F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Call me uncritical, call me naive, call me unsound. But what seems unsound to me is looking at the graph and saying: Well, really it shows the opposite to what it shows.
- Status
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I remember you (I think it was you?) gave 117,000. What was that connected with?
May we have a link to the site you are using?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Happy to oblige if you wish, but managed to keep things general in my comments. I don’t want to belabor the point, but would be remiss if I didn’t try to set a better example in front of any students that might be here.Call me uncritical, call me naive, call me unsound. But what seems unsound to me is looking at the graph and saying: Well, really it shows the opposite to what it shows.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Google {Roberson CNEWA} and his analysis will turn up in the first couple of hits. Ditto “Catholic Hierarchy”. Sorry to terse, but I have to cut out. I am finishing up work before a business trip. Which will, I am thrilled to say, take me to Hagia Sophia, and Cappadocia. I have to finsh my talks, and figure out how to use the digital camera I just bought.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
dvdjs,
Please, just look at the graph. Does it, or does it not, show the East as having more Christians at the time of the 1054 schism?
If you are telling the students here to misread the graph… well, I’m flummoxed.
M
mtr01
Guest
Considering, as dvdjs has stated many times that on the Graph “Orthodox” includes both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the graph shows that the East + the Orient had slightly more Christians than the West at 1054.dvdjs,
Please, just look at the graph. Does it, or does it not, show the East as having more Christians at the time of the 1054 schism?
If you are telling the students here to misread the graph… well, I’m flummoxed.
Taking, as many scholars do, the time of Florence-Ferrara as the “finalization” of the schism, the West outnumbered the East + the Orient by about 2:1.
In any event, the graph dispels your exceedingly misleading comment that “at the time of the schism, the East far outnumbered the West”.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
It does not say that. Why make it up?
So the finalisation of the schism is 1472?!
This means that the Roman Catholic attack on Constantinople and its devastation in 1204 was actually a Roman Catholic army attacking Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite subject to the Pope.
Likewise when the Roman Catholics invaded Jerusalem in 1149 and 1192 and the city was drenched in Christian blood, these people slaughtered by the Crusaders were in fact Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite and the Crusaders were killing the subjects of the Pope.
M
mtr01
Guest
Father, your polemics are becoming tiresome. It’s almost like you can’t handle being wrong, so you must come up with some ridiculous and offensive post to cover up your errors.It does not say that. Why make it up?
So the finalisation of the schism is 1472?!
This means that the Roman Catholic attack on Constantinople and its devastation in 1204 was actually a Roman Catholic army attacking Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite subject to the Pope.
Likewise when the Roman Catholics invaded Jerusalem in 1149 and 1192 and the city was drenched in Christian blood, these people slaughtered by the Crusaders were in fact Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite and the Crusaders were killing the subjects of the Pope.
M
mtr01
Guest
Just thought I’d clear this up, as I’m not sure if Father was intimating that I was making something up. But as I mentioned, the one who posted the graph did indeed say this:mtr01:
It does not say that. Why make it up?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I am just applying your idea that the schism did not really come into effect until 1472. There are consequences which flow from that. No sense in beating about the bush.
Either the Christians of Constanstinople at the time of the 4th Crusade (and, earlier, Jerusalem) were Catholics under the Pope or they were not?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Anthony,
I’m not sure what your quotes prove. There were many in your Church who debated the limits of and even denied papal infallibility in your Church until 1870. None of these people were branded heretics or given any inkling that they lacked the clarity of Faith before 1870. No true teaching has this kind of track record. Only new and false teachings still the process of getting official approval could lead to this silence.
These quotes you provide may prove a type of papal primacy or supremacy (depending on who is reading them), but they apparently don’t relate to papal infallibility since the Latin Church has never believed that the Pope cannot fall into heresy. The quotes I provided in my last discussion with you show this to be to be an accepted opinion in your Church.
And the many bishops and priests of your Church who openly denied papal infallibility before 1870 lived with the quotes you provided, as did the Popes before 1870. Nobody saw a strict connection between these quotes and the dogma of papal infallibility. If they did then such rejection of papal infallibility would have been combated on their basis. We have no record of the opposition to papal infallibility ever being condemned until Vatican I, itself. Does this look like an already-believed doctrine, which is being denied, or a new and false teaching that is still trying to get official approval from a Church? I think it’s clearly the latter. It certainly looks like the latter.
God bless,
Adam
I’m not sure what your quotes prove. There were many in your Church who debated the limits of and even denied papal infallibility in your Church until 1870. None of these people were branded heretics or given any inkling that they lacked the clarity of Faith before 1870. No true teaching has this kind of track record. Only new and false teachings still the process of getting official approval could lead to this silence.
These quotes you provide may prove a type of papal primacy or supremacy (depending on who is reading them), but they apparently don’t relate to papal infallibility since the Latin Church has never believed that the Pope cannot fall into heresy. The quotes I provided in my last discussion with you show this to be to be an accepted opinion in your Church.
And the many bishops and priests of your Church who openly denied papal infallibility before 1870 lived with the quotes you provided, as did the Popes before 1870. Nobody saw a strict connection between these quotes and the dogma of papal infallibility. If they did then such rejection of papal infallibility would have been combated on their basis. We have no record of the opposition to papal infallibility ever being condemned until Vatican I, itself. Does this look like an already-believed doctrine, which is being denied, or a new and false teaching that is still trying to get official approval from a Church? I think it’s clearly the latter. It certainly looks like the latter.
God bless,
Adam
A
anthony022071
Guest
You denied that anyone had been called a heretic for denying papal infallibility,but if a bishop rejected the doctrinal teaching of the pope,then that was tantamount to denying papal infallibility along with the teaching of the pope. To deny the teaching of the pope is to believe that the pope is fallible. There are plenty of quotes from Eastern clergy which show that it was necessary for everyone to be in agreement with the pope on matters of the faith. Even where it is not said explicitly,it is implicitly obvious that all questions regarding the faith had to be referred to Rome for approval or for settling. To reject the teaching of the pope was to be out of communion with Rome,and to be out of communion with Rome was to be out of communion with the church. The Eastern clergy would not have said what they did about the pope and the See of Rome unless they believed that the pope was the successor of Peter and was infallible in his teaching. Why else would the Eastern clergy have so often turned to Rome to settle theological disputes,to give them orthodox teachings? The only difference was that the belief in the infallibility of the pope was not a matter of official doctrine. No one from the East ever presumed to teach the See of Peter,but the See of Peter certainly did teach the Eastern churches.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The Catholic Bishops of England and Ireland denied all this to the English Parliament. They were giving their testimony under oath.
In 1825, a British Parliamentary Royal Commission was established in view of the forthcoming Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. Some of the questions put to Roman Catholic Bishops are as follows:
**Question to Dr. Oliver Kelley
**Q: Do the R.C. clergy insist that all the Bulls of the Pope are entitled to obedience?
A: The Roman Catholic doctrine in respect to Bulls from the Pope is that they are always to be treated with respect; but if those Bulls or Rescripts proceeding from the Pope do contain doctrines or matters which are not compatible with the discipline of the particular Church to which they may be directed, they feel it their duty then to remonstrate respectfully, and not to receive the regulations that may emanate from the Pope.
Question to Bishop Doyle
Q: Can you state in what respect the national canons received in Ireland, or any particular construction put upon the general canons, differ from those which are received in other countries?
A: For instance, a particular church, or the canons of a particular church, might define that the authority of a general council was superior to that of the Pope: Such canon may be received, for instance in Ireland or France, and might not be received in Italy or Spain.
Question to Bishop Murray
Q: Is the decree of the Pope valid without the consent of the Council?
A: A decree of the Pope in matters of doctrine is not considered binding on Catholics, if it have not the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or assembled by its Bishops in Council.
A
anthony022071
Guest
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I have given you proof of what the Catholic Church believed in 1825.
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.
M
Montalban
Guest
What do you think of this…
III. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
IV. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
V. That the pope may depose the absent.
…
VII. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
…
XIII. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
XIV. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
XV. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
XVI. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
XVII. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
XVIII. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
XIX. That he himself may be judged by no one.
XX. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
XI. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
…
XXIV. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
XV. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
XVI. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
XVII. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
Pope Gregory VII The Dictatus papae (1075) quoted in Miller, M. C., (2005), “Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict: A Brief History with Documents”, (Bedford; New York), pp81-83.
A
Aramis
Guest
If I understand him correctly:dvdjs,
Please, just look at the graph. Does it, or does it not, show the East as having more Christians at the time of the 1054 schism?
If you are telling the students here to misread the graph… well, I’m flummoxed.
He’s saying the graph doesn’t appear to be based upon accurate data, since the right hand end doesn’t correlate to known modern data, and thus the methodology used for creating the graph is suspect.
M
Montalban
Guest
Excellent points! The Council in 1870 announced that the teachings on the Papacy were what was always held to be true. If that were so then people arguing against this - prior to 1870 - should have been branded heretics - given the belief that it was a teaching always held.
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
The appeals to the Pope from throughout Christianity were a witness to the Pope’s primacy, not to a supposed “infallibility” he possessed. These appeals were given in the hope that the Pope would cooperate with his role as a special successor of St. Peter to teach the Orthodox Faith and shut the mouths of heretics. However, there was never a belief that the Pope would always give the right answer. Pope Innocent III (who nobody could accuse of being soft of papal authority) says in the early 13th century:
“He (the Roman Pontiff) can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged” - Sermon 4.
These and the many other quotes I’ve given you in the past show that your Church has always accepted the possibility that the Pope may fall into heresy and when he does so, he may most definitely be judged by East or West. Even with your new teaching of papal infallibility, the Pope is not preserved from heresy in all his teachings. Papal infallibility only applies to certain, special teachings. Ergo, even by your own standards, there is no guarantee that the Pope will give a correct answer to an appeal to him. To try to paint the early Fathers of East and West as believing the Pope would always be infallible is to paint them as heretics by believing in papal infallibility too much and would leave them in the situation of holding to a more radical form of papal infallibility than even Pope Innocent III held. I think you need to revise your interpretation of the quotes you’re providing because things are getting rather absurd.
Btw, you’ve still not explained why nobody in your Church who denied papal infallibility before 1870 was branded as a heretic. Others who denied already-held teachings were condemned as heretics even before these beliefs were dogmatized. Why didn’t those who denied papal infallibility suffer a similar fate? It appears that they didn’t because this supposedly “perpetual” belief of the Church was no more than a new teaching just trying to get official approval.
God bless,
Adam
- Status