Papal Problems...:(

[anthony022071]

We still don’t have an answer which Peter, at Antioch or at Rome, St. Ephraim would be talking about (who he recognized in his lifetime as patriarch of Antioch would tell us perhaps, as it would show his side in the Meletian schism).

He was just talking about Peter. He said that the heretics would never prevail against the Rock upon which the Church was built. But heretics did prevail over the See of Antioch at times,but not over the See of Rome. He also said that all subtle questions of the faith are found in Peter. The Eastern clergy didn’t look to Antioch as the final teaching authority over the whole Church,but to Rome. The popes of Rome were sometimes referred to as “Peter”,and their teaching authority was equated with Peter,as at the Council of Chalcedon.

Note, Christ had not abandoned New Rome, although Iconoclasm was official policy.

According to Theodore,it was because of assistance from Rome.

Is this the same Theodoret condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

Yes. At least he was orthodox enough to acknowledge the primacy and permanent orthodoxy of Rome.

Did Honorius shut up and lock every heretical mouth?

Maximos was referring to the Church of Rome,not to individual popes.

Ignatius,Letter to the Romans:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.”*

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello. I’m black.

We still don’t have an answer which Peter, at Antioch or at Rome, St. Ephraim would be talking about (who he recognized in his lifetime as patriarch of Antioch would tell us perhaps, as it would show his side in the Meletian schism).

He was just talking about Peter. He said that the heretics would never prevail against the Rock upon which the Church was built. But heretics did prevail over the See of Antioch at times,but not over the See of Rome.

They did in 1014. At the very least.

Btw, in Ephraim’s time, no heresy had prevailed at Antioch. She did fall to Montheletism (hence the Maronites), but so did Rome.

He also said that all subtle questions of the faith are found in Peter. The Eastern clergy didn’t look to Antioch as the final teaching authority over the whole Church,but to Rome.

 

[Alexius]

So far, this is how I see the Pope:

I see him as the Prince of the other Bishops (like the elder brother) and perhaps supreme in terms of guiding them and maintaining unity. I can see him as a necessary function to govern Ecumenical Councils (though he rarely attended personally). Futhermore, I can possibly see how he is supreme in decisions as acting appelate, yet jurisdictional primacy is more sketchy (I can possibly recognize this). What I still fail to see is a separate Infallibility granted to his office. I do not see him as at any time being granted authority to act over an Ecumenical Council or in its sted in matters pertaining to the Church catholic (other than jurisdictional issues and hierarchical schisms when called upon). After reading more about Vatican I and the Pope’s actions within this council, I find myself drifting further from this doctrine. It seems that this doctrine had a greater amount of animosity than most (I know that is not enough to dismiss it outright), but that desenters were given little room to speak their objections and others to express their views. The minority of Easterners had little say as well and perhaps their views were the more pertinent. Among the earlier teachers, I find that the earliest clearly pro-Papal Infallibility writing comes from the 1300’s, a time when Rome was very much alone. From the time of many of the reunions to Vatican I, the few who proposed such a doctrine were a couple monastic groups. I see not one word from the Easterners in union with Rome–they seem to hold to a more pre-Schism conception of the Papacy.
I am by no means finished with this investigation, but I am feeling just as uneasy as when I started…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

PS. For those of you who may claim I am reading anti-Catholic articles about Vatican I, I am reading both scholarly objections and pro-Vatican I articles

 

[SiempreFiel]

So far, this is how I see the Pope:

I see him as the Prince of the other Bishops (like the elder brother) and perhaps supreme in terms of guiding them and maintaining unity. I can see him as a necessary function to govern Ecumenical Councils (though he rarely attended personally). Futhermore, I can possibly see how he is supreme in decisions as acting appelate, yet jurisdictional primacy is more sketchy (I can possibly recognize this). What I still fail to see is a separate Infallibility granted to his office. I do not see him as at any time being granted authority to act over an Ecumenical Council or in its sted in matters pertaining to the Church catholic (other than jurisdictional issues and hierarchical schisms when called upon). After reading more about Vatican I and the Pope’s actions within this council, I find myself drifting further from this doctrine. It seems that this doctrine had a greater amount of animosity than most (I know that is not enough to dismiss it outright), but that desenters were given little room to speak their objections and others to express their views. The minority of Easterners had little say as well and perhaps their views were the more pertinent. Among the earlier teachers, I find that the earliest clearly pro-Papal Infallibility writing comes from the 1300’s, a time when Rome was very much alone. From the time of many of the reunions to Vatican I, the few who proposed such a doctrine were a couple monastic groups. I see not one word from the Easterners in union with Rome–they seem to hold to a more pre-Schism conception of the Papacy.
I am by no means finished with this investigation, but I am feeling just as uneasy as when I started…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

PS. For those of you who may claim I am reading anti-Catholic articles about Vatican I, I am reading both scholarly objections and pro-Vatican I articles

Alexius,

Have you read brother mardukm’s positive proof for papal infallibility? If no, then you can read it here.

Don’t forget to tell us what you think.

 

[Mickey]

After reading more about Vatican I and the Pope’s actions within this council, I find myself drifting further from this doctrine.

Amen Alexius. I am beginning an in depth study of the First Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX. I have just skimmed the surface but already it is utterly eye opening. Infallibility/supremacy is a doctrine that truly should never have been created.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Amen Alexius. I am beginning an in depth study of the First Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX. I have just skimmed the surface but already it is utterly eye opening. Infallibility/supremacy is a doctrine that truly should never have been created.

Begining a study on Vatican I with a precinceved notion about how in error it was is, as likely as not, going to turn out to be remarkably self-fulfilling… If having “skimmed the surface” you are already determined that it is in error, one wonders how that will color the reading.

Alexius have you read Jesus, Peter & the Keys?

 

[po18guy]

Alexius, you are proceeding from a very flawed understanding of the Pope’s role and authority. The magisterial authority of the Church is held by the College of Bishops with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) at its head. The ecumenical councils are the full exercise of that shared magisterial authority.

Paul

Indeed! All of the “non-Papists” are asking for Christ’s church to be leaderless, as is observed in Protestantism. All of the disageement cannot be pleasing to God, neither can it maintain unity and discipline in the face of unprecedented opposition to Christ.

Look at it this way: At your workplace, there is likely a “mission statement” posted somewhere. Now, is it procedure for employees to simply read it and do what each thinks best, or is there a supervisor to keep everyone on track? Which is more likely to ensure the accomplishment of the mission?

Christ’s peace.

 

[Mickey]

Begining a study on Vatican I with a precinceved notion about how in error it was is, as likely as not, going to turn out to be remarkably self-fulfilling.

What does “precinceved” mean?

 

[Mickey]

If having “skimmed the surface” you are already determined that it is in error, one wonders how that will color the reading.

I understand your frustration. Papal infallibility seems to be a very difficult doctrine to defend. But I will continue my research–colored reading and all.

 

[East_and_West]

I understand your frustration. Papal infallibility seems to be a very difficult doctrine to defend. But I will continue my research–colored reading and all.

Nonsense. Not difficult to defend at all my brother. You just think it is.

 

[Mickey]

Nonsense. Not difficult to defend at all my brother.

That is only because you are a great theologian!

 

[East_and_West]

That is only because you are a great theologian!

 

[Hesychios]

Indeed! All of the “non-Papists” are asking for Christ’s church to be leaderless, as is observed in Protestantism. Christ’s peace.

Holy Orthodoxy is not leaderless. Never has been - never will be.

We would only hope and pray that the Latin Catholic church return to it’s roots in Holy Orthodoxy. This is like wishing a great blessing upon you all, out of sincere love.

Michael

 

[East_and_West]

We would only hope and pray that the Latin Catholic church return to it’s roots in Holy Orthodoxy. This is like wishing a great blessing upon you all, out of sincere love.

Michael

Michael buddy, you know I think you are great but statements like this give me cramps!!! Its sorta like drive by posting. You state something as if its a dogmatic truth, but it falls on deaf ears because a. The Catholic Church is orthodoxy, so telling us to return to orthodox has no meanig. and b. What you have said about the EO Church has yet to be established.

 

[Hesychios]

Michael buddy, you know I think you are great but statements like this give me cramps!!! Its sorta like drive by posting. You state something as if its a dogmatic truth, but it falls on deaf ears because a. The Catholic Church is orthodoxy, so telling us to return to orthodox has no meanig. and b. What you have said about the EO Church has yet to be established.

Oh.

Sorry.

You better take something for those cramps.

 

[East_and_West]

Oh.

Sorry.

You better take something for those cramps.

Well, if you are gonna cause the cramps, at least provide the pepto.

 

[steve_b]

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

Friend,

let’s look at the definition of doctrine

Main Entry: doc·trine merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif 1archaic : teaching, instruction2 a**:** something that is taught b**:** a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c**:** a principle of law established through past decisions d**:** a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e**:** a military principle or set of strategies

Doctrines aren’t something kept to a pope and not taught.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Alexius,

Have you read brother mardukm’s positive proof for papal infallibility? If no, then you can read it here.

Don’t forget to tell us what you think.

I already have.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Indeed! All of the “non-Papists” are asking for Christ’s church to be leaderless, as is observed in Protestantism. All of the disageement cannot be pleasing to God, neither can it maintain unity and discipline in the face of unprecedented opposition to Christ.

Look at it this way: At your workplace, there is likely a “mission statement” posted somewhere. Now, is it procedure for employees to simply read it and do what each thinks best, or is there a supervisor to keep everyone on track? Which is more likely to ensure the accomplishment of the mission?

Christ’s peace.

Yet somehow we have managed all these 2000 years without a supreme pontiff.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Michael buddy, you know I think you are great but statements like this give me cramps!!! Its sorta like drive by posting. You state something as if its a dogmatic truth, but it falls on deaf ears because a. The Catholic Church is orthodoxy, so telling us to return to orthodox has no meanig. and b. What you have said about the EO Church has yet to be established.

yes, it has been established.

c. 33 A.D.