Papal Problems...:(

[Goth_Catholic]

So you don’t defend Mary because it’s Rome’s fault that there are protestants challenging Mary in the first place… Thank you for reminding me why I’m not Orthodex.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

I must admit, I knew very little about these other Popes aside from the heretic Honorius. I have found the source that I had pasted from and it claims to be traditional Roman Catholic–so I suppose it could be SSPX or protestant.

I must say I have learned much, and though I am personally not prepared to call these men heretics, there seems to be many unresolved issues depending on which glasses you wear. Nevertheless, since I am Orthodox you have immediately concluded that all my sources have originated from evil polemic Orthodox teachings.

But when all is said and done, the heretic Honorius disproves the possibility of the innovative doctrine of papal infallibilty/supremacy–a doctrine that was not known in the undivided Church.

You are well-learned for a young man–much more learned than myself. When time permits, I attempt to read everything I can about early Church history–but I do not retain much. When all is said and done, it is my heart that shows me the fulness of truth and beauty of Holy Orthodoxy.

Thank you for your understanding and humility.

I will address the issue of Honorius in a new thread in the Apologetics forum.

I just want to respond to this particular portion of your post:

Nevertheless, since I am Orthodox you have immediately concluded that all my sources have originated from evil polemic Orthodox teachings.

As I pointed out in another post, the reason I have created this entity called EOPU is because I am not at all comfortable with assigning you or brother Isa any personal blame for the misrepresentations that I have encountered coming from your pens (or fingers, rather). But there is another reason I use EOPU as my whipping boy, so to speak. It is because I am equally uncomfotable assigning any blame on the Eastern Orthodox Church ITSELF for these lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations…

I do not regard these anti-Catholic things we have been discussing as “evil polemic Orthodox teachings.” I regard them merely as evil polemic misrepresentations by whomsoever.

Any lies, half-truths and misrepresentations that we encounter (be it from EOPU, or RCPU - brother Isa’s own version ) comes from the devil. We need to refute and reject whatever he throws at us that can be a cause for disunity, for that is what he wants. Agreed? I truly believe that if we search for the Truth in all matters (whether it be historical, scientific, or theological), we will fulfill Christ’s prayer for unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SiempreFiel]

So you don’t defend Mary because it’s Rome’s fault that there are protestants challenging Mary in the first place… Thank you for reminding me why I’m not Orthodex.

My brother/sister?

You have to realize that there are many Orthodox that are constantly insisting on creating a religious polarity between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. One thing that you will inevitably --and sadly–find to be true through your acquaintance with Orthodoxy, is that they seem to always feel the need to define themselves through the Catholic Church. This kind of attitude leads to the obscuration of our common ancestry and ultimately, it leads to more division.

For a prime example of what I mean by Orthodoxy defining themselves through Catholicism, check out this article written by a Russian Orthodox priest.

A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov

 

[mardukm]

Der brother Mickey,

I try to read many different sources. It surely does seem that the verdict is still undecided (at best) on Liberius.
Historians and critics have been much divided as to the guilt of Liberius. Stilting and Zaccaria are the best known among the earlier defenders; in the nineteenth century, Palma, Reinerding, Hergenröther, Jungmann, Grisar, Feis, and recently Savio. These have been inclined to doubt the authenticity of the testimonies of St. Athanasius and St. Jerome to the fall of Liberius, but their arguments, though serious, hardly amount to a real probability against these texts. On the other hand, Protestant and Gallican writers have been severe on Liberius (e.g. Moeller, Barmby, the Old-Catholic Langen, and Döllinger), but they have not pretended to decide with certainty what Arian formula he signed. With these Renouf may be grouped, and lately Schiktanz. A more moderate view is represented by Hefele who denied the authenticity of the letters, but admitted the truth of Sozomen’s story, looking upon the union of the pope with the Semi-Arians as a deplorable mistake, but not a lapse into heresy. He is followed by Funk and Duchesne (1907), while the Protestant Krüger is altogether undecided.
newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

Whatever else be the case regarding Pope St. Liberius’ fall - i.e., whether Jerome and Athanasius’ letters on his fall are real or not; whether the Pope truly backslid or only used a ruse to be able to return to his See), It is a fact that: 1) Pope St. Liberius repudiated whatever he was forced to sign when he returned to Rome; 2) No one doubts the authenticity or authorship of Athanasius’ History of the Arians, wherein he actually defends St. Liberius against calumny…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexius]

Papal supremacy is justified by papal infallibility. If the pope isn’t infallible in his teaching on faith and morals,and yet he is the supreme bishop,then he doesn’t have any more authority from Christ than any other bishop.

See posts 81,82,96,and 111.

When I say he is supreme, I mean he has a place as prince over the other bishops. I see this as separate from infallibility. He has one vote in the councils and presides as the maintainer of them, but he does not have a separate infallibility as such. It is this one dogma that twists my heart so tight…

 

[Roy5]

POPE: EMPEROR ADULATION CONTINUED?

 Many years ago, when still a young student, I attended a 'papal audience' in St, Peter's. There were thousands present.

  The Swiss Guards carrried the Pontiff high and lifted up and the crowds shouted "Viva le Papa!" in wild adulation.

  I couldn't help but think: "Hm! This looks a lot like a continuation of the worship of the old Roman emperor back in the time of that great empire!" In those days the emperor was carried around like that and the populace yelled "Viva le Papa!"

  Sadly, I've never been able to jettison that view after all these years of trying. The Popes have been great, good, bad, very bad  or somewhere in between, but I can't regard them as Vicars of Christ. To have a president of the church - fine. But to have to believe in his infallibility in matters of faith and morality? Sorry, I can't go there.

 

[VARC]

So you don’t defend Mary because it’s Rome’s fault that there are protestants challenging Mary in the first place… Thank you for reminding me why I’m not Orthodex.

There is really not a whole lot to say to protestants other than their entire speculative theological method is foreign to the Church of the Fathers. But then again, they got that method from Rome so I see them as Rome’s wayward children. Instead of bickering with them I’ll take issue with those who created them.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

There was no entity called the “Orthodox Church” for the Catholic Church to break away from. The Church was always known as “Catholic”. It was the faith of the Catholic Church that was called “orthodox”,and the church of Rome was known even in the East as the keeper of the orthodox faith.

Dogma is the beliefs and doctrines of the Church,which were there from the earliest times. Theologians speculate upon these doctrines so as to better and more fully understand them. From the writings of theologians the councils and popes define the doctrines of the Church. This is called “development of doctrine”.

Speculative theology was not peculiar to the Roman Church.
Just read Basil and Gregory Nazianzus and John Chrysostom in their writings about the Trinity.

 

[VARC]

There was no entity called the “Orthodox Church” for the Catholic Church to break away from. The Church was always known as “Catholic”.

The Church wasn’t always known as Catholic. She received that title in the early 2nd century. No one in the Bible or the 1st century writings referred to the “Catholic” Church. In the East, the Church was called Orthodox centuries before the schism to distinguish it from the heretics.

New Advent Catholic eneclopedia

How “Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East.
newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm

It was the faith of the Catholic Church that was called “orthodox”,and the church of Rome was known even in the East as the keeper of the orthodox faith.

Just because Rome was reknown for her orthodoxy it does not follw that Rome will always remain orthodox.

Dogma is the beliefs and doctrines of the Church,which were there from the earliest times. Theologians speculate upon these doctrines so as to better and more fully understand them. From the writings of theologians the councils and popes define the doctrines of the Church. This is called “development of doctrine”.

Development of doctrine adds speculation to the Faith of the Fathers and then excommunicates those who disagree with the speculation. The absurd result is that a Christian can be orthodox one day and a heretic the next for NOT changing his faith (think Old Roman Catholic).

Speculative theology was not peculiar to the Roman Church.
Just read Basil and Gregory Nazianzus and John Chrysostom in their writings about the Trinity.

No saint in the Early Church demanded assent to anything but Apostolic Tradition under pain of excommunication. Even if some saint speculated about something he was not so arrogant to demand that his opinion be dogmatized

 

[anthony022071]

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.

There has been speculative theology since the time of St. Justin or before,and speculative theology has been used to define doctrine since the Council of Nicaea.

For example, nobody in the Early Church believed in indulgences.

Yes they did.

2 Corinthians 2,10:
“For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ”

St. Cyprian (Ep. xiii, P.L., IV, 261):
"Those who have received a libellus from the martyrs and with their help can, before the Lord, get relief in their sins, let such, if they be ill and in danger, after confession and the imposition of your hands, depart unto the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs. "

St. Cyprian (“The Lapsed”,251 A.D.): “The Lord alone is able to have mercy. He alone, who bore our sins, who grieved for us, and whom God delivered up for our sins, is able to grant pardon for the sins which have been committed against Him…Certainly we believe that the merits of the martyrs and the works of the just will be of great avail with the Judge - but that will be when the day of judgment comes, when, after the end of this age and of the world, His people shall stand before the tribunal of Christ.”

St. Ambrose of Milan, “Penance” (C. 387-390 A.D.): “For he is purged as if by certain works of the whole people, and is washed in the tears of the multitude; by the prayers and tears of the multitude he is redeemed from sin, and is cleansed in the inner man. For Christ granted to His Church that one should be redeemed through all, just as His Church was found worthy of the coming of the Lord Jesus so that all might be redeemed through one.”

St. Augustine of Hippo (“Homilies on the Gospel of John” 416, 417 A. D.): “…man is obliged to suffer, even when his sins are forgiven,…for the penalty is of longer duration than the guilt, lest the guilt should be accounted small, were the penalty also to end with it. It is for this reason…that man is held in this life to the penalty, even when he is no longer held to the guilt unto eternal damnation.”

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.

Tertullian:
“A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

St Cyprian:
“It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord” (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).

Cyril of Jerusalem:

“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out” (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory of Nyssa:

“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).

 

[VARC]

There has been speculative theology since the time of St. Justin or before,and speculative theology has been used to define doctrine since the Council of Nicaea.

And what exactly did Nicea speculate about? I hope you are not referring to the Trinity dogma as speculation. And none of your cut and paste quotes describes the catholic concept of indulgences which is that the Roman bishop has the power to assign the merits of others to satisfy sins. They only speak of christian intercession for the dead not papal power to assign merit.

 

[Mickey]

his kind of “heresy” does not contradict the infallibility of the popes as it was defined by Vatican 1.

Yes. I know about the innovations of Vatican I.

The First Vatican Council taught:

Vatican I taught things that the early Church could never have dreamed of!

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:

So in the case of the sixth Ecumenical council, an infallible council has condemned an infallible pope.

there is no concrete proof that Honorius was, himself, even a formal or material heretic.

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

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Mickey]

This is called “development of doctrine”.

Innovation is more accurate.

 

[steve_b]

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,

The Church does not agree, nor teach that.

Isa:

as Lumen Gentium demands the assent of when the pope speaks, even when not ex cathedra.

I think you’re referring to this section (emphasis mine)

:

1. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
   Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
   And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
   vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Some of your main attacks revolve around

• every utterence is infallible
• or if this is not true then no one knows when he speaks infallibly or not because it’s so clouded with vagueries
  Using the document you refer to, you can see

Infallibility is NOT every utterence but

1. • based on Faith and morals only
   • must be a judgement by the pope or with the bishops in union with him also
   • The steps required to make a teaching infallible must be followed. Those steps have already been mentioned many times on this thread.
     The character of the documents, frequent repetition of the same doctrine, manner of speaking, removes vagueries you seem to think surrounds infallibility.
   I provide the link just in case you want to refer to it for particulars and context…

 

[VARC]

Some of your main attacks revolve around

• every utterence is infallible
• or if this is not true then no one knows when he speaks infallibly or not because it’s so clouded with vagueries

I vote for the latter. I’ve seen entire threads where catholics bicker back and forth about which teachings are infallible because the universal and ordinary teaching of Rome changes from time to time and catholics argue whether or not this or that document is ex cathedra. So without any way of telling which teachings are infallible and which aren’t, the whole infallibility doctrine amounts to nothing.

So is there any catholic that wants to take a shot at making the ever elusive “infallible teachings list” ?

 

[SiempreFiel]

I vote for the latter. I’ve seen entire threads where catholics bicker back and forth about which teachings are infallible because the universal and ordinary teaching of Rome changes from time to time and catholics argue whether or not this or that document is ex cathedra.

There’s nothing sinful or wrong about discussing which teachings are infallible and which ones are not. The Catholic Church does not condemn people for engaging in such discussions.

So without any way of telling which teachings are infallible and which aren’t, the whole infallibility doctrine amounts to nothing.

The usefulness or validity of the doctrine of infallibility is independent of what some Catholics might believe. Similarly, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is independent of what some Catholics, Orthodox, or Anglicans might believe.

So is there any catholic that wants to take a shot at making the ever elusive “infallible teachings list” ?

If there is ever the need and if it is expedient to some day infallibly declare which doctrines are infallible and which ones are not, the pope of Rome has the power to do it. This is not a problem for us!

 

[VARC]

If there is ever the need and if it is expedient to some day infallibly declare which doctrines are infallible and which ones are not, the pope of Rome has the power to do it. This is not a problem for us!

Well, don’t you think there is an expedient need to tell the noncatholics of the worlds which doctrines are infallibly true so they know what they must convert to?

Anybody else want to try to tell all the noncatholics on this forum which doctrines must be believed because they are infallibly true? Or do you all want to be like SiempreFie and tell us why it is not expedient for us to know which doctrines Rome teaches with her highest authority

 

[SiempreFiel]

Well, don’t you think there is an expedient need to tell the noncatholics of the worlds which doctrines are infallibly true so they know what they must convert to?

No, I don’t think that there is a need to do such thing since all Catholics have to assent to all the teachings of the Catholic Church, not only the ex cathedra. Furthermore, it does not follow that because some teachings have not been solemnly defined, that they are false. In other words, there are some teachings that while not definitively proposed, they are presented as true or sure.

Anybody else want to try to tell all the noncatholics on this forum which doctrines must be believed because they are infallibly true? Or do you all want to be like SiempreFie and tell us why it is not expedient for us to know which doctrines Rome teaches with her highest authority

All teachings have to be followed, even if they have not been solemnly defined. The teachings that have not been solemnly defined, are not to be thought of as false.

 

[VARC]

No, I don’t think that there is a need to do such thing since all Catholics have to assent to all the teachings of the Catholic Church, not only the ex cathedra. Furthermore, it does not follow that because some teachings have not been solemnly defined, that they are false. In other words, there are some teachings that while not definitively proposed, they are presented as true or sure.

All teachings have to be followed, even if they have not been solemnly defined. The teachings that have not been solemnly defined, are not to be thought of as false.

Okay, I see you’re dancing around this. Fine, let’s tango

All teachings have to be followed? So is Rome saying that all teachings require the same assent of faith? You know Rome does not claim that. So what teachings does Rome say are infallibly true as opposed to probably true (such as limbo for centuries before last year)? Do you not know? Do not have a right to know which doctrines the church of God proclaims as true with her highest authority?

 

[SiempreFiel]

All teachings have to be followed?

Correct.

So is Rome saying that all teachings require the same assent of faith?

No.

Teachings that are divinely revealed or that have been definitively pronounced require the assent of faith.

The teachings that have not been divinely revealed or that have not been definitively pronounced require religious assent.

You know Rome does not claim that.

The Roman Church teaches that:

• Teachings that are divinely revealed or that have been definitively pronounced require the assent of faith.
• The teachings that have not been divinely revealed or that have not been definitively pronounced require religious assent.