Papal Problems...:(

[Goth_Catholic]

Catholics put their faith in a whole lot besides Jesus Christ. Wow! Is that an understatement!

So do the Orthodex but of course you did not mection them.

Ya know what, after reading this I’ve desided something…I want to see the protestants and the Orthodex go at it for once. The protestants reject most of the key belifs of Orthodex, yet it’s always the Catholics they go after and vise versa. It’s just not fair

Oh and vive la silla de san pedro

 

[VARC]

Ya know what, after reading this I’ve desided something…I want to see the protestants and the Orthodex go at it for once. The protestants reject most of the key belifs of Orthodex, yet it’s always the Catholics they go after and vise versa. It’s just not fair

The Catholics broke away from the Orthodox (or vice versa from your perspective) and then the protestants broke from the catholics. They’re the product of your church’s own papal policies. The Roman Church created the monster of speculative dogma and protestantism resulted.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

The Catholics broke away from the Orthodox (or vice versa from your perspective) and then the protestants broke from the catholics. They’re the product of your church’s own papal policies. The Catholic Church created the monster of speculative dogma and protestantism resulted.

You may be right, but why do you Orthodex stand on the side lines while they blasphemize against the things we both belive in, Theotokos, for example?

edit: techiqually, unless you’ve converted and forgot to update your profile it’s “your church” as well.

 

[SiempreFiel]

The Catholics broke away from the Orthodox (or vice versa from your perspective) and then the protestants broke from the catholics. They’re the product of your church’s own papal policies.

Protestantism is not the product of papal policies. Rather, protestantism is the product of disobedience, or, in other words, protestantism is the result of not thinking with the Church (Sentire cum Ecclesia)!

 

[justasking4]

Protestantism is not the product of papal policies. Rather, protestantism is the product of disobedience, or, in other words, protestantism is the result of not thinking with the Church (Sentire cum Ecclesia)!

Was the way Tetzel and the pope of the time using the sale indulgences to finance the building of a church building the “thinking with the Church”?

 

[anthony022071]

He was declared a heretic–and this was confirmed by every council and Pope thereafter. What more do you want. Sheesh! You can spin it any way you wish, but the man was a heretic.

He was declared a heretic – and yet he didn’t teach a heretical doctrine,so his kind of “heresy” does not contradict the infallibility of the popes as it was defined by Vatican 1. What more do you want?

catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html

< As far as the definition of papal infallibility, invoked at the First Vatican Council in 1870, is concerned, it permits a Pope being negligent while on the Papal throne but not, quite obviously, actually pronouncing error from it.

The First Vatican Council taught:

…we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that:

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,

i) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
ii) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
iii) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

(Vatican I, On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, 4:9)

When we compare the above definition of papal infallibility to Honorius’ statement which we cited earlier, we can see quite clearly that the breach of papal infallibility that Honorius has been alleged to cause is quite ridiculous:

“…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.” (2) “Non nos oportet unam aut duas op operationes predicare”]

In sum, not only has papal infallibility not been breached, but there is no concrete proof that Honorius was, himself, even a formal or material heretic. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, even if it must be conceded that Honorius was a negligent Pope. >

 

[justasking4]

He was declared a heretic – and yet he didn’t teach a heretical doctrine,so his kind of “heresy” does not contradict the infallibility of the popes as it was defined by Vatican 1. What more do you want?

catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html

< As far as the definition of papal infallibility, invoked at the First Vatican Council in 1870, is concerned, it permits a Pope being negligent while on the Papal throne but not, quite obviously, actually pronouncing error from it.

The First Vatican Council taught:

…we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that:

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,

i) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
ii) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
iii) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

(Vatican I, On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, 4:9)

When we compare the above definition of papal infallibility to Honorius’ statement which we cited earlier, we can see quite clearly that the breach of papal infallibility that Honorius has been alleged to cause is quite ridiculous:

“…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.” (2) “Non nos oportet unam aut duas op operationes predicare”]

In sum, not only has papal infallibility not been breached, but there is no concrete proof that Honorius was, himself, even a formal or material heretic. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, even if it must be conceded that Honorius was a negligent Pope. >

Honorius was not just a “negligent” pope but declared by later councils to be a heretic.

Secondly, were popes always understood to be infallible throughout church history?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have, and they all point to Rome. Your books must have cut those parts out. You have no idea what I have studied.
Since this has degraded to an elementary school playground argument, I will not bother responding to your misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and outright lies any longer.

Someone is taking there toys and going home.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So do the Orthodex but of course you did not mection them.

Ya know what, after reading this I’ve desided something…I want to see the protestants and the Orthodex go at it for once. The protestants reject most of the key belifs of Orthodex, yet it’s always the Catholics they go after and vise versa. It’s just not fair

Oh and vive la silla de san pedro

Check out above orthodoxchristianity.net and you will see the Protestants give it a go.

Oh and vive la silla de san pedro a antioche.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Protestantism is not the product of papal policies. Rather, protestantism is the product of disobedience, or, in other words, protestantism is the result of not thinking with the Church (Sentire cum Ecclesia)!

funny, that’s how ultramontanism go started.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Protestantism is not the product of papal policies. Rather, protestantism is the product of disobedience, or, in other words, protestantism is the result of not thinking with the Church (Sentire cum Ecclesia)!

funny, that’s how ultramontanism got started.

 

[steve_b]

If a Pope adopts someone else’s existing doctrine then it becomes a new doctrine of the Pope,

Honorius had an agreement with Sergius (which Sergius didn’t honor) that silence on this matter was the best policy. Silence as in not passing something on, is NOT adopting a doctrine by any stretch of the imagination.

Faith:

and once taking the title of Pope he expects that the Church will believe what he says because the Church has already accepted him as their infallible leader.

1. 
   *]Infallibility on faith and morals must take specific steps. It’s not some loose definition or understanding. It’s specific. If those specific steps (I’ve posted them many times already on this thread) aren’t met, then infallibility is not an issue or called into question.
   *]The Church does NOT teach that every utterance from the pope is infallible.

 

[SiempreFiel]

• Infallibility on faith and morals must take specific steps. It’s not some loose definition or understanding. It’s specific. If those specific steps (I’ve posted them many times already on this thread) aren’t met, then infallibility is not an issue or called into question.
• The Church does NOT teach that every utterance from the pope is infallible.

I absolutely hear what you are saying, my brother!

I even created a thread specifically about this whole Honorius issue. In this thread, I’ve given the opportunity to any Orthodox out there to disprove papal infallibility. So far, their “arguments” have been very unconvincing.

My thread: Honorius the Heretic

 

[steve_b]

Mickey:

:
Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Here again are the requirements for a pope to speak infallibly on faith and morals according to the Church.

: by Mickey

Yes.

:
Good. Now we won’t have to revisit this over and over and over again.

:by Mickey

Strange doctrine indeed!

:by steve
For the Orthodox that’s true.

:
steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The requirements for meeting the doctrine weren’t met.

:by Mickey
How convenient.

No, how God’s promise in action.

 

[steve_b]

Was the way Tetzel and the pope of the time using the sale indulgences to finance the building of a church building the “thinking with the Church”?

May I suggest reading about indulgences first before making any attacks

1. 
   *]catholic.com/library/Myth…ndulgences.asp
   *]catholic.com/library/Prim…ndulgences.asp

 

[anthony022071]

Honorius was not just a “negligent” pope but declared by later councils to be a heretic.

But he was not accused of teaching a heretical doctrine – that is the difference.

Secondly, were popes always understood to be infallible throughout church history?

See post 96.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (385 A.D.):

"Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same [Peter] furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith.

St. Theodore the Studite:

"In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Theodoret:

“Wherefore I beseech your sanctity to persuade the very sacred and holy Archbishop Leo to bid me hasten to your council. For that holy see has precedence of all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of false opinions has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled.”
(Ep. 116, to Renatus the presbyter. A.D. 449.)

St. Maximus the Confessor (ca. AD 580-662):

“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.”
(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica [A.D. 650])

 

[cascherman]

There is plenty of evidence that Rome was preeminent and the Church as a whole was to follow the lead of the bishop of Rome. (See the quote from the post above this one for a wow’er by Theodoret)

The thing you will not find is an ex cathedra definition of infallibility or the preeminence of Rome. We all know that Catholics have believed many many things many many years before they were defined infallibly. Why define them then? Because they are in dispute by outsiders and heretics. Once a doctrine is in dispute it needs to be set down in stone by the Church so there is no chance of confusion as to where the Church stands.

Plain and simple, the Churches didn’t question Peter having the seat of preeminence or the teachings of Rome because they made it easy enough to understand (see Clement’s letter to the church in Corinth) without declaring infallibility.

Instead of us showing you more quotes from the ECFs let’s see some reliable quotes declaring equality to Rome and the Pope from other Churches or their bishops.

 

[Paul_the_seaker]

Gee, stupid me! I was under the impression that John in chapter 21, when chrust tells Peter (and only Peter) feed my lambs -sheep was just making clear what Peter’s purpose in the Church was. I find it rather convincing. I’m not a lawyer, canonist or anything - just a nobody, but still it sures like the passage paints Peter in terms of highest authority. Of course, Mt, 16:18 seems pretty clear too. So, I don’t understand what more is needed.

I for Peter. Roma Locuta est, causa finita est.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Honorius had an agreement with Sergius (which Sergius didn’t honor) that silence on this matter was the best policy. Silence as in not passing something on, is NOT adopting a doctrine by any stretch of the imagination.

qui tacit consentit

1. 
   *]Infallibility on faith and morals must take specific steps. It’s not some loose definition or understanding. It’s specific. If those specific steps (I’ve posted them many times already on this thread) aren’t met, then infallibility is not an issue or called into question.

1. 
   and yet we can’t get a straight list of what are those infallible specitic statements.
   

   *]The Church does NOT teach that every utterance from the pope is infallible.

   no, the idea of the ordinary and universal magisterium is thrown inm muddling things to the extent that you might as well say he is infalllible in every utterence, as Lumen Gentium demands the assent of when the pope speaks, even when not ex cathedra.

 

[VARC]

You may be right, but why do you Orthodex stand on the side lines while they blasphemize against the things we both belive in, Theotokos, for example?

Because there is no common basis to argue from. They have been trained by Rome that speculative theology can be elevated to the level of dogma.

For example, nobody in the Early Church believed in indulgences. It was speculated that because Rome had universal jurisdiction over the whole Church (or so the west believed) then it was reasonable that he could apply te merits of the saints of the church to the souls in purgatory (another theological speculation). But however reasonable the idea is it is only a theological opinion. But Rome states that it is a dogma that must be believed to be catholic even though nobody in the Early Church had ever heard of a papal indulgence.

The protestants are just using the papal practice of dogmatizing theological opinion. Since every word in the Bible is inspired by God and the Bible is the only God inspired book then only its words can be trusted as truth because everythng else is subject to human error including the the teachings of the pope. Nevermind the fact that nobody in the Church believed sola sciptura because nobody believed in indulgences either.

This is why Fr Justin Popovich called papism the oldest form of protestantism. The pope takes the Tradition of the Church and changes it and calls those changes “developments”. Protestantism is a generally applied papism to all western christians. One infallible western christian has now become a million.