Papal Problems...:(

[peary]

Father Hans Kung, who on September 26, 2005, had a friendly discussion about Catholic theology over dinner with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, has rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility. See his book: Infallible? An Inquiry (1971). He claims the the doctrine of infallibility is man-made (and thus reversible) rather than instituted by God. He was not excommunicated and remains a Roman Catholic priest and has had a friendly dinner and discussions with the present Pope.

I don’t think they discussed as much theology as you might think. And that book is almost 40 years old. Things change. Maybe Kung has changed too.

 

[bobzills]

I don’t think they discussed as much theology as you might think. And that book is almost 40 years old. Things change. Maybe Kung has changed too.

Where is your reference to support this? I don;t see any evidence that Father Kung has changed his mind on papal infallibility.

 

[holdencaulfield]

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.

I agree.

 

[holdencaulfield]

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.

What a strange loophole. That is because the members of Vatican I saw what happened in the past like a scientist. They found the examples of statements that were taken by the Church to be Infallible from the Pope and then saw all the similarities in those examples and then formulated the doctrine. Trail and Error. Just like all the other Church doctrines.

 

[holdencaulfield]

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

You keep refuting our quotes, I suggest you find a quote that backs up your point.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by SiempreFiel
AMEN brother.

St. James knew he couldn’t go wrong if he ruled on something that the infallible Pope of Rome had already related.

Peter wasn’t even *in *Rome at this time.

 

[elt1956]

Yeah right. St Peter was the infallible Pope of Rome. That’s a good one!

Hello just reading a book called The Church FathersTwo of the statements were, 1. Peter preached in Rome and died in Rome. There are no sources that say otherwise. 2. The rest of the Apostles “deferred” to Peter because of his “special” relationship with Christ. You know, “Thou are Peter and upon this Rock…” Therefore, although James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, he too deferred to Peter in matters of tradition and doctrine. They might have argued a bit, but Peter had the final say. Peace.

 

[ForeverAdam]

What a strange loophole. That is because the members of Vatican I saw what happened in the past like a scientist. They found the examples of statements that were taken by the Church to be Infallible from the Pope and then saw all the similarities in those examples and then formulated the doctrine. Trail and Error. Just like all the other Church doctrines.

Church doctrines are not formulated by trial and error. Rather, they are passed down from the apostles. Forming new teachings through a scientific process was unknown to St. Jerome, who says of the charge that he accepted the heresies of Origen:

“Whosoever you be who assert new dogmas, I beg you to spare Roman ears, spare that faith which was praised by the mouth of the Apostle. Why after four hundred years do you try to teach us what we knew not till now? Why do you produce doctrines which Peter and Paul did not think fit to proclaim? Up to this day the world has been Christian without your doctrine. I will hold to that faith in my old age in which I was regenerated as a boy” - Epistle, 84.

This quotation reveals a saint (indeed, good Roman) who condemns any attempt to introduce hitherto unknown teachings into the Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[peary]

Good quote. I wonder how our Roman Catholic brethren will explain this. One might argue that St. James only held chief rule of the Council as he was St. Peter’s legate, but this is unlikely since Peter was present at the Council in person. Without being polemical at all, this quote seems to confirm that James, not Peter, presided with authority over the Council of Jerusalem. While St. Peter had an important influence on the outcome of the Council through his discourse on God opening the doors to the Gentiles, he doesn’t appear to have been the leader of the Council, as St. John Chrysostom states that James held the high authority in the Council.

God bless,

Adam

If James was put in charge of the Christian community in Jerusalem, this still does not negate Peter as head of the apostles. In fact, did you know that, in the Gospels, Peter is mentioned almost 300 times? More than any other disciple? And after him, John is mentioned the most. We are not sure about the hierarchical structure of the apostolic church at this time, but we can surmise even on scriptural evidence, which points to Peter as being the head apostle and “in charge” of the others.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Therefore, although James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, he too deferred to Peter in matters of tradition and doctrine. They might have argued a bit, but Peter had the final say. Peace.

This is very Orthodox, as it is part of Orthodox ecclesiology for members of a group to defer to the first among them. St. Peter was the first among the apostles, thus ensuring that all the apostles would indeed defer to him as their leader. However, this shouldn’t be misconstrued to introduce intrinsic inequality into the apostolic choir, as they all were equal in sacramental grace, even while chief leadership was given to St. Peter (and later St. Paul joined Peter in this role).

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

If James was put in charge of the Christian community in Jerusalem, this still does not negate Peter as head of the apostles. In fact, did you know that, in the Gospels, Peter is mentioned almost 300 times? More than any other disciple? And after him, John is mentioned the most. We are not sure about the hierarchical structure of the apostolic church at this time, but we can surmise even on scriptural evidence, which points to Peter as being the head apostle and “in charge” of the others.

The Orthodox Church doesn’t dispute that St. Peter was the leader of the apostles.

 

[ForeverAdam]

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

I assumed it was from a prelate. How interesting that it is from the present Pope. Btw, will you get to see him in person next week as he comes to the States? I plan to watch the coverage on EWTN.

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.

I understand this. However, the patriarchal system of first among intrinsic equals does exist in Eastern Catholicism (and Orthodoxy), thus showing that it isn’t nonsense or impossible, as you initially argued.

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.

This makes good sense. However, possessing additional help from God is not the same as possessing additional sacramental grace.

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.

You should always pay attention to the narrative, as the same person may talk about different topics in the course of their conversation.

Where did I conjoin and get sloppy?

Well, the part about who was the greatest is concluded by Christ stating that he is the greatest as he served them and that all the apostles will sit on thrones in the resurrection. The part about St. Peter strengthening his brethren deals with Peter’s denial of the Lord and later his restoration to apostolic leadership. I think these two issues are distinct. However, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this. I’ll also add that St. Peter probably wouldn’t want us calling him the greatest, as it is the servant who decreases as his master increases that is the greatest, as that greatest among those born of women, St. John the Forerunner, declared.

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

Thanks. That’s what I thought.

God bless,

Adam

 

[peary]

Still at it with your ‘dictionary’ knowledge of Greek. Why is it that not one of the bible translations I have looked at so far both in English and other languages, translate “poimaino” in this passage as “rule”?

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
King James Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
New Century Version
Young’s Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Wycliffe New Testament
Douay-Rheims
New Jerusalem
La Nuova Diodati
La Bible du Semeur
Elberfelder
Dios Habla Hoy
Reina-Valera Antigua
Vulgate

Apparently Steve is wiser than all of the translators of those bibles combined

Let it be reminded to you that in many of the above bible translations, Luke 1:1 is translated variously as “Hail, full of grace” to “Greetings, most highly favored daughter.” The use of the word ‘greetings’ is NOT representative in the Greek and does not correspond with the angelic salutation of ‘HAIL’. Also, “highly favored” is stretching ‘grace’…and the noun daughter is no where to be found in the Greek. I guess it depends on the agenda of the translators, actually. And I’ve read enough biblical translations to see through the various agendas they prescribe to.

 

[peary]

Still at it with your ‘dictionary’ knowledge of Greek. Why is it that not one of the bible translations I have looked at so far both in English and other languages, translate “poimaino” in this passage as “rule”?

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
King James Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
New Century Version
Young’s Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Wycliffe New Testament
Douay-Rheims
New Jerusalem
La Nuova Diodati
La Bible du Semeur
Elberfelder
Dios Habla Hoy
Reina-Valera Antigua
Vulgate

Apparently Steve is wiser than all of the translators of those bibles combined

Let it be reminded to you that in many of the above bible translations, Luke 1:1 is translated variously as “Hail, full of grace” to “Greetings, most highly favored daughter.” The use of the word ‘greetings’ is NOT representative in the Greek and does not correspond with the angelic salutation of ‘HAIL’. Also, “highly favored” is stretching ‘grace’…and the noun daughter is no where to be found in the Greek. I guess it depends on the agenda of the translators, actually. And I’ve read enough biblical translations to see through the various agendas they prescribe to.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Church doctrines are not formulated by trial and error. Rather, they are passed down from the apostles. Forming new teachings through a scientific process was unknown to St. Jerome, who says of the charge that he accepted the heresies of Origen:

“Whosoever you be who assert new dogmas, I beg you to spare Roman ears, spare that faith which was praised by the mouth of the Apostle. Why after four hundred years do you try to teach us what we knew not till now? Why do you produce doctrines which Peter and Paul did not think fit to proclaim? Up to this day the world has been Christian without your doctrine. I will hold to that faith in my old age in which I was regenerated as a boy” - Epistle, 84.

This quotation reveals a saint (indeed, good Roman) who condemns any attempt to introduce hitherto unknown teachings into the Church.

Good point, in fact I like that quote. The only problem is that you would be correct if Papal Infallibility was not known before. If it was always known than Vatican I would be a valid council.

 

[holdencaulfield]

This is very Orthodox, as it is part of Orthodox ecclesiology for members of a group to defer to the first among them. St. Peter was the first among the apostles, thus ensuring that all the apostles would indeed defer to him as their leader. However, this shouldn’t be misconstrued to introduce intrinsic inequality into the apostolic choir, as they all were equal in sacramental grace, even while chief leadership was given to St. Peter (and later St. Paul joined Peter in this role).

I think the problem here is that the Catholic view of the Pope is not what most people think it to be. We often have these liberal Catholics who think that everything that comes out of the mouth of the Pope is Infallible, however that is not the case.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by LilyM
‘Three in one’ is fine - three branches in one vine, three people in one family, three parts of man (mind, soul and body), three sides in one triangle. It’s not the same as saying that each of the three individually is precisely the same as the One that forms from their union. And we don’t say Jesus is the same as the Father or the Holy Spirit, do we?

“First among equals”, on the other hand, is actually a literal contradiction in terms. “First” by definition means superior, not equal.

**Not really, if you look upon the concept as a reflection of the Trinity. God the Father is “first among equals” in the nature of God. This is even defined in the Sign of the Cross, and the words of Baptism. **

 

[holdencaulfield]

**Not really, if you look upon the concept as a reflection of the Trinity. God the Father is “first among equals” in the nature of God. This is even defined in the Sign of the Cross, and the words of Baptism. **

Good point I one hundred percent agree. However it still does not prove the Orthodox understanding of First among equals to be correct.

 

[peary]

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

**In order for the case of Honorius to disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, it is not sufficient to claim the pope was a monothelite. It must be demonstrated the pope taught heresy within the parameters of Vatican I.

the actual required conditions are twofold: The pope must exercise his office as “teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,” and he must define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be “held by the whole Church” (First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, iv, quoted in The Church Teaches, John F. Clarkson, S.J. et. al, ed., 102).

Not every exercise of a pope’s primacy involves his office and authority as “teacher of all Christians.” This primacy also includes—in addition to the power to teach—the power to rule and govern the whole Church. The truth is, a pope can exercise his supreme authority in any number of ways without involving the gift of infallibility—appointing and deposing bishops, suppressing religious orders, altering or imposing disciplines, etc.

Sergius wrote to Honorius to obtain not a dogmatic teaching but a rule of silence that Sergius misrepresented as necessary to end needless wrangling over disputed expressions. Honorius, without further investigation, accepted Sergius’s presentation at face value, seeing the dispute as “an idle question” to be left to the “grammarians who sell formulae of their own invention” (Scripta fraternitatis vestrae**, quoted by Fernand Hayward in A History of the Popes, 90). It is no surprise, therefore, that Honorius wrote that “on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, *define neither one nor two *operations in the mediator between God and man” (*Scripta dilectissimi filii *quoted by William Shaw Kerr in *A Handbook on the Papacy *196; emphasis added).

These words make it clear Honorius did not address the nascent heresy as the “teacher of all Christians” defining what ought to be believed. On the contrary, the pope declines to “define” anything and merely follows Sergius’s suggestion in saying neither expression should be spoken of. Whether Honorius’ letters later “affected the whole Church” is immaterial to the question of infallibility.

The proper question is whether Honorius proclaimed a doctrine to be “held by the whole Church.” The answer to this question is clearly “No.” Honorius urged a rule of silence, not a rule of faith. His letters, which anathematized nothing, were intended for a few Eastern bishops and were unknown in the West until after his death. They were hardly the sort of documents with which a pope communicates his intent to bind the whole Church to a solemn dogmatic definition. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of Honorius’s policy was to leave the monothelite patriarchs in the East in place.

Papal infallibility does not mean the bishops of Rome will be holy, wise, or as vigilant as they ought to be in the discharge of their office. While Honorius’s foresight, as well as his vigilance to his pastoral responsibilities, might be faulted, these are not objects of papal infallibility. Neither is a failure to teach—the doctrine applies only to what is taught. Consequently, the case of Honorius provides no proof against this Catholic dogma. On the contrary, the history of monothelitism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council provides striking evidence of the early Church’s acceptance of the primacy and infallible magisterium of the apostolic see.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Thank You peary. Pope Honorius does not prove anything. If you’all want to win the argument you are going to have to use something else.