Papal Problems...:(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wisdomseeker said:
you guys still hung up on this? lets assume that God Himself does not mind that Jesus share His glory and the HS, since everything was given to Jesus until the end and He has dominion over all things. why are you against Jesus on this?
Click to expand...
Because he said otherwise. John 15:26.
besides there is one Church who decides and is given true revelation from God throughout the ages. It did not end with the Fathers, it continued until today, logic tells me that that is why the church exists still. you problem is with authority. you just can not accept that fact that Jesus has left a leader to make sure that christianity continues and is faithfull to the Word of God. this church keeps the matters of faith and morals infallible because Jesus says so. and if Jesus says so, then i believe.
can you claim this authority?no, you cannot for it was not given to you.
Click to expand...
Yes it was. In the patriarchate of Jerusalem. Matthew 18:18-20.

Again, your anti-Protestant points will not work against us.
 
East_and_West said:
The point is that no matter how the schism happened, both protestants and EOs are broken off from the Churhc established by Jesus Christ. Nice try Michael, but the EO position, that it is the Church established by Jesus, is simply untenable.
Click to expand...
Hmm, the only Churches mentioned in the Bible, and they are all Orthodox. All those Apostolic Sees, but only one in the West is established by Jesus, although He never set foot there. Interesting.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Hmm, the only Churches mentioned in the Bible, and they are all Orthodox. All those Apostolic Sees, but only one in the West is established by Jesus, although He never set foot there. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter, because Peter did;)
 
LilyM said:
I’m not discussing any other councils. I’m saying that these two particular Councils, Hippo and Carthage, were incredibly important ones, dealing as they did with the Canon of Scripture, and determining which books were to be included in the Bible.

This was an issue which surely concerned the universal Church very deeply - you couldn’t have different Bibles floating around in different places, could you? We all know what massive problems the different canons cause even today.

So it was an issue which they would want to be resolved by the highest possible authority so as to have unanimous (or as near as possible) teaching on the issue. In other words what they needed was inerrant and infallible teaching.

And that in their quest for this highest possible authority, this inerrant and infallible teaching, they *only *bothered to seek the approval of the See of Rome and not any of the other Apostolic Patriarchs. Which is a very striking omission when one considers the ease with which they could at least have consulted with Alexandria in the event that Rome’s authority or supremacy was in doubt in any way. Not that location is a decisive factor, more of an interesting and telling sidenote.

The critical fact is that Rome’s authority and supremacy were NOT in any doubt - Rome and Rome alone could authoritatively endorse a Canon of Scripture which was intended to bind the whole universal church. Surely that would come under the heading of a teaching of Christ protected by His Holy Spirit (in other words infallible and part of the deposit of faith? Surely the Holy Spirit who authored scripture also teaches us through the Church which particular books are scriptural, no?)

Now not all the churches, as we know, accepted or accept Rome’s authority or the canon of Hippo and Carthage, just as they didn’t all accept any of the other Councils - quite probably not even the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in Scripture was universally accepted! Doesn’t change the fact that the Pope had the authority to ratify that Canon just as the Apostles had authority to ratify their decisions made in the Council in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
Pope Athanasius of Alexandria, in his Paschal encyclical of 367 set down as canonized the New Testament as we know today. Your councils did not come until decades later.

Btw, Pope Damasus, commissioning Jerome for the Vulgate, was the one who thereby started what would come full flower in the Protestant rejection of what you call Deuterocanonical.
 
East_and_West said:
There’s plenty of evidence. EOs just refuse to see it. I think it comes form the anti-western attitude from days of old. Anyway, we do beliece that Jesus is our aurthority. He simply rules through his Pope and the bishops. Do your bishops not have authority on earth? I agree with Lilly. Sounding more and more Protestant.
Click to expand...
Only to Latin hearing.
 
wisdomseeker said:
interesting! what kind of evidence do you need? one like, and you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it and to you, I will give the keys of the Kingdom?
that is good enough to me. Jesus spoke so it is.
Click to expand...
Matthew 18. Jesus said that too.
 
East_and_West said:
The doctrine of sola Roma does not exist in Catholicism. So why create this staw man arguement.

Right. Its funny. But from what I have seen on line if something is not explicitly defined in one of the Councils, there are just about as many EO views as there are EO Christians. I don’t buy this whole, “uniformity of belief” nonsense.
As for the CCC quote, A. The CCC can be wrong when talking about other religions and B. I agree with the quote you compare EOs to other break away groups.

What a coincidence. We can say the same thing.

Complete distortion of reality. The East continually grew away from the truth as her anti-latinism increased.

If that were true you would join the Church he established.
Click to expand...
Hesychios did.

As for distortion. Look at the discussions on the NO mass versus TLM.
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Alexius,

Thank you for your response. The sincerity of your concerns is apparent. Please believe me when I say I shared those concerns before I translated to the Catholic communion.

I have never seen this in the Vatican decrees. I assume you refer to the much maligned decree that the Pope does not need the consent of the Church for his statements made ex cathedra. This is true (no pun intended, in light of what I am about to explain). The TRUTH does not need the consent of ANYONE to be the Truth. Did St. Peter need the consent of anyone when he taught that the Gentiles should be accepted into the Church? Who would dare say that what he taught the Church on his own authority (which is the authority of God in those matters) in that instance needed the consent of the rest of the Church for the rest of the Church to accept what he taught to be a teaching that the Church NEEDED to accept as de fide? THAT is the intent of the Vatican decree. It was not meant to demean the agreement of the rest of the Church (for that is INDEED NECESSARY for the UNITY of the Church), but simply to assert the nature of the Truth as Truth, not needing the consent of anyone for it to be the Truth.

The purpose of the consent of the Church as a whole is to ensure UNANIMITY in the Truth. It does not ensure NOR define the Truth. Would you agree with what I stated?

The bishops of the world may declare something with a united voice as infallible teaching even without the Council. Does that mean that the Church does not need Councils? Just because the Pope may declare something infallible outside a Council does demean the Ecumenical Council in any way. Why? Because both methods (all three, actually) seek to uphold WHAT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN. All three organs of infallibility have the same Source of infallibility, have the same purpose in the exercise of that infallibility, and use the same sources (ie. Scripture and Sacred Tradition) to determine their infallible teachings. Further, all three organs of infallibility are utilized by the Church according to the needs of the times. It is not that bishops cannot teach infallibly when dispersed throughout the world because an organ of infallibility exists called an Ecumenical Council. It is not that an Ecumenical Council is superfluous because the bishops of the world can teach infallibly with one united voice. Likewise, the existence of papal infallibility does not demean the utility and necessity of the other organs of infallibility when the times require it. Doesn’t your argument violate St. Paul’s principle in I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12? It is not the Catholic Church who is arguing that the head does not need the body, after all. It is rather only the non-Catholic polemic that is arguing it.

I need to ask you: what paradigm would you offer against the Catholic teaching? The EO here all claim that the head bishop is not necessary in the deliberations of the body, some going so far as to say that the office of head bishop does not even exist! Would you align yourself with such a paradigm that SO CLEARLY violates the apostolic canon?

Can you offer an example in the history of the Church? On what basis do you make this statement?
  1. Do you understand what the purpose of a legate is? If so, how can you defend your last sentence?
  2. Can you give an example when they did not wait for papal approval? I think the only one you could possibly proffer is the Second Ecum Council, which was NOT INTENDED TO BE ECUMENICAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT ONLY A LOCAL COUNCIL OF THE EAST. The Third Ecumenical Council did not even recognize it! It did not gain ecumenical status until the Fourth Ecum Council, with the approval of the bishop of Rome.
Then it should not be hard for you to assert that because the bishops dispersed can speak infallibly when teaching with a united voice on a matter, then the Ecumenical Council is not necessary. Are there things we believe that have not been addressed or defined by an Ecumenical Council? If so, tell me what need is there for an Ecumenical Council? As already stated, the existence of one organ of infallibility does not negate the existence or necessity of another orgaon of infallibility.

I see here that the basis of your concerns are really fears, not based on any real evidence. What evidence do you have that a Pope would or could do any of the things you claim? Show me from the teachings of the Church that they are even possible. As far as I know, the Pope when teaching ex cathedra is bound by Sacred Tradition.

I ask once again, what ecclesiological paradigm do you propose to replace the Catholic paradigm? I’m sure our EO brethren would propose the EO paradigm. But tell me this - what prevents mob rule from being the rule of the day within Eastern Orthodoxy? It certainly happened once before in its history - without the benefit of a Council, its own patriarch and many other bishops were deposed by the will of the people! Brother, that’s not apostolic Christianity - that’s Protestantism! What prevents the will of the people from overruling the teaching of the episcopate? Have you read about the lax standards for divorce currently passing itself off as Church practice within Russian Orthodoxy? Russian Orthodoxy has accomodated and enshrined the SECULAR standards of the Russian people into its canons, for heaven’s sake. That’s what happens when the will of the people is more important than upholding the Truth. Scripture says it is a holy thing to visit and comfort those in prison; Russian Orthodoxy teaches you can divorce your spouse who is in prison!

Now, someone might state that I am exaggerating the position of Eastern Orthodoxy (in truth, I am not). But is that not what you are doing to the Catholic position? Imposing possibilities and extrapolations onto the Catholic teaching?

I believe you are confusing some biblical facts here. St. Peter’s doctrinal position was the one accepted by the Jerusalem Council. Reread Acts 15 again, please. St. Peter was indeed speaking ex cathedra. In fact, he even claimed that God spoke through him specifically!

Looking forward to further discussion.

Blessings
Click to expand...
I thank you for your response. I have little to say in return, but I would certainly be interested if you have a link to the statements made by those against Papal Infallibility during the Vatican I Council. I feel that may be most fruitful at this point…Thank you again…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Sorry, both Jerusalem and Antioch are the Mother Church of Rome.
Click to expand...
again, show proof of this. aparently no one knows about this. for we know for sure that the whole world have their eyes set on the CC of Rome. that is the Church that Jesus found. the CC is the one fighting against all kinds of heresies. the CC of rome is the one which everyone come against, yet she still stands firm like no other. for that Jesus intended it to be.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I believe…from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son…One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church…Amen.

That’s what defines the True Church among so many others.
Click to expand...
ok. answer me this please. what is the orthodox churches position on abortion, pill, divorce, celibacy?
 
wisdomseeker said:
again, show proof of this. aparently no one knows about this.
Click to expand...
Then they’re not reading their Bible. Acts 1:8, 11:26
for we know for sure that the whole world have their eyes set on the CC of Rome.
Click to expand...
Such grandiosity and self reference.
that is the Church that Jesus found.
Click to expand...
So you claim. I know he was in the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch. I’ve never heard of Him going to Rome.
the CC is the one fighting against all kinds of heresies.
Click to expand...
not against ultramontanism.
the CC of rome is the one which everyone come against,
Click to expand...
Paranoia?
yet she still stands firm like no other. for that Jesus intended it to be.
Click to expand...
Back to grandiosity.
 
East_and_West said:
So is Easten Orthodoxy. Both are break off groups. Sounds like one more thing you both have in common. Why don’t you both come back to your mother Church. 😃
Click to expand...
Protestantism and catholicsim are more alike then you know. Both substitute the traditions of the Church for their own novelties that are foreign to the Fathers.

Protestants got rid of the preisthood and the sacraments and replaced it with the novelty of sola scriptura and sola fide.

Catholics changed the creed, exchanged the conciliar model of the Church for the papal model, changed the Easter cycle from Julian to Gregorian, stopped using leavened bread for unleavened bread, changed the preisthood to mandatory celibacy, created indulgences, etc etc.

The only significant difference I see from the protestants and the catholics is that the protestants are honest enough to admit that their beliefs and practices are differnet from the Church of the 1st 7 councils. Catholics pretend that their new beliefs and practices aren’t novelties.

Only the Orthodox (both EO and OO) can claim to be the True Church because they have held to the same traditions for 2000 years.

Universal papal authority as it is practiced today is a western novelty just like sola scriptura. If someone wishes to claim it was “developed” then so be it. But if a person keeps asserting that the Early Church was govened by the bishop of Rome in the same way the pope governs the catholic church today then that person is either grossly ignorant or is being intellectually dishonest. The highest authority in the Early Church was an Ecumenical Council. The Councils are silent about the so-called absolute supremacy of the bishop of Rome. If that doesn’t convince you that the papal model of the church evolved later in church hisory then I think your brainwashed. No offence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top