaching then, they would have been thrown out of the Church and their works placed on the Index of Forbidden Books simply on the basis of uttering such blasphemous heresy, irregardless of whether they believed it or not. However, this was never done or even attempted. The evidence shows that papal infallibility was not a teaching of the Latin Church before 1870. An already-believed doctrine is defended at all costs and your Church has shown no hesitancy in defending her teachings at the drop of a hat. However, new and false opinions that are still seeking official approval cannot marshal that kind of response.

The belief in papal infallibility was not yet defined as doctrine!
Why are you confusing a belief of theologians
with a belief that is taught as doctrine?

You’re assuming that papal infallibility was the teaching of your Church before 1870.

No, I’m not assuming that it was the teaching of the Church. It was a belief of many theologians and popes.

However, you’ve given no evidence that this is so. On the contrary, all the evidence shows that papal infallibility was just an opinion that was unable to silence those who rejected it.

Yes,of course! – it was an opinion of theologians and popes that had not yet been made into a doctrine. And of course those who rejected it could not always be silenced. People rebel against authority. The popes couldn’t go around Europe silencing everyone who rejected papal teaching.

And yet your Church never said anything to them, not even a small reprimand. This is not an example of the defense of an already-believed teaching but a legit debate in your Church of a new and false opinion.

Did Rome even hear about what those clergymen said? I highly doubt it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have given you proof of what the Catholic Church believed in 1825.

Those Irish clergymen were probably so eager to placate the British government,which had a history of persecuting the Irish Catholics and would have been suspicious about the influence of Rome upon the them,that they lied under oath.

If they really believed what they said and practiced that kind of liberty,they should have been thrown out of the church. Their views were not representative of the Catholic Church. Had those beliefs been widespread throughout the church,there would have been far more division and disorder in the Church,and local churches would have felt free to act upon that

Those are the beliefs of the Catholic Church prior to the Vatican I declaration on papal infallibility which made them illegal for Catholics and now they are almost completely buried (although Mardukm is trying to resurrect them ) But with statements like that, made by senior Catholic Bishops under oath and to the British Parliament, well… it certainly proves that infallibility and papal supremacy were not accepted as ancient and unquestionable beliefs in the 19th century.

It only proves that those bishops did not accept papal infallibility and supremacy. They were either cowardly liars,or were lacking in fidelity to the point of being potential heretics. Their opinion does not trump the opinion of Rome. They did not have any legitimate liberty to reject doctrines from the pope. If they were willing to reject the doctrines coming from Rome,then they would not really be in communion with Rome,and thus they would not be in communion with the church as a whole.

And Rome did nothing. At the time the papal states still existed. No denouncing of the English bishops, no protests, etc.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. Can Orthodox Churches teach heretical doctrine?
2. If not, who determines that a teaching is heretical or not?

Please enlighten me.

1. No. Have they? Yes.
2. God.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You have no proof whatsoever of this. Once again, we’re not interested in your opinions, we’re interested in what the Latin Church of the late-18th and early 19th centuries believed regarding papal infallibility. Until you can show us that your Church condemned such statements and made an attempt to silence the mouths of these bishops (like your Church did to other heretical upstarts), then the evidence shows that papal infallibility was NOT a teaching of your Church before 1870. Teachings are defended, but new and false opinions cannot silence those who reject them. Remember that.

This is anachronistic thinking. Papal infallibility wasn’t even defined as doctine in the late 18th and early19th centuries,so why are you asking for proof of condemnation from those times? And it is not very likely that the pope would have even been aware of what those Irish clergymen had said.

If papal infallibility was the teaching then, they would have been thrown out of the Church and their works placed on the Index of Forbidden Books simply on the basis of uttering such blasphemous heresy, irregardless of whether they believed it or not. However, this was never done or even attempted. The evidence shows that papal infallibility was not a teaching of the Latin Church before 1870. An already-believed doctrine is defended at all costs and your Church has shown no hesitancy in defending her teachings at the drop of a hat. However, new and false opinions that are still seeking official approval cannot marshal that kind of response.

The belief in papal infallibility was not yet defined as doctrine!
Why are you confusing a belief of theologians
with a belief that is taught as doctrine?

You’re assuming that papal infallibility was the teaching of your Church before 1870.

No, I’m not assuming that it was the teaching of the Church. It was a belief of many theologians and popes.

However, you’ve given no evidence that this is so. On the contrary, all the evidence shows that papal infallibility was just an opinion that was unable to silence those who rejected it.

Yes,of course! – it was an opinion of theologians and popes that had not yet been made into a doctrine. And of course those who rejected it could not always be silenced. People rebel against authority. The popes couldn’t go around Europe silencing everyone who rejected papal teaching.

And yet your Church never said anything to them, not even a small reprimand. This is not an example of the defense of an already-believed teaching but a legit debate in your Church of a new and false opinion.

Did Rome even hear about what those clergymen said? I highly doubt it.

Why? They couldn’t read the English papers?

That the Rome could no longer silence dissent doesn’t mean it didn’t give it the old college try. But here, nothing.

 

[anthony022071]

And Rome did nothing. At the time the papal states still existed. No denouncing of the English bishops, no protests, etc.

Do you really think that Rome was privy to what those clergymen said?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Do you really think that Rome was privy to what those clergymen said?

So, the major world power is contemplating on giving the vote and other civil rights to its Latin subjects, and bringing in the bishops whom the pope of Rome has set over said subjects for government inquiry, and Rome can’t be bothered with an interest.

Well, he’s your pastor. If you find this pastoral, well, its your affair.

 

[Montalban]

1. Can Orthodox Churches teach heretical doctrine?

Some can be in error. But what we have shown here is the Catholic Church not condemning error for millenia.

That’s the point of this example. These bishops, up until the Council of 1870 were able to present a pedigree for their argument; past people who’d agrued the same thing.

1. If not, who determines that a teaching is heretical or not?

Please enlighten me.

That’s for another discussion thread. It’s illogical to argue “We Catholics allowed error - show us the Orthodox methodology”.

 

[Montalban]

Do you really think that Rome was privy to what those clergymen said?

Are you saying that the Pope calls a council and has no idea what is said there?

Don’t they have ‘sessions’ and reports on ‘sessions’?

So on day one when someone gets up to speak, no one realises what he’s saying is heretical and no one’s shocked and thinks its worth bringing to someone’s attention?

 

[anthony022071]

So, the major world power is contemplating on giving the vote and other civil rights to its Latin subjects, and bringing in the bishops whom the pope of Rome has set over said subjects for government inquiry, and Rome can’t be bothered with an interest.

Well, he’s your pastor. If you find this pastoral, well, its your affair.

Rome would have been interested,but at that period there were far greater concerns in Europe. It was a time of nationalistic revolutions and wars,and the emergence of the modern states,and liberal antagonism toward the Church and its doctrines.

The pope is not in the business of micro-managing what goes on in far-off countries,unless there is a major crisis or if he is called upon by the local clergy to intervene. If the pope is not informed about bishops who are disobedient and dissenting,then of course he is not likely to take action to correct or discipline them.
I doubt that the pope read the transcripts of that government inquiry.

 

[anthony022071]

Are you saying that the Pope calls a council and has no idea what is said there?

Don’t they have ‘sessions’ and reports on ‘sessions’?

So on day one when someone gets up to speak, no one realises what he’s saying is heretical and no one’s shocked and thinks its worth bringing to someone’s attention?

A government inquiry is not a church council called by the pope.

 

[Montalban]

A government inquiry is not a church council called by the pope.

I was talking about Vatican I what are you talking about?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Rome would have been interested,but at that period there were far greater concerns in Europe. It was a time of nationalistic revolutions and wars,and the emergence of the modern states,and liberal antagonism toward the Church and its doctrines.

Uh, like Ireland?

At last O’Connell determined to rouse the masses in earnest and, in conjunction with a young lawyer, Mr. Sheil, he founded, in 1823, the Catholic Association. The declared object was to win Emancipation “by legal and constitutional means”, and in order to evade the Convention Act the Association assumed no delegated or representative character. It was a club, its members meeting weekly and paying an annual subscription. O’Connell worked unceasingly to spread the organization, and though progress was slow success came at last; and by 1825 a vast organization had spread over the land, exercising all the powers of government. In each district, usually under the presidency of the clergy, there was a branch of the Catholic Association, where local grievances were ventilated, and subscriptions received and sent to Dublin to the central association, whence came advice in difficulties and speakers for Local meetings. In 1825 the Government, alarmed at the power of an organization which was a serious rival to the executive, passed a bill suppressing it. But O’Connell, experienced in defeating Acts of Parliament, changed the name to the New Catholic Association, and the work of agitation went on. As much as five hundred pounds a week was subscribed, and in 1826 the Association felt strong enough to put up a candidate for Waterford, who succeeded against all the territorial influence of the Beresfords; similar victories were won in Monaghan, Weatmeath, and Louth. In 1828 came the Clare election when O’Connell himself was nominated. It was known that he could not as a Catholic take the Parliamentary oath; but if he, the representative of 6,000,000, were driven from the doors of Parliament solely because of his creed, the effect on public opinion would be great. O’Connell was elected, and when he presented himself in Parliament he refused to take the oath offered him. The crisis had come. The Catholic millions, organized and defiant, would have Emancipation; the Orangemen would have no concession; and Ireland, in the end of 1828, was on the brink of civil war. To avoid this calamity Peel and Wellington struck their colours, and in 1829 the Catholic Relief Act was passed.

newadvent.org/cathen/11200c.htm

The pope is not in the business of micro-managing what goes on in far-off countries,unless there is a major crisis or if he is called upon by the local clergy to intervene. If the pope is not informed about bishops who are disobedient and dissenting,then of course he is not likely to take action to correct or discipline them.
I doubt that the pope read the transcripts of that government inquiry.

So nobody in the curia could do this for him? So much for guidance from Rome.

 

[Montalban]

Rome would have been interested,but at that period there were far greater concerns in Europe. It was a time of nationalistic revolutions and wars,and the emergence of the modern states,and liberal antagonism toward the Church and its doctrines.

Are you saying that the Pope puts secular concerns before spiritual?

The pope is not in the business of micro-managing what goes on in far-off countries,unless there is a major crisis or if he is called upon by the local clergy to intervene. If the pope is not informed about bishops who are disobedient and dissenting,then of course he is not likely to take action to correct or discipline them.
I doubt that the pope read the transcripts of that government inquiry.

So in several centuries the Popes had never heard any dissent regarding their perogative to decree infallibly?

You’ve not addressed the Pope who argued against infallibility

 

[ForeverAdam]

This is anachronistic thinking. Papal infallibility wasn’t even defined as doctine in the late 18th and early19th centuries,so why are you asking for proof of condemnation from those times? And it is not very likely that the pope would have even been aware of what those Irish clergymen had said.

It appears like you’re agreeing that papal infallibility wasn’t a doctrine of your Church before 1870. That’s interesting. So, papal infallibility was an immemorial teaching of your Church before I asked the hard question of why nobody who condemned it was silenced as a heretic. However, when you couldn’t answer this question it becomes just another “belief of theologians” that later became a doctrine. It must be very convienent to shift positions like this, but it really ruins your credibility and that of your Church when you do so.

Also, if papal infallibility was just an opinion before 1870, why are Orthodox Christians condemned for denying it? According to your logic, we left the Church while this teaching was just an opinion. You turn the Great Schism into one of bad timing, which is absurd. Besides, this whole idea of opinions evolving into doctrines cannot be defended anywhere in the Tradition of the Church. The Deposit of Faith is always taught and believed as the teaching of Christ. The Faith was given in doctrinal form to the saints “once for all” (Jude 3) and the holy martyrs died for the same Faith I profess today, not for a mixture of doctrine and opinions that will later become doctrine. You should have remained with giving no answer to why those of denied papal infallibility were not condemned as heretics. Now, you’ve revealed that your Church has a defective idea of Holy Tradition and how it is transmitted. You’re only making Holy Orthodoxy look better and more consistent by the minute.

God bless,

Adam