Papal Problems...:(

[scott1228]

not spelling, for one ecample!

 

[jam070406]

I agree. The infallibility declation is false. It came not from the universal church - East and West. Just like the Assumption dogma is false. Unless the East in the future declares them so along with the Western church.

Huge problem for Catholics yet they refuse to read history and see the obvious truth here. IMHO.

History you say? Even better, it came from God! The obvious Truth comes right from Christ Himself.

Let us refresh our faith in the indefectibility of Christ’s promise to Saint Peter by meditating upon the fisherman’s profession (Matthew 16:16). For this can be viewed as the proto-type, the first of all papal definitions. In pronouncing the infallible truth that Jesus was indeed “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Peter was not echoing the conclusions of his reasonings. Rather it was the Holy Trinity speaking in him and through him, inspiring and perfecting his own faith, and preparing him for his doctoral office. “Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona.” Why Simon Bar-Jona? Why was Peter being so graced? Why not Nathaniel, who had even before Peter, made the same profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity? (John 1:49) Why was Saint John the Baptist not so declared? Or for that matter, why not Saint Martha, who also made such a strong profession of faith in Christ’s full identity? (John l1:27) Why was Simon Bar-Jona singled out for his profession? Why was only his name changed to “Rock” (Cephas), and not the others who had professed faith in Christ? (And remember, his name was changed the very first time Jesus met him - three years before his profession at Caesarea- Philippi.)

In the continuation of the discourse, Jesus reveals why Peter’s profession was so blessed, “Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father Who is in heaven. And I say to thee: that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And the Father will continue to protect His revealed truths through Peter and his successors to the end of time. Peter and his successors are to be the unique participators in the infallibility of the Rock, Christ Himself. And whosoever wishes to be one with Jesus Christ must join that divine society that is built upon the foundation the Savior Himself laid - Saint Peter.

Infallibility: Testimony from the universal Church in post-apostolic times - The Bishop of Rome has always and everywhere been accepted as the final arbiter of the faith of Christians. The exceptions here do indeed prove the rule. For up until the Greek schism (9th Century), there was no mass opposition to this tradition. Every one of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church during the past two thousands years of history, both in the East and the West, testified to the supreme doctrinal authority of the Roman bishop. The first eight ecumenical councils, which were all held in the East, first received the approval of the Pope before their convocation, and, upon their conclusion, they all awaited his final determination of orthodoxy before their decrees could become binding upon the universal Church they represented.

The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) taught that, “in the Apostolic See (Rome) the Catholic religion has ever been preserved free from stain.”

The Third Council of Constantinople (680) declared that “Peter’s Apostolic Church has never departed from the way of truth into any error whatsoever.”

The bishops of the Council of Chaleedon (151), not far from Constantinople, responded to the reading of Pope Leo’s dogmatic Letter to his representative, Bishop Elavian, with the unanimous outburst of faith, “Peter hath spoken through the mouth of Leo.”

The Council of Ephesus (431) called Pope Celestine (422-432), “the guardian of the faith,” who teaches right doctrine, because he is the successor of Blessed Peter the Apostle, the head of the whole faith, and the head of the Apostles."

 

[wisdomseeker]

History you say? Even better, it came from God! The obvious Truth comes right from Christ Himself.

Let us refresh our faith in the indefectibility of Christ’s promise to Saint Peter by meditating upon the fisherman’s profession (Matthew 16:16). For this can be viewed as the proto-type, the first of all papal definitions. In pronouncing the infallible truth that Jesus was indeed “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Peter was not echoing the conclusions of his reasonings. Rather it was the Holy Trinity speaking in him and through him, inspiring and perfecting his own faith, and preparing him for his doctoral office. “Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona.” Why Simon Bar-Jona? Why was Peter being so graced? Why not Nathaniel, who had even before Peter, made the same profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity? (John 1:49) Why was Saint John the Baptist not so declared? Or for that matter, why not Saint Martha, who also made such a strong profession of faith in Christ’s full identity? (John l1:27) Why was Simon Bar-Jona singled out for his profession? Why was only his name changed to “Rock” (Cephas), and not the others who had professed faith in Christ? (And remember, his name was changed the very first time Jesus met him - three years before his profession at Caesarea- Philippi.)

In the continuation of the discourse, Jesus reveals why Peter’s profession was so blessed, “Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father Who is in heaven. And I say to thee: that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And the Father will continue to protect His revealed truths through Peter and his successors to the end of time. Peter and his successors are to be the unique participators in the infallibility of the Rock, Christ Himself. And whosoever wishes to be one with Jesus Christ must join that divine society that is built upon the foundation the Savior Himself laid - Saint Peter.

Infallibility: Testimony from the universal Church in post-apostolic times - The Bishop of Rome has always and everywhere been accepted as the final arbiter of the faith of Christians. The exceptions here do indeed prove the rule. For up until the Greek schism (9th Century), there was no mass opposition to this tradition. Every one of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church during the past two thousands years of history, both in the East and the West, testified to the supreme doctrinal authority of the Roman bishop. The first eight ecumenical councils, which were all held in the East, first received the approval of the Pope before their convocation, and, upon their conclusion, they all awaited his final determination of orthodoxy before their decrees could become binding upon the universal Church they represented.

The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) taught that, “in the Apostolic See (Rome) the Catholic religion has ever been preserved free from stain.”

The Third Council of Constantinople (680) declared that “Peter’s Apostolic Church has never departed from the way of truth into any error whatsoever.”

The bishops of the Council of Chaleedon (151), not far from Constantinople, responded to the reading of Pope Leo’s dogmatic Letter to his representative, Bishop Elavian, with the unanimous outburst of faith, “Peter hath spoken through the mouth of Leo.”

The Council of Ephesus (431) called Pope Celestine (422-432), “the guardian of the faith,” who teaches right doctrine, because he is the successor of Blessed Peter the Apostle, the head of the whole faith, and the head of the Apostles."

that is beautiful.
how can anyone make someone see the truth if they refuse to. they can’t. for that their faith would fall apart. it is more like a pride thing than anything else. that is why the Lord Himself said: “not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of God.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

I agree. The infallibility declation is false. It came not from the universal church - East and West. Just like the Assumption dogma is false. Unless the East in the future declares them so along with the Western church.

Huge problem for Catholics yet they refuse to read history and see the obvious truth here. IMHO.

what truth?
that you refuse to accept that the HS can proceed also from the Son?
Like i said before, no one knows for sure how the Son appeared on the Creed, but i will not contest it or protest against it. for who am I to claim to know everything about God or even to declare to know Him fully.

:tsktsk: :juggle:

 

[wisdomseeker]

I agree. The infallibility declation is false. It came not from the universal church - East and West. Just like the Assumption dogma is false. Unless the East in the future declares them so along with the Western church.

Huge problem for Catholics yet they refuse to read history and see the obvious truth here. IMHO.

i know it huge problem and we dont know how to get out of it. come and help us please!

:bounce: :newidea:

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is so funny. The "new’ catholic apologists urge Protestants to go to the source. Yet they do not do so themselvs. Any wonder why many are questionning the Catholic church and its teachings? And I am talking catholics here. They simply don’t hold up IMHO. Thank you fo offering a perfect ecample. Like if the Catholic church got this wrong what else did they get wrong?

yep! we got all wrong. but we dont have to worry about that for we have you guys as sources that we can refer to for the truth. through all ages that is what we being doing when we dont know what truth is all we got to do is come to you for that. because of you we know we cannot go wrong.

 

[Mickey]

that is beautiful.

It is also inaccurate and biased–and not his own words. He forgot to post his source:
catholicism.org/apologetics-infallibility.html

 

[Mickey]

it is more like a pride thing than anything else.

Amen. When the Ultramontanists finally got their way—and Pius IX pushed the strange dogma of supreme infallibility on the Latin Church in 1870—I would definitely say it was “a pride thing”.

 

[East_and_West]

Yeah lets trust the East for truth when they fell into heresy over and over and over again.

 

[scott1228]

Isn’t this really a moot point?

Let’s suppose we had a council of those Churches that currently recognized the Pope and the Eastern churches that currently did not, and they were going to definitively settle several issues, such as Filioque, or even Immaculate Conception.

Due to the number of Western participants, do you really think that the council would come up with something different than the Pope?

So, what those that reject the primacy of the pope are saying is that they wouldn’t accept the authority of a joint council as well…

Scott

 

[Mickey]

Yeah lets trust the East for truth when they fell into heresy over and over and over again.

Correction: Let’s trust the East for truth when they have battled and conquered heresy over and over again.

 

[Mickey]

they wouldn’t accept the authority of a joint council as well

On the contrary. If this imaginary “joint council” that you propose, would declare that Filioque in the Creed, IC, infallibility, and purgatory are rescinded—I think that the Orthodox world would be quite receptive.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The lack of existence of any “papal infallibility” is one of the reasons why the condemnation of Honorius at the Sixth Ecumenical Council wasn’t followed with a footnote explaining that the condemnation didn’t apply to an “ex cathedra” teaching. People read the proclamation and went on, reaffirmed in their belief that Holy Tradition is the rule of even Popes. Orthodox Christians still receive the proclamation that way. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, respond to the Honorius episode by rushing to show how it doesn’t contradict papal infallibility. Who is receiving the whole issue like the ancient Church? The former are. Who is the ancient Church? Let he who has eyes, let him see!

In the letter of Agatho to the third Council of Constantinople, he declared:

“The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter.* Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.*”

This letter was applauded, approved, and accepted by all those present, including the Eastern bishops - who I believe were a majority at this Council.

Besides, I get the feeling that you guys are arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. At any other time on this forum, the Orthodox are condemned for being in rebellion to the Pope and chided for not knowing the obvious truth that the Pope cannot err, is the sure norm of teaching and thus it is never possible to resist him. However, when the issue of Honorius comes up, papal infallibility suddenly becomes limited to only declaring dogmas (which is the actual teaching, in any case), thus refuting the notion that the Pope cannot err and showing that resistance to him is justified in principle. You cannot have it both ways. Either Popes can never err and the case of Honorius contradicts your Faith, or Popes can err (except when making dogmas) and the Orthodox Church’s principle of resistance is justified. Which one is it? Or does Roman Catholicism really not know what her teaching on papal infallibility is?

You misunderstand the teaching of the Catholic Church and the nature of heresy and schism.

The Church teaches that the faithful are bound to submit the Pope when he teaches on matters of faith or morals regardless of whether he is speaking infallibly or not. If he is wrong, it will at some time come to light through the Grace of the Holy Spirit. This is one thing that the Orthodox are said to violate by Catholics.

The other way that such a chide might be against is the notion of schism. Schism is the refusal to obey the disciplinary authority of the pope, apart from any relevance to doctrine. The Orthodox reject this obedience.

 

[East_and_West]

Correction: Let’s trust the East for truth when they have battled and conquered heresy over and over again.

Rather, let us trust the west since she has never fallen into heresy. We are fullfilment of the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church whereas, the East cannot live up to this.

 

[Mickey]

Rather, let us trust the west since she has never fallen into heresy.

Ah, but Her innovations tell a different story.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

the catholic church according to this has not created another creed. so, my question has not been answered. as i said before i will stand on the sideline on this. nobody knows for sure how the Son got on the creed, i will not be the one taking it out though. for the Son is the Judge of all.

One thing we do know, the Fathers did not put it there.

Yes, it is a different creed.

 

[Mickey]

Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.”

So, is Pope Agatho saying that Honorius was not a heretic? What did the council say in response?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

ForeverAdam;3435630:

Papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I only gave the Pope the power to create dogmas (and thus be infallible when he does so). However, we have no Pope ever claiming the ability to make dogmas before the 19th century and your own Church admits that this power wasn’t used until 1854, suspiciously close to when such an “immemorial teaching” was dogmatized.

Pope Leo pronounced in his Tome the doctrine that Christ was fully God and fully man,two natures in one person,even before his Tome was approved by the Council of Chalcedon. He did not have to wait for the approval of the Eastern bishops to pronounce this doctrine.

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, (d. AD 449), writing to Pope Leo I:
“The whole question [of Eutychianism] needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy… and so the convening of a council which is any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D. 465-533):
“That which the Roman Church, which has the loftiest place on the earth, teaches and holds, so does the whole Christian world believe without hesitation for their justification, and does not delay to confess for their salvation.”

It’s looks more like a new teaching to me. It certainly carries the appearance of innovation since it was unknown to the ancient Church (and still is to the Holy Orthodox Church).

Besides, the Council did call Honorius a heretic and anathemized him. No Roman Catholic Council would ever dream of doing such a thing to one of their Popes. In fact, such a thing would be impossible since according to Latin teaching, the ecumenical council depends on the agreement of the Pope.

That was true with the pre-Schism councils as well.

The Byzantine-Slavonic Menaion, January 2:
“Father Sylvester…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from the Egyptian error [the Arian heresy] and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light. … Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples. … Endowed with the See of the leader of the apostles, you became an outstanding minister of God, enriching, establishing, and increasing the church with divine dogmas. You were the prince of the sacred council and you adorned the throne of the head of the disciples; like a divine prince over the holy Fathers you confirmed the most sacred dogma.”

Theodore the Studite:
“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

St. Maximus:
“…the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

Yet the council examined Leo’s letter before they accepted it, i.e. they did not accept it on its author’s authority.

We hear nothing of Sylvester’s involvement in the Arian heresy. Can you quote from an Orthodox menaion?

St. Maximus told the Latins to drop the filioque, on which it seems he was duped, as on Honorius.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

if you want to protest against the Son of God on the creed go right ahead. i will not.

Then try His OWN Words John 15:26,

 

[Lazerlike42]

So, is Pope Agatho saying that Honorius was not a heretic? What did the council say in response?

The Council applauded and accepted his letter, which also said, among other things:

• “this Apostolic Church of His * has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error…”
• “the Apostolic Church of Christ [Rome]… by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations…”

Thus, the Council most clearly did not believe that Honorius had taught heresy in any way that would qualify as being official teaching of the Pope, lest they would not have so enthusiastically endorsed these claims, or the others contained in the letter.

In fact, it was Pope Leo II who finally approved the Council (Pope Agatho had died). In his confirmation, he wrote, “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,…and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” Some manuscripts end with “attempted to pollute its purity,” which would be a bit more powerful, yet still does not declare that he had in fact succeeded in doing so, that is, actually taught error.

Nevertheless, we can understand Leo’s meaning by his letter to Spanish bishops, which read, “With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence,” and the Visiogothic king Erwig, which read, “…and with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished.” It is clear that Honorius was condemned not as a heretic, but for negligently having used imprecise language and permitting heresy to spread.*