Papal Problems...:(

[jam070406]

Thank you.

This way, those with eyes may see.

Yes, such as this:

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

 

[jam070406]

Btw, as I have pointed out before, when He says He"will" give the keys, it is in the future, not the present.

When He says He “gives” the power to bind and loose to all the apostles a few chapters later, it is in the present. Ditto in St. John with the breathing on the Apostles.

Apparantly you and Michael didn’t read all of the Vatican I document. (thanks for posting the link) You like to just skip past this part. (As well as the part about the Greeks accepting these Catholic teachings in the past, at 2 different councils)

1. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wednesday Audience: Leo the Great, Tireless Promoter of Roman Primacy

“this Pope felt particularly acutely his responsibility as Peter’s Successor, whose role in the Church is unique because ‘just one Apostle is entrusted with what is communicated to all the Apostles’”. Leo the Great “showed himself capable of exercising this responsibility in both West and East, intervening prudently, firmly and coherently in various circumstances, both through his writings and by his legates. Thus he showed how the exercise of Roman primacy was necessary then, as it is now, as an effective service to communion, which is a characteristic of the one Church of Christ”.

 

[jam070406]

It says nothing of Peter alone being the monopoly of truth,

You’re right, only Orthodox polemists make this claim.

 

[jam070406]

What? How by questioning the infallibility of one man do I deny the Church of infallibility [through its councils]?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Infallibility (even of councils) has been denied by Orthodox on these boards time and again. They believe it must be accepted by the laity before it is truth. It’s the only way they can explain away a council such as Florence as not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Allyson]

sorry i didnt mean to imply that the pope and magisterium are the same. they are not. i dont believe that orthodox and protestants sare the same either.

I didn’t think you meant too, but I could see it being read that way. I am glad that you don’t think that the Orthodox and the Protestants are the same , it just seemed sometimes that this equivalency is made even if unintentionally - generally by people, not by any one poster.

God Bless,
R.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Cyprian of Carthage

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [cf. John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition [A.D. 251]).

Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church (Letters 55[52]: 8 [A.D. 253]).

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source (ibid., 59:14).

 

[wisdomseeker]

Pope Julius I

[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made not as it was but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology against the Arians 20–35).

 

[wisdomseeker]

Optatus

You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas “Rock”]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

---

 

[wisdomseeker]

Jerome

[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says, “With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,” the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a Church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the Church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails (ibid., 15:2).

The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, “He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!” . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria (ibid., 16:2).

---

 

[Isa_Almisry]

because i have noticed that those who reject the claims of the catholic church go great length to disprove what is true. they blind themselves, reject history, and seem to go around and around but cannot disprove it. If they read Romans, even then Paul talks about how the faith of the Romans are being talked about by all. that seemed to be already the Plan of Jesus for this Church to lead the way. anything related to this fact is rejected by those who resent the catholic church for being the chosen one. more like a jealousy type of sentiment. I would say that if it wasnt for God to hold this church up before so many opposition she could not have survived. think about it, securalists come against this church, protestants come against her with their campaigns, orthodox rejects her, and so forth…

You’re going to have to be more specific. Some of what you say might be true of some Protestants, but not all. It has no veracity as to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

they believe our churche’s Fathers but ignores all the references made by them that points out to the catholic church as the one that leads the way.

confused:

No, just look at the context out of which the cherries have been wretched.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Popeycock Christ is the fulness of Gods revealation to man. You have turned a man made institution into your idol and placed that idol above God Himself.

That “idol” is God’s Body, and His Bride.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

it is not true. after the scism atempts were made to reconcile but muslims pressured orthodox church against and orthodox church followed the muslims.

Russia, the largest Orthodox then as now, didn’t have any Muslims, except those she had conquered. And at the time of Florence, the Albanians, Serbians, Romanians and even some Greeks had not fallen to the Ottomans.

When the Crusaders “liberated” Antioch, the Orthodox didn’t flock to the Latin installed as patriarch, after the Crusaders expelled the legitimate patriarch. Btw, I believe the current Melkite patriarch under Rome in Antioch traces his line through the expelled, rather than the installed, patriarch.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Example of an infallible teaching given by the apostles on faith and morals without error under the guidance of the holy spirit. Please read all of Acts 15:1-29

Acts 15:27 and following; So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth ( the infallible teaching from Peter and the Magisterium, also see how James supports Peter from the Prophets vs.16-18): It is the DECISION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND OF US NOT TO PLACE on you any burden beyond these necessities…

Infallibility is given to the Apostolic Church under the Holy Spirit to keep them from teaching error on faith and morals.

No, the judgement (the actually word used in Greek) was made by St. James, not St. Peter.

And the encyclical doesn’t mention any supreme pontiff.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

they both died there too. that should tell you something.

That Rome was dangerous?

Remember Matthew 23:29-30.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, such as this:

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

You mean BOTH Greek bishops (out of 560 of the West) made the profession? While the Latin despots were running around in the East, hmmm. Connection?

The two bishop did represent the EP, and more importantly the emperor, and supposedly had letters with the signature of 50 archbishops and 500 bishops. I don’t know who they were. Were they any of the hundreds/thousands of Russian, Serbian, Cyprian, Antiochean, Alexandrian, etc.? They certainly did not represent the Orthodox faithful, who remained steadfastly in the Faith of Our Fathers.

Your Vatican I document was accepted by all your bishops (all those who didn’t become Old Catholic, that is), and must be accepted by all of them today.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Apparantly you and Michael didn’t read all of the Vatican I document. (thanks for posting the link) You like to just skip past this part. (As well as the part about the Greeks accepting these Catholic teachings in the past, at 2 different councils)

1. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

we don’t ignore, just point out the inconsistency and bring the dogma to its logical conclusion.

Don’t you know? ALL dictators are defenders of the rights of the people. Just ask them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Infallibility (even of councils) has been denied by Orthodox on these boards time and again. They believe it must be accepted by the laity before it is truth. It’s the only way they can explain away a council such as Florence as not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Uh, how about the FACT that the 31 bishops there were strong armed by the emperor, the FACT that they conditioned their agreement on ratification at a synod in the East (which never happened), and the FACT that 31 (actually 30, St. Mark refused to sign at all) were in no way representative of the thousands of Orthodox bishops and millions of Faithful. And of course the FACT that it did not preach the Apostolic Faith.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Cyprian of Carthage

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [cf. John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition [A.D. 251]).

What’s the second edition say? Look up St. Firmilian.