Papal Problems...:(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hesychios said:
One may present all types of quotes of the Fathers supporting some type of primacy of the See at Rome, but the theory of the Bishop of Rome having a monopoly on this charism of the church is very modern, and quite different from anything people knew of for many centuries.
Click to expand...
Indeed! šŸ‘
40.png
Hesychios:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter." Matt 23:13 NAB

May the Lord have mercy on us all.
St. Paul ā€¦ says, ā€¦ ā€˜By judging another you condemn yourselfā€™ (Rom.** 2:1). But men have given up weeping for their own sins** and have taken judgment away from the Son. They themselves judge and condemn one another as if they were sinless.
St. Maximos the Confessor (Third Century on Love no. 54)
 
Alexius said:
If Honorius was a heretic, then that means Rome did not recognize the council since its Pope was an apostateā€¦Peter could not speak from the chair and declare the council because it condemned him, right?
Click to expand...
Add to my above question this question: If the Pope is required to declare a council as being correct, is that an ex cathedra teaching? If so, then can the legates relay an ex cathedra statement since many Popes were not present at the councils? I was under the impression that the Pope must speak it, but can it also be under writing? Does this question make sense?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Alexius said:
If Honorius was a heretic, then that means Rome did not recognize the council since its Pope was an apostateā€¦Peter could not speak from the chair and declare the council because it condemned him, right?
Click to expand...
Honorius was dead when the council anathematized him.
Pope Agatho ratified the decisions of the council.
Honorius was not accused of teaching a heretical doctrine,so his case does not undermine the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican 1.
 
Mickey said:
LOL. Look at the twisting that apologists must go through in an attempt to explain this away!

The council speaks for itself. He was condemned as a heretic!
Click to expand...
Itā€™s easy to explain: Honorius didnā€™t teach a heretical doctrine,so his case does not contradict the doctrine of infallibility.
 
To add to what Anthony just said, being a heretic and an apostate isnā€™t the same thing, Alexius.

Heretics are Christians who believe incorrect doctrine (heterodoxy).

Apostates are ex-Christians who have abandoned Christianity. Like Emperor Julian the Apostate, for example.

These are all precise terms that need not be confused.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Weā€™ve dealt with this before. Optatus canā€™t even get the list of Popes, whom he says is of utmost importance to recognize, right.
newadvent.org/cathen/11262b.htm
Click to expand...
Whatā€™s the excuse going to be for ignoring the dozens of other ECF quotes supporting infallibility? Time after time, in thread after thread, the ECF quotes are put before the EO. Time after time, in thread after thread, they are danced around, twisted, or ignored. Please show me the one ECF quote that condemns Rome for trying to position itself as head. My charity is on thin ice after reading through this thread (not from your post, but others) Iā€™ve gotten to the point where I couldnā€™t possibly care any less about the long cut and paste jobs on this topic. We donā€™t need to disect everything to a microscopic level. It doesnā€™t matter.
What DOES matter to me is the fact that the ECF speak clearly of the primacy of Rome(and donā€™t give me any of that ā€œprimacy of honorā€ baloney. Primacy is primacy. Period.) Nowhere do the ECF condemn Rome. Seems pretty simple.
 
My point is this. It keeps being said that papal infallibility is an innovation of 1870. The ECF quotes prove otherwise. Whether or not you agree with the particular quotes, or God forbid you actually find the proof you require in them, it still shows the idea was around long before 1870. So this particular claim of the EO needs to STOP.
 
I dont have a problem with the Pope authority and infallibility.
why do you have a problem with this?
 
flyersfan1088 said:
Whatā€™s the excuse going to be for ignoring the dozens of other ECF quotes supporting infallibility? Time after time, in thread after thread, the ECF quotes are put before the EO. Time after time, in thread after thread, they are danced around, twisted, or ignored. Please show me the one ECF quote that condemns Rome for trying to position itself as head. My charity is on thin ice after reading through this thread (not from your post, but others) Iā€™ve gotten to the point where I couldnā€™t possibly care any less about the long cut and paste jobs on this topic. We donā€™t need to disect everything to a microscopic level. It doesnā€™t matter.
What DOES matter to me is the fact that the ECF speak clearly of the primacy of Rome(and donā€™t give me any of that ā€œprimacy of honorā€ baloney. Primacy is primacy. Period.) Nowhere do the ECF condemn Rome. Seems pretty simple.
Click to expand...
It can be more simple yet. Just put all your faith in Jesus Christ. The various churches change all the time, but Christ never changes. Itā€™s pretty simple and I really honestly believe that Jesus made it that way so all people could get it. Yaā€™all pick nits and discuss such fine points of theology and politics and church dogma and doctrine but you spend all this time without Christ.

Keep it simple. Itā€™s all about Jesus, all the time.
 
flyersfan1088 said:
Originally Posted by Namesake
It can be more simple yet. Just put all your faith in Jesus Christ.

flyersfan
I wholeheartedly agree! Thatā€™s why I belong to the church that he instituted.
Click to expand...
When it comes to the papacy its not that simple. Roman Catholics must put some faith in their popes and if you look at he history of the popes there are some serious problems with many of them.
 
justasking4 said:
When it comes to the papacy its not that simple. Roman Catholics must put some faith in their popes and if you look at he history of the popes there are some serious problems with many of them.
Click to expand...
Catholics put their faith in a whole lot besides Jesus Christ. Wow! Is that an understatement!
 
justasking4 said:
When it comes to the papacy its not that simple. Roman Catholics must put some faith in their popes and if you look at he history of the popes there are some serious problems with many of them.
Click to expand...
Why do you throw stones at the vicar of Christ, are you without sins?
 
justasking4 said:
When it comes to the papacy its not that simple. Roman Catholics must put some faith in their popes and if you look at he history of the popes there are some serious problems with many of them.
Click to expand...
All people put faith in many things, including non-Catholics. People send their children off to school with faith that they will return safely. They go off to work with faith that their spouse will be waiting for them at home. They board planes with faith that the plane will land at the right airport in good condition. They send in their tax money to their city or state with faith that the roads will be plowed and the garbage will be picked up.

And Catholics do not put faith in the Pope as a man, but rather in the office of the Pope. And this faith in that office is rooted in Jesus Christ and his promise that ā€œupon this Rock I will build my Church.ā€ The fact of the matter is, however, that we have been blessed with very many holy Popes, who have not only taught the Truth, but also have lived well His commands.
 
Rocky said:
All people put faith in many things, including non-Catholics. People send their children off to school with faith that they will return safely. They go off to work with faith that their spouse will be waiting for them at home. They board planes with faith that the plane will land at the right airport in good condition. They send in their tax money to their city or state with faith that the roads will be plowed and the garbage will be picked up.

And Catholics do not put faith in the Pope as a man, but rather in the office of the Pope. And this faith in that office is rooted in Jesus Christ and his promise that ā€œupon this Rock I will build my Church.ā€ The fact of the matter is, however, that we have been blessed with very many holy Popes, who have not only taught the Truth, but also have lived well His commands.
Click to expand...
ask them a question and they will say i got to ask the pastor about that.
 
Rocky said:
Originally Posted by justasking4
When it comes to the papacy its not that simple. Roman Catholics must put some faith in their popes and if you look at he history of the popes there are some serious problems with many of them.

Rocky
All people put faith in many things, including non-Catholics. People send their children off to school with faith that they will return safely. They go off to work with faith that their spouse will be waiting for them at home. They board planes with faith that the plane will land at the right airport in good condition. They send in their tax money to their city or state with faith that the roads will be plowed and the garbage will be picked up.

And Catholics do not put faith in the Pope as a man, but rather in the office of the Pope. And this faith in that office is rooted in Jesus Christ and his promise that ā€œupon this Rock I will build my Church.ā€ The fact of the matter is, however, that we have been blessed with very many holy Popes, who have not only taught the Truth, but also have lived well His commands.
Click to expand...
Do we agree that in the history of the popes there have been some very serious problems with some of the popes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top