Papal Problems...:(

[Hesychios]

The abuses of that newer system of church governance in the past (the sale of church offices…including Cardinals hats, and the dispensation to hold multiple Sees concurrently, for example) had a great deal to do with the jadedness and skepticism of many western European Catholics by midway through the second milennium, and eventually helped open the way for the Protestant reformation.

This is ridiculous, polemical and false… and you know it.

No, I don’t.

It’s quite so, I made the statement because I believe that is exactly why the Roman Catholic church lost credibility with it’s own people all over Europe. If they really had the strength of Faith they would not have listened so enthusiastically to the machinations and inventions of the Protestant reformers.

The Roman Catholic church has to accept it’s joint responsibility (along with those misguided Roman Catholic priests who led the Protestant “reform” movement) for the debacle. It’s departure from the original ecclesiology opened the way for organized centralized corruption and abuse of the church, jeopardizing the Faith of the people.

The Medici (but not only the Medici) are a good study in how this is done. Originally bankrollers for the anti-Pope John XXIII (a pirate-turned-priest) in his campaign for recognition by buying favors. They connected with high placed bishops and clergy in the church over generations, eventually buying a Cardinals hat for one young son of the family, and an Abbacy for his cousin.

Both eventually became Pope in turn. The first inspiring a widespread revolt of Protestants with his moneyraising schemes.

Protestantism spread like wildfire across northern and western Europe because people had lost faith in the system. These aforementioned are some of the big reasons why.

Sadly, this was preventable. The earlier ecclesiology of the church did not allow for such a concentration of authority across diocesan lines. Such abuse, on such a grand scale, was not possible in the first milennium.

Someone else in this forum mentioned that the Pope is responsible for the spiritual welfare of everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Even if that were not the case, these people would have much to answer for.

Michael

 

[AgnosTheist]

For those who disagree with the papacy as it currently exists, are there any special privileges/authority you would permit the pope/bishop of Rome?

For me he certainly has all the priviledges of a Pop Star.

 

[flyersfan1088]

I’m kind of at the end of the road here. I’ve searched endlessly for proof that the Pope has all the authority he claims, but I have yet to find it in the Early Church (pre-schism). Most of the claims come post schism and seem to be based on broad statements. The other arguments are mostly from silence…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

This ECF quote is pre-schism and very direct.

St. Optatus of Milevis “The Schism of the Donatists” 367A.D.

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- of all the Apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do other Apostles proceed individually on their own; and anyone who would set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner…I but ask you to recall the origins of your chair, you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of Holy Church.

 

[Harpazo]

No, I don’t.

It’s quite so, I made the statement because I believe that is exactly why the Roman Catholic church lost credibility with it’s own people all over Europe. If they really had the strength of Faith they would not have listened so enthusiastically to the machinations and inventions of the Protestant reformers.

The Roman Catholic church has to accept it’s joint responsibility (along with those misguided Roman Catholic priests who led the Protestant “reform” movement) for the debacle. It’s departure from the original ecclesiology opened the way for organized centralized corruption and abuse of the church, jeopardizing the Faith of the people.

The Medici (but not only the Medici) are a good study in how this is done. Originally bankrollers for the anti-Pope John XXIII (a pirate-turned-priest) in his campaign for recognition by buying favors. They connected with high placed bishops and clergy in the church, buying a Cardinals hat for one yong son, and an Abbacy for his cousin.

Both eventually became Pope in turn. The first inspiring a widespread revolt of Protestants with his moneyraising schemes.

Protestantism spread like wildfire across northern and western Europe because people had lost faith in the system. These aforementioned are some of the big reasons why.

Sadly, this was preventable. The earlier ecclesiology of the church did not allow for such a concentration of authority across diocesan lines. Such abuse, on such a grand scale, was not possible in the first milennium.

Someone else in this forum mentioned that the Pope is responsible for the spiritual welfare of everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Even if that were not the case, these people would have much to answer for.

Michael

Did those Popes ever teach anything contrary to the Deposit of Faith given to them by the Holy Apostles and their successors? The answer is no. They have developed those doctrines and teachings as certain things had called for it, or when there was heresy.

You avoid the other parts of my post. Why is this? Have you heard of the Acacian Schism? You can read about it here

Constantinople allowed themselves several times to be controlled by secular authorities, including backing out on several doctrines to appease heretical groups, and even teaching heresy at points. Please do not prejudge Catholics with this typical rhetoric for the Bishops of the East are just as guilty if not more so.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[anthony022071]

St. Cyprian:

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

John Cassian, Monk (c. AD 430), to Pope Celestine I:

“That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God.”
(Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople:

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):

Writing to Pope Leo III ] Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal ] Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. 43:23/44:23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: ‘And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

 

[Hesychios]

The Eastern Orthodox had a hard time refuting the claims. Why?

Tell us…

The way they understand the faith is different in mindset.

Completely different.

Although we don’t speak the same language, you should know that the Protestant reformation basically stopped at the edges of the Roman Catholic church, and did not generally proceed into the Orthodox communities.

This is most evident in places like Romania, where there was a large population of Roman Catholics as a minority residing well within the country. They were Magyars (Hungarians).

Protestantism did come into Romania…it reached the Magyar communities of Roman Catholics and these became overwhelmingly Protestant. Their Orthodox neighbors remained Orthodox.

The more western in outlook (theologically speaking) an Orthodox becomes, the more vulnerable they are to Protestant ideas. This was a serious concern in those areas where Orthodox lived under Roman Catholic governments. It’s not a good place to be. Roman Catholic theology is at the root of Protestant theology.

It’s like you two groups speak the same language. You might disagree on subjects like Justification (or maybe not, I seem to remember a joint statement with Lutherans recently), but you both know the terms.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Constantinople allowed themselves several times to be controlled by secular authorities,

This was a worldwide problem for the church.

Even Popes were installed by emperors in the past.

It is a great sin to be sure, the whole church, east and west, was crucified by Christian kings.

Michael

 

[1234]

from certain interpretations of a particular bible verse?

cant anyone answer these simple questions? i’d like to know myself.

I am no expert, but a review of “Irenaeus” and “Gnosticism” on Wiki yields the following information:

Only fragments of the original Irenaeus text exist. There is a ‘wooden’, ie. literal, prob. non-idiomatic Latin translation and the 4th and 5th book exist in Armenian. This is the common problem with trying to cite ancient texts. The entire original isn’t available, only later copies are available which have been added to, or are taken out of context.

Irenaeus was writing against the Gnostic heresy which was widespread then. Among other things, it claimed dualism, that one had to somehow acquire secret esoteric knowledge, and that Jesus was not truly flesh.

Irenaeus was arguing against these heresies when he claimed that one should apply to the church in Rome for the real answers. This was the longest established and probably the most authentic source of doctrine at the time, or so Irenaeus thought.

This has nothing to do with infallibility.

Why don’t you ask some priests in the Eastern churches about this? You might find some scholars that can enlighten you.

 

[anthony022071]

Philip at Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431):
“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place…”

St. Peter Chrysologus (449 A.D.):
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope in the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the true faith to those who seek it. For we … cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome.”
(St. Peter Chrysologus, Letters 25:2)

“Just as Peter received his name from the rock, because he was the first to deserve to establish the Church, by reason of his steadfastness of faith, so also Stephen was named from a crown…the first who deserved to bear witness with his blood. Let Peter hold his ancient primacy of the apostolic choir. Let him open to those who enter the kingdom of heaven. Let him bind the guilty with his power and absolve the penitent in kindness.”
Sermo 154, P.L. 52. 608.)

Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681) to Pope St. Agatho:
“Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter [of Agatho’s] was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up.”

 

[Harpazo]

I am no expert, but a review of “Irenaeus” and “Gnosticism” on Wiki yields the following information:

Only fragments of the original Irenaeus text exist. There is a ‘wooden’, ie. literal, prob. non-idiomatic Latin translation and the 4th and 5th book exist in Armenian. This is the common problem with trying to cite ancient texts. The entire original isn’t available, only later copies are available which have been added to, or are taken out of context.

Irenaeus was writing against the Gnostic heresy which was widespread then. Among other things, it claimed dualism, that one had to somehow acquire secret esoteric knowledge, and that Jesus was not truly flesh.

Irenaeus was arguing against these heresies when he claimed that one should apply to the church in Rome for the real answers. This was the longest established and probably the most authentic source of doctrine at the time, or so Irenaeus thought.

This has nothing to do with infallibility.

Why don’t you ask some priests in the Eastern churches about this? You might find some scholars that can enlighten you.

Do you know where I could find the Armenian version of the text? I go to school with a girl who is an ethnic Armenian and speaks it fluently.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[mark_a]

I think it bears repeating that the pope gets infallibility from the Church, not vice-versa.

Conditions that must be met for a papal statement to be infallible

• Must teach or in some way clarify
• Can’t contradict previous teachings
• Must involve faith and morals
• To be held by all
• Statement made of his own free will
• He must invoke the full authority of his office

 

[JMBNH]

The earliest example of Papal Infallibility I can think of is where a Pope in the third century defined that heretical Baptism was valid provided it had been Trinitarian (against the claims of St Cyprian of Carthage, who was actually a big Papacy supporter, and said that being in full communion with the Pope was essential to be part of the Catholic Church, but thought it was a matter of discipline and not doctrine). Later at the Council of Nicea it was defined exactly which groups this would apply to and which the people would need rebaptising on joining the Catholic Church. It is clear that Ecumenical Councils needed ratifying by the Pope, as there were many that were heretical but the Pope refused to ratify (including some Arian ones), and quite often some of the Eastern Patriarchs were ringleaders in heresy whilst the Pope stood firm (some didn’t make a strong enough stance against heresy I’ll admit). Likewise the need for a strong leader can be seen by the way the Eastern Orthodox Church has a lot of political problems and arguments between patriarchs on who owns what, and also the fact that the Macedonian Orthodox Church are blocked from being part of the Church despite being Orthodox in beliefs and practices solely due to the Serbian Orthodox having ambitions over its territory. However, I do agree that outside of these issues it is generally a sound Church and certainly has a stronger claim than any other non-Catholic Church in my opinion

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Protestantism spread like wildfire across northern and western Europe because people had lost faith in the system. These aforementioned are some of the big reasons why.

This is what your accusation is based upon, but it is erroneous and in fact condemns your own position. Protestantism “spread” because different regions offered sanctuary for the heresies as these rulers offering sanctuary wanted to be disconnected from the Church themselves. The English reformation (outlawing and persecuting Catholics) played a key role in allowing Protestantism to survive.

When it comes to doctrinal error, you cant pretend like the East hasnt had its problems, it has, in fact people like St Athanasius had to flee West because it was so bad and corrupt back home.

 

[VARC]

Why would there be? It wasn’t disputed.

That is a classic argument from silence. The canons do speak of the jurisdiction of the pope of Rome. They say that the pope of Alexandria has the same powers of the pope of Rome in his jurisdiction.

Nicea

CANON VI.

LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis are in the jurisdiction of Alexandria just as Rome has jurisdiction over the Italian peninsula and the west. There is no mention whatsoever of universal Roman papal jurisdiction; only regional jurisdiction like the pope of alexandria.

The best Roman Catholics can come up with is isolated quotes from the Fathers that are often taken out of context and contadicted. The highest authority in the pre-schism Catholic Church was an Ecumenical Council. Not the pope of Rome and not individual church Fathers.

So I ask again. Is there any undeniable proof for papal supremacy in the Ecumenical Councils? The answer is no. The idea of a Council necessarily excludes the idea of a supreme infallible bishop with universal immediate jurisdiction. If such an office existed, there would have been no such need for Councils only papal decisions. That is why many catholics believed that Vatican I should have been the last council. They are now obsolete.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That is a classic argument from silence. The canons do speak of the jurisdiction of the pope of Rome. They say that the pope of Alexandria has the same powers of the pope of Rome in his jurisdiction.

Nicea

CANON VI.

LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis are in the jurisdiction of Alexandria just as Rome has jurisdiction over the Italian peninsula and the west. There is no mention whatsoever of universal Roman papal jurisdiction; only regional jurisdiction like the pope of alexandria.

The best Roman Catholics can come up with is isolated quotes from the Fathers that are often taken out of context and contadicted. The highest authority in the pre-schism Catholic Church was an Ecumenical Council. Not the pope of Rome and not individual church Fathers.

So I ask again. Is there any undeniable proof for papal supremacy in the Ecumenical Councils? The answer is no. The idea of a Council necessarily excludes the idea of a supreme infallible bishop with universal immediate jurisdiction. If such an office existed, there would have been no such need for Councils only papal decisions. That is why many catholics believed that Vatican I should have been the last council. They are now obsolete.

Hold on, go back and read the article I gave you that deals directly with this Canon Six issue, it actually supports the Catholic side.

 

[1234]

Do you know where I could find the Armenian version of the text? I go to school with a girl who is an ethnic Armenian and speaks it fluently.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

Oh, brother.

Well, you sound as if you’re of a scholarly turn of mind. If you’re affiliated with a university, you might be able to get scholarly articled through JSTOR, a commercial subscription for same available through universities and colleges. I tried through alum connections, but failed. You can purchase articles too. If you google, Irenaeus" and keep pursuing it, you’re going to run into articles online available only through JSTOR.

This, from Wiki on Irenaeus:

(emphasis mine)

Til recent times whatever other writings and letters of Irenaeus are mentioned by Eusebius appeared to be lost, with the exception of a fragment here or there. ** Till recent times whatever other writings and letters of Irenaeus are mentioned by Eusebius appeared to be lost, with the exception of a fragment here or there. Recently, however, two Armenian scholars, Karapet Ter-Mekerttschian and Erwand Ter-Minassianz, have published from an Armenian translation a German edition (Leipzig, 1907; minor edition 1908) of the work “in proof of the apostolic teaching” mentioned by Eusebius (H.E. v. 26).**

This, from Google Book search:

books.google.com/books?id=UNj89q_8Nu4C&pg=PA340&lpg=PA340&dq=karapet+%22ter+mekerttschian%22&source=web&ots=1m_JPiRH-9&sig=_2_hZjV7hN5y_3AT7XfGvexk9Dg

…refers to the Armenian translation from Paris, 1919

The book is by those two guys above and titled:

"The Proofs of the Apostolic Preaching in Seven Fragments: Armenian Version" POP 12.5 (Paris, 1919).

There is a reference to other books in English which might be helpful.

You could try to acquire these on inter-library loan.

…If you care enough to do this sort of research, you clearly care a great deal about this issue and should research it to your satisfaction before accepting anyone’s say-so about the historical facts of the case.

 

[guanophore]

I’m kind of at the end of the road here. I’ve searched endlessly for proof that the Pope has all the authority he claims,

Please document where the Pope claims any authority.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m kind of at the end of the road here. I’ve searched endlessly for proof that the Pope has all the authority he claims, but I have yet to find it in the Early Church (pre-schism). Most of the claims come post schism and seem to be based on broad statements. The other arguments are mostly from silence…

STM you’re not allowing for the fact that historical reality is not static, but dynamic. Or for he equally important fact that apples are not found in the seeds of apple-trees, but on the trees that grow from the seeds. Which is in part how papal authority has grown.​

For instance, even after the schism, there are Ecumenical Councils. With the declaration of Papal Infallibility, it seems there is no need for councils anymore. On top of that, there is no way of questioning the Pope after such a decision.## How does PI render councils needless ?

Further, there are such declarations like the one which states that only the Pope may canonize saints. On a side note, where does beatification come from?

It’s a back-development from canonisation.​

I would not have such problems if there were evidence of a Pope who spoke an infallible doctrine in the early church, but it seems on the other hand that Popes often made errors.

It is perfectly possible for a Pope to teach infallibly, & to be a heretic later on. There is no contradiction logically, theologically, dogmatically, or historically in this idea. There would be a problem only if a falsehood were to be dogmatically defined. This may be helpful:

• 1. Infallibility is not a permanent endowment, like being a bishop: a bishop is bishop whether he’s drinking a coffee, sleeping, or doing other not-especially-episcopal things, as truly as when offering Mass in his cathedral or ordaining ordinands; it is an occasional grace, given for a particular function. Popes aren’t infallible by virtue of their office as Popes in anything whatever, except when they define a dogma to be believed by all the faithful.
• They aren’t infallible as judges, law-givers, temporal rulers, diplomats, bishops, priests, confessors, Catholics, Christians, pastors, sinners, or as men - they can (& often have) make a complete & total mess of being or doing these things or the acts proper to them. Any notion that Popes are always wise, orthodox, truthful, upright, is rubbish.
• 1. The Pope is infallible in repeating a dogma, as may happen at a council: but this infallibility has its source in the infallibility of the dogma, not in the grace given to define something to be a dogma. The two must not be confused.
• 1. As a believer, he has the same “passive infallibility” that comes from believing what is true as any other Christian.
• Other details about the exercise of PI or its conditions fall under one of the preceding

Lastly, where was the Pope at so many of the Ecumenical Councils? Even more importantly, where was his sticker of approval? It seems that the only binding authority for a council was the decision of the bishops as a whole. Where has that gone?

In some cases, present by his legates, as at Nicea I, in the persons of the priests Vitus & Vincent, who were given precedence over all the Fathers there but Ossius of Cordova. Roman priests do not have precedence over bishops from Britain & Armenia - they are priests, not bishops; yet they took precedence. As Ossius was President, they are listed next after him.​

Other Councils have received subsequent recognition,in whole or in part. Constantinople I was originally purely local - later, it was received as Ecumenical; as (at Rome) were parts of the Quini-Sext Council of 691. The doctrine of Orange II was given ecumenical weight at Rome, though it too was a local council. Canon 28 of Chalcedon was not ratified by Rome until 1215: unlike its Christology, which was accepted by Rome & much of the East.

In summary, here are my questions again:

1. Where is the proof for Papal Infallibility?

Dogmas can’t be proved - we wouldn’t need faith if we could prove them. There is evidence, for this & others - but, it is so tangled, that people can look at the same facts & connections between them, & come to different conclusions.​

1. Where and when did a Pope speak ex cathedra?
2. What statements in the early Church were ex cathedra and which were not?
3. Why did the Pope seemingly reserve the authority to declare saints to himself when it was traditionally left to synods?
4. Where was the Pope during the first Ecumenical Councils and where was his approval?

See above ​

Thank you for all your help!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[VARC]

Ask a dozen catholics which teachings of the pope are infallible and you’ll get a dozen different lists. What good is infallibility if nobody can infallibly discern which teachings are infallible?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ask a dozen catholics which teachings of the pope are infallible and you’ll get a dozen different lists. What good is infallibility if nobody can infallibly discern which teachings are infallible?

Thats a bogus argument because even if something isnt infallible often the issues that are being debated require a high level of assent to anyway.

Anyway, I could turn this around on you just as easily, but with greater problems for your side. I can ask what the “Orthodox” believe on any number of issues and get radically different answers (eg do Catholics have valid sacraments, does ‘original sin’ entail the lack of sanctifying grace in man, is the concept of purgatory true, how/when/why for divorce, when is an orthodox council binding on all, what is the authority/status of the Bishop of Rome, etc).

p.s. have you read that powerful article on Canon Six yet? You wont be disappointed.