Papal prerogatives

[steve_b]

I did not see any mention on the graph that the OO were included. It is possible but where is it mentioned?

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5191/graphstatisticsschismdv9.gif

Who originally posted this graph? Please give the exact link.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Who originally posted this graph?

dvdjs

Please give the exact link.

Hopefully dvdjs will see your message and oblige.

 

[anthony022071]

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

We were talking about what the Irish clergy said at the British Parliamentary Royal Commission of 1825.

 

[Montalban]

We were talking about what the Irish clergy said at the British Parliamentary Royal Commission of 1825.

*We *as in you and others?

I was talking about the Council. It offered sessions. These sessions would have been published. Those arguing against Papal Infallibility would have been known.

Nothing was said by the Pope.

But let ‘us’ include you and I…

As to the British Parlimaentary Royal Commission of 1825 - do you think that they kept the findings/proceedings secret?

Do you realise that as a result of this Commission they passed the Catholic Emancipation Act? Why’d they do that if they had all these secret doubts about Catholicism?

"Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis pointed out in his undelivered speech, which he had published in Naples, that for two hundred years a book had been in circulation entitled Roman Catholic Principles in Reference to God and the King. It enjoyed such a wide circulation that from 1748 to 1813 it underwent 35 editions and the Very Reverend Vicar Apostolic Coppinger in England had 12 printings of it. On the question of Papal Infallibility it states:

It is no matter of faith to believe that the Pope is in himself infallible, separated from the Church, even in expounding the faith: by consequence of Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively from a General Council, or universal acceptance of the Church, oblige none, under pain of heresy, to an interior assent."
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx
So the Pope’s not aware of what’s been published in Naples either? Brits responsible for that too?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

We were talking about what the Irish clergy said at the British Parliamentary Royal Commission of 1825.

The denial of papal infallibility was contained in Keenan’s Catechism right through the 19th century and was taught to all devout Catholics in Ireland, England and parts of the United States that the Pope is not infallible.

 

[Montalban]

The denial of papal infallibility was contained in Keenan’s Catechism right through the 19th century and was taught to all devout Catholics in Ireland, England and parts of the United States that the Pope is not infallible.

What we’re expected to believe is that Irish bishops met in a secret session of parliament and lied under oath - denying their faith in the face of some unknown persecution.

That none of them stood up for the truth.

That none of them passed on their concerns about this oppression ot the Pope!

 

[ForeverAdam]

What we’re expected to believe is that Irish bishops met in a secret session of parliament and lied under oath - denying their faith in the face of some unknown persecution.

That none of them stood up for the truth.

That none of them passed on their concerns about this oppression of the Pope!

When the Protestants starting issuing their rebellion against non-dogmatic teachings of the Latin Church, the Pope was all over it like a crop duster. Here, however, influential catechisms and entire groups of bishops taught against papal infallibility and misled millions to the nature of the Papacy (if the Latins are to be believed) and the Pope said nary a word. Since communication didn’t become slower after the 16th century and the Latin Church didn’t become shy in condemning heresy in the same time frame, I can only conclude that Anthony is denying the obvious. However, when pressed on this point our friend denies that papal infallibility was a doctrine of his Church before 1870, thus ironically agreeing with the Orthodox Church. Yet he won’t admit this and attempts to support the unpatristic idea that opinions can evolve into doctrines. I must admit, it’s kind of funny to see the Latins dig their hole deeper and only make Orthodoxy look better.

God bless,

Adam

 

[anthony022071]

*We *as in you and others?

Yes,of course.

I was talking about the Council. It offered sessions. These sessions would have been published. Those arguing against Papal Infallibility would have been known.

Nothing was said by the Pope.

The pope was in favor of making papal infallibility a doctrine,and the pope obviously ratified the decision of the council to make it a doctrine.

But let ‘us’ include you and I…

As to the British Parlimaentary Royal Commission of 1825 - do you think that they kept the findings/proceedings secret?

I have no idea if they kept the proceedings secret. I do know that,obviously,the Protestant government of Britain was hostile to Catholicism and would not have welcomed any influence from the pope on Irish affairs. So why would the British government have sent transcripts of the proceedings to Rome?

Do you realise that as a result of this Commission they passed the Catholic Emancipation Act?

Why’d they do that if they had all these secret doubts about Catholicism?

I suspect that the Emancipation Act was passed under the pressure of the angry Catholics,who were the majority in Ireland,and in order to avert rioting and civil war.

"Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis pointed out in his undelivered speech, which he had published in Naples, that for two hundred years a book had been in circulation entitled Roman Catholic Principles in Reference to God and the King. It enjoyed such a wide circulation that from 1748 to 1813 it underwent 35 editions and the Very Reverend Vicar Apostolic Coppinger in England had 12 printings of it. On the question of Papal Infallibility it states:

It is no matter of faith to believe that the Pope is in himself infallible, separated from the Church, even in expounding the faith:

It is not a matter of the pope being “in himself” infallible – the pope is infallible in teaching faith and morals because of the promise of Jesus Christ. And the pope is not separate from the church,nor can there be a Catholic Church which contradicts the teachings of the pope,because the pope is successor to Peter.

by consequence of Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively from a General Council, or universal acceptance of the Church, oblige none, under pain of heresy, to an interior assent."

This sentence is confused.

So the Pope’s not aware of what’s been published in Naples either? Brits responsible for that too?

It was the speech that was published in Naples,not the book. Unless the book was in Latin or Italian or French,I doubt that the pope read it. In any case,the belief in papal infallibility was not yet an official doctrine,and there was no lack of Catholic doubters of papal infallibility in Italy and throughout Europe,so it would not come as a great suprise that a popular Catholic book in Engalnd denied it.

 

[Montalban]

I was talking about the Council. It offered sessions. These sessions would have been published. Those arguing against Papal Infallibility would have been known.

Nothing was said by the Pope.

The pope was in favor of making papal infallibility a doctrine,and the pope obviously ratified the decision of the council to make it a doctrine.

So why weren’t people who went to the Council – with conviction – arguing against the belief, condemned. Or do you think that they were suddenly in error, and had never taught this before.
"Montalban:

But let ‘us’ include you and I…

As to the British Parlimaentary Royal Commission of 1825 - do you think that they kept the findings/proceedings secret?

I have no idea if they kept the proceedings secret. I do know that,obviously,the Protestant government of Britain was hostile to Catholicism and would not have welcomed any influence from the pope on Irish affairs.

Yet they emancipated Catholics not long afer.

So why would the British government have sent transcripts of the proceedings to Rome?

Who says they had to. Why didn’t the bishops – crying “Look how persecuted we are?”
"Montalban:

Do you realise that as a result of this Commission they passed the Catholic Emancipation Act?

Why’d they do that if they had all these secret doubts about Catholicism?

I suspect that the Emancipation Act was passed under the pressure of the angry Catholics,who were the majority in Ireland,and in order to avert rioting and civil war.

Thanks for the speculation

That’s the basis of your objection here.

The Catholics dared not speak the truth nor pass this on to the Pope.

 

[anthony022071]

It appears like you’re agreeing that papal infallibility wasn’t a doctrine of your Church before
1870. That’s interesting.

It certainly wasn’t an official doctrine of the Church before then. But you already knew that,and so do Catholics,so why do you find it “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.

I never said it was always an official teaching of the Church. Neither,for that matter,was the doctrine of the Trinity an official teaching before the Council of Nicaea.

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?

If the Orthodox are to be condemned,it is due to the denial of other doctrines coming from the See of Peter. If,for example,the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is contradicted,then it logically follows that papal infallibility on matters of faith is being contradicted as well. To believe in the one doctrine is to be ready to believe in the other,and to reject the one is to be ready to reject the other. It is not papal infallibility by itself which is accepted or rejected,but also other doctrines,including the most essential ones,that papal infallibility confirms. If Peter is not trusted when he teaches,then everything he teaches is open to contradiction,including the most essential teachings of the faith.

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.

The schism was over the filioque controversy.
By rejecting the filioque,the Eastern clergy simultaneously rejected the teaching authority of the pope,which they had upheld as unquestionable until that time.

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.

If that were true,then what was the need for the councils of Nicaea,Constantinople,and Chalcedon? What was the need for the Cappadocian fathers to go to such lengths in defining the Trinity and other aspects of the faith? For an Orthodox to believe that everything in the deposit of faith was given as doctrine once for all is as wrong-headed as a Protestant believing that men are saved once for all.

 

[Montalban]

ForeverAdam;2794587:

It appears like you’re agreeing that papal infallibility wasn’t a doctrine of your Church before
1870. That’s interesting.

It certainly wasn’t an official doctrine of the Church before then. But you already knew that,and so do Catholics,so why do you find it “interesting”?

Who are the “Papal Infalibility heretics?” Those that denied it, that is.

Certainly in your list are those Irish bishops who you think purjured themsevles before a Royal Commission.

 

[prodromos]

I never said it was always an official teaching of the Church. Neither,for that matter,was the doctrine of the Trinity an official teaching before the Council of Nicaea.

Nonsense! Of course the doctrine of the Trinity was the official teaching of the Church before Nicaea. What do you think was defended by this council against heresy? Some pious opinion of what some people imagined the scriptures to teach, or the faith once handed down by the Apostles?

It is like the Assumption of the Theotokos in the Orthodox Church. There is no official pronouncement by an ecumenical council regarding her assumption into heaven, but if anyone tries to deny its truth, they’d better watch out!

 

[ForeverAdam]

By rejecting the filioque,the Eastern clergy simultaneously rejected the teaching authority of the pope,which they had upheld as unquestionable until that time.

Certainly, you’re not saying that the Eastern clergy believed that the Pope was infallible every time he taught are you? If so, you’ve painted them as heretics by believing in papal infallibility too much. Besides, I’ve given you quote after quote, even one from Pope Innocent III, showing that the Pope can, indeed, fall into heresy and lose the Papacy. I doubt that the Eastern clergy were bigger believers in the papacy than Pope Innocent III.

If that were true,then what was the need for the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon? What was the need for the Cappadocian fathers to go to such lengths in defining the Trinity and other aspects of the faith?

Ecumenical councils are called to give a defense of the Faith that is being attacked. The Faith is often expressed in new language to confute the heretics. Ecumenical councils don’t add new beliefs to the Deposit of Faith. No Father every taught such things. And, as St. Vincent of Lerins stated, there can be much development within the same doctrine and same meaning of the doctrine. Nobody said that we cannot gain new insights on what we already believe.

For an Orthodox to believe that everything in the deposit of faith was given as doctrine once for all is as wrong-headed as a Protestant believing that men are saved once for all.

My friend, this is just reflecting what St. Vincent of Lerins stated when he said that the true Faith is that which is believed in all places, at all times, and by all the faithful. And this same understanding is found in all the Holy Fathers when they counsel people to hold to the Faith of Christ and to pass it down unaltered, without either adding to or taking away from it. They would never have said this if they held to a concept of a fluid Deposit of Faith. By your reasoning, the holy martyrs only died for parts of the Faith, the Church is only Mother and Teacher of parts of the Faith, and when Christ calls us to evangelize peoples that he wants us to make repeat trips when new doctrines are established. Such a thing is absurd and has no grounding in Holy Tradition, whatsoever.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Montalban]

Nonsense! Of course the doctrine of the Trinity was the official teaching of the Church before Nicaea. What do you think was defended by this council against heresy? Some pious opinion of what some people imagined the scriptures to teach, or the faith once handed down by the Apostles?

It is like the Assumption of the Theotokos in the Orthodox Church. There is no official pronouncement by an ecumenical council regarding her assumption into heaven, but if anyone tries to deny its truth, they’d better watch out!

Indeed. What does he think that the Apostles taught?

Can you imagine Paul’s asked a question and he goes “Err… I don’t know… it’s never come up before”.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

In Alexandria, the communions are about equal in size (and dwarfed by the OO communion). It is singularly the daughters of the EP that remain steadfast in their infidelity to Rome.

Whatever happened with that statement from the second-ranking Coptic bishop earlier in the year that Catholics and Protestants go to hell. There was an official complaint by the Catholic Church in Egypt. But to date the Coptic Pope has not issued any retraction.

You will probably remember that in February Pope Shenouda himself proclaimed that non-believers cannot be saved. He claims this is biblical teaching. This was extended to Catholics and Protestants by his second bishop a month later.

"Coptic Bishop: Catholics Will Not Enter Heaven"
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=142131

Isa, here is the Arabic site
al3dra.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2801

 

[anthony022071]

Nonsense! Of course the doctrine of the Trinity was the official teaching of the Church before Nicaea. What do you think was defended by this council against heresy? Some pious opinion of what some people imagined the scriptures to teach, or the faith once handed down by the Apostles?

It was the council that made it an official doctrine. Before then,it was a traditional teaching. And the way that the doctrine was defined at the council is an elaboration (development) of the traditional teaching. The doctrine of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father is such an elaboration that came out of the council.

It is like the Assumption of the Theotokos in the Orthodox Church. There is no official pronouncement by an ecumenical council regarding her assumption into heaven, but if anyone tries to deny its truth, they’d better watch out!

Then it shouldn’t be hard for you to understand Catholic development of doctrine. You have had the tradtional belief from the early centuries,but it has not yet been defined and confirmed by a council. The Catholic Church did make an official pronouncement on the Assumption,and probably the real reason why the Orthodox Church has not done so is because it would be an admission that the Catholic Church was right to do so.

 

[prodromos]

It was the council that made it an official doctrine. Before then,it was a traditional teaching. And the way that the doctrine was defined at the council is an elaboration (development) of the traditional teaching. The doctrine of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father is such an elaboration that came out of the council.

There was no development of traditional teaching at the council. There was a statement of what the traditional teaching was, and condemnation of that which was heresy.

Then it shouldn’t be hard for you to understand Catholic development of doctrine. You have had the tradtional belief from the early centuries,but it has not yet been defined and confirmed by a council.

There is no need. No one denies it and it is not essential for salvation.

The Catholic Church did make an official pronouncement on the Assumption,and probably the real reason why the Orthodox Church has not done so is because it would be an admission that the Catholic Church was right to do so.

By all means, continue to live in your fantasy world. You obviously prefer what you think we believe over what we tell you we believe.

 

[Montalban]

When the Protestants starting issuing their rebellion against non-dogmatic teachings of the Latin Church, the Pope was all over it like a crop duster. Here, however, influential catechisms and entire groups of bishops taught against papal infallibility and misled millions to the nature of the Papacy (if the Latins are to be believed) and the Pope said nary a word. Since communication didn’t become slower after the 16th century and the Latin Church didn’t become shy in condemning heresy in the same time frame, I can only conclude that Anthony is denying the obvious. However, when pressed on this point our friend denies that papal infallibility was a doctrine of his Church before 1870, thus ironically agreeing with the Orthodox Church. Yet he won’t admit this and attempts to support the unpatristic idea that opinions can evolve into doctrines. I must admit, it’s kind of funny to see the Latins dig their hole deeper and only make Orthodoxy look better.

God bless,

Adam

I know. In order to defend the Pope, he’s made the bishops liars!

He’s pretended that this enquiry was part of a conspiracy to pick on Catholics - though it lead to their emancipation (and justifiably so). But then he’s got a re-working for that - they were about to rebel! It would have been better had he just said that they were ignorant of true Papal power.

Wow the Brits were facing a rebellion from the Irish! They’d not expect that one!

 

[Montalban]

prodromos;2803520:

Nonsense! Of course the doctrine of the Trinity was the official teaching of the Church before Nicaea. What do you think was defended by this council against heresy? Some pious opinion of what some people imagined the scriptures to teach, or the faith once handed down by the Apostles?

It was the council that made it an official doctrine. Before then,it was a traditional teaching. And the way that the doctrine was defined at the council is an elaboration (development) of the traditional teaching. The doctrine of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father is such an elaboration that came out of the council.

Still waiting to hear what happened to those Irish bishops - did the Pope censure them for either…?
a) teaching false teachings
or
b) perjuring themselves

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

There was no development of traditional teaching at the council. There was a statement of what the traditional teaching was, and condemnation of that which was heresy.

That is all that development of doctrine does - it makes more clear what the traditional teaching is. So there does not seem to be a difference in principle.

Blessings,
Marduk