Papal Problems...:(

[holdencaulfield]

Oui Oui, I felt un-inclined to say Catholic in the profile, but it has come up on the forum before - even in this thread…a while ago.

God Bless,
Rosemary

Does that mean yes?

 

[Alexius]

I don’t know where you are right know with your belief in the Papacy. Would you make a comment and then I will respond. Do you kind of believe it, or not at all.

My apologies about how long it took to respond–I have been extremely busy lately…

Well, I am able to accept the the teachings about the Papacy much more than I was before. Before, I really struggled with the idea of Papal Infallibility, but not so much now. I can certainly accept his supremacy as the pastor of all Christians as I see him practice this role on a daily basis. I also think the Pope has let up a great deal on jurisdictional supremacy and allowed for the Patriarchs and Bishops of the sui juris churches to rule on their own with less interference. I can accept that Rome is the highest seat for appeals and also that the Pope is the most visible head of the Church. I will say that it would be much better if the dogmas of Papal Infallibility and Supremacy had not been declared, but that’s just my opinion.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[steve_b]

I haven’t said that Rome didn’t possess the universal primacy in the ancient Church. She clearly possessed it. My point was that the concept of first among ontologically equal bishops was not nonsense in the early Church because the ancient patriarchal system was built around this concept.

Adam,

The patriarchal system was a development after the 1st 300 years. That got me wondering when 1st among equals 1st popped up. As it turns out, that’s a development too.

(emphasis mine)

:
3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the *Pentarchy *gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

The 4th and 5th centuries saw various problems in unity in the East. From this document, It looks to me like the East introduced the term 1st among equals to take authority away from the pope and transfer equal authority to each of its patriarchates.

Adam:

Why do you say that Christ didn’t do this for St. Peter?

I said you created a distinction without a diference.

Adam:

Everybody isn’t St. Peter as far as the primacy is concerned. Peter obviously has a unique, analogous successor in the primacy in the person of the Bishop of Rome. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the Pope, like Peter, has a role of service among equals and is not superior to them in grace.

Are you saying the pope doesn’t need more grace? I wuld say he needs the most.

Adam:

I think differently. I’ve never seen these two discourses conjoined before. However, to each his own.

It’s all taking place in the upper room, during the last supper. I’m surprised you have difficulty with this.

Adam:

And the continuation of this prayer is reflected in the ultimate sense in those who have the chief role of service in the Church, i.e., the holders of universal primacy. I don’t think anybody is arguing against this either. What about these words of Christ prove the uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy?

The point I was making is, Satan will continue sifting untill God calls an end to it all, correct?. Therefore, Jesus makes Peter’s role in scripture clear, but since it doesn’t end with Peter, Peter’s role comes through his successors the popes, they too will have the same role to lead and strengthen the faithful through the sifting, till the end. That’s why that passage points to the papacy.

Adam:

This is rather immaterial, as the tradition of papal fallibility clearly allows for Popes to become heretics.

If a pope taught that the Church was to believe in a “truth” concerning some matter of faith or morals which was later proven to be in error, then papal infallibility would be disproved.

But this hasn’t happened in the entire papacy. The Honorius issue comes up all the time, and has been dissected thoroughly here.

Adam:

Certainly, the principle is possible, thus rendering application rather meaningless, as something that can happen can always soundly be argued to have happened.

You’ve gotta know that every one that had an axe to grind was on this like a bear on a fresh salmon. No one could show any pope in 2000 years taught heresy.

 

[prodromos]

Do you have trouble with definition?

The definition is fine in the right context.

That’s okay John, I know this bugs you.

Deliberate, persistent error always bugs me.

John

 

[elt1956]

I know what you mean Alexius

Last Sunday,I attended liturgy for the first time at the local Orthodox Church (Greek Archdiocese).

What was troubling for me was the complete lack of support for papal authority in the pre-schism Ecumenical Councils. If the pope’s conscent was required for all conciliar decrees, why was that not mentioned in any of of canons and decrees of the Councils. The answer is obvious. Because the Early Church Fathers didn’t believe in the modern idea of the papacy and that is why the concept is absent from the Ecumenical Councils.

I think the word Pappa was used for all of the Patriarchs pre-schism, both East and West. So it wasn’t that the Bishops didn’t believe in the Papacy of Rome, it just was not in their concept of the Church at that time. I haven’t studied Church History enough to remember which Pope and what year the infallibility of the Pope was declared by the Pope. Anyone know??? Peace.

 

[Mickey]

I haven’t studied Church History enough to remember which Pope and what year the infallibility of the Pope was declared by the Pope. Anyone know???

Papal supremacy and infallibility was defined in 1870–Pope Pius IX.

 

[Mickey]

No one could show any pope in 2000 years taught heresy.

Actually, I think that the doctrine of infallibility is quite fascinating. It is full-proof! When pope Honorius was declared to be a heretic, the Catholic apologists claimed that he was not speaking ex-cathedra. What a convenient loop hole! Now the strange doctrine of infallibility can be retroactively applied to the Church without any problems.

 

[steve_b]

Actually, I think that the doctrine of infallibility is quite fascinating. It is full-proof! When pope Honorius was declared to be a heretic, the Catholic apologists claimed that he was not speaking ex-cathedra. What a convenient loop hole! Now the strange doctrine of infallibility can be retroactively applied to the Church without any problems.

When he suggested silence on the matter with Sergius, that’s a BIG clue for most reasonably minded people that the pope never intended to define the doctrine, nor teach it to the Church. That’s not a loop hole that’s just common sense.

 

[Mickey]

When he suggested silence on the matter with Sergius, that’s a BIG clue for most reasonably minded people that the pope never intended to define the doctrine, nor teach it to the Church. That’s not a loop hole that’s just common sense.

He was declared to be a heretic. Period. Furthermore, infallibility/supremacy was an unknown and foreign concept at the time.

**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[steve_b]

The definition is fine in the right context.

“rule” is part of the definition for poimaino. Do you think one apostle asked to also govern/rule over the others is wrong?

when Jesus said at the last supper

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Who was Jesus referring to? Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? NO. Did He say one would NOT (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No, He confirmed that one would ( hegeomai).

Hegeomai

1) to lead

a) to go beforeb) to be a leader

1) to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
​

2) to consider, deem, account, think

**Ever hear of Peter being called prince of the apostles? **Ever wonder where it came from?

Jesus left no ambiguity who He was talking about. Right after He says this Jesus said to Peter

31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (all of them) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you (singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Peter was to (hegeomai) over the Church. And Jesus confirms it again in [Jn 21:15…] But we already new that from [Mt 16:16…]

 

[steve_b]

He was declared to be a heretic. Period. Furthermore, infallibility/supremacy was an unknown and foreign concept at the time.

**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople

**”**To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!****”

In those days one could be called a heretic for just associating with a heretic. Sergius should have remaind silent as was agreed upon. But he didn’t.

The council never said Honorius taught heresy. His offense was that he didn’t condemn Sergius, and that was viewed as confirming Sergius.

We don’t need to rehash this here. Entire threads have handled this.

 

[Mickey]

The council never said Honorius taught heresy.

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.
Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[ForeverAdam]

The patriarchal system was a development after the 1st 300 years. That got me wondering when 1st among equals 1st popped up. As it turns out, that’s a development too.

Regardless of when this system developed, it did develop and was accepted as reasonable in the East and West (even if you believe the Pope was outside it). This doesn’t seem to agree with your comment stating that having a first among ontological equals is nonsense. It wasn’t nonsense in the ancient Church, which allowed this system to develop and respected its boundaries. In fact, this same system is present among the Eastern Catholic patriarchs. I don’t think Eastern Catholics would interpret their patriarchal system as nonsense, either.

I said you created a distinction without a diference.

Without a difference in sacramental grace, yes. However, this doesn’t render leadership ineffecual as Church history respectfully carries the testimonies of many patriarchs (especially St. Athanasius the Great) who operated effectively in this same system.

Are you saying the pope doesn’t need more grace? I wuld say he needs the most.

There is a distinction between God’s help and sacramental grace. All bishops possess help from God, but certain bishops don’t possess additional sacramental grace. You affirm this principle in regard to all bishops except the Pope, so clearly a distinction between God’s help and blessing and sacramental episcopal grace is possible. As a Roman Catholic, you’re probably aware of this distinction as “actual grace” vs. “sanctifying grace.” I don’t see this distinction in your comment, however.

It’s all taking place in the upper room, during the last supper. I’m surprised you have difficulty with this.

I find it somewhat sloppy to affirm that all that is said in one place pertains to the same topic.

The point I was making is, Satan will continue sifting untill God calls an end to it all, correct?. Therefore, Jesus makes Peter’s role in scripture clear, but since it doesn’t end with Peter, Peter’s role comes through his successors the popes, they too will have the same role to lead and strengthen the faithful through the sifting, till the end. That’s why that passage points to the papacy.

Well, it would point to a continuation of a universal primacy in the Church and its role of serving and helping fellow bishops in Christ. We don’t deny the existence of such an Orthodox Papacy, however. In order for this account to support the distinctive form of the Western Papacy, it would have to support universal jurisdiction and/or the belief that St. Peter and the Pope are ontologically greater than their peers.

If a pope taught that the Church was to believe in a “truth” concerning some matter of faith or morals which was later proven to be in error, then papal infallibility would be disproved.

Yes.

But this hasn’t happened in the entire papacy. The Honorius issue comes up all the time, and has been dissected thoroughly here.

I think it could be dissected more thoroughly.

You’ve gotta know that every one that had an axe to grind was on this like a bear on a fresh salmon. No one could show any pope in 2000 years taught heresy.

I like the analogy about the bear and salmon. Btw, do you believe that the Pope can “teach” as Pope outside of speaking ex cathedra?

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

I’ve noticed something interesting in discussions about Pope Honorius, the heretic - The Orthodox Christians accept the words of the Sixth Ecumenical Council at face value, while the Roman Catholics look for ways to explain them away and engage in a defensive procedure, which was unknown to those who lived during the time of Honorius’ condemnation. I think this speaks eloquently as to who is closer in spirit to the early Christian Church.

 

[Alexius]

I’ve noticed something interesting in discussions about Pope Honorius, the heretic - The Orthodox Christians accept the words of the Sixth Ecumenical Council at face value, while the Roman Catholics look for ways to explain them away and engage in a defensive procedure, which was unknown to those who lived during the time of Honorius’ condemnation. I think this speaks eloquently as to who is closer in spirit to the early Christian Church.

I’m not sure, though. I totally understand your comment, but one can be anathemized for different reasons. That he was declared a heretic is clear, but for what reason is not so clear. Most Orthodox place him on a linear playing-field with the likes of Arius and Nestorius, yet it is not for the same reason that he was anathemized. It would make sense that as the Pope, he was expected to be the chief maintainer of orthodoxy, but he failed to uphold the truth and was subsequently declared a heretic. How could he not be held to a higher standard as the head bishop?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[peary]

In summary, here are my questions again:

1. Where is the proof for Papal Infallibility?

**“Papal infallibility” does not mean ‘impeccability’. In Scripture it is found in Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might. **

1. Where and when did a Pope speak ex cathedra?

Only two times in history, and having to do with Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and her Assumption (1950). Those were solemn pronouncements that the pope made, not as a private theologian, but as Teacher of the Universal Church. However, when something is issued “from the chair” of Peter, such as encyclicals, these could be seen as being ex cathedra pronouncements.

Also, there is a body of infallible teaching that has not been made known by solemn declarations. What this refers to is the deposit of faith handed down through the centuries. The pope is its chief guardian, and he may use whatever means he chooses to preserve and teach it. As one writer puts it, the pope does not invent the truth, he locates it.

1. What statements in the early Church were ex cathedra and which were not?

Too big of a topic here. See below # 5.

1. Why did the Pope seemingly reserve the authority to declare saints to himself when it was traditionally left to synods?

**For hundreds of years, starting with the first martyrs of the early Church, saints were chosen by public acclaim. Though this was a more democratic way to recognize saints, some saints’ stories were distorted by legend and some never existed. Gradually, the bishops and finally the Vatican took over authority for approving saints.

The process begins after the death of a Catholic whom people regard as holy. Often, the process starts many years after death in order give perspective on the candidate. The local bishop investigates the candidate’s life and writings for heroic virtue (or martyrdom) and orthodoxy of doctrine. Then a panel of theologians at the Vatican evaluates the candidate. After approval by the panel and cardinals of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the pope proclaims the candidate “venerable.”

The next step, beatification, requires evidence of one miracle (except in the case of martyrs). Since miracles are considered proof that the person is in heaven and can intercede for us, the miracle must take place after the candidate’s death and as a result of a specific petition to the candidate. When the pope proclaims the candidate beatified or “blessed,” the person can be venerated by a particular region or group of people with whom the person holds special importance.

Only after one more miracle will the pope canonize the saint (this includes martyrs as well). The title of saint tells us that the person lived a holy life, is in heaven, and is to be honored by the universal Church. Canonization does not “make” a person a saint; it recognizes what God has already done.

Though canonization is infallible and irrevocable, it takes a long time and a lot of effort. So while every person who is canonized is a saint, not every holy person has been canonized. You have probably known many “saints” in your life, and you are called by God to be one yourself.

What I am trying to get across here is that the pope does not make a flippant decision when it comes to acknowledging saints. There is a long complex process involved.**

1. Where was the Pope during the first Ecumenical Councils and where was his approval?

As for the first seven ecumenical councils, please consult this website for papal authority in the early ecumenical councils:
rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

Alexius

 

[elt1956]

Acts 15:19-20

"Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood."

You might notice that St James is using the Greek word, “krino*”*, a legal term meaning “I decide”, “I rule”, “I judge”.

Clearly St James was the head of this council.

Although I don’t have a scriptural quote at hand, my understanding is that although James was left as head of the church in Jerusalem, all of the Apostles deferred to Peter as they understood his special relationship to Christ. ie. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”. Peace.

 

[ForeverAdam]

It would make sense that as the Pope, he was expected to be the chief maintainer of orthodoxy, but he failed to uphold the truth and was subsequently declared a heretic. How could he not be held to a higher standard as the head bishop?

All bishops are held to the highest standard in teaching the Faith and maintaining its traditional form of expression. However, I concede that this high standard of the one episcopate is emphasized in the person of the Bishop of Rome, who is to be a model and servant of the one episcopacy. However, I think it is bit of a stretch to assume that Honorius was given the anathema for simply refusing to condemn Monophysitism. St. Liberius, Pope of Rome, signed an ambiguous confession of faith and exiled the greater defender of truth, St. Athanasius the Great, and he is a saint (despite his errors in judgment). If Honorius were condemned for being silent in the face of heresy, Liberius would have suffered a greater condemnation as he actively helped it to spread through his mistakes. I think that it is clear that Honorius was condemned as a heretic because his response to Patriarch Sergius contained a heretical statement affirming one will of Christ. Like all other heretics, Honorius affirmed doctrinal error and deserved condemnation for it. However, we should point out that this wasn’t done in an official way, as Honorius letter was private correspondence. On the other hand, the Honorius incident does appear to confirm that Popes can utter defective statements of faith and thus become heretics in fact and that their ministry is always conditional on their profession of Tradition and is not automatically orthodox.

God bless,

Adam

 

[steve_b]

Regardless of when this system developed, it did develop and was accepted as reasonable in the East and West (even if you believe the Pope was outside it).

You give me too much credit. The history I gave was from Cardinal Ratzinger, which as you know is now Benedict XVI

Adam:

This doesn’t seem to agree with your comment stating that having a first among ontological equals is nonsense. It wasn’t nonsense in the ancient Church, which allowed this system to develop and respected its boundaries. In fact, this same system is present among the Eastern Catholic patriarchs. I don’t think Eastern Catholics would interpret their patriarchal system as nonsense, either.

You saw the history of how the term came into use as well as the patriarchal system. As far as EC they are in union with Rome. Ergo 1st among equals is not in the vocabulary when talking about the pope.

Not so with EO.

Adam:

Without a difference in sacramental grace, yes. However, this doesn’t render leadership ineffecual as Church history respectfully carries the testimonies of many patriarchs (especially St. Athanasius the Great) who operated effectively in this same system.

Don’t get me wrong, all I was saying is the pope needs more grace to do HIS job than a local bishop of a diocese. Obviously we see that, even in scripture. i.e. the passage we’ve been discussing where Jesus prays for Peter …specially.

Adam:

I find it somewhat sloppy to affirm that all that is said in one place pertains to the same topic.

Sloppy?

This discourse is at the last supper. I’m focused on who is doing the talking, not the narrative. I’ll put Jesus words in red.

Where did I conjoin and get sloppy?

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
24Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Adam:

I like the analogy about the bear and salmon. Btw, do you believe that the Pope can “teach” as Pope outside of speaking ex cathedra?

God bless,

Adam

If you’re wondering what language is specifically used for ex cathedra, Jimmy Akin’s gives the following example

:
In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements

Outside of that, a pope can express all sorts of opinions that aren’t going to rise to that level.

 

[Allyson]

Does that mean yes?

Yes, “oui” is French for “yes.” I some times use yes in other languages; it goes through my head and comes out my fingers.

I am Eastern Catholic; canonically adopted as a member of the Ruthenian Church.

God Bless,
Rosemary